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:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:City of Whittlesea 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:Drama Juniors Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Hempel Group Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land 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:Media.Monks Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oasis Management Talk:OneHope Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Subject removing cited birth date from article

Resolved

 – This may either be a COI, or vandalism. My suggestion would be do keep doing what you're doing and if it continues consider requesting page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed in the article about Bob Brinker that a dynamic IP from Henderson, Nevada (the city where the person lives) has been removing the birth date from the article despite the date cited to the Who's Who in America directory. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Chuck DeVore

Resolved

 – Per Smartse below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

These edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] seem kinda problematic. See also this and, especially, this prior warning. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those edits are problematic. User:Qworty has already tidied up the article, Chuckdevore replaced a lot of it sourcing it to http://chuckdevore.com/aboutchuck.html. As a community we are fairly in agreement that subjects shouldn't write their own articles and therefore I reverted these edits. Some of the content could probably belong in the article, but it should reference secondary sources and be added by someone else. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

California Lutheran University

• California Lutheran University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drdemartino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor (who I've introduced to Wikipedia a bit because I volunteer with the education program) is interested in becoming a campus volunteer. They would like input at Talk:California_Lutheran_University#Lots_of_Disclosure. Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ExxonMobil

• Dickson, Virgil (March 20, 2013). "Corporate comms execs pick their battles on Wikipedia". PRWeek. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

This article states:

ExxonMobil, one of BP's rivals, says it strictly follows Wikipedia procedures to not alter its page. Instead, its staff clearly identifies itself when reaching out to editors and focuses on specific errors that can be easily proven wrong, such as an incorrect number. Bigger requests can be viewed as more subjective in nature. “There's a lot of information on there that's not true or factual,” explains Alan Jeffers, media relations manager at ExxonMobil. “However, it's impossible to prove a negative.”
— Dickson, Virgil (March 20, 2013). "Corporate comms execs pick their battles on Wikipedia". PRWeek. Retrieved 29 March 2013.

Looking at Talk:ExxonMobil, and the 2 archives: 1 and 2, I don't see anyone explicitly identified. Also, there is no {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page. Am I missing something, or is the article wrong?Smallman12q (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toh Aik Choon

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toh Aik Choon (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toh Aik Choon|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Toh Aik Choon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not necessarily an autobiography, but a conflict of interest may be in place, especially considering the username involved. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am the employee of ACT Holdings Pte Ltd, a company founded by Mr Toh Aik Choon himself. I've been tasked to do a wikipedia input from Mr AC Toh's son, who is now the owner and managing director of the group. We will be most appreciative if you can allow the article which is by no means any conflict with anybody. All materials have not been plagiarized or is fictitious. For clarifications, we can be contacted via details on the website www.act-holdings.com.sg. Thank you - C.Y Lim Toh Aik Choon (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the proposed article in question is on OP's talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with MicroStrategy, Michael J. Saylor

Last fall, User:Dreamyshade identified problems with several articles related to the company MicroStrategy and posted about it on this noticeboard (see here). As she correctly noted, someone from the company was editing directly, and the resulting articles were well outside of Wikipedia guidelines. Since then I've agreed to work with the company on a consulting basis, and I've prepared written replacements for two: one about the company MicroStrategy (current article | proposed version | Talk proposal) and another about CEO co-founder, Michael J. Saylor (current article | proposed version | Talk proposal).

It's always my goal to follow Jimbo's "bright line" and not edit directly, however I need a bit more assistance than I've been able to find so far. Since first posting my drafts two weeks back, I've had positive responses from Dreamyshade, User:FurrySings and a mixed take on the company article from User:Qwyrxian, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to get a follow-up response from any. FurrySings thought the Saylor article was ready to go and suggested I move it, but I won't for reasons stated. Perhaps that's a good place to start: is anyone willing to review the Saylor article and draft and comment on whether it's ready to move? I'm happy to continue this conversation here or on one of the article Talk pages, just let me know. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

would you be willing to put a {{user page}} tag on that page? I've brought up my concern about WP:MIRRORs on the conflict of interest policy talk page, and feel it is a best practice. Personally I think the draft you have here is a significant improvement over the current page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello UseTheCommandLine, I'm perfectly happy adding {{user page}}, and I've just done so on both drafts. Your concern about them appearing on mirrors without the proper disclaimer makes sense to me. (And I'll do the same with other drafts as well.) About the draft being an improvement: is it the Saylor draft you looked at, and whichever the case, any more specific feedback? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fondation Carmignac

Resolved

 – User blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fondation Carmignac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fondation Carmignac 24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Very obvious COI, username is the same name as the article. User has been warned of his username on his talk page. User has also removed the COI tag once. ToastyMallows (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and what is more, this seems to be a sockpuppet account, evading a block on User:Fondation Carmignac, so I have indefinitely blocked the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing with a twist

Folks, a recent e-mail to OTRS brought this to our attention. In an e-mail exchange between this individual and the e-mailer, he claims to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500."

Not sure there is much we can do without further data, so I am just bringing this here for wider attention.--ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on a search for that guy's name, I think I'll call bullshit on the fact that he has an admin on staff. I just hope that the person who emailed hasn't handed anything over. User:Joseph Chinnock was created last week though and is spammy. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the chap who e-mailed OTRS was just letting us know.--ukexpat (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the lulz. Like having an admin "on staff" would help with anything. I know 200 and none of them listen to me §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Admins? Aren't those the guys that take 18 months to get back to you about a problem? Qworty (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mad Men commentary from Kritic

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

COI-spamming on numerous Mad Men articles by the above IPs. Comments left on the article talk page suggest that the IPs are associated with the links in question unitcritic.blogspot.com SFK2 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Rappaport

User is clearly editing his own article.

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Finkellium (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Left a {{uw-autobiography}} notice on his talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

C-Murder

User names and edit histories suggest that these users may be related in some way to the subject of the article:

• C-Murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cmurdertru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trucmurder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edits marked as minor, new username apparently created after talk feedback to the first, and so on... -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy

• Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iconography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Epiphanius of Salamis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• History of the Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yeoberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yeoberry is edit-warring to add a paper by "John B. Carpenter" to the above articles. When Doug Weller asked the editor if he has any connection to John B. Carpenter the editor, via an IP, reverted his message: User talk:Yeoberry: Difference between revisions Revision as of 16:38, 18 March 2013 174.53.88.54.

Specifically Doug had asked him:

Yeoberry, it's not just me asking this - have you any relationship to the Covenant Reformed Baptist Church? It's a yes/no question and just requires a bit of honesty and openness. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

and

And the creation of an article about its pastor (edit summaries "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter" and "Description of John B. Carpenter" with a lot of detail but no sources suggests you do. There's no shame in saying you have a COI but hiding a major COI is a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition the paper he is edit-warring to add across many articles is non-existent in Google Scholar. He is also engaging in personal attacks against me in his edit-summaries, accusing me of COI and for not "having enough expertise", and on his messages on my talk. Please see also Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church: Challenge to Claim to Continuity with the Early Church. He also created another article on his church which was also deleted. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "edit-warring." There is a recent article, just published, entitled, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013. It's an academic article from a peer-reviewed journal. Properly cited information from it was added to a few relevant wikipedia articles, such as about icons. Dr. K removed that information for no appropriate reason. He didn't try to edit or condense or reach a consensus with other editors. He simply deleted it.

The article is not non-existent: it is newly published by the International Society for Christian Apologetics, edited by Norman Geisler (a well-known scholar), available for purchase here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca.Yeoberry (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller has apparently become obsessed with stalking me and preventing any of my additions after he blocked me from adding anything to the SPLC article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center). He then went to an article I created and made a series of false statements about it: including putting up a "notability" tag on March 9 and then five days later claiming that the tag had been up for two months and so the article should be deleted. He frequently put unwanted material on my "talk" page and then I finally had to threaten to report him for stalking me until he stopped. His interest here is nothing less, I believe, that to frustrate me.Yeoberry (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I stopped posting to your talk page because it was obviously pointless. This is not about me, this is about you (and perhaps for another board questions about the journal). You came back on my radar when were warned for edit-warring (for which you've been blocked once). It seems very likely that you have some sort of relationship with John Carpenter - virtually all of your edits recently have added material sources to him, you created an article on the church where Carpenter is pastor (deleted by AfD) and one on Carpenter himself with the edit summary "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter". That one was speedy deleted (twice). Here's your chance to either be honest about it or ignore the issue again. As the old adage goes, my momma didn't raise no stupid children". Ironic that you suggested Dr K might have a COI when it's so clear that you do. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The article in question is being discussed at RSN - Yeoberry correctly brought it up there but without mentioning the COI issue. Yeoberry, I'm wondering if after all of this you still don't understand what edit-warring is. You've been told there that you've been edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Got sucked into this because of a question posted at WP:RSN. In another article, Family integrated church, User:Yeoberry posted a statement attributed to the same author, John B. Carpenter, who he identified as "pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church,[7]. If you go to the website for which which Yeoberry posted the link, the "About Us", "View CRBC Leadership" links take you to this page about Mr. Carpenter: [8]. Fladrif (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note the email address for Dr. Carpenter on that page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Riight! "John Carpenter (M.Div., Ph.D.) Preaching Elder was converted at age 15, studied for the ministry at Samford University and Fuller Theological Seminary. He has taught in Bible colleges in Singapore and Ethiopia where he also helped lead a ministry to street kids. He earned a Th.M. in Systematic Theology, writing a thesis on Confucianism, and a Ph.D. in Church History, studying the Puritans. As a Puritan scholar, he shares their vision for Biblically "pure" churches." - not much of a background for writing about the Greek church 200-800, and indeed as summarized in the additions he is just recycling the objections of Byzantine Iconoclasm (not that they drew his conclusions about the "continuity" of the church), as revived by Calvin etc at the Reformation, & evangelicals ever since. Such polemic has no place in these articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: One of Yeoberry's edits to Family integrated church was reverted here for being a COI addition, quite correctly I think. There is a slightly more difficult situation with Fourth Great Awakening#Or Apostasy. That quotes an article by John Carpenter from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, which is a reputable journal, but it still would seem to be a COI addition. The same JETS article is in the "Further Reading" section of the Second Great Awakening article, added by Yeoberry here. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • • The paper has very low academic value. It has only been cited once and only in a PhD dissertation according to Google Scholar. This is in the domain of self-advertising. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the additions. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a prudent action. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully between what's been said here and at RSN this is the end of the matter. He's been busier promoting Carpenter than I realised. He added material (removed with an edit summary calling it fringe) to Second Great Awakening, Fourth Great Awakening (removed), Robert Fogel (he was a teaching assistant for Fogel), Parable of the talents or minas, A Model of Christian Charity, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and even Globalization. Plus the other articles we've been discussing. A lot if not all of it should be removed IMHO, if only on WP:UNDUE and RS grounds let alone promotionalism. If Yeoberry continues to try to insert material by John Carpenter I will suggest a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Has a COI been admitted, by the way? I am also of the opinion that everything should go, even though for the Robert Fogel article the material is obviously relevant. And this is exactly why we discourage COI editing - it isn't fair on the readers, and it isn't fair on other editors. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No, he simply deletes or ignores any requests about this - presumably because it is something he can't actually deny as it is so obvious(see posts above). Which is perhaps a reason why he should be topic banned now from posting material authored by Carpenter. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above edits, the topic ban would have to be very broad indeed, and extend to all essentially religious topics. But I am by no means convinced that this is a hopeless situation, or that a topic ban is needed right now, unless he continues to self-promote, in which case a community ban may be the more reasonable option.

What I'm seeing is a preacher using WP as a platform to preach, and to publicize himself and those intimately connected to him. Looks like a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE to me, probably because he does not yet understand the nature of the project. He may genuinely not have realized that self-promotion and proselytizing are big no-nos here on WP.

Perhaps if someone of a more diplomatic nature than me can try explaining to him what WP is for, and not for, he may see the light and actually become a productive editor. He apparently has some scholarly familiarity with certain areas of Christian theology, and, if convinced to avoid bias and self-promotion, might actually end up contributing positively to the project. Care to take a stab at that, St. Anselm? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw Cluebot reverted the removal of his bit at Fourth Great Awakening , so it remains. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You sure? I don't see anything in the article history. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, meant Robert Fogel [9]. Johnbod (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean a topic ban from Christian articles, just one banning him from promoting Carpenter. That's the problem being discussed here. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the minimum required under the circumstances. I would like to point out however that this is not the only issue with this editor. He has deleted messages from Doug and accused him of having "become obsessed with stalking him". He also left a message on my talk : [10] saying:

You've deleted material from a lengthy article on Eastern Orthodox Church with adequate citations from an academic article in a peer reviewed journal. Rather than seeking consensus with other editors, you simply deleted the material. Given your images and symbols here, there may be a COI on your part. You are asked to cease further deletion of properly cited material before seeking consensus with other editors.

where he uses my information to accuse me of COI. I find the behaviour of this user quite disturbing. He seems not to understand basic principles of what constitutes a reliable source and does not hesitate to promote his COI by attacking other editors based on their personal identifiers, as he has done in my case, or for no reason at all, as in Doug's case. Let us just hope that these are all a bunch of newbie mistakes, for if they are not, there will be more problems down the line with this editor. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy#Iconoclasm_and_related_articles, Yeoberry was adding the same text on icons to the same range of articles last Summer, without attribution to any source. This was several months before the Carpenter article now under discussion had been published. Either Carpenter had just finished his article and Yeoberry was adding the text prior to publication, or alternatively, being unsuccessful at inserting this text to Wikipedia because of WP:OR objections from other editors, Carpenter hurried up and wrote and article, and had it published. Fladrif (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Marc Hauser

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

Relevant diffs here [11] and [12] here. Summary: person claiming to be subject of article (apparent from username, as well as message on my talk page [13]) is removing mention of findings of academic misconduct from the lead. I don't wish to get into an edit war on the subject, but I think the declared COI is rather blatant, and would rather an administrator or somebody more experienced in handling COI issues on biographies deal with this editor. Ray^Talk 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Analog Pussy

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

"Jiga" is the name used by one of the three members of this obscure band. The only edits by that account were to this article. Orange Mike | Talk 23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The user sent an email to me after I warned them about their username which was apologetic and asked what they had done wrong and how they should improve their editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the two original founders, "Jiga" and "Jinno" have split up. There are now two different "official Analog Pussy websites" and Jiga is tussling with an IP account (presumably Jinno or one of his partisans) about control of the article. Naturally, I have reverted to the wrong version (the Jinno version), which arguably is punishing Jiga for her openness in this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Parasoft, Parasoft products, and Parasoft CEO

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

The user Swtechwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made most of his edits to the pages of the Parasoft company, that company products, that company CEO (Adam Kolawa), listed the company products and papers on pages about what the products are meant to do, and listing them on the page of prizes the software received. This has been over a few years. The user has been questioned on his talk page a few times, but never replied.

In addition, the user also attempted twice to add Parasoft products to disambiguation (Soatest for EDI, and Parasoft C/C++test for CWE).

In October 2010 the user was warned with UW:SPAM3 and the following extra message Stop spamming wikipedia with your parasoft website which he blanked with the edit message incorrect warning - not adding spam links; adding references to papers authored by a recognized industry expert. I have no way to confirm this since the link on the edit being mentioned requires an account on the parasoft website, but the "paper" seems to have been published by parasoft itself.

I recently unblanked this warning, and left another comment asking if he was connected with Parasoft. His reply was blanking his whole talk page which I reverted. He then blanked it one more time and I got an edit on my own talk page from AliveFreeHappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) saying that users are free to blank their pages and making reference to WP:BLANKING.

While this user (AliveFreeHappy) has made plenty of edits, a few of them are also related to Parasoft, including updating Parasoft board member list, and suggesting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Integrity_(software). While I do not have access to the deleted page content (and googling for integrity software returns nothing useful), the comments on the discussion say that Integrity is software to help people make software, the same use of Parasoft products, possibly making Integrity a competitor of Parasoft products.

The list of parasoft products that the user has been involved in writing (even completely written by him) are:

• Soatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parasoft Virtualize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parasoft C/C++test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parasoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jtest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parasoft Concerto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adam Kolawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this is the company CEO

In addition, he added references to Parasoft products on pages about the type of service provided:

• Service virtualization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Profiling (computer programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of performance analysis tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Application lifecycle management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unit testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) including link to Parasoft page and referencing a paper by the company CEO
• Performance engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) link for a blog post written by a Parasoft employer (see disclaimer at the end of post)
• Static program analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) link to blog post about a parasoft product
• Jolt Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a company product got this award

Note that this is not a complete list of his edits, I got tired after going through a couple of them. Also, I did not look at the other user (AliveFreeHappy) but his edits appear very often next to Swtechwr edits.

--Carandraug (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the above articles with an eye at listing them at AfD. Most of the topics are well covered in press releases, but the Wikipedia articles seem to have been written mostly without the use of those. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)