Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

Report a possible conflict of interest

Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place: Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Commercial usernames may be reported to the usernames for administrator attention noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy may be more suited to the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

This noticeboard may be used to: Request help with users that are affected by the conflict of interest guideline. Editors may not use Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. Ask for advice or get help with proposed article changes if you are affected by a conflict of interest. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus. Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you.

Reporting form

Enter the name of the article in the space below:

Please help with the requests in Category:Requested edits, where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template: ▼ Requested edits   Talk:Alex Konanykhin   Talk:Aspen Dental   Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act   Talk:TripAdvisor   User talk:TripAdvisorUK   Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help

Okay for expert editors to post relevant WP:SELFCITEs on talkpage?

Resolved

Does anyone perceive a problem with this edit?

I am a moderately well-known authority on the topic, I have long disclosed my real-world identity as such, and even though WP:COS permits me to add a relevant RS of my own to the article itself, I instead put it only on the talkpage, so that anyone could summarized it as they wished, or not at all.

Other editors, however, feel that expert editors may not offer RSs, even on talkpages[1]

To me, putting material on the talkpage just in case is the conservative thing to do. Am I off base?

Input here or at talk:Homosexuality would be greatly appreciated.

— James Cantor (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I recall you being blocked for somehow violating our COI guideline last year, so you should be familiar with how zealously (and incorrectly) people try to "enforce" it. At least people aren't going into hysterics or anything on that talk page. I'll put in a word there. -- Atama頭 02:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a memory you have. (!) Yes, an off-wiki problem leaked here, couched as a COI problem on my part; all but the blocking admin felt as you do and came to unblock me (albeit as the block expired anyway).

I study some very controversial topics; no matter what I conclude, there is an angry other side.

Thanks for your input.

— James Cantor (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It would have been more proper if the OP included a complete list of the talk pages his self-promotion took place on. For "this edit", there are at least two:[2][3].BitterGrey (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these edits are inappropriate. If James Cantor edited an article to include his research, that might be problematic. Noting a reliable source on a talk page is nothing but helpful. Per WP:COS, James could have integrated into the article itself without issue provided it wasn't excessive. If he wanted to strictly separate his edits, I would suggest editing on a subpage and requesting a review by outside editors to see if it was excessive.

I've got a copy and will see about integrating it. Since it's published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, an unarguably reliable source, there's absolutely no problem with citing it in the articles as it is an uncontroversial example of an expert author having a journal published in a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU's statement on the talk page is more overt: "I'll read and integrate it". He is determined to cite an article that he has not even read yet. Clearly, James Cantor is not the only one with conflicts here. WLU started his multi-page, anti-BitterGrey campaign against me in February of 2011. In this discussion, he got involved only after I commented. The timing would suggest that his determination to cite this article was just to spite me. As is clear from the discussion at homosexuality, no one other than WLU and Cantor seems to think this article needs to be cited.

On the other hand, Cantor's workplace, CAMH, has already demonstrated a willingness to have heavily-involved, anonymous editors on the payroll. Cantor was first brought to this board's attention, as "MariontheLibrarian", for this reason[4]. To use a sports analogy (appropriate given the date), perhaps they've hired a blocker for their quarterback? BitterGrey (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So, what are you alleging? That WLU is on CAMH's payroll? Or that someone else is? Murky accusations aren't helpful to anyone. A disagreement doesn't automatically indicate a bias, and especially not a COI. -- Atama頭 18:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a clear bias, even if we just consider WLU's reactive post: "I'll read and integrate it" I don't know why he shared with us that he hadn't yet read Cantor's article, but that is what he wrote. His determination to cite Cantor's article preceded his actually reading Cantor's article.

The main discussion[5], then several days old, was trending toward a consensus to not add the article. WLU didn't join that discussion, except to state his intention to cite an article he explicitly had not yet read. Unlike others involved in that discussion, WLU didn't discuss the merits of the article - the question of IF the article should be cited. He then went on to add a paragraph on James Cantor[6] and cite his article in multiple locations[7][8]. Multiple editors were needed to halt his promotion of Cantor, against consensus.

WLU's change of position, AFTER the edit war, suggests that he might finally have read the article[9]. Unbiased editors read sources before citing over them, especially if they are doing so against consensus.

As for whether his bias is mainly to promote Cantor or to oppose me, that is less clear. He had made over one hundred edits to Wikipedia in the several days between the time Cantor started these discussions, and when I commented. (I was on a Wikibreak.) However, WLU got involved right after I commented. He rushed to oppose me, not even taking the time to read the article first. BitterGrey (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU said, in his opinion, that it was "a peer-reviewed, secondary source published in a scholarly journal by a noted expert" and that based on that criteria he would attempt to integrate it after reading it. You may argue that it was wrong to make such a decision before actually reading the article and determining its relevance and value, I would understand that. What you've laid out might be examples of bad judgement, but I don't see bias. Does WLU have a history of promoting Cantor or CAMH before all of this occurred? If not, I think you're jumping to conclusions here. I especially don't see any direct connection between WLU and Cantor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: WLU has added lots of citations to Cantor in at least one other article[10][11][12].

Long answer: Before WLU got involved with in the paraphilic_infantilism article, James Cantor and his colleagues were not mentioned or cited. They are known mainly for their work with pedophiles, not infantilists or masochists. After WLU got involved, three papers from Cantor and colleagues are cited a total of twelve times. These papers are Cantor, Blanchard, and Barbaree(#13), Freund and Blanchard(#31), and Dickey(#34). They are colleagues at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). There are a number of reasons why a dozen citations in the one article is clearly excessive:

• Only one, CB&B, uses the term "infantilism" at all, and then only five times on one page (pg 531). F&B uses neologisms unique to F&B, as does Dickey. No neologism is used in more than one of the CAMH papers.

• RS/N commented of these sources "This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs" and "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory.".

• The DSM categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism[13][14]. CB&B categorizes infantilism as a type of pedophilia. This fringe theory appears in not one but THREE places[15] in the Wikipedia article, even though no independent sources are cited. (Even on-Wiki while arguing against the DSM, Cantor wrote that it was more often grouped as "paraphilia not otherwise specified"[16] - not pedophilia.) On Dec 6th, WLU toggled the text connected with these citations from asserting that infantilism was a type of pedophilia to contrasting infantilism and pedophilia, when it became clear that someone at RS/N might get involved to remove the extreme claim. This toggling is less clear from the diffs, since a large, politically-correct section had been commented out since August.

• Neither the DSM nor CB&B provide demographic information specific to infantilism. A demographic statement sourced to the DSM was removed for this reason. A demographic statement sourced to CB&B was added[17], in spite of this reason.

WLU had no involvement in the paraphilic infantilism article before he joined a conflict between Whatamidoing and myself, at Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) in February 2011[18]. ( Whatamidoing might come up often in this discussion: When Cantor's edits are challenged in a board discussion, she is generally there defending him. ) After that conflict, WLU started making disruptive edits to most of the pages I'd contributed to: infantilism, diaper fetish, adult diapers, and paraphilic infantilism. He eventually settled down.

In August 2011, I responded to a post on WikiProject Sexology and sexuality regarding James Cantor's attempt to delete the androphilia_and_gynephilia article. Since auto_androphilia and auto_gynephilia both redirect to Blanchard's transsexualism typology, Blanchard's colleague Cantor at least arguably had a conflict of interest. (Whatamidoing argued for deletion, but the consensus was keep.) That discussion closed 28 July. On August 9, WLU was back to making disruptive edits to paraphilic infantilism. (He made only two edits between 28 July and August 9, perhaps on Wikibreak.)

Another name that might come up in discussion is FiachraByrne. Her last relevant edit was to revert WLU on her rewrite draft[19], and she has not responded to his recent prods to get involved again (eg. [20]). She appears to be a student and (then)new editor, using her real name, who no longer wants to be associated with WLU's actions.

Of course, there is still the possibility that WLU is only promoting Cantor and colleagues to get revenge on me. BitterGrey (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I can respond to pretty much all of this WP:BATTLE violation, but it's completely tangential to COIN, will result in a sprawling, acrimonious and pointless thread (don't believe me? See here, here, here, here, here and here), and there's been no specific impropriety pointed out that I'm aware of regarding any actual edits I've made to mainspace regarding James Cantor's posting of a single, brief note of a new and relevant publication. Rather than importing a bunch of pointless pre-existing and completely unrelated grudges, may I suggest we simply close this section? My sole uses of the article were here and here. The first was removed, the second modified by another editor. There appear to be no further COI issues so I think we're done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Atama asked if WLU had a history of promoting Cantor, and I responded. I even took care to separate short and long answers. As for WP:BATTLE, WLU, you are the one who rushed to overrule me at multiple locations this round[21][22], and the one who wouldn't let your conflict remain just at the one location way back in Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

But we both agree that the paper has no place on homosexuality, one of the two pages where it was presented by an editor for review per WP:COS, right? So we can pretty much consider this one done - a peer reviewed secondary source that is undeniably relevant and reliable was used once on wikipedia, and it wasn't added to the page by an account with a conflict of interest. Therefore, this section is resolved as far as I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

SHARM Holding

• SHARM Holding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hrant Tokhatyan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Karen Ghazaryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Ruben Jaghinyan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anahit webpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

PR account creating article on a business and it's three key people. Almost all editing is around SHARM Holding. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I do have serious concerns about this editor's activities, both on and off Wikipedia. One of the articles listed above was deleted, another has a proposed deletion that almost expired (and would lead to deletion). The other two articles have questionable notability. -- Atama頭 18:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was prepared to delete Karen Ghazaryan since the prod expired, but as I went to the deletion page I saw that it had been deleted through prod once (back in 2010). Any article deleted and then restored is ineligible for prod in the future. I think it might not be a bad idea to bring the remaining articles to AfD, they all have similar problems in terms of COI and notability. -- Atama頭 23:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Travis Haynes

• Travis Haynes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• TravisHaynes77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User has created this article about himself (atleast I think so) and that has been listed for deletion under A7. The user was warned but still I considered to bring up the thing here. Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 12:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's appropriate to bring it up here, sure, so that it's noted if it comes up again. I see that the page was deleted and the editor hasn't made any similar edits since, and has an appropriate warning on their user talk page so all seems good. Their user page has some personal info but no more than what would be normal on anyone's user page (heck, my user page has almost as much personal info for that matter to be honest). So I think everything is good for now. -- Atama頭 19:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Riley (cartoonist)

• Mike Riley (cartoonist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Mikeriley23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I originally posted this on the big admin board, but was informed that this area existed, so I'm bringing it here. I want to stress that I'm not asking for the article to be deleted, as the sources on the page seem to be enough to show notability for Riley. I'm just concerned about the potential conflict of interest posed by an editor sharing the same name as Riley creating the article, adding his name to multiple pages, and repeatedly removing the COI tag without giving any explanation as to how their edits aren't a conflict of interest. (IE, that the editor isn't Riley or someone who knows him, that they aren't spamming or being self-promotional, etc.) Below is what I posted on the admin board:

I'm writing here because of actions by an editor that are borderline as far as issues on Wikipedia goes. On January 30th User:Mikeriley23 created the page Mike Riley (cartoonist) and did several edits that include adding the author's name to various different articles. I left a conflict of interest note on his page as well as tagged the entry accordingly, as there's more than enough evidence to believe that this was the author or someone who knew him. I've noted that since I've posted that, most of the editing was done by random IP addresses (which may or may not be him), with Mikeriley23 continuing to return in order to remove the COI tag and do random edits. I've had to repeatedly replace the COI tag, as it was repeatedly removed by Mikeriley23 without the user saying anything to show that there was no conflict of interest. I've told him that it's not against the rules for him (assuming he is the cartoonist or someone who knows him) to edit his own account, but that the tag merely shows that someone with a COI has been making major edits to the page. Since nothing has really improved and the initial edits can be seen as self-promotion, I'm bringing this to the attention of the admins so they can be aware of this situation. I hate to jump all over the newbie and I'm not trying to get the article deleted, but the user has ignored what I've written and it's just time to pass it on to someone with more authority than I have.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Additional: I just wanted to add that as far as the edit histories of the IPs go, the edits are all predominantly about Riley- either editing the article or adding his name to various pages. Only one of them has made edits to another article that had nothing to do with Riley and even then it was only one edit in a sea of Riley-related edits.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Your actions so far have been totally appropriate. I'm wondering whether or not coverage in a free local paper constitutes enough notability to warrant an article. I'm also wondering if we might consider enforcing WP:REALNAME, this editor may be an impersonator and it might be a good idea to ask for OTRS confirmation. -- Atama頭 07:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was wondering about that as well, but I decided to let it go for the time being (I'd already removed the sources that were completely unusable) and didn't want to get too overbearing on the newbie. I have to admit that I'm a little curious as to the location of the different IPs and if any of them match up with Mikeriley23.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Here are where the different IPs are coming from:

• 66.77.83.235: Chicago, Illinois
• 174.252.104.187: Baltimore, Maryland
• 63.146.161.85: Bridgeport, West Virginia
• 71.179.112.220: Baltimore, Maryland
• 174.252.32.157: Boston, Massachusettes

The two IPs from Baltimore only made a single edit each. The IP with the most edits is from West Virginia. -- Atama頭 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cool, as long as they say that they came from different locations, that's enough for me. There's still the potential that he got a friend in another state to do it, but as long as it isn't the MikeRiley23 trying to use an IP address, that's what really matters to me. (Not that there's any rules against him getting friends or fans to do it, I just wish he'd utilize some of the editors in the Comic/Webcomic Wikiproject groups since they'd be far more experienced at this.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Nostradamus

• Nostradamus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• PL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed that user PL (and earlier 80.177.208.153) have done some really extensive work (starting from like SEVEN YEARS ago) to incorporate the works of a certain author Peter Lemesurier into several articles, most notably Nostradamus. Of course, the guy appears to be a published expert on the subject of Nostradamus, so it's okay to some extent, but to me it seems he's gone a bit (or a lot) overboard with (self-)promotion.

Checking the notes and references sections of the article, it appears a very significant portion of the text is referenced from Lemesurier's publications, also the first and last external links go to his websites.

Also just recently he's added a link to his (other) blog as a reference in several articles, with a slightly advertising tone ("For details, see... [blog]").

• diff on Nostradamus
• diff (from the paragraph starting "The History Channel...") on Nostradamus in popular culture
• diff on History (TV channel).

Other:

• diff, adding a link to a blog of his on Leonardo da Vinci
• diff, a non-informative statement with a ref to Lemesurier's publication, on 2012 phenomenon
• diff added three of L's books as general sources on Hister; see also: the article's interesting editing history, and this concern someone left about user PL
• diff added two of L's books as general sources on Traité des fardemens
• diff and diff, added L's books as general sources on Letter to King Henri II
• diff, added two of L's books as general sources on Mirabilis Liber
• diff, added a statement with the ref "See, for example, [this book by L]", on 23rd century

Et cetera, you get the idea. And I noticed someone called PL a "very difficult, and very biased Nostradamus editor". And from my own experience I noticed last year that he displayed a very strange WP:OWN-like behavior about the Nostradamus article.

I think we may have an issue here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we do. In any case, whoever PL is, his edits are definitely questionable, using blogs, commentary, and a self-published book "Lemesurier, 2012: It's Not the End of the World, Derwen Press, Pembroke, 2011" - Derwen Press is just a printing firm, not a publisher. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, it is a publisher, but closely allied to a printing firm called Lightning Source. I was amused, though, by the comment cited above: 'PL, who only makes edits to Nostradamus related articles, has a clear conflict of interest here. He thinks he owns this article. Also, he puts his unencyclopedic OR and blatant POV into article, making essays in favor of his strong revisionist view. It is only due to obscurity of the topic that this vandal menages to destroy this article for a while, resorting to not only blatant non factual speculation in his "writting", but to personal attacks to all that do not support his agressive posturing in Nostradamus related articles.' Not only does PL contribute to a whole range of articles, but he actually wrote nearly all of the original article on Nostradamus (to which others have, of course, contributed considerably since), based it entirely on the archival facts, which he documents (and which for obvious reasons passionate believers don't like at all -- as you can see from the above comment! -- wouldn't dream of 'destroying' the article (!!) and to my knowledge has never used Wikipedia to attack anybody personally (he usually leaves that to them!)!

There may indeed be an issue here, but the problem is that PL is just about the only author who has been published in English by reputable publishers (Element, HarperCollins, St Martin's, Piatkus, Bauer, Elsevier...) on many of the somewhat arcane topics he covers (once again, he actually wrote the articles on the Traite des fardemens, the Letter to Henri II, the Mirabilis liber etc.) and who is at the same time regarded by his academic peers (Chomarat, Chevignard, Gruber et al) as 'reputable'.--PL (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, why are you talking about yourself in third person? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just that it's less complicated than going into questions of identity -- my 'signature' always comes up as 'PL', not 'Peter Lemesurier' (though I suppose you could guess!) -- and I don't really have any personal stake in the articles. Though I do realise, now that you point it out, that it might make me seem a bit like Julius Caesar or General de Gaulle! ;) --PL (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You really need to mind your tone when you write (in articles); maybe you can't see it yourself but you often go a tad far from NPOV. For example with a paragraph like this in Nostradamus (referenced to your own blog): "With the arrival of the year 2012, Nostradamus's prophecies started to be co-opted (especially by the History Channel) as evidence suggesting that the end of the world is imminent, notwithstanding the fact that his book never mentions the end of the world, let alone the year 2012." Its tone is critical and near-mocking, an encyclopedia wouldn't be written like that. You're basically dominating that article and have been pushing your point of view in it for seven years. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

David_Blunkett

• David_Blunkett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• SGH189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have some concerns about this single purpose account. All of the edits from the account are on this one page and seem to removing a lot of reliably sourced content if it is in any way critical.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A COI is certainly possible, though there's nothing obviously connecting this editor to the article subject. My suggestion would be to bring up the matter with the editor on their user talk page. Nobody has communicated with the editor aside from a welcome template left back in October. I do see that the editor uses edit summaries, which is usually a sign that they are communicative, so it might be worth asking them if they have a connection and to express concerns about the removal of content. Just try not to be confrontational either way, I don't see much actual disruption and we try to respect people's privacy if they want to remain anonymous. -- Atama頭 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

COI in the NYT

I'm loth to delve into US political bios, especially in the silly season. But this article clearly states that Gingrich's Comms. director, Joe DeSantis is editing here.

"Gingrich’s communications director, Joe DeSantis, has airbrushed Callista’s Wikipedia page 23 times since 2008, often to banish unflattering details from the site, according to BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski." Dowd op-ed in today's Times

Just a heads up. The Interior (Talk) 18:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is that DeSantis has operated absolutely properly per several discussions, notwithstanding Ms. Dowd's opinions. This has been addressed enough times, in fact, that re=addressing it here is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DeSantis is the third-ranked editor to the page, with 23 edits.Contributors My understanding of our best practices is that COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article itself, and are asked to use the talk page. Sorry if this has been hashed out before, I wasn't aware of it. Inanity was not the intention. The Interior (Talk) 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He disclosed his COI here already and it came up again 2 weeks ago but no problems were pointed out. IIRC while they had previously edited articles, they've only used talk pages for the last few months. SmartSE (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Stating a COI is encouraged by WP:COI, but it does not forgive or allow POV editing. And the guideline specifically warns the COI editing may result in embarrassing revelations in the mainstream press.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- which POV edit are you ascribing to that person? Joedesantis appears to have made 23 eduits - with all edits after 2010 being strikingly innocuous indeed (a large number are Wikignome type edits). 2 Years is surely enough for you to have corrected any POV stuff, Will! And as far as I can tell, even the "substantive edits" from two years ago hardly fit into the charge of "POV" levelled at him. In short - he has acted, as far as I can tell, in absolutely conformity with Wikipedia policy. And making this a "case" is not in the best interests of Wikipedia if the trivial nature of the accusations comes out. Sheesh - opposing a person adding "Mrs." in front of her name as a POV COI edit? LOL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

By extrapolation, if there's vandalism in a page and no one notices for two years then it isn't really vandalism. That's absurd. The article is a thinly edited biography of an obscure figure who is barely notable in her own right. There's no reasons to believe anyone has paid it much attention other than the person paid to pay attention to it. Rather than arguing over the editor in question let's make sure that the article is NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Rather than arguing over the editor in question let's make sure that the article is NPOV." That's probably a good idea. I haven't seen any actual complaints about Joe's behavior, except for a general COI concern. Joe last edited Callista's article a year ago, and hasn't edited anywhere in article mainspace since June of last year. He has pledged to only participate on discussion pages and has stuck with that. But yes, if the articles don't conform to NPOV whether because of information added last week or last year or years ago they should be cleaned up. -- Atama頭 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammed al-Ahari

• Muhammed al-Ahari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• MoorishAm1965a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has identified himself on Talk:Muhammed al-Ahari as the subject of this article, so I will refer to him as Mr. al-Ahari. He has been editing his own article for a very long time, most often anonymously, using the IP address 71.201.221.218. He seems to have contributed most if not all of the content. On January 3, he defended the fact that he was responsible for contributing most of the content by saying "How can these be added if I don't add them?". After I started reverting every anonymous edit he made, he has recently reverted to using his username.

The substance of my COI complaint against Mr. al-Ahari is as follows:

1) Mr. al-Ahari got upset with me for my edits (partly under the erroneous belief that the edit in which GedUK  deleted a whole bunch of personal stuff on December 16 was made by me), and started attacking me on the Talk page.

2) In the course of one of his rants, he wrote on the Talk page:

"...such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I think that behavior is a mortal sin, etc."

3) I added the following to his article, as a new section titled "Homophobic views":

"Al-Ahari believes that homosexuality "is a mortal sin"."

(The reference link pointed to his Talk page statement)

4) He got upset at this, even though a) the statement is factually true, b) he professes this to be his sincere belief as a devout Muslim, and c) the statement is reliably sourced.

5) Since then he has repeatedly tried to censor his own article by deleting that statement, which he somehow views as slander and libel, or whitewashing it and adding editorial commentary. This is the current version:

In the text the Outline of Islam Muhammed Al-Ahari explains that Islam teaches homosexuality "is a mortal sin" and that as a practicing Muslim that he writes and teaches for the promotion of strong family values, preservation of strong cultural identity, and against any sexual activities outside of marriage.[10]

The link to his Talk page statement was removed, and replaced by this "reference":

10. Muhammed al-Ahari, Imam Adnan Balihodzic, and Shaykh Kamil Avdich (2012). The Outline of Islam. Northbrook, Illinois: Islamic Cultural Center of Greater Chicago. Muhammed al-Ahari's introduction is on page 5-11.

On February 4, he also tried to change the heading of this section from "Perceived Homophobic views" to "Muhammed al-Ahari's views on marriage and family".

6) I have asked him several times on the Talk page why he objects to his sincere beliefs about homosexuality being accurately reported in the article. He goes off into personal attacks each time, and has consistently refused to provide a coherent rationale for the edits he has repeatedly made to the "Homophobic views" section.

7) Most recently he tried to whitewash his Talk page statement, to revise it from "such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, gay when I think that behavior is a mortal sin, etc." to "such as saying I was a character in Star Wars, an asshole, calling me gay when Islam teaches that such behavior is a sin, etc." (emphasis mine).

While he's entitled to be upset at me, if he chooses, and it's his prerogative to attack me, if he wishes, surely it is not okay for him to censor his own article to edit out or whitewash statements he wishes he had not made?

Thanks! Sarabseth (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would be really grateful if someone would look at this. --Sarabseth (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into this, sure. -- Atama頭 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Meru Networks

• Meru Networks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• LeeBrisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Charles8686 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Mmkresources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Laurie123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Bbrisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This company seems to have created an article for themselves. They are trying their best to do things the proper way, and are doing relatively well in that regard. I went over the article, and trimmed it down quite a bit, but some extra eyes won't do any harm. These people really seem to try to do things right and not break any rules, and we should try to be as welcoming as we can. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Phearson (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reporting Mmkresources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for his/her username promoting mKmResources. --Ankit Maity ^TalkContribs 11:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Speed reading

Resolved: I blocked the editor as a spam-only account, another admin blocked the sockpuppet, and the autoblock should prevent IP edits. -- Atama頭 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of off-wiki dispute between two "experts" in the field of speed reading that is now being brought to the article speed reading. Specically, Howardberg (talk · contribs) and Howard31 (talk · contribs) are adding material related to Howard Berg, and 99.182.201.15 (talk · contribs) is making accusations of slander. If someone with experience in dealing with these kinds of issues could take a look, that would be helpful. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be sockpuppet - filed case here.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk|Contribs} 11:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rosemary Altea

• Rosemary Altea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Samaltea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A SPA whose username is the same as that of the child of the subject of this biography has recently made several edits that removed criticism and made the article very promotional. [23] Other editors have jumped in and cleaned it up, but I notice no notice has been made on the user's talk page and so on. I've always focused on actually editing content and not memorizing rules, so I'm unclear on what the correct procedure is in cases like this. Could someone follow up? Thanks. Krelnik (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

CSR Europe

• CSR Europe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Chrissiestew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Article's creator has stated their connection to the organization. Has introduced copyright violations and promotional text, and is making some efforts to remedy the situation, but is at essence a WP:SPA with promotional interests. Coming here because there's been no response to speedy deletion nomination, meanwhile this drags on.... 99.12.241.215 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a G11 candidate. Despite the authors attempts to fix up the article, which I appreciate it, it was still clearly promotional in nature. Just a note, that speedy deletion isn't always immediate, except for extreme cases (such as attack pages). -- Atama頭 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know--sometimes in an environment where editors use rollback instantaneously, I get exasperated when more subtle misuses stay up for a few hours. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Smirnoff

Resolved: Obvious violation of user name. User advised accordingly and welcomed to create a new account in compliance with WP:Username

• Smirnoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• SmirnoffVodka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Self-explanatory. —danhash (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prince Andrew Young-Owolanke

• Article name (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Anyowo (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Name: Prince Andrew Young-Owolanke

Born: 2nd February 1966

Place of Birth: Ukpilla, Edo state Nigeria

Nationality: Irish

Educations: Nigeria Opportunity Industrialisation Centre, Lagos Nigeria, (OND) Northern Regional College, Northern Ireland United Kingdom, (National Vocational Qualification 2, BTEC National Award, and Higher National Certificate (HNC). The Open University, (Certificate) and currently Study Degree in Health and social care Practice

SnaKeBit3

• SnaKeBit3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• The Equinox (Part 1) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Y.O.U (SnaKeBit3 song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DropZERO Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DropZERO Florida (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Take-Back 60 Entertainment (edit|[[Talk:Template:Take-Back 60 Entertainment|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:SnaKeBit3 (edit|[[Talk:Template:SnaKeBit3|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs)
• Dgkera2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I just saw the first three articles up for AfD and did a little looking into the user's editing history. Almost all of this editor's additions have been articles about a specific group of people, all of which relate back to Elijah Mason, the subject of the article SnaKeBit3. The articles all appear highly promotional and I believe that the editor is one of the people involved in this group (or is Mason himself) due to the low visibility and notability of the subjects. Because of the amount of articles that Dgkera2 has created, I'm bringing it to the attention of the admins here. He's done other edits to an article for a different band/song where the information was changed to information for one of the singles, which I'm not sure was supposed to be promotional vandalism or sandbox type edits in the wrong place. Either way, this does need looking into in case the articles get deleted and the user tries to re-add them. The only non-promotional edits he's done have been to articles where he's removed large amounts of information, such as in the article for chloroplasts. [24] I almost took this to the admin board, but at this time this seems to be more of a potential COI/advertising issue. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Comment. I'm adding several templates that the user has added to Wikipedia, all of which pertain to companies that Mason is part of or contributes to. The amount of templates and pages that this user has added is quite extensive considering that many of the other pages he or she has created have been already deleted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I deleted his user page per WP:FAKEARTICLE. The whole thing is an obvious hoax, I'm leaning towards unilaterally deleting everything, AfD seems like a waste of everyone's time. --Daniel 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)