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:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Commvault Talk:CoStar Group Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Data Commons Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Nigel Edwards (health) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:GoToGate Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grayscale Investments Talk:Greystar Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Camille Herron Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Huron Consulting Group Talk:Illa del Rei Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Jats Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Labcorp Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Leviton Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of RuneQuest supplements Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Netvibes Talk:Nexperia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nuffield Trust Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Bob Renney Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Royal Match Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Robert D. Sack Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Simprints Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:TowerBrook Capital Partners Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla

User: Communicat

• Communicat (talk · contribs)has posted a picture where he claims to be Stanley Winer of the truth-hertz website in both the summary and licensing sections.[1] Communicat has repeatedly inserted links ts to the truth-hertz website [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Communicat has also argued for using the truth-hertz site as a source, without saying he is Stan Winer at Talk:World War II and Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user here. Also here is a list of links to the truth-hertz site.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if Communicat was Stanley Winer. Winer is a better writer than Communicat is, besides he has done all the research and has all the original references, he wouldn't need to refer to Winer's book as Communicat does. I think this is more likely a copyright issue. Maybe Communicat has contacted Winer and asked for permission to use the image. In any case, this would have to go through WP:OTRS. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

truth-hertz.net as an RS is an interesting notion. The Guardian review of Winer's book "Between the Lies: Rise of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex" is quoted on the site as "There is much that is interesting here on official psychological strategies and the herdlike collaboration of journalists." and in the Guardian review itself the sentence that follows that one is "There is also much that is on the extreme edge of revisionism" followed shortly thereafter by "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name." Interesting mismatch. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone else already spotted it at Talk:World_War_II/Archive_39#Link_to_www.truth-hertz.net Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the RS issue - it's not relevant here - The statement posted was in first person and contained no sign that Communicat was posting this as a third party. Read literally as written in context, it says what it says: "I, Stanley Winer, ...", posted by Communicat.

Petri Krohn's points are not unreasonable - if one assumes good faith here, that's a credible explanation, that Communicat is merely relaying such a rights release from a third party, and failed to notice that we expect people to note where they came from as distinct from the poster. This would not be the first time someone's done that, and from working with Communicat over several weeks I can imagine them having made such a mistake.

However, I have seen plenty of cases where fringe writers / advocates showed up here in shaky (and rarely, not so shaky) disguise and attempted to exert influence in ways not compatible with Wikipedia goals and policies. These people accidentally out themselves fairly regularly. Some of the disguises are rather intricate, including detailed attempts to forge new writing styles. Not presenting the primary sources and focusing on their own secondary source would unfortunately be typical - both because their goal here is to advocate and publicize their secondary work and opinions on issues, and because often there is wide disagreement that they've properly interpreted and reported on what's in the primary sources, and if you refer back to them it's rather easier to detect that the references often don't support the claimed information. There has been such a discussion regarding some other sources and Communicat ongoing for a little while, as you know, Petri, though that's not proof in any way.

Presumably Communicat will log in and clarify the situation in a reasonable length of time. There's no reason to take action immediately in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a Google Images search for the picture and found only one other use, here at the web site of International Institute of Social History. The quality of the photo makes me doubt if either Communicat or Winer has taken the photo. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the first moment I came into contact with Communicat I thought he and Stan Winer were the same person. To me, it's a WP:DUCK issue—I can't quite place my finger on exact reasons for my belief.

About the image, in this talk page entry he says "I have a good pic of Vorster", not "I have access to a good pic from my colleague Stan Winer". One more small piece of COI evidence. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After some more googling on the web I have to agree that Communicat is most likely Stan Winer. This link states that Stan Winer is a "South African-based journalist." He should not be using his books as reference and should not be posting links to the "Truth" site. However it would be OK if he made reference to the book and the site on his user page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your Google images search Stan Winer/Comminicat is claiming to be the copyright holder for an image that appears to belong to the International Institute of Social History. Edward321 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the COI issue. You continued attacks against Communicat are however starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat denied the allegation on his talk page but has not yet elaborated; he said he would do so when time allowed. As I stated above, there's no reason to rush this. Hopefully his forthcoming explanation will be productive and not too delayed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No I am not Stan Winer, but I DO have Stan Winer's express permission to use / distribute his jpg of Vorster as I see fit, provided it's not for purposes of commercial gain. Winer's permission includes stating his name and consent on any relevant GNU/CC licence, which I have done accordingly.

Edward321's inference that the Vorster picture has been misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History is false and malicious. I challenge him to support his allegation with evidence.

I suggest Edward321 acquaints himself with WP:HARASS, which defines harassment as "a pattern of offensive behavior", the intended outcome of which, "may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". Edward321's past and present behaviour is consistent with that pattern.

As regards the undone links to www.truth-hertz.net: they were repeatedly uploaded by me in the hope that somebody would eventually extent the courtesy of an explanation as to why the undone link was considered unreliable and/or inappropriate or unacceptable. When no such explanation was forthcoming, I eventually forced a long discussion at the WW2 talk page, and then gracefully accepted the consensus view that the work in question did not conform to wiki's high standards. I do not necessarily agree with that view, but I accepted it, never the less.

Subsequently, I provided another recent link at History of South Africa article, to a completely separate essay by Stan Winer, because he is a highly experienced and respected veteran journalist specialising in South African political issues, and I for one consider him to be an authority in the field. His essays and articles can be found all over the internet. (Needless to say, that link too was eliminated by Edward321).

If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors, and the requirements of NPOV. In the case of the former, they vehemently oppose or obstruct any reliable source (I don't necessarily mean Winer alone) that might be construed as presenting an unfavourable wartime image of the West; while in the case of the latter, NPOV rules demand that contrasting reliable positions be presented on the basis of parity.

The above matter has not yet been satisfactorily resolved; in the meantime, attempts continue to try discrediting me, as evidenced by this current "conflict of interest" notice as posted by Edward321. It is the latest in a long string of harassment and abuse, (and not only by Edward321), the intended outcome of which appears to be one of making editing unpleasant for communicat, to undermine communicat, to frighten him (as if that's at all possible), or to discourage him from editing entirely. Communicat (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your initial posting of the image credit, read literally as written, would have constituted sufficient justification of a presumption that you are Winer that we could have taken action including an extended block based soley on that and conflict of interest policy here. We have extended considerable patience and good faith to you to explain the situation in an innocent manner, if such explanation holds water. I am not saying that yours doesn't - I am saying, however, that blocking you presumptively based on what he found would have "held up", even if you explained later. Please be aware that you have gotten the benefit of the doubt here so far.

If Edward321 is stalking you, he has been finding a lot of very questionable stuff in doing so. He's probably pushing harder than normal social norms encourage here, but that particular image credit was entirely appropriate to bring here and to further scrutiny.

Winer himself needs to contact info-en@wikimedia.org and give that permission to the OTRS volunteers to properly log. Having a third party post such doesn't count under our rules on licensing and rights issues.

Edward321 is as I said above focusing unusually much on you right now. But it's not like you aren't a focus problem user at the moment. I've tried to indicate this in our previous interactions, that you're way out on or past the normal limits, and we're trying to give you benefit of the doubt and repeat chances on stuff. The reason why all Wikipedia edits are public (unless removed for abuse) is to subject all of us to public scrutiny for what we do. We've told you repeatedly before that your edits pushed things and that you were thus subject to additional attention and scrutiny. You may not have intended to do so here, but posting an image credit of that nature and not making it glaringly clear that you were passing on someone else's image copyright is a serious red flag on behavior. As I said above, Edward321 was entirely, entirely correct to bring it here to be reviewed when he found it.

This incident is indicating yet another way in which you seem to fail to understand how our community goals and policies work. There is a finite number of chances any editor gets on messing this type of stuff up before you aren't allowed to edit here anymore. I understand you're frustrated with Edward321 from all the context on multiple pages, but he's posting and calling attention to stuff you're doing that's outside our normal editor bounds. He's not making stuff up. Perhaps the stuff he finds isn't in the end actual issues, but it's not falsified. You're doing stuff that's calling yourself into question.

I am currently torn about asking for a Sockpuppet Investigation and Checkuser to see if you're editing from South Africa in Winer's near vicinity. We generally don't do that sort of thing, but you've raised the question in the way you posted that credit and though your explanation so far is not obviously false, it's also not overwhelmingly convincing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

George, please note the the "image credit, read literally as written" is not what Communicat wrote, but comes from the license template used, I believe in this case {{Self}}. I admit to making similar mistakes myself, when I first uploaded images by family members. I ended up creating multiple account at Commons for all the people whose archives I have access and license to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward 321, in claiming COI, has made a seriously false and malicious inference, namely that the Vorster picture was misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History. I have challenged him to support his allegation with hard evidence. He has so far failed to do so. Edward321 earlier alleged falsely that Vorster was not even mentioned by the source as provided at the relevant text edit adjacent to where the (now removed) Vorster jpg was subsequently placed. Edward321 is now required to either retract his false allegations within a reasonable period of time or bear the potential consequences of WP:HARASS

Yes, the image credit was from the {{Self}} template. Yes, I am operating from South Africa, but not in Winer's close vicinity (though I don't see what that has to do with anything). And yes, I was under the impression that wiki was a non-commercial medium but, although I'm still not at all clear about all the licensing implications etc, it does appear that, while wiki itself is a non-profit organisation, it provides access to images that are open to potential commercial exploitation. I shall review this with the owner copyright holder. I shall also reconsider my own voluntary participation in wiki projects. I'm not entirely sure if all the associated unpleasantness warrants much future involvement. We'll see what happens. Communicat (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not exactly open the pictures for commercial "exploitation"; the GFDL and other copyleft licenses are "commie poison" that prevent any future exploitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri: I want to avoid breaking up the main thread here. Will respond later on your talk page re copyright issue.

The main thrust of this thread concerns Esward321's false allegations as referred to above, and which he has as yet failed to retract. I am unable to account for Edward321's reticence in addressing a matter that he has himself initiated. He appears to have left it to uninvolved party Georgewilliamherbet to carry on a correspondence with me in this unpleasant matter, while he himself maintains silence.

Edward321 has also failed to address the issue of why he earlier maintained silence in respect of my repeated uploading of a link to truth-hertz.net in the hope that someone would eventually offer an explanation as to why it was being rejected. He (and the relevant administrator, if any) thus silently encouraged the link to be re-uploaded until such time as it could be used against me as "entraptment" evidence, as has now been done with Edward321's COI posting. In view of his continuing silence, together with his evident unwillingness to retract his false and malicious allegations, I shall now consider my options. Communicat (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have a conflict of interest by your own admission. If you're an acquaintance of Winer, then you obviously have a personal connection by our conflict of interest guideline. That only means that your actions bear closer scrutiny than an editor who isn't editing with a conflict of interest. I'd also like to suggest that your communication seems a tad aggressive; much of what you've written here seems like grandstanding (such as suggesting that "If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors"). Users of Wikipedia are expected to work with each other, not try to outdo each other as if this was a court of law. As to the truth-hertz link, you were warned as far back as April that the link was inappropriate, and why. So I don't buy the claim that there was silence in regards to the objection to the use of the link. If you're being willfully ignorant about your disruption, when others are warning you, you can't really take the high road. -- Atama頭 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have a conflict of interest by my "own admission", nor do I have a "personal connection" with Winer. I have a professional acquaintance with Winer. I also have a professional acquaintance with several other sources that have been cited by me. Do the COI rules stipulate that I'm obliged to declare each and every past and present colleague, and every professional contact or acquaintance in order to be allowed to edit wikipedia? If so, that would seem to notionally verge on a breach of my right (and theirs) to privacy, not to mention all the fuss and bother involved.

As to the truth-hertz link, it was only in August 2010 that I eventually managed to get someone to tell me why the allegedly "POV" link was considered to be inappropriate, viz., it was, after long discussion, deemed "fringe"

I am not being willfully ignorant about what you refer to as my "disruption". I am trying to obtain clarity and to deal with the disruption caused by others. I was prevented from obtaining a mediated opinion because some of the same others refused to consent to open and decisive mediation.

The person who initiated this COI notice remains curiously silent, and has failed to retract aggressive and unfounded allegations of dishonesty and misconduct on my part. I note that you have not addressed those false allegations. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer. I can assure you all that I am not a paid spammer, (nor even an unpaid spammer). The link cited by complainant Edward3211 is a link to what's probably one of the most widely read / distributed free ebooks on the internet. According to my information, it has so far been downloaded at least two million times from a variety of sites in both original and pirated versions, and it has also been translated into another language. The work is thus certainly NOT in any need of any promotional or publicity effort via wiki. The link was provided by me in good faith as "Further Reading", because it's an easily accessible public domain online resource within an established line of research conforming in all major particulars with the valid historical paradigm of revisionism. It is not "commie propaganda" as misguidedly alleged by certain editors whose own editing and agressive behaviour appear to be somewhat less than ethical and impartial. Communicat (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Winers book. Over a number of months, every editor that has expressed an opinion about it on the World War II article talk page has considered it fringe and/or unreliable, except Communicat. Even recently he continues to refer to it in discussions there. (Hohum ^@) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer." - I don't imply that, I don't see anyone who has. The company I work for has an article on Wikipedia, and I've always avoided editing it, but if I did I'd have a COI there too even though I'm not a spammer nor paid to edit Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't even have any sort of guideline about how to handle editors paid to edit the encyclopedia, a couple of proposals can be seen at WP:PAID but they went nowhere. For now they're tolerated, so even if you were paid to edit here that would be allowed. It's the fact that you have a connection to Winer that increases the scrutiny on your edits, and combined with the repeated insertion of an inappropriate link there are some people who are concerned. We even have people who come to Wikipedia to promote good causes, like cancer research foundations and anti-poverty organizations, but promotion is promotion no matter what the motivation is. -- Atama頭 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been very actively involved with the mass media and publishing industries for a long time, during which I have had (and continue to have) many contacts with authors, editors and researchers in my particular area of specialism, viz., military-political history. Winer is just one contact among hundreds. The COI allegation, initially, was that I am Winer, now it seems to have shifted to me "having contact" with Winer.

The fact of the matter IMO is that Winer is despised by some editors (not unanimously) because his work is construed by them as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II. A similarly virulent reaction is triggered in response to ANY source whose position is construed as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II, no matter how reliable and authoritative that source may be, including highly respected Western academic sources. This constitutes partisan editing at its worst, it is a continuing situation, and it is blatant violation of NPOV, the rules of which demand that equal weight be given to reliable, contesting positions. The POV-biased editors concerned have strongly opposed having the matter examined openly by an independent and impartial mediation committee. I wonder why? Communicat (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(note for those not following this closely) -

Communicat filed an Arbcom case, which was not accepted as it was rather premature. He has since been blaming everyone arguing with him for somehow blocking that case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert above is mistaken. I filed a mediation committee case complaining about partisan editing. It was turned down because most of the named editors did not consent to open and impartial mediation. A separate arbcom case was filed concerning a procedural matter, namely: one editor/administrator had attempted/succeeded in influencing others not to consent to the mediation committee application. The arbcom application was turned down on the grounds that attempts must first be made to resolve the issue through discussion. To that end, (talk) elected to involve himself as an uninvolved party. Attempts at resolving the dispute through discussion have subsequently failed. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat

PS: I would have responded earlier to Georgewilliamherbert's posting above had he not placed a 48-hours block on me, which has now expired. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat (my username is not coming up for some reason) login bug, trying again Communicat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat's Request for Mediation is listed here.[26] Three of the named editors agreed to arbitration, 2 disagreed, 1 did not respond, and one said they had already disengaged. Communicat then accused one of the two editors who did not agree to arbitration of attempting to build a cabal. [27] The seven arbitrators who responded were unanimous in declining, with many stating Communicat had provided no evidence of previous attempts at dispute resolution and no evidence of a cabal. Edward321 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ihave read the abritration. It does not conform with wht Edward321 is sayin above. Intersting to note he does not provide a link to the arbitration outcome, which he is misrepresenting.

SEO 2.0

• SEO 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BrendaBooker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.108.153.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.109.164.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 193.202.110.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.211.2.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.134.145.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.121.221.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article has been deleted several times, see AFD. There was a recent recreation by a sock of blocked user Thekohser, who had been offered payment to create the article, see SPI. User BrendaBooker has now requested recreation; the problem is that this editor, as well as a number of IPs (see list above) have been removing or refactoring parts of archived discussions, SPI investigations and warnings connected to SEO 2.0 and to the edits of User:ClintonCimring, whose user name tallies with the person who is credited as having coined the concept "SEO 2.0", and who received multiple warnings for self-interested article creation (see also this previous COIN discussion, which was deleted by one of the IPs a few days ago). To me it looks like an attempt to whitewash the article by attempting to remove traces of problematic history, and I strongly suspect a COI here. Note also the fact that the repeatedly deleted and salted article Clinton Cimring has almost no links leading to it, which makes me believe that speedy deletion warnings have been systematically removed from talk pages, as happened here where a speedy warning was refactored. bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Added: User:BrendaBooker has in fact not changed or removed content on archived pages, merely removed warnings from their own talk page (as is their right) and added text to archived pages (which is inappropriate but slightly less serious than removing content). --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BrendaBooker appears to be socking or proxying for a banned editor. Suggest we apply WP:RBI. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I am a little concerned about this myself. On the other hand, if the term is notable and the article is legitimate, it seems inappropriate to reject it based on secondary issues such as the intention behind its creation. But legitimacy aside, if there is an indication User:BrendaBooker is in fact a banned user, they are barred from contributing, regardless of the legitimacy of content additions. The user's highly focused log of contributions and strongly apparent prior familiarity with Wikipedia seems to indicate this is a distinct possibility. - Vianello (Talk) 20:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think notability is shown any more today than it was at the time of the AfD discussion in 2009. I've gone through the references and "SEO 2.0" still seems like a marginal buzzword, which some search engine marketers are desperate to get recognition for. There is clearly some COI involved here, looking at the contributions of all the various IPs, and given the fact that there have been (and possibly still are) bids at freelancer.com to create this specific article for payment, from people who have a very close relationship with the article's subject... well, I don't believe that this is a coincidence. And now one of the IPs, who had previously deleted references to the article's earlier history, has tweaked BrendaBooker's posts to talk pages; again rather unlikely to be coincidental. --bonadea contributions talk 07:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BrendaBooker (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BrendaBooker I object to being called a sock puppet. I have no ulterior motives and did not create the SEO 2.0 page. I posted it under my page in case someone would like to recreate it. I substantially re-edited it. What my edits were were letting everyone know who was involved in this subject that I had reposted it.

My sockmeter is beeping, apologies. Too much here doesn't add up at all. First, you claim that you nonchalantly want to create articles about SEO 2.0 and the person who coined the term, and that "if anything, you are biased against him", and yet every one of your efforts at Wikipedia going back to June of this year was to write material about him or to restore material about SEO 2.0. The biggest alarm bell going off for me is your communication style. When you contributed on talk pages back in June (on a now deleted page), you posted your signature properly, but now after the other sockpuppet pushing the same material was discovered and blocked, you've somehow reverted to posting your signature backward. The only explanation I can come up with is that you want to reinforce the image of being a new editor, which is a tactic that a sockpuppeteer would use to avoid scrutiny. I'm not buying this at all. I'm not sure if you're Greg or another editor trying to make a buck off of Freelancer but frankly I don't trust the image you're trying to portray. -- Atama頭 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorbjørn Jagland

• Thorbjørn Jagland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Inet read (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Appell44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 193.164.229.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The article is about a prominent Norwegian politician, former prime minister and now serving as Secretary-General of the Council of Europe. The two users are newly registered and have only been editing this article. To my cursory eye the edits appear to be attempting to remove or drastically downplay any controversial content in the article, and I have already served a COI warning on the talk page of one user. Perhaps others could peek in at this situation also to make sure I'm not jumping the gun here. __meco (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of these edits are definitely problematic e.g. [28] and [29] [30]. I've restored the version from before they edited because all the content they removed was well sourced and therefore not a BLP violation. I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure they don't carry on. I'm not expert on BLPs so an extra eye over it can't help either. Smartse (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

An IP registered to the Council of Europe has recently started editing the article as well introducing large amounts of information, referenced to their website. I've given them some advice about how they are able to contribute. Smartse (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've opened up an SPI here as they don't seem to be getting the message, despite my advice. Smartse (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways advertisement

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

Since January of 2008, this s.p.a. has done literally nothing in Wikipedia except try to get these two subjects into Wikipedia; when they are deleted, she whines about it and struggles to get them reinstated. That's about all I can say without violating WP:OUTING (as I read it); but I suggest that Google is your friend. Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User has also called my actions 'unprofessional'; possibly breaching WP:CIVILITY. Yousou (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of the discussion, Orangemike. I appreciate it. Melaniegravdal

Per the best practices for users with a COI, creating articles about a company you're affiliated to is a big no no. I've had a look to see if there are any reliable sources that could be used to make these articles and as far as I can tell there aren't any suitable sources to demonstrate that they meet our notability guideline for companies. I did find this snippet that mentions they are owned by Mantegazza but other than that everything was essentially an advert for the holidays. I suggest that Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways are salted (if they haven't already been) to prevent their recreation. If Melaniegravdal is able to show find sources that discuss the companies, it would be best to create an article on Mantegazza in their userspace ( at User:Melaniegravdal/draft for example) which would deal with Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways in separate sections. Melaniegravdal could then post here once that is done so that we can look over it. If we feel that it the company is notable enough and that the article is written from a neutral point of view then we can move it into the mainspace. (I indented the two comments above as the layout was a little confusing before). Smartse (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Smartse The Globus Family of Brands article followed the notability guideline for companies. Below are the referenced sources (all reliable, third-party editorial newspapers or magazines ... none, advertising) used to showcase the notable content used. (Avalon Goes Panoramic – TravelAge West: http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/river-cruise/Info/Avalon-Goes-Panoramic/; The Most Modern Ships on the Water – TravelAge West (November 2008): http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/river-cruise/Info/The-Most-Modern-Ships-on-the-Water/; Around the World in 80 Years - TravelAge West (April 2008) http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/tours/Info/Around-the-World-in-80-Years/; Globus launches student program – TravelAge West (April 2010) http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid213158.aspx?terms=*globus*; "Take them on a tour, or give them the tools to tour alone" – Travel Weekly (October 2009) http://www.travelweekly.com/article_ektid204404.aspx?terms=*globus*; Globus: 15.7 million Americans to take faith-based trips abroad – Travel Weekly (November 2007) http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid100268.aspx?terms=*globus*; Globus Hits 80 – Vacation Agent (September 2008) http://www.travelpulse.com/Resources/Article.aspx?n=790; Around the World in 80 Years – Travel Agent (August 2008) http://www.travelagentcentral.com/tours-tour-operators/globus-travel

For the Avalon Waterways page, I used the below resources (all reliable, third-party editorial newspapers or magazines ... not advertisements): NEW KID ON THE RIVER - Vacation Agent http://www.vacationagentmagazine.com/Article.aspx?n=805; AVALON IN PANORAMA - Vacation Agent http://www.vacationagentmagazine.com/Article.aspx?n=2057; AVALON BREAKS NEW GROUND WITH SUITE SHIP - USA Today http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2010/05/river-line-avalon-waterways-to-break-new-ground-with-suite-ship/94246/1; World's Best Awards - Travel+Leisure http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2010/air-cruise-more/river-cruise/27; Gold List - Conde Nast Traveler http://www.concierge.com/tools/travelawards/goldlist/2009/category/cruiselines; Best Value in River Cruising - Arthur Frommer's Budget Travel magazine (a Newsweek publication) http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2009/04/best_value_river_cruises.html

I would hope that you do not SALT salt these pages - that would be extremely questionable activity. This company has been in existence for more than 80 years, has more than 5,000 employees worldwide, operates thousands of tours and river cruises in 65 countries around the world. How is this not more notable than "Prince Poppycock?"

Melaniegravdal (talk)

I've looked over those references to determine their reliability. Travel Age West doesn't seem to fit the bill, seen here it looks like a trade magazine for travel agents. Inclusion in such a source doesn't seem to confer notability, it's for all intents and purposes a press release. The same goes for Travel Weekly, and the other publications you post. Is there any significant coverage in mainstream sources for your organization? -- Atama頭 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Atama Please see the above consumer publication references (they are national publications and in several cases, reference nationwide surveys): Travel+Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, USA Today and Budget Travel references for Avalon Waterways. And, I have further source material from other consumer sources (should you stand by your suggestion that trade publications are not reputable) including the New York Times, Miami Herald, Wall Street Journal and USA Today for the Globus family of brands - If you believe they will actually be considered for a reposting of that page, I would be happy to provide them. Thank you. [[User: Melaniegravdal|Melaniegravdal] (talk)

Well, on second review, this article at USA Today is actually the kind of coverage we look for when trying to establish notability. The Newsweek article is a short blurb and isn't really what we'd consider significant coverage. The Concierge.com mention is much along the same lines. I'm curious to see what depth of coverage is provided by the other sources you've mentioned, including the NYT and WSJ (both of those publications in particular tend to carry a lot of weight). -- Atama頭 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[{Atama]] Thank you for recognizing reputable sources. I would like to 1) look at the Avalon Waterways article and the Globus family of brands article as two separate pieces/issues and 2) Would be happy to take some time to pull further references/sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) for you. I will work on this and provide follow-up. Melaniegravdal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Atama Given your comments and questions surrounding the reputation of trade magazines for article sourcing, I have created a strong list of what Wikipedia will certainly consider notable resources for both the Globus family of brands AND Avalon Waterways articles. I have separated references per article. I hope that these extensive lists will showcase the validity of BOTH articles I submitted and put to rest any disputes. Further, I would appreciate the reinstatement of these articles and would be happy to work to make them even more neutral (and would welcome other Wiki editor/user input) and add the below strong references.

Globus family of brands article - a NEW list of resources for consideration:

• USA Today: "Family Vacations in Italy"
• [[ http://traveltips.usatoday.com/group-tours-scotland-16090.html%7CUSA Today]]: "Group Tours of Scotland"
• New York Times: "Where the Pros Are Heading"
• New York Times: "All the Roads May Lead Here but They Aren't Bringing Big Spendors"
• New York Times: "Getaways that are Guilt-Free"
• Boston Globe: "Why Go It Alone? There's a Group for You"
• USA Today: "Inspirational Religious Tours"
• Smart Money: "The Rising Cost of a Mid-Life Crisis"
• Newsweek's Budget Travel: "40 Best Vacations"

Avalon Waterways article - a NEW list of resources for consideration (IN ADDITION TO THE ALREADY NOTABLE SOURCES PROVIDED SUCH AS USA TODAY, TRAVEL+LEISURE, ETC.):

• NBC "Today Show" (National Edition): World's Best Awards: Avalon Waterways Listed as No. 2 River Cruise Company in the World
• MSNBC: "10 Over-the-Top Cruise Ships"
• Miami Herald: "The River Boom"
• USA Today: "New Options for Cruising Europe's Rivers"
• Newsweek's Budget Travel:"The Best Value in River Cruising Keeps Getting Better"
• Sherman's Travel: "Avalon Waterways to Launch New Suite Ship"
• Travel+Leisure: "Six Cool New River Cruises"
• Travel+Leisure Print Edition (April 2010): "The New Crew: A Fleet of Innovative Ships is Hitting the High Seas"

--Melaniegravdal (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it worth mentioning that, while the discussion above has all been about establishing notability, the reason for deletion in both cases was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". If notability is established then certainly it will be OK to write new articles, but it will still be essential to avoid writing them in promotional terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've actually been giving some thought to recreating Avalon Waterways myself, using some of the references given by Melanie above. I'm not convinced about the "Globus family of brands" article at this point. -- Atama頭 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to recreate/edit the Avalon Waterways article accordingly. Thank you for even considering it, Atama. And, I think the Globus family of brands article would be difficult to recreate without a balance of both the trade references provided as well as the consumer publications. If it helps - the 80th anniversary story referenced from TravelAge West - was written by a freelance writer. The other trade article of note - Vacation Agent - is written by a writer (David Cogswell) that's been in the travel industry for two or three decades (someone I think we would all consider a credible expert) and has worked for several consumer and trade publications. You can see, in that piece in particular, that information was not pulled from a press release. Regardless of the result, I've been really grateful for the constructive insight you have brought to the table. --Melaniegravdal (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting on a draft for Avalon Waterways in my user subspace, and I've copied every single reference provided for both Globus and Avalon Waterways for my own reference. I may not use them all but I'll consider them. I'm not a great article writer, I consider myself "adequate", see Hottrix for an example of an article I started from scratch and provided the bulk of content myself. I also took All You from this to this. I think that if I can get enough encylopedic stuff from these sources that I can at least create a decent stub. -- Atama頭 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your work and the update. I'm so appreciative.--Melaniegravdal (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Goldline International

• Goldline International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pluxigoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chickeecheeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Goldline, a precious metals seller, recently reported it has retained Prime Policy Group, a lobbying firm, to help with its public relations [31]. Contemporaneously, a new user with a name phonetically similar to that of the lobbying firm ( Prime Policy Group/Pluxigoop ) has begun editing that Wikipedia article making edits that seem to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative. I think Pluxigoop may have an undeclared interest in this topic. They have no other edits to other articles. I am not a party to this. I do not edit the article. Abe Froman (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the single-purpose nature of the account and the similarity of name is enough to cast suspicion, but not a slam dunk. I've looked at the editor's contributions and I do see a positive slant. There were mistakes made initially, including copypasta copyright violations, but the editor has improved. The editor's contributions on the talk page of the article seem okay. If there's a COI here, and it's likely, it's one of the less-disruptive ones I've seen. I'll leave a template on the editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A brand new editor, Chickeecheeze, with no other edits except to this article, suddenly appeared on Goldline International. As with the previous, now dormant editor, their edits only accentuate the positive and minimize the negative on this article. I believe that a PR Firm is editing this article on behalf of Goldline, and has learned and adapted by not using an obvious username for their next single-article editor. I know I must always AGF, but editors with single-minded opinions and single-interests rarely appear sequentially on barely trafficked articles. Abe Froman (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock case opened. [32] Abe Froman (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Galpin

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

I assessed the article as stub-class, after which the editor contacted me and told me that they have created the article on the subject's request. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Article is rubbish, I've removed most of the content as unsourced. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This article was nominated for deletion. The relevant entry may be found here. Netalarm^talk 03:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Many of the editor's contributions to articles are insertions of trivia that are off-topic and only act to promote Galpin. I'll go through their contributions and make removals as necessary, and log examples here. I will say that I'm gratified that Rwap was courteous enough to inform us of their intentions. -- Atama頭 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that this editor has inserted links to RWAP Adventures, which is a division of the RWAP Services company. Apparently even this person's username is a violation of WP:ORGNAME, and so far all of the edits I've seen that don't promote Galpin are in some way promoting RWAP. -- Atama頭 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits promoting Alistair Galpin:

• Maltesers
• Champagne (wine)
• High five
• Chopsticks
• Glove
• Baseball glove
• Axe
• Clothes hanger
• Ernest Edward Galpin
• Spitting
• Champagne in popular culture
• Pea

Those are the articles where Rwap has promoted Galpin, there are sometimes multiple edits to some of the articles (either to update the information or edit war to reinsert the promotional language). Every single contribution that Rwap has made to Wikipedia either promote RWAP products (including 3 deleted articles about games created by RWAP Adventures, Sinclair QL Funfear, Sinclair QL Horrorday, and The Prawn), or promote Alastair Galpin, or are arguments defending the promotion of one or the other. I'm indefinitely hard-blocking this editor as a promotional-only account with an inappropriate username, and will be cleaning any remaining promotion out of articles they've contributed to. -- Atama頭 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Porter

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

Article is very biased, and was created by a user who has the exact same content on their userpage. Sorry - I don't know what I've done wrong with this post, it doesn't look right. But Porter is primarily noted (notorious, actually) as a dolphin trafficker, not for anything mentioned in the article. There's an unflattering bio of him showing on TV this week, which is probably why the article was created. 207.216.185.111 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with the bias. It's also not sourced very well. I'm not sure if the editor meant to out himself as the article subject or not. Having a biography on the user page seems to at least imply that the editor is Christopher Porter, but it might have been just a copy of the article as a hedge against losing data if the article was deleted (there was a BLPPROD tag added to the article at one point). It's hard to say, at least one other editor assumed that the article was an autobiography and left a template about that on NoteMyVote's talk page. Our BLP policy puts the highest standards for accuracy on a biography of a living person, so the details of the article should be verified and changed or expanded if necessary. If that ultimately leads to a less positive article, then WP:LUC applies. -- Atama頭 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it was quite biased, but I'm not seeing any particular evidence of COI. I have had a brief look at the article in an attempt to add balance, but there is definitely more to be done, and I will work on it further later. --Korruski (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quiet Riot

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

Official Quiet Riot (talk · contribs) is claiming to be an officiall representative of the band, and is demanding no "corrections" or "vandalism" of the article be done. I have reveted, and explained WP:OWN and WP:COI to them. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor is now using the Pinkmermaid account, per this and Pinkmermaid's recent edits at Talk:Quiet Riot which seem to mirror the comments made by Official Quiet Riot earlier, though it seems weird as others have pointed out that Pinkmermaid has been around for years and hasn't shown interest in any Quiet Riot subjects before, and Official Quiet Riot never stated that they were changing their name or account. Either way, Official Quiet Riot has been indefinitely blocked, which is good because the username was a violation of WP:ORGNAME. Pinkmermaid is now the person to deal with, and they are engaging in talk page discussion which is a good thing (much better than just reverting everyone who edits the article). -- Atama頭 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Diabetic Rockstar Inc

• Diabetic Rockstar Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ctdiabetic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No edits outside this article, CT matches the initials of the website's stated author Christopher Thomas. Definitely passes notability threshold due to non-trivial coverage in a Reader's Digest article, but would like a review to be sure article is NPOV compliant.2 says you, says two 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the COI with the editor. Overall the article seems okay, it's not overly promotional, it doesn't look like an ad, etc. I removed the "Brand" and "Management" sections as neither one was encyclopedic at all, and did a bunch of minor cleanup. I made the references consistent though they should be redone to a proper citation style. Again, I don't see any real NPOV problems, the article basically just describes what the company is about. -- Atama頭 23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryder Ripps

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

Anonymous IPs consistently edit this article, removing fansite/notability/AFD article tags, adding weak citations, and otherwise making grandiose statements. To me this is a pretty clear case of WP:COI and I'll be watching the article closely.--Jamiew (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't a case of COI at all. I'll repeat here what I said earlier on this page in response to a similar report:

You're objecting to what you perceive as a violation of WP:NPOV, which is independent from WP:COI. Numerous editors have difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view when editing particular topics (or even all topics), without having any sort of conflict of interest. The opposite is true, there are editors who have a conflict of interest yet manage to maintain neutrality in their edits (I really admire those people). We have a separate noticeboard for editors trying to push a POV, WP:POVN. It's a very common mistake to make here unfortunately. -- Atama頭 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this feels like COI, even though there's no direct evidence. The username and IP addresses who started the article and have contributed most of its content all appear to only edit material related to Ripps and his projects: Special:Contributions/Guydebordgame, Special:Contributions/74.64.15.187, Special:Contributions/74.72.179.45, Special:Contributions/72.231.25.66. The simplest explanation for this is COI. But it doesn't really matter who edited the article — it could use some neutral eyes to evaluate the sourcing (mostly blog posts right now), verifiability, and notability, and see if the article should stand as it is. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel G. Amen

• Daniel G. Amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 69.178.132.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.211.208.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.178.132.146 is registered to the Amen Clinic, and exclusively edits the page on Dr. Amen, without consulting the discussion page despite multiple requests. Many of the changes made by 69.178.132.146 appear to be advertisements, uncited or just generally non-notable miscellanea that would be more appropriate on a resume than on wikipedia. For example, it is not necessary for the article to contain a list of every abstract of every single article ever published by Dr. Amen. Glaucus (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd already cleaned it up pretty well, I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't continue. There had also made edits to Amen Clinic, which I've also reverted as they were not neutral. No one had given them a COI template until now, I'll also draw them to here and thereby advise them to limit any further edits to the talk pages on the respective articles, rather than editing the articles directly per WP:BESTCOI. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Another IP has come along and made the similar edits. Smartse (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Griffin2902

• William Griffin Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Greg Colson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peter Wegner (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liza Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deanna Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Griffin2902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, who signs some of the files he uploads "William Griffin Gallery"[!], has created or extensively edited articles not only about the gallery of that name, but also about various artists whom the gallery has exhibited, in some cases sourcing the articles to catalogs published by the gallery as well. Orange Mike | Talk 19:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional user name

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

This user's name seems to be promoting an online company (and he/she has made a CSD'ed article of the same nature). I wasn't sure what to do, so I simply left a note on the user's talk page indicating that the username might be promotional and came here. Clementina talk 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd already reported this one to Usernames for administrator attention, names which exactly match the name of a business the user's edits are promoting are generally blocked as a violation of the username policy. January (Cassandra 73) ^talk 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks so much, January. :) Sincerely, Clementina talk 12:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron Holloway

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

This editor, who openly admits to being the subject of the article, has highjacked what was previously an article and is insisting on turning this into an autobiographical essay with his own carefully-polished self-decriptions ("the wording, which I have been refining for many years is ALL mine"). He refuses to comply with WP:COI, and ignores WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and all other principles and guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Untrue. Problem: 2 years ago, I was still a new editor, and noticing User:Ronsax making newbie mistakes attempting to edit and add to his own article, I remembered him from 30 years ago- though was only introduced and that was it! We have not seen each other since that time. I contacted an Admin. first (User:Aleta) to be sure that Wikipedia recognized that Ron Holloway was editing his own article. The only conflict of interest I have is cleaning up that article, mainly because I was foolish enough to "adopt" him back when I was far too new here myself, but I'm busy! Holloway simply doesn't understand the guidelines no matter how hard I try to explain them. Yesterday he did contact me and I said he is going to have to work hard to learn inline referencing on that article, etc. or I will not help.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "Untrue", did you mean "True"? All your subsequent comments seem to confirm the truth of the COI report (the report does not claim that you have a COI problem). I do not have time to fix it at the moment, but someone will have to remove puffery like "known for his love of a sweeping breadth and knowledge of jazz, his genial manner sitting in with various bands, his eclectic tastes in music" (which is in the lead) – we just do not use language like that. I am watching the article and may get to it later. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly nobody is accusing you on this article, Leah; the record shows you've tried to help Ron and he just doesn't seem to get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped Ronsax a link to WP:NPSK. --JN466 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Path Solutions

was an article about a company and that was created by User:Path123, whose username is clearly styled after the article itself (note that I did report him to UAA but was declined). If someone could do a general cleanup of the article to reduce the promotional tone and support it with more references, that would help with the coi. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Vidya Academy of Science and Technology

• Vidya Academy of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Krishnachandranvn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shows a severe WP:OWN problem; his/her edits to the article talk page very strongly imply a publicity relationship with the Academy. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)