Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Smiths Group Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Paul Bedson

• Paul Bedson (talk · contribs)
• Kharsag Epics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christian O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor acting in good faith but creating articles with which he has a personal and financial interest[1] and with a "commitment to reveal this subject to the mainstream". The articles are Kharsag Epics (which I have taken to AfD) and Christian O'Brien plus another which he is working on in his sandbox. I've been advising him but it seems a bit unfair for him to get advice from only one person and that person the one who has taken an article of his to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My other article is George Aaron Barton who is one of the 2 primary sources for the Kharsag Epics page. I have no financial interest in these articles as Eden Tourism is a not-for-profit venture to help fund research in this field. It is not a functioning company as yet in any case. I have to admit some interest in this subject and it's exposure from having visited Kharsag, but hope that the academic linking articles I have prepared beforehand will show the articles to be mainstream enough for inclusion. Further advice is most welcome on this subject and how to edit the pages correctly, from a neutral position, in line with guidelines and for the benefits of the vast majority of people this affects. Paul Bedson (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor does seem to have a COI despite his denials. He runs a travel agency whose aim is "promoting tourism in Rachaiya" (where the subject of the article originated). It would be good to get more opinions, but I think he should be following the COI guidelines in this case. Rees11 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am currently under contract to a UK telecoms company and cannot profit financially from Eden Tourism at the current time or be employed by any other organisation. Hence it is a non-active, not-for-profit venture, any potential future profits will be directed into further scholarly research of the subject. The type of "tourism" that I can arrange is of the archaeological type to encourage the mainstream research this topic requires. I am personally involved after having visited Rachaiya recently, but this is only for experience in the subject. I was not an associate of Christian O'Brien when he was alive and so should not be directly associated with the topic of the posts. I am endeavouring to maintain a neutral point of view and meeting criteria, despite working hard on articles I feel are important, if perhaps controversial. Paul Bedson (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you are heavily involved in the 'Kharsag Research Project', and you told me you have a " committment to reveal this subject to the mainstream." It isn't just the Eden tourism thing, promoting O'Brien's ideas is the reason you are here and creating these articles, which creates a clear conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not employed by and have not mentioned any ideas or orignial research generated by the 'Kharsag Research Project' and will not do so until they can be verifiably sourced in a major newspaper. In such a specialist subject, I would hope Wikipedia values my experience updating subjects upon such an event. I have made some efforts to correct articles in line with a neutral point of view that does not seek to promote any single person or group's ideas and further suggestions to keep in line are always welcome. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have a question, has Paul violated any particular policies or guidelines? In particular, is he linking to web sites or other resources he is affiliated with (per WP:SPAM) or trying to put too much of a positive or negative spin on any subjects (per WP:NPOV) or trying to add his personal opinions or research (per WP:OR) or resisting changes to "his" articles that he doesn't agree with (per WP:OWN)? Those are the most common problems that occur when an editor has a COI. We do try to make experts welcome, and I know that I personally try to give some allowances to subject experts when they edit articles in their field. It can sometimes be difficult to find a balance between avoiding conflicts of interest but allowing experts to contribute. -- Atama頭 22:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is mostly a case of an over-eager new editor. He's made some mistakes in adding poorly sourced material, and the article itself seems to be borderline wp:fringe, although it's hard for me as a non-expert to tell. But he has not been pushing his travel agency or adding spam, at least not recently. I do think he has a COI and should disclose it on his user page and the article talk page. But in general I think the situation is under control, he is trying hard, is obviously an expert, and should be encouraged. I don't think any kind of admin intervention is required. I should add that I've only looked at Kharsag Epics, not Christian O'Brien. Rees11 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kharsag Epics went to AfD with result of merge to Christian O'Brien. Should we mark this "resolved?" Doug? Rees11 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RapperDitch/Ditch420

• Rapper_Ditch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ditch420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

By their own admission, Ditch420 is a paid PR account for RapperDitch. The spam guideline and conflict of interest guideline come into play here, as well as the policy that Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for promotion. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The COI is obvious, and admitted. I suppose the only real question is whether the Rapper Ditch article and the associated albums meet WP:MUSIC criteria, or should be deleted. -- Atama頭 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

West Shore Community College

• West Shore Community College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wsccwebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The name is certainly suggestive, and the article looks like a brochure for the school, not an encyclopedia piece. I ran across this doing RC-patrolling. Ray^Talk 19:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for WP:ORGNAME violations, though they can be unblocked to request a username change, or can create a new account that doesn't violate username policies. The article itself should be cleaned up, I've left a COI tag. -- Atama頭 16:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sparksmedia @ Metalcallout

• Sparksmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Almost every one of user's contrubutions have involved adding the link to a website Metalcallout. I asked the user if he was affiliated but this was denied by him, see User talk:Sparksmedia#Metalcallout. But looking into the issue, I found some links to the username and the website. User had previously attempted to create an article WebHostDesignPost which has since been speedied, this website [2] suggests Sparksmedia, WebHostDesignPost and Metalcallout are all indeed affiliated. Rehevkor ✉ 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me like a clear case of WP:REFSPAM, looking at the list of links to metalcallout.com it seems as though they are all stating that bands will be performing at festivals this summer. I can't exactly see why this would be done but the fact that all of Sparksmedia's edits are using metalcallout.com as a reference, and the link you provided demonstrating that it is hosted on the same server as a site called Sparksmedia clearly indicates a COI. I think that all the links present need to be removed - for starters metalcallout is not a reliable source - if the fact that they are playing at festivals should be included in the articles (personally I doubt they should) then we should use references to the festival site, e.g. replace this with this. Smartse (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There is this press release too about metalcallout, which was written by Cody Sparks, the same person who madewww.sparks-media.com. Smartse (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for looking into this, Smartse. I went ahead and removed every link from the articlespace. Most that were "X band will attend Y festival which is awesome" I removed the whole lot, while some that seemed to be used in good faith I fact'ed. In the case of festivals etc they can be re-added, written neutrally with an reliable independent source, or at the very least a primary source. Rehevkor ✉ 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for removing the links, I made a start myself but it was taking quite a while to do! Can we gain a consensus here that Sparksmedia does not add any more links to metalcallout to wikipedia without first discussing it on the talk page of an article? Smartse (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering his conflict of interest and the fact the website is likely an unreliable source, I don't see how the website can add to any articles at all Rehevkor ✉ 13:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked. What we have is an editor who is spamming a TON of links all over Wikipedia for the Metalcallout web site, and they just happen to name their account (in violation of WP:ORGNAME) after the company who develops web pages and does search engine optimization (in other words, an online marketer) and who also created the WebHostDesignPost article, and all sites are hosted on the same server. The fact that they denied affiliation in face of the overwhelming evidence means that they aren't being honest. I've hardblocked them, which means that they aren't welcome to request a name change or create a new account. -- Atama頭 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Atama. Rehevkor ✉ 04:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

David Gergen

• David Gergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roadrunnerkmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Roadrunnerkmh states he is employed as David Gergen's "internet manager" and has made multiple edits on Gergen's entry. If true, likely COF.

I don't see substantial issues with the content of Roadrunnerkmh's edits. What edits are problematic? Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Their most recent edit was actually a very good one, which removed a very negative fact from a BLP which was attributed to a NYT article that was later clarified as having unsubstantiated information in it. I've left the editor some advice on their talk page, but overall I agree with Hipocrite, I see no problems with their edits. -- Atama頭 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

• Dionne Brand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aosasti (talk • contribs)

Gallet & Co.

• Gallet & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Flying Officer Chronograph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Galletgroup (talk · contribs)

This well organized, beautifully illustrated, carefully referenced article, an example of some of our best work in all other regards, appears to have been written by its subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that good. I've seen worse, but it's full of unsourced peacock words and has a generally promotional tone to it. The user name probably should be changed as it's obviously promotional. The editor has a couple of copyvio notices on his talk page. I'll leave a COI warning. Rees11 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the editor seems to admit to a COI, as he claims to hold the copyright on many of the images used in the article, images that apparently belong to the subject of the article. Rees11 (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to need some help with this. The editor has created a whole slew of few articles connected with his company and edited several others, and I've found one copyright violation so far, in addition to the dubious status of the images. Can someone help look into all this? Rees11 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For the past 30 years I have been working in the capacity of an amateur timekeeping historian and have contributed my personal research to a number of related publications. As the oldest watch and clock manufacturer, Gallet has been of particular interest to me to a point that borders on obsession. Besides having acquired the one of the world’s largest collection of their vintage timepieces, I probably possess the most extensive reference library of documents on the company’s history. As a result, I have found myself in the unique position of providing the bulk of the images and content that appears on the Gallet Company’s website, as well as the Wikipedia subject page. As such, the matter of copyrights is not a personal concern in this case. That said, I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning the process. The recent issues that have arisen are a blessing, as they have pushed me around the learning curve to quickly become a more effective editor and contributor for Wikipedia. I am also addressing the matter of changing my username to better comply with Wikipedia policies. Thank you for everyone’s help. Galletgroup (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was not written by the subject of the article I am not affiliated with the subject in any professional capacity, and have never received any sort of compensation from the subject except for a thank you for the donation of my personally authored works and images for use on both Wikipedia and the subject’s website. For over 30 years, I have been an amateur timekeeping historian, even though my words and images have been copied and utilized in numerous publications, both in print and on the web. The assumption that I am closely affiliated with the subject of the article is understandable due to my unusual level of knowledge and enthusiasm with the subject, and I greatly appreciate the concern of others for maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia. With this said, I wish to have the COI and advert tags removed from this article. Time Maven (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that you don't have a conflict of interest in this case. However, please be aware of our policy on original research. If you want to use your own words that have been officially published, that is allowable per WP:COS, but use caution in doing so. Keep in mind, also, that you don't have to be affiliated with Gallet for what you have written to be considered an advertisement, any information that is unduly promotional either in tone or with specific "peacock words" as mentioned above by Rees11 can be considered advertisement. Other editors should be willing to help you with such problems at the articles you edit. This is, after all, a collaborative project and everyone who edits in good faith is more than welcome, especially a person with expertise who can help us find reliable sources to add more verifiable information to such articles. -- Atama頭 00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're not affiliated but you are the copyright holder of trademarks the company used 131 years ago? Rehevkor ✉ 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are still problems with copyrights on the images. There was also a hunk of text copied from the company's web site, which the editor claims he wrote and contributed to the company's web site. It all seems very suspect but I'm still willing to assume good faith at this point. Rees11 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor is engaged on the talk pages, has changed his user name, is observing the relevant policies, denies COI, and is working to fix the copyright problems. I'd like to mark this "resolved" if no one objects. Rees11 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bedford School & Chrisdearmer

• Bedford School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Glebe House School & Nursery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chrisdearmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a LOT of edits to two schools and not much else looks like a ex-pupil. I am probably 3RR'ed out on Bedford School today removing peacock terms and prases - can someone else have a look. Codf1977 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor self-indentified as Chris Dearmer. Chris can be seen here as being a member of a boat club affiliated with the Bedford School. That's a weak connection but a possible COI. As far as the Glebe House School and Nursery, this shows Chris as an organizer for a choir event there. So there does seem to be conflicts of interest at both articles, especially as he's trying to promote the choir in particular. -- Atama頭 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Update : The COI tag was removed today from the Bedford School by 80.177.186.73 which if you run a whois on comes back as Glebe House School. I have tagged User_talk:80.177.186.73 with the whois info, but looking at the Special:Contributions/80.177.186.73 they have been editing the Glebe House School & Nursery page. Codf1977 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Hogan

The article has been written by Pat138hogan (talk · contribs). Despite the long list of publications, I don't really see much notability. Woogee (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AUTO applies here. The notability will depend on WP:PROF, if those works of Hogan listed in the article are cited often by peers, then they could be considered notable. -- Atama頭 17:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel David Ryan

• Daniel David Ryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.225.201.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Urethra gauge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AfD

sudden massive editing burst on Urethra Gauging and similar topics. Seems to have clear COI, has not yet responded to attempts to communicate. Where now? DBaK (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried, but I'm close to rolling out {{uw-create}} if he keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, quite. I am pretty sure it's good faith, but he's not getting it and he's not engaging with attempts to discuss it... he's edited his Talk page quite recently and one assumes must have seen all that stuff ... on the other hand he doesn't seem to be creating new articles either so maybe that has got through a bit ... DBaK (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: keeps going. Now creates articles including his favored link on talkpages instead of article-space. I've had it. uw-create-3 given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a twofold problem here. Daniel doesn't seem able to properly communicate on Wikipedia, even on article and user talk pages he only writes external links or text that should go into an article. The other problem is the persistent advertising attempts. Urethra gauge has had the advertising information removed, so it doesn't necessitate a speedy deletion, but I don't know if it has hope as an article going forward. If Daniel makes one more attempt to advertise his device, I'll block indefinitely as a spam-only account if someone else doesn't do it first. I'd block him now if it wasn't for the fact that the urethra gauge article might have a slim chance of being notable. -- Atama頭 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been trying to be kind, and AGF, and so on, but it's tricky when there's effectively no communication taking place. And, indeed, there is I suppose the risk that rather than being an innocent new user thinking merely to tell the world of their device (my preferred view) there's also the risk that it's less innocent and more calculating than that and has to do with, perhaps, a desire to drive traffic to the website or manipulate its search engine results or whatever. I hate to be cynical about new people but clearly he can read and edit so he's either really not getting it in a very serious way - which I can empathize with - or choosing not to get it, which is not nice. Hmmm. DBaK (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: having said all that I should add that Daniel has currently stopped again, and has been stopped for a while, so maybe it's over? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Urethra Gauge seems to be a trademark, not a generic term.[3] And Daniel David Ryan has applied for a patent on it.[4] I think the article should be deleted as spam. Rees11 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an AfD would be the best way to go about it. That way if the article is recreated in any form similar to the original it can be speedily deleted per G4. Although I do stand by my statement about blocking Daniel if he keeps trying to advertise his product. -- Atama頭 19:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Digital Asset Management

• Jordanrgray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only edits in three years have been to spamlink and otherwise advertise a particular computer service provided by a firm whose owner, according to the Better Business Bureau listing, is one Jordan Gray. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit in particular is telling, and seems to be a confirmation of the COI. I think that the spam is more of a concern than the COI itself. My suggested response would be to give a final warning if another spam link is added, followed by an indefinite block. An account that is used solely for advertising gets little sympathy from me. -- Atama頭 19:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DeRose articles and editors

Articles

• Master DeRose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - new article on creator of SwáSthya Yôga aka DeRose Method
• SwáSthya Yôga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this was a stub article until this month when the accounts below expanded it

Accounts

• DeRose London (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, SPA, with a borderline username violation, that indicates a coi with these articles.
• Derosemethod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor, SPA, with a borderline username violation, that indicates a coi with these articles.
• 86.139.208.231 (talk · contribs) - new editor, SPA, London ip address - could be one of the editors above

I've removed DeRose London's edits to other articles as overly promotional edits complicated by a coi, and given him an uw-adv2 warning for his continued problematic edits after he was given a uw-coi message.

I've given Derosemethod a uw-adv2 warning as well for continuing to make problematic edits after he had been given a uw-coi-username message.

At this point, I'd like to find some editors fluent in Portuguese to help evaluate these articles against our notability criteria. Hopefully, the editors listed above will respond to the warnings on their talk pages in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DeRose London has responded [5], alleviating my concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to help, but I would have to get a good grip on the notability criteria --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Salt Spring Coffee Co. and Cmtremewen

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked. Rees11 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Salt Spring Coffee Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ctremewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to advise User:Cmtremewen that their various edits and content-additions to Salt Spring Coffee Co. were both SPAM and COI, but the user blanked my message from his/her talkpage - see User talk:Cmtremewen and this edit of that page. Same user had previously removed templates from the coffee company page, which has only survived two AFDs by helpful edits from experienced users such as User:KenWalker and User:Maclean25; the latter recently reversed my re-addition of the {{notability}} tag due to those previous fixes and teh failed AFDs, but since then User:Cmtremewen has continued with Spam/Own/COI edits, including blanking the article's talkpage and, as seen in this reversion by Maclean25, blanked whole sections he/she didn't like of the main article, including fixes and updates by other editors. The gall of the line on the usertalkpage "If content on this page is not authorized or created by the owners of the company then it is spam. This site has been compromised." is, to me, bizarre, and the same sentiment was expressed in the edit comment in this edit which says "Removal of material not submitted by the company". I think both a userban, and a revived AfD, are called for, but then I'm not an admin and, well, not known for my brevity or politesse. The article is, to me, blatant spam for an inconsequential coffee chain with delusions of its own importance, and the user is clearly completely without any sense of wikipedia guidelines, or interest in learning or obeying them...and User:Cmtremewen has edited no other article than the coffee company page and its discussion page, clearly a WP:SPA.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor is now indef blocked as a spammer. Rees11 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Knox College, Otago

Resolved

 – Helpful feedback left on article's talk-page as requested. --Philtweir (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Knox College, Otago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While this article (on a New Zealand university college) has been extensively and informatively developed from a historical perspective, it has been left rather underdeveloped with regard to its functioning, idiosyncrasies and human history for quite some time and I've prepared a few proposals for changes to bring it into more rounded and into line with other articles on colleges at other collegiate universities.

However, as a current resident and recipient of a scholarship from this college (supplementary to a University PhD scholarship), as a consequence of being the nominated "Senior Tutor" (though not formally staff), I would be keen to check whether this brings me into a conflict of interest. I hope to demonstrate through the changes I've suggested and this declaration, that that is not the case and that I just happen to want to improve a Wikipedia article on a topic I know something about! While I would like to do something similar for the other colleges, my knowledge there is currently lacking (though please note that I've prepared samples of the Selwyn College, Otago and St Margaret's College, Otago articles using the new templates applied to the proposed Knox changes). If it is felt that this is a conflict of interest, I'll pop a Request Edit template on the talk page. Alternatively, if it felt that, provided I maintain WP:NPOV and edit as I would any other article, there isn't an issue, that would be even better.

For full details, please see the proposal under my user page or the article's talk page, which links there. Cheers! Philtweir (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DarkBlade4658 - GameZone

• DarkBlade4658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been persistently adding content from GameZone reviews and previews to videogame articles, despite an editor there and being warned twice about the conflict of interest. I can provide specific diffs if necessary. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This is quite tricky. DarkBlade4658 has disclosed that they are an editor at GameZone and all the edits that I have checked were adding reviews from the site to articles. Whilst GameZone is presumably a reliable source, I'm not happy with an editor with a COI adding reviews all over the place. There are over 1000 links over the project to GameZone and DarkBlade has only made 100 edits so obviously others are adding them. Whatever happens to the links already in place, I would strongly suggest that DarkBlade stops adding more links to GameZone for the moment. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Medifast1

Medifast1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a SPA and in violation of the username policy. He clumsily added some content to Medifast in Feb. that probably should have been caught by the edit filter, but wasn't. Cites corporate websites where an independent source would be preferred. It either needs to be cleaned up or simply reverted to the Jan. 11 version. 69.221.163.227 (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done a quick clean up, the article is still a mess but it is better than before. The username would be blocked if we spotted it when it was created but won't be now. Thanks for posting here to bring it to our attention. Smartse (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

St. James' Settlement (Hong Kong)

• St. James' Settlement (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2009076521fanpoyi09 (talk · contribs)
• 2009025027yuenloktung09 (talk · contribs)
• 2009578969laichukman09 (talk · contribs)
• 2009132703ipwaichingsandy09 (talk · contribs)

Came upon this one doing copyright cleanup (as usual), and it looks to be a very sincere and very unencyclopedic article about a charity in Hong Kong. It is being worked on by a series of WP:SPA contributors who are obviously interrelated, given their usernames. I've given them the standard COI notice, but I think the article could do with a look-over by somebody for neutrality and sourcing. I pulled some employee lists ([6]) under WP:NOTDIR, but I'm back to the backlog at copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Webcomic creator?

Could someone take a look at this editor's contributions? [7] 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Diploma mill crusader?

This sockpuppet investigation resulted after an edit war between two groups of editors involved with the Washington International University article. One group was trying to spin negative information about the subject, while two other editors were assisting each other in trying keep negative information in the article, mainly about allegations that the institution is a diploma mill. The first group of editors, both as a result of the checkuser and other reasons, have been banned. I feel, however, that questions remain unresolved about the latter two editors who continue to edit.

One allegation raised during the sockpuppet investigation is that User:TallMagic is someone who actively works to discredit diploma mills, including doing so in Wikipedia. In this edit, the account appears to inadvertently reveal that it is a sock of this account. A Google search of this account's name reveals that a person by that name is very active and visible in a campaign against what that person believes are diploma mills.

My question to the independent reviewers here is, if TallMagic is this same person who appears to be actively trying to discredit diploma mills, is it a COI for this account to be editing this subject on Wikipedia? Is any follow-up action appropriate here? Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to establish the real life identity and that makes me nervous although I can see why. Without commenting further on that, you've raised concerns about two editors but only mentioned one, I think you should state the problem with the second rather than leave it vague. As for the COI, I presume you are comparing this with editors like WMC? Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I need to make one correction. Not all of the accused sockpuppeters were banned. Glasscity09 was cleared. Orlady appears also to concentrate on exposing diploma mills via Wikipedia in conjunction with TallMagic, but I have no opinion on whether a COI might exist with Orlady. I'm not comparing this situation with any other editor, just asking the experienced editors who frequent this board to examine the situation and give their opinions on whether there is any cause for concern or anything that should be done here. Cla68 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We should be grateful that an expert on the disingenuous tactics employed by the reasonably repulsive diploma mill "industry" is willing to help maintain Wikipedia as an accurate and reliable reference work that neutrally and accurately states the unvarnished facts about diploma mills. Hipocrite (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not notified about this discussion, although I see that I am being accused here.

For the record, other than having graduated from several well-regarded fully accredited schools, I have no real-life interaction with educational accreditation, diploma mills, or related matters.

I first got involved with Wikipedia articles related to the topic of accreditation in 2007 after receiving a message from another user who questioned the credibility of a particular U.S. accrediting organization. I concluded that it was a legitimate accreditation agency for primary and second schools, but not for tertiary institutions, and edited the article and replied to that effect to the other user, but that experience led me to become interested in the problems of explaining in Wikipedia how accreditation works (particularly in the U.S., but also worldwide) and researching/documenting the status of entities that represent themselves as academic institutions and/or accreditation agencies, but appear to exist only as websites. Along the way, I've learned a lot about accreditation and about how to find out about the status of an educational institution. In pursuit of this interest, I've interacted often with TallMagic, whose knowledge of the topic dwarfs mine. The fact that he and I have both edited a lot of the same articles does not mean that we are working together -- and I wouldn't recognize him (nor would he recognize me) if our cars collided on the highway.

I've also interacted often with single-purpose accounts whose only "contributions" involved repeatedly changing the text of one specific article from something along the general lines of "Stupendous University is an unaccredited provider of distance education that does business from a post office box at the South Pole...[reliable sources cited]" to "Stupendous University is a world-class educational institution that is renowned for the quality of its programs and the success of its graduates...[only source an EL to stupendousuniversity.com]", and several of those SPA contributors have accused me of POV-pushing, COI, etc. -- I figure that it comes with the territory.

The case cited by Cla68 appears to have been a rare instance of an unaffiliated good-faith contributor (Glasscity09) running across some edits by a SPA, echoing and expanding upon the SPA's criticisms of the article based on his/her own investigations, and inadvertently "inspiring" further involvement by other accounts that may have been SPAs, but more likely were persons intent on disrupting Wikipedia for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Orlady has been editing Wikipedia for 6 years, in good standing (no real blocks), and has been an admin for a year, with almost 800 articles created and over a dozen barnstars. I'm not really concerned about her. ;)

And honestly, I have to side with Hipocrite here. I'm confused about the concerns of people "discrediting" diploma mills; that's like saying that someone is trying to ruin the reputation of a felon by mentioning their felonies in an article. I suppose anyone that's on a "crusade" about anything, trying to expose "THE TRUTH" is going to cause problems no matter what the subject. But honestly, any institution that truly is a diploma mill isn't going to have a very positive article if given proper treatment. I've looked over the talk page of the article, and the pro-WIU arguments are ridiculous in large part, complaining about bringing up "old laundry" about the institution. -- Atama頭 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I must echo Hipocrite and Atama's confusion - how can ensuring accuracy by someone who has some knowledge on the subject be a COI? COI is I wrote a book, let me tell you how wonderful it is (and delete all negative comments) it isn't expert contributions to the betterment of Wikipedia content-wise and NPOV-wise. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My edits stand on their own. This person is not attacking my edits which cover many articles instead they appear to me to be attempting to attack me as a person. I edit Wikipedia in areas that I'm familar with. I'm familar with accreditation and unaccredited institutions. I primarily edit both accredited and unaccredited educational institution articles. There are just far more edits in unaccredited articles because that is where vandelism is most frequent. If a police officer decided to edit Wikipedia in article topics that he was familar in say crime, would that be conflict of interest? What kind of conflict of interest am I being accused of here? It is a vague and unfounded accusation. I suggest that Cla68 either puts together a list of my edits that violates Wikipedia policy or they prove that I'm affiliated with some accredited/unaccredited institution or they apologize. I am also dismayed that the admins here are allowing what appears to me to be attempted wp:OUTING. These vague accusations are just sad in my opinion. TallMagic (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)