Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:American Council on Education Talk:Anaxam Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Black Diamond Equipment Talk:Breyers Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Collodion process Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Rebekah Dawson Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Vladislav Doronin Talk:Drama Juniors Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Bruce M. McLaren Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Douglas Anthony Cooper

I have done my best to avoid an edit war with Douglas Anthony Cooper, the subject, creator, and editor of that page. Unfortunately, because I suggested that he is insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia page, he is now engaging in a campaign of harassment against me, including wikihounding, personal attacks, false accusations, and outing of personal information. You can view the conversation on my talk page and Cooper's bio article. (As the author has identified himself on my talk page, I don't feel there's any WP:Privacy issue in identifying him by name here.)

Mr. Cooper has publicly stated that he doesn't care about maintaining the page, he's only interested in stopping "PETA thugs" from "vandalizing" his page. (I'm not affiliated with PETA in any way, and do not support them, so his paranoid announcement that he's the target of a PETA conspiracy is a little bewildering. I've been assuming this is a rational individual, but that outburst gives me serious pause.) The edits he's made are clearly driven by self-interest and spite rather than a desire to improve Wikipedia.

Unlike Mr. Cooper, I honestly don't have any ego invested in this. If the community deems the subject notable, I'm absolutely fine with that. However, I'm not okay with him generating his own self-promoting pages and attacking anyone who dares to edit or question them.

The following pages of questionable notability and definite conflict of interest were created by Mr. Cooper:

• Douglas Anthony Cooper
• Milrose Munce and the Den of Professional Help (novel)
• Delirium (Cooper novel)
• Amnesia (novel)

I've been extremely patient with this individual, and I would appreciate the intervention of more rational editors or an admin before this degenerates further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDopp (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• When I saw how he's been wikihounding and harassing you, I almost became physically ill. I have trimmed a lot of the WP:PEACOCK and unsourced assertions from his article and restored the vandalized tags, and have also taken him to AN/I on your behalf [1]. Please do not remove any of his edits from your talk page, so that the admins can see just how vicious he has been. I feel very sorry that you have had to suffer all of this. I will continue to monitor the situation. Qworty (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty: where do I enter into a discussion here? You are simply unaware of the facts here, and if I have to bring forty witnesses on board, I shall: John Schiff is NOTORIOUS for his thuggery on behalf of PETA and HSUS. "I'm not affiliated with PETA in any way, and do not support them, so his paranoid announcement that he's the target of a PETA conspiracy is a little bewildering." This is, quite simply, false. It is counterfactual. It is a lie. And I intend to demonstrate this.

If it makes you physically ill, then it is because you imagine that I am somehow tormenting a poor innocent soul. Nothing could be further from the case. If necessary, I'll collect quotations from around the web to demonstrate what precisely we are dealing with here.

He knows nothing about me as an author, and I expect had never heard of me prior to his discovery that I was writing an expose of PETA. I am happy to have this entry removed -- I have tried to remove it myself -- but not by this man.

THi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.186.149 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have observed Mr. Cooper being harassed by Mr. Schiff in other venues, always in the context of cruelty to animals. Note: I may have a COI because I have read books written by Mr. Cooper. Pdworkin

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

Apology, I am in error. I have read argumentative comments following Mr. Cooper's articles on PETA in the Huffington Post, but his interlocutors were people other than John Schiff. I made a faulty assumption because I have seen Mr. Schiff duelling with others on this subject. Apparantly I have been called a "sock puppet" in a discussion of these posts, a tendentious and false accusation, but the facticious, unsourced and combative nature of the accusation accurately represent Mr. Schiff's style as I have come to know it.

Pdworkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the page and see that the accustation wa made by an individual named "Quorty" whom I do not know.

Pdworkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming a nightmare straight out of Kafka: I just tried to remove the entire entry -- yet again -- and *it won't let me.* Please: take it down. I would much rather it weren't there, despite Schiff's assertion that I've written the entire thing myself. (The Wikipedia process is maddening. But at least I'll get a good article out of it, by the end of which John Doppler Schiff himself will be quite notable.)

189.148.186.149 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents here (without having read much of the above discussion). Cooper is notable as an author, but the page Douglas Anthony Cooper is too long; the article would be improved by shortening it considerably. I imagine the articles about books would have problems too. Also, people please learn to sign your posts, and use proper formating (indenting).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

JohnDopp, given the amount of time and energy you spend on Facebook railing against no kill and anyone who supports it, it's safe to assume that your issue with this author, who supports no kill, is probably not about his notability or the integrity of wikipedia. The notability issue has already been discussed. Ad nauseam. Drop it. You are wasting people's time with your disingenuous flag and this inane conversation. If you don't want to feel harrassed, stop harrassing others. Atelantix (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The *only* action I've taken was the inclusion of the notability tag on his bio article, which was not unreasonable and was not motivated by malice. I've commented on one of Cooper's blogs in the past, and for some reason, he now thinks I'm a "PETA thug" who's out to get him. At no time have I harassed him, and I've tried from the start to resolve this dispute amicably and impartially. I've certainly done nothing to warrant the outing of my personal information or the personal attacks that were launched at me, no matter how the subject of the article feels about my personal life or the content of my Facebook posts.

And if you'll note, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the no-kill debate. I've made very few edits to no-kill topics: it's not my focus. (Not that it's relevant, but I support no-kill efforts, I just question some of the methods of achieving those goals. And equally irrelevant, I do NOT work for PETA or any other animal welfare organization. The paranoid delusion that I'm some Terminator for PETA who's out to get Cooper for his support of no-kill is getting a little disturbing. Write your little article, Mr. Cooper, but keep Wikipedia neutral and factual, please.)

In the meantime, my thanks to those with cooler heads who have stepped in to improve the article. JohnDopp (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I imagine JohnDopp agrees with me that it's in everyone's best interests to see this decided very soon. He is not opposed to No Kill, as he says, and if the article remains tagged, then it casts doubt upon Cooper's work, and even more importantly upon the on-going critique of shelter killing. This makes Wikipedia a vehicle for propaganda, and nobody wants that.

If the entry on Douglas Cooper is removed as insufficiently notable that would be fine. If its neutrality is approved and he is considered notable then that's also fine. It's the in-between state that makes Wikipedia a tool for people who wish to discredit the No Kill movement, and as I said, nobody here including JohnDopp wants to see that.

I have to say that Cooper is one of the most honest writers I've read, and a man's profession is being slandered. I think we all agree that this needs to be resolved immediately. We either lift those flags or take the articles down.

I'm glad that cooler heads have prevailed, and I think this could be decided very quickly. Has the entry even been submitted for proper review, so that a definitive decision can be made? Can I do it myself? Those tags discredit both Mr. Cooper and No Kill, and I think we all agree that Wikipedia should not be taking sides in an important debate about animal welfare. CandaceWare (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

This doesn't appear to me to be "an important debate about animal welfare" at all. It appears to be a debate as to whether Douglas Anthony Cooper meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines which would justify us having an article about him. I suggest that all concerned address that issue, which is the only relevant one here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the edits to Mr. Cooper's entry, Johndopp has repeatedly flagged Mr. Cooper's page as to his notability. If one reads back through all of the edits to the entry, it would appear that Mr. Cooper's notability as a writer is well-established. Whatever undercurrent that may be at play here, it is surely unconscionable to allow for this repeated flagging. It is my hope that Wikipedia will quickly arrive at a decision regarding this manner, so that Mr. Cooper's entry will either appear or disappear, but no longer hang in limbo. If Wikipedia decides that Mr. Cooper's achievements merit an entry, then I sincerely hope they will prevent Johndopp from further mischief in this realm. (larkinvonalt/talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkinvonalt (talk • contribs)

"If one reads back through all of the edits to the entry, it would appear that Mr. Cooper's notability as a writer is well-established". Nope. See WP:AUTHOR - I can see nothing in the article as it stands that establishes - via sources that meet Wikipedia requirements - that Cooper meets the guidelines. If you disagree, then tell us what has he actually done that specifically meets our guidelines - and provide a verifiable third-party source to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I'll leave the legwork up to the Wikipedia staff who will ultimately arbitrate this issue. But it would seem to me that someone whom Michiko Kakutani (of the New York Times) compared to Nabokov in a highly favorable review (in the New York Times) is at least somewhat notable. Also, Mr. Cooper's tenure at New York Magazine, the Village Voice and so forth also speaks to a level of accomplishment not achieved by so many writers. And of course, there is the instance of Mr. Cooper's second novel, Delirium, being the first serialized fiction on the internet. But what really strikes me as pertinent to this whole issue is that when Mr. Cooper himself asked Wikipedia to remove the entry about him (due to a stalking situation) his request was refused on the basis that he was too notable to be excluded. In any case, like yourself, I hope that this issue is decided with some alacrity, so that all involved may get on with other things in their lives. (larkinvonalt/talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkinvonalt (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone mind/think it was a good idea, if I took a swing at the article as an uninvolved editor? Fayedizard (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please ping me on my talk if you choose to do so while the AfD is open. It would likely change my vote there to have an uninvolved, experienced editor working it. --Nouniquenames 05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have smacked the article around a little bit... (looking at the history it appears I ran over John in the process - apologies) I've also proposed merging Amnesia_(novel) into the article and comments on this would be welcome. Ideally it could probably do with *another* uninvolved editor looking over my shoulder, but I'm pretty done now.Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly much improved. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-ups

...and to look at this COI conversation overall - the relevant page is templated, and the article is now on more watchlists, which I suspect terminates most of the original purpose of this thread. The two logical 'wash-up' actions I can see happening are a) a COI look at John on the Humane_Society_of_the_United_States page and b) seeing if people might want to open a SPI at the various accounts at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Anthony_Cooper - do people think either (or both) of these are reasonable... Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin having dealt with this article for a very long time, and having dealt with subject both then and now, I do not think an SPI will be either productive or in our interests. It will all be forgotten and back to normal when the AfD is over. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd love to see what an SPI/CU would show. That said, I'm not convinced of socking necessarily, so the best we could find would be meatpuppets. Given that, zzuuzz may be on to something. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Four of the individuals in question are known to me personally, and I can say with assurance that they are meatpuppets here specifically at Cooper's request; I do not personally believe that anyone involved in the editing of the article is a sockpuppet, despite the rampant WP:COI. I'm inclined to agree with zzuuzz: this will likely blow over once the AfD is closed. We've got a pretty solid consensus for "keep" now thanks to the cleanup (and a grateful tip of the hat to Fayedizard for the most recent work), the meatpuppets are losing interest, and the original concerns about the article have largely been resolved. Let's stick a fork in it. Regarding COI concerns on the HSUS pages, I'm happy to have another set of eyes look over my edits. I have considerable expertise with the history of the HSUS and its opposition groups and have a reputation for being outspoken and active on these topics on the internet, but I am not employed by or affiliated with any animal welfare organization, including HSUS. I do maintain a blog at humanewatch.info dedicated to confronting an opposition group, but I have not referenced that site in any way on Wikipedia and have endeavored to keep all my edits neutral and encyclopedic. If you believe I've strayed outside those guidelines or that my status as a blog owner warrants a COI disclosure, please let me know. I'm still finding my footing as an editor, and I welcome any feedback that helps me to improve. Thanks! -- JohnDopp (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

John, if you are involved with humanewatch.info then you have a very clear COI with respect to the Center for Consumer Freedom and I see you have made at least one problematic edit with respect to that organization. This conflict of interest would obviously extend to material on that organization in other articles, Humane Society of the United States for instance. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Two things. 1: It was referenced. 2: You appear to be a {{spa}}. We've been having a grand old time sitting around the campfire and singing kumbaya. Please either disclose your own COI (or POV, if you prefer) or avoid re-opening this wonderful barrel of fun. It's already been through this venue, AfD (closed), ANI, and a SPI (still open). --Nouniquenames 05:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I am clearly not an SPA. I have no COI or even POV in this area, and I can't see how you can possibly conclude that from my edits. Referenced edits can obviously be problematic, as that one was. I am not trying to reopen anything, just addressing an obvious issue that should have been pointed out by the regulars here. Nothing more needs to be said other than that JohnDopp should follow WP:COI with respect to edits relating to the Center for Consumer Freedom. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if my glance at the 20 contributions attributed to your IP address led me to an incorrect assumption. --Nouniquenames 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept your non-apology. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad B*tch Club

• Bad B*tch Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ChrisPeacock111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I edited the page which i created and took down information i found out was incorrect and updated it with new information and cited my sources, added a reference table and updated the episode guide. I continue to get a message that it is "nonconstructive" which is very irritating because i made this page and added new information.

Colin_Turner_(author)

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

I have checked the latest version, updated ISBN details, there is nothing to suggest this article needs deleting. There is no evidence of self-promotion only genuine information with updated information of ISBN'S and titles published by foreign publishers. RoniTurner (User RoniTurner) 9th October 2012 11.59 —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roni - thank you for getting in touch, it's always much easier when people do, and I'm sure you can help us - the problem here is not do much that the needs to be evidence to delete the article - it's more that we're not able to find any evidence that the article should have existed in the first place... it's really hard to find sources that back up any of the claims in the article - can you give us details of books that arn't self published for example? Or more attention in the media (The scotsman article is a start but it's really not enought on it's own)? Fayedizard (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article seems fully written by Roni Turner, to reflect on the works of the author Colin Turner. Looks like self-promotion within a family... (unsigned comment by IP user)

I just started some work in this and ended up prod-ing it - everything I tried to check unraveled underneath me...  :( Fayedizard (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, an IP has removed the Prod - would anyone mind taking a quick look and giving a verdict on the article? Fayedizard (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And following on from that - I went though again today and found that most of the books turn out to be self-published - I've got to the point of nomination for deletion, comments welcome.Fayedizard (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Luke-Jr

Luke-Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user continues to push controversial changes to Bitcoin as a developer of the current mainstream Bitcoin protocol, Bitcoind. This is shown here: https://github.com/luke-jr Please act on this at your discretion.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As further evidence, Luke-Jr is logged in on #Bitcoin-dev @ irc.freenode.net--HowardStrong (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This all smells like an attempt of gaming the system to me. I doubt anyone ever intended COI to imply developers of X are disallowed from making edits to X at all. HowardStrong, on the other hand, seems to be trying to push for a change to the standard BTC symbol via Wikipedia. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I have not. I have accepted the symbol that only you have claimed as standard though. B⃦ is your invention and google will show that. --HowardStrong (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article and these two editors have a checkered history, including reports at WP:ANEW and at WP:ANI ([2]). There appears to be some forum shopping, although Howard did not bring the EW reports, only the ANI report. I tend to agree that Howard appears to be using boards to advance his preferred version of the article. Procedurally, at least, Howard has not behaved well in his editing of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. My behavior is irrelevant. Luke-Jr has attempted to be a major force in this article as a developer with no initial discussion. I always leave discussion up for my major edits. I am open to having them questioned and removed. Luke-Jr hardly ever discusses his preferred changes on the talk page.--HowardStrong (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that User:HowardStrong is an WP:SPA interested only in editing Bitcoin page; while per se being WP:SPA means almost nothing, it would be great to get a clear statement from User:HowardStrong about his own WP:COI (or lack of WP:COI) on Bitcoin. Ipsign (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sulake

• Sulake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Michaels541

Based on edits to the Sulake article by the user Michaels541, and concerns made by another editor, Michaels541 may be an employee of Sulake Corporation. This is also based on his other edits, some of which may even be considered vandalism, also indicating newness to the encyclopedia. GSK ● talk ● evidence 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - after waking up and having a more sane mind, I found that the editor copied information from Sulake's own website (especially http://www.sulake.com/press/awards/ and the profiles for each of their games)... This might mean that he doesn't work for Sulake, and it might be a slightly more innocent case of copying directly from the Internet, by an unaffiliated third party. Maybe he's just out to make the world a less critical place or something. Definitely doesn't rule out COI though. I copied (cross-posted) this message from GSK's talk page. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So...--GSK ● talk ● evidence 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This one could use a lot more eyes, so I'm hoping other editors will go have a look. User:Michaels541 is a WP:SPA with an evident WP:COI who is determined to put unsourced material into the article and delete well-sourced material. Since he is an inexperienced user, the consensus of experienced editors is required in this matter. Qworty (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reported this user to WP:AIV. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the moment I have blocked Michaels541 for three days for disruptive editing of various kinds, including removing this section from this page. However, I am by no means convinced that this will be the end of the matter, so if anyone else has any contributions to make I don't think they should hold off because of the current block. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this will be the end of the issue either. I'll continue to watch the Habbo and Sulake articles, especially for any sockpuppet behavior. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(I hope I can still do this without a psuedonym. Please say if I need to register to give my opinion.) His unwillingness to open a meaningful discussion proves to me that this isn't a slightly more innocent case of copying directly from the Internet as I thought earlier. In addition to this, the aggressive edit warring proves this further in my eyes. I have nothing against actions taken so far against him. I'll continue keeping an eye on proceedings, as I've been requested to do. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

dotConnectAfrica (again)

• DotConnectAfrica

For the general information of the board. a PR statement on behalf of dotConnectAfrica appeared in the last seven days

The previous threads on this board are Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_59#DotConnectAfrica and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_59#DotConnectAfrica_2.

I'm posting here because a) all the relevant details should end up on this board at some point and b) this is the first COI I've been involved with that has off-wiki correspondence and I'm unsure of the what next action would be.Fayedizard (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Lisamcgrillis

The User:Lisamcgrillis appears to have a conflict of interest on the Lisa McGrillis she (or maybe he) isn't reponding to questions on the Lisa McGrillis talk page and also not on the talk page of the account. also there are questions about if she is the real Lisa McGrillis or not Redalert2fan (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The user has been notified and hopefully will make their way over here at some point (they asked a question at the help desk today. Can I assume we sit on this until the open deletion discussion closes? Fayedizard (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that she asked for help (finaly), we will wait until she responds Redalert2fan (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dorfman

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

The article was written and expanded by user:Lamerkhav he put various personal pictures[3] in the article that are not freely available hence I have put a COI tag .The user dispute this[4].I like community input of this matter.Also it would be good if someone could cleanup the article. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery as it is in appropriate for a bio article - this isn't Facebook.--ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Stefan Kanchev

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

Subject is dead; not sure whether editor of the same name is an heir/descendant, or just a big fan. Fawning descriptions from texts, fulsome praise: a hagiography. Sadly, I don't read Bulgarian, so I don't know to what extent this is cherry-picking from the sources. Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Keyblade5

• Keyblade5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user inserted references to papers by a research into a number of articles this morning. At least some are probably relevant, but others appear to be less than ideal RS. Would any editors more familiar with the field be interested in taking a look? a13ean (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Royal Stratford East

• Theatre Royal Stratford East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stratfordeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.36.224.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.39.185.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

More eyes requested on this article, which had been static for some time when first one IP, then Stratfordeast, then the other IP began adding large amounts of promotional-style material, some at least copied from the theatre's website. I have semi-protected for 24 hours, reverted to the pre-COI version, and written a long explanation of copyvio, COI, NPOV, Wikipedia-is-not-your-noticeboard etc to Stratfordeast, suggesting he change his username and inviting him to propose changes to the article on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Company

• Tomorrow's Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clare500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Clare500 is busily making edits to the article Tomorrow's Company which are written partly in a first-person style, and which have the overall effect of making the article into a press release for the company. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the user's additions reveal that they are blatant copyvios from the company's website. I'll warn them about that. --Drm310 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted but then recreated by the editor listed. It's up for speedy again and because the editor has failed to respond to notices, I think a block is in order. --Drm310 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And now the editor has deleted the speedy tag; someone else nom'd it for AfD. --Drm310 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now the page has been deleted and salted temporarily. I'm going to quit doing a play-by-play! --Drm310 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

• HubSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• NetBase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SMS Audio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Honeywell Turbo Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Corporate Minion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since my COI is declared and confirmed, should this discussion be moved here?

Cantaloupe2 has made some mass deletions[5][6] on articles where I have helped the company contribute with a COI, where I would have been willing to improve the article based on his feedback. Additionally he removed an image that went through proper OTRS copyright channels[7]. His tone and editing behavior seems to suggest he sort of has it out for me, but his feedback is not entirely unreasonable and - like any Wikipedia article - the articles could use improvement.

I am not in communication with these organizations and don't have an active COI, but I do want to defend and improve the articles. Some like NetBase were written a year-and-a-half ago and would have been better if I wrote them today and some of his trimming is warranted. OTOH, I'm not interested in going through a six-month {{request edit}} process for year-old projects. Would it be Kosher for me to revert his mass deletions, improve and ask for feedback? What should I do? It doesn't seem like there is an opportunity for a reasonable collaboration with Cant, a relatively new editor with a confrontational approach to things. Corporate 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is inappropriate that you blatantly disregard Wikipedia policies and start his discussion on me without notifying me as you're required to do so per WP:COIN. For someone with your level of experience and calling me for "relatively new" you should know that this in unacceptable.

1.)verifiability through reliable, independent sourcesis expected. 2.) Simply because the verifiability criteria are met doesn't mean they should be included. Many references you cite come from disreputable sources, verbatim publication of subject's own press release, personal websites, blogs, etc. In HubSpot you utilized bombardment to make it seem as if they're more notable and important than they really are. Many references were disreputable or originated from the HubSpot itself. Company pages on Wikipedia is not a private space for their PR agent to WP:PROMO as they wish. If you do not like what I have to do, I suggest you start an RfC seeking outside opinion, as I have done in at least one case.

Cherry picking flattering facts to exhibit about company and adding many buzzwords to raise the article's search engine results page status in favor of your clients is a clear conflict of interest.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think (hope) that Cantaloupe and I have found a reasonable agreement for civility and AGF on our respective Talk pages. He is actually making a lot of neutrality tweaks I appreciate, in particular to articles I wrote years ago that were not very good. We may still have a few bumps to work out, but I think we will be able to work them out and in fact he will help improve a lot of my prior works. Corporate 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)