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:

Brice Stratford[edit]

Accounts that appeared in AfD, fresh users, other edits pretty much limited to acting/theater

A small army of similar accounts with an obsessive interest in one person, Brice Stratford, and his doings, his awards, his family and his achievements. Not all the edits are intrinsically bad (we needed an article on John Counsell (theatre director), for example) but the intention appears everywhere to be to promote. All of which serves to obscure the fundamental question: is this person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? More eyes, please.

In putting this together I have come to realise that an SPI is also justified here. Off there now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, 'tis I, Brice Stratford: I'm afraid I've only just become aware of all this mess, and only just now saw the notification email (which had gone to my junk folder). To be honest, it's all a little overwhelming: I'm currently accessing wikipedia from a shared connection in the large warehouse conversion that acts as the offices for our theatre company, and living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do a few people who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers without really thinking. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications. BriceStratford (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the edits are quite good . But the mentions in articles only vaguely relevant to the subject are overdoing it. John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So, to try to move this forward: BriceStratford, can we then take it that all of those accounts are some manner connected to you? If so, they all have a conflict of interest in topics related to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't the foggiest! I reiterate; this building is, essentially, a theatre space, cafe, offices and living area for many, many connected and unconnected people. Internet is shared by the lot, public and private. I've no idea who's here doing what. I'm perfectly happy for everything to be considered a COI if that makes things easier for you? I'd really rather not be involved - I had no idea about any of this until you brought me into it, please conclude it however you prefer! Best of luck to you. BriceStratford (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds kinda like "my little brother did it". Each editor is responsible for integrity of his/her account. - Brianhe (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
sorry i haven't given this any attention yet. this is a mess, yes. will try to look at this today or tomorrow, to add my thoughts, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── added new one. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • listing out promo edits:
  • QualityEngli edit summary first edit Mar 4, 2015. 2 edits to date, two promo. WP:SPA. no declaration of COI. has never used a talk page.
add promo language
add content about company
  • CalfLiver edit summary first edit Jun 2, 2014. ~55 edits. every one related to BriceStratford. no Talk discussions. SPA.
created category that is up for deletion
uploaded one image to Commons related to coat of arms, used in Stratford family article, described as "own work" See images made by Personofi described below. File was uploaded 19:18, 2 June 2014; was added to article minutes later. note that prior edit was by another member of this group, BishopRick9, 6 hours before, and that user was writing about the coat of arms.
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing on promo article
  • Theehnwor edit summary first edit Mar 29, 2015, 25 edits, every one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. no Talk.
created article with promo title Windsor rep acting dynasty after adding content about that to several articles, all edits after are more of the same.
  • LlowCro - edit summary first edit 27 March 2015. about 60 edits. every single one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. has never talked. created four articles all related to this stuff.
Elizabeth Counsell 2015-03-27
Jean Miller 2015-03-28
John Counsell (theatre director) 2015-03-28
Dee Ocleppo 2015-03-28 (wife of Tommy Hilfiger and... maternal cousin to Brice Stafford. all in same breath. oy.)
  • Personofi edit summary first edit Aug 2014. ~116 edits, nothing on Talk except for one AfD discussion. SPA for Stratfords and Brice etc. with a very few exceptions like this and this)
uploaded 2 files to commons - pic of stratford and putative stratford coat of arms
one of those is:
described as "A publicity shot of Brice Stratford in character as Ralph Roister Doister, from the Owle Schreame theatre company's 2015 production of the play at the Bread & Roses Theatre (London, England) - the first full, uncut, professional performance of the play on record." (so WP:PROMO)
source is "own work" (!)
author is named as Simon Bendix Borregaard - seems to be true per this article
used only in Ralph Roister Doister in WP:PROMO edit for Stafford's company
NOTE in that article, Persofi removed the old image in this dif, and in the next edit, which happened 20 seconds later, another of these accounts, TheFrontDeskMust, uploaded the image to the article. very clear evidence of sock or meat puppeting
other uploaded image is Stratford coat of arms
described as "freehand, then computer edit", and
NOTE was uploaded to Stratford family article by Personofi in this dif, a few days later, another of these accounts, MarlovianPlough, added another iteration of this image and added a bunch of content about it. Also clear evidence of meat/socking.
created category,
  • MarlovianPlough edit summary: 48 edits, starting August 2, 2014. 6 AfDs included 2 related to this sock/meat farm. !votes are keep, of course.
has written on their user page: "Hello! I am the Marlovian Plough. I am committed to truth, neutrality, and history." uh huh.
More diverse than other members of this group
some random/unproductive things like this)
has done some desultory Talk series of diffs at Shakespeare article
cleaned up a different theater award article
contribs to AfDs are desulory "delete per x" here, here, here, here in fast succession.
proposed to delete 3 other family categories in fast succession, here, here, here
next edit was adding categories to Stratford family
as discussed above, sock/meated with Personofi to add image to Stratford family
removed COI/sourcing tags from Brice Stratford article about COI, etc. and added promo content: "Historically significant work has included his 2011 Measure for Measure (which contained the first Stage Jig in over 400 years on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose theatre)...." (zoiks)
one file uploaded to Commons (award for Owle Schreame Awards
description is quite detailed: "The engraved glass skull of the Owle Schreame Award, this one presented to Passion in Practice for their work in Original Pronunciation at the inaugural award ceremony in 2014"
described as "own work" but author is "James Thompson"
uploaded to commons at 18 September 2014; added to article by same user a few minutes later (no socking there)
  • PeggyMa edit summary: 20 edits, starting Aug 11, 2014. Pure SPA. (edits on other theater award categories too)
adding badly sourced content to Owle Schraeme award
removed copyvio tag placed by bot here - article had been created by BriceStratford here with the copyvio content. and BriceStratford edited the article 2 minutes later. Terrible.
added promo content to Brice Stratford article
added unsupported category to Brice Stratford article
more promo to Brice Stratford article
  • TheFrontDeskMust edit summary: account opened Aug 10, 2014. 101 edits.
7 articles created - note the classic SEO strategy with redirects.
John Counsell 2015-03-28 log · page history · topedits
Secret Cinema · (redirect) 2014-12-15
Francis Fulford (born 1953) · (redirect) 2014-10-29
The owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
The owl scream awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
The owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owl Scream Awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
per contribs you see some classic editing around (mostly tagging) to get started, then a series of AfDs in quick succession ("delete per x", etc)
Aug 11, makes first on-target edit, to theater awards category, and notably, the edit note says, "Removed tautology - as Softlavendar says elsewehere: "'Winners' of this award (singular) are only the first prize winners". surprising with full-blown knowledge of past discussions. and seems to refer not to softlavender, but rather to edit by other sock, whose earlier edit note read "Reduced list of award winners on this page to just the First Prize Winners, moved the exhaustive list to the pre-existing List of Ian Charleson Award winners"
then a bunch of edits to that award and the Owl award, adding bad sources, more categories. here and here
removed COI, tone, etc tags here with edit note "Edited with an unbiased, objective, encyclopaedic perspective and tone". while adding SPS sources. argh.
moved article about a current guy named John Counsell and created a disambig page for John Counsell (head of "dynasty" ) So clearly tied to BriceStratford's interests.
  • RichElph edit summary: first edit Nov 20, 2013, 3 edits. That's all.
created Brice Stratford article did nothing else here.
  • Cremlo89 edit summary: first edit Mar 11, 2015. 19 edits. everyone is about Owl awards
one of them was creating Owle Schreame Awards
added content about that two to other articles.
two weeks ago, added ref (that may be bogus and that these socks have been using a lot) to another article related to "dynasty"
whole run here - adding tons of promo. ugh.
voted !keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty in very elaborate diff
other 4 are to related articles, more padding/promo
  • RoodEnd edit summary: first edit, 14 June 2014. ~20 edits.
started with edits to other theaters. seemingly significant contributions to Blackfriars Theater were reverted for copying from another article
first major contribution was elaborate ~vote to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty
7 diffs that did little to [[Francis Fulford (reality television)].
(NOTE - TheFrontDeskMust also worked on this article, moved it
see also this sequence:
series of edits by Gabby to Secret Cinema (company)
5 minutes later, edit by TheFrontDeskMust
20 minutes later, another run by Gabby begins
then finally, looong !vote to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty, in conjunction with adding a chunk of unsourced content to the subject article.
  • WalkingOnTheB edit summary: first edit Sep 20, 2014; 24 edits. contributed to 12 AfDs, including the one on Windsor dynasty. One of the edits is also a comment at his own SPI.
nominated Solvent Thashers for deletion (group project; see below)
did some random football editing (like others of these accounts)
keep !vote at Windsor AfD
comment at SPI, "Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI." With the edit history, not likely.
  • Elephantbronze edit summary, created 03:07, 30 March 2015, 26 edits
note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
Special:Contributions/Elephantbronze - first edit is ridiculous; next few are to other AfDs.
largest contrib by miles is to AfD on Windsors.
  • Feast is Feast edit summary, created 2:47, 30 March 2015, 7 edits
note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
Special:Contributions/Feast_is_Feast - first edit is to AfD; others are desulotory

  • Group efforts at AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination): WalkingOnTheB, TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough, Personofi. Only non-sock vote is Dirtlawyer1. This was a railroad job.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty Feast is Feast, Theatre Royal, Windsor, WalkingOnTheB, RoodEnd, Gabby Road. That is most of the !voting there.

OK, I spent way too much time on that. Will copy this over the SPI case as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just FYI: There actually are about 30 or more accounts in this COI sock/meat farm, and various additional crossover articles involved than are listed here. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
are they listed anywhere? Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all together, and not all in list form. Y'all are on the right track, but need to check both SPIs (there are two of them, one was unfortunately and precipitously closed and archived almost instantaneously) plus the comments therein. Plus this conversation. Plus all the COI AfDs any of them have ever voted on (where extra members pop up). Plus at this point, any article that any of them has edited that isn't obviously diversionary will likely turn up new members. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Note about essay on COI that is up for deletion[edit]

Resolved: - close was delete Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hsbc jintrust[edit]

Resolved: User Randykitty (talk · contribs) already blocked the user and speedy deleted the article. -- intgr [talk] 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious user. His username is similar to the article name, and the article itself is written using words like 'our' and, in general, an advertisement. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


User history and overly promotional tone of his/her creations (example) strongly suggest COI editing. Asked user Lajosgents directly if they were working for hire. Several suspicious abuse log triggers might be relevant. — Brianhe (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Starting to think there's a sockfarm at work here on related jewelry and diamond business articles. Added above. - Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

this was archived - i just pulled it back out after Brianhe called my attention to that on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn Economic Graph[edit]

Resolved: done by Smallbones. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've proposed an update to the "Economic Graph" section of LinkedIn based on developments since the section was first added last June. I'm not editing directly because I have a COI; I work for a communications firm that represents LinkedIn. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at my Talk page posting and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

done by smallbones here. thx! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

NuScale Power[edit]

Just a quick notification that I have disclosed a COI here and offered a draft on Talk. @Bluerasberry: has a pre-existing interest in the page in their volunteer editing and may be the one to review my proposed draft. Bluerasberry and I are friends/acquaintances and both paid editors (he does GLAM-type work with Consumer Reports). There is nothing actually unsordid going on and I will bring the page up to GA per my usual, however to avoid any kind of remote speculation that I am relying on a buddy to review my proposed edits, I wanted to also post a notification here, allowing for broader scrutiny, in case anyone feels it is warranted. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch[edit]

This page has made its rounds at BLPN, ANI, COIN and Jimbo's Talk page, but @Nomoskedasticity: is still the only volunteer editor that has really shown a sustained interest in the page. He is also the page's original creator and top contributor.[1] I'm a little concerned that there isn't a more diverse range of editors involved. Let me provide some context.

Nomo was the exclusive author of the original version of the article that was written almost exclusively about a controversy that reflects negatively on the BLP. There have been numerous efforts to address the undue issue dating back to 2011[2] and more recently after my having flagged the issue[3][4], however it wasn't until the third time that Nomo stopped reverting it.[5][6] When Collect tried to make edits that added sourced content about other topics or balanced the article more favorably to the article-subject, he was consistently reverted by Nomo about four times.[7][8][9][10] Nomo shows contempt for PR people in his edit-summary here and is basically trolling me here. More context at ANI here.

When I ask for outside input on the article, Nomo accuses me of canvassing and bullying; he highlights editors that agree with him (one of which showed suspiciously similar behavior as him) and dismisses or reverts editors that disagree with him. The Talk page is filled with accusations that I'm attempting to add PR spin or whitewash the page, whereas we are suppose to assume an editor is trying to do the right thing when a COI is disclosed. Furthermore, as is proven with diffs at the ANI post, I have repeatedly argued against the article-subject's best interest, despite my COI, so I find the ABFing difficult to justify. I feel like I am being punished for complying with WP:COI; it took months and Jimbo's Talk page just to get the most obvious BLP issues addressed over Nomo's reverts.

Editor's are not forbidden from contributing to articles where they have strong views, just as editors are not forbidden from contributing with a COI; though both lead to bias, they are common motivations for editing. But balanced articles are achieved by editors with a diverse range of opinions working together constructively. I don't have a specific item to point an editor to, except that I'm hoping generally that an editor or two will step up and be willing to invest a significant amount of time getting involved in the article and editing boldly, as oppose to a passing comment or two. CorporateM (Talk) 07:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC) (in case it wasn't obvious - I have a COI on this page)

This is a strange post to make at COIN. It's almost as if CorporateM is trying to say that I'm the one with the COI on this article, when in fact it is CorporateM that is being paid by Mylan to work on this article on Bresch's behalf. CorporateM tries to draw an equivalence between him and me with the insinuation that I have "strong views", and I naturally reject that perspective. Apart from that -- I have no objection to the involvement of other editors, and I'm not interested in getting into a back-and-forth re the tendentious accusations above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, what is exactly is the issue that you want addressed here at COIN? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it should have been posted at a different board? It is hard to say which would be most relevant. I just want more editors involved that will evaluate NPOV based on whether the sources are reliable and accurately represented (our definition of NPOV), rather than who the content is coming from. I don't think there is a WP:OWN board, which would be most on-target. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Corp, as you know I have expressed concern in the past about the portion of the article devoted to the MBA controversy, which appears to have been rectified. However, this is not the place to post concerns about another editor who does not have a COI, as you point out. Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 12 April 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.

David Laventhol[edit]

Resolved: Taken care of/nothing left to do. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am closely related to the subject, a newspaper publisher (LA Times, Newsday) and editor, who has just died. He is clearly notable, and there were existing red links, so I created the article from the many recent obituaries, asked for some criticism on the help chat, and created the page. Declarations of closeness are on the article talk page and my own user page, so it's fully transparent. Adding it here per WP:COIDEC. Not intending to do much further with the article; trusting the many wiki editors. Regards all. Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Having a bit of a weird situation here. Here's what the user said on my talk page: "I need to create a page about my company with the field of oil and gas. The name is : ESPROENKO INTERNATIONAL. I did it before even I upload some picture in wiki file uploader and use it to complete my article every time I was just viewing by show preview to check last changes but suddenly all my picture gone. I fear to create article and wiki remove that. My company forced me to create one." -- I kind of feel sorry for them, how are they going to explain Wikipedia's rules to their boss when even they don't understand the rules?

Anyway, I encouraged them to create that article in draftspace (Draft:Esproenko International), and they uploaded some images that probably shouldn't be here, but I've gone through and tagged those images on here and on Commons.

I'm thinking I should probably... stop encouraging them, because everything they're doing is going against WP:COI, and that article itself will most likely not become a thing because the notability is lacking. I'm not 100% sure but some shallow googling tells me that this company may not be notable enough so we'd just be wasting our time trying to create it.

Posting here in case anyone has any thoughts about this, or any suggestions to add for the user (User_talk:Cyboy110#Images). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Latin Mass Society of England and Wales[edit]

User:Dr_Joseph_Shaw has been editing this article in recent days. Going by this editor's user name this would seem to be someone who is very closely associated with the Latin Mass Society. Despite leaving a message on his talk page about the WP:COI policies this editor is still continuing to edit the article. Afterwriting (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to out myself as the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society. I have updated some factual aspects of the page, added some historical material, and added citations. Please note I am unpaid and most of the material relates to a time before I was born. There should be nothing controversial about my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talkcontribs) 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty. I suggest that you should not make any further edits to the article at present and instead wait for responses and discussion by other editors on whether or not your editing of it is a clear violation of COI principles. Afterwriting (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice job everybody involved. New editors with a COI often don't understand that they are harming Wikipedia, and Afterwriting, you did a nice job escalating to the point where Dr Joseph Shaw realized there was a problem. Thanks Dr Joseph Shaw for disclosing your COI.
  • Dr Joseph Shaw's first edit added loads of unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY, and it is kind of promotional. The second edit did the same, but a source was used, which is better. The last two (this and this), however, added sources, which the article is very much in need of.
  • Afterwriting, I'd suggest you review those content changes and take out any promotional content, and anything unsourced, and keep what is good (the sources, if they are useable). Once you have reviewed Dr. Shaw's contributions for NPOV and VERIFY, please remove the COI tag and make a note on the article Talk page that you have reviewed the article.
  • Dr Joseph Shaw, it is great to have you here, and again, great that you disclosed your COI. Three things:
    • first, please do not edit the article directly going forward, but instead, offer suggestions on the article Talk page, for others to implement. That is how we manage COI in Wikipedia, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope you can see the sense of that. I have added a box, to the bottom of the yellow/brown box at the article's Talk page - the text in the box says "Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content,". If you click where it says "click here" it will set up an "edit request" where you can offer suggestions for article content. You are new here, and there is a lot to learn about our editing policies and guidelines. If you are just asking questions on the article Talk page and not proposing content for the article, you don't have to use the "edit request" - please don't use it for that, as it will clutter up the Talk page.
    • Second, editing Wikipedia is pretty complex -Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and we have lots of policies and guidelines that govern what we do. It is going to take some time and effort to on your part to learn them. I hope you put that time in. But be patient with yourself and with those talking with you.
    • finally, i have added a disclosure of your COI to the article Talk page, so that is covered, but you would do well to disclose your COI on your User page) here: User:Dr Joseph Shaw, so that you disclose your COI to the community. If you choose to edit other articles (and I hope you do), if you edit other articles related to Catholicism, please limit yourself to their talk pages, and introduce yourself. If you edit articles related to other things (say football) there is no need to make a disclosure when you start editing. I hope that all makes sense.
everybody good with that? (note, I am not an admin, but i work here a lot) Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talkcontribs) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with minor spam[edit]

Any opinions on how minor spam/promotions should be handled? For example, Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ show a handful of edits, each of which is to add information about a publisher and their current or forthcoming books. The result is junk like "to be published in September 2015 by Seven Stories Press" at the end of the lead at Danny Schechter, and the link spam at Lee Stringer#External links. Should we even bother trying to combat such promotions any more? Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any spam. Just addition of unsourced info. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That might be pushing WP:AGF a little far because every edit is to publicize a particular publisher. I gave two examples of inappropriate edits, and it would be very time consuming to engage users like this in a discussion about the merits of using Wikipedia to promote a company's products. Quite a lot of this kind of product-placement editing occurs, and it's hard to know how to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Well. What I'm saying is that I would make those edits myself if I had reliable sources for them. (In fact if I had that kind of time I would go and either find those sources or revert those edits as unsourced.) BUT. The second IP especially seems to be on a mission to make sure this publisher is mentioned in several articles, I think that kind of behavior qualifies as WP:SPAM ("Spam is the inappropriate addition of ... information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization..."). I can't think of a user warning template that would be appropriate to use on these IPs so I guess we're just going to have to type up an original warning just for them (including info about spamming/COI editing and adding unsourced content). After they've been warned we can see a bit better what the situation is.
So, to answer your first question, I think that's how this kind of editors should be handled: warn them and see what happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's definitely bookspam as the main purpose is to promote the books, especially when the edits are in the lead. Ssintern (talk · contribs) and Intern7stories (talk · contribs) give the appearance that interns at the publisher are encouraged to edit WP, which may explain these edits. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dare to eat a peach (talk · contribs), EBGraber (talk · contribs), Topknot2 (talk · contribs), SevenStoried (talk · contribs) and Sevenstoryist (talk · contribs) also look suspicious. Whether they're aware of COI or doing this in good faith, this is a concerted effort to add mentions of their books to articles over many years. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the edits I've seen, they typically add info like "this author will publish book Y via publisher Z", in an article about an author this is very relevant information. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the primary purpose is to promote their books, rather than improve articles, hence why it is a COI/spam issue. Some edits are ok, but the vast majority are not. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Poerner Engineering[edit]

Poerner Engineering and a page about one of the company's products, Biturox process‎, are the subject of heavily promotional editing by single-purpose editors. ChemNerd (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy[edit]

Editor has disclosed a COI - she works at the college, but is ignoring efforts to get her to stop directly editing the article. Copyvio too. Article has been tagged; is currently partially blanked with a copyvio notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Jytdog. It seems that user Lauralibal, after very properly and clearly declaring her COI, has nevertheless painted herself into a corner for now; I don't regard that as a success on my part. The problems are not limited to the pharmacy college but extend to the article on the university as well; there are at least two other connected editors, which I've added above. Between them they've done us a service, however - as a result of their antics a particularly egregious copyvio from 2010 has come to light, which has led to the discovery of several more by the same user. Every cloud ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nature's Harmony Farm[edit]

User: is a WP:SPA making repeated edits to article without consensus. User's conduct suggests WP:COI. Specifically, the User is trying to remove mentions of the names of the founders of the business in question. The names of the founders are supported by a NY Times article and no valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Experienced third-party editor assistance would be appreciated. Slugfilm (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I documented my reasons for making that change. I have no conflict of interest, but found the assertion regarding founders to be an assumption rather than fact. As stated, I have searched Georgia Corporate Records and the business website to no avail. - (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User: has only made edits to a single page (Nature's Harmony Farm), many supported by WP:OR, which repeatedly seek to remove relevant details contrary to valid sources which support their inclusion. This article has previously been a victim of sock-puppet and meat-puppet activity by the owner of the farm, who was then blocked and subsequently hired a paid editor (see Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm). I have serious concerns about the neutrality of User: Requesting third party editor review. - Slugfilm (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)