Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch

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 User talk:174.57.42.161 Talk:A Time Called You Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:AgFirst Talk:AgriBank Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Rania Al-Mashat Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Brookfield Corporation Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Carbon Trust Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dogwoof Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano User talk:Lvhjr Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nintendo European Research & Development Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Smiths Group Talk:SocialChorus Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

External links to the Encyclopedia of Life

An editor who openly states on their userpage that they work for the Encyclopedia Of Life is adding EOL external links to quite a few articles. I'm unsure whether this is an issue that needs addressing from a conflict of interest point of view. There is also the issue as to whether such external links are contrary to WP:ELNO; I'm thinking they probably are, which might have some bearing on the COI question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please identify the user in question. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It is User:Csparr. Should she be informed of this question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the user links for Csparr:

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

I have notified User:Csparr, who is Cynthia Sims Parr. She provides a link to her resume on her user page, and she is an actual biologist. The Encyclopedia of Life is connected with the Smithsonian Institution, but I have some doubt on whether it could be used here as a reliable source. Here is Gastropoda at EOL. Compare our Gastropoda article which has a lot more references and is more thorough. In my opinion the links to EOL should not be routinely added, but EOL has a lot of nice images which we unfortunately can't use here. Their copyright policy is explained here. Some of their content is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, which we could use. We can't use CC-BY-NC. There are between 250 and 500 links to EOL already on Wikipedia. I notice that User:Magnus Manske created the {{eol}} template for linking to this Encyclopedia, and I'll notify him of this discussion. There may already be some collaboration between the WMF and the EOL, but I don't know if there is any notion that our articles should link to theirs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life appears to be a redundant project to Wikispecies which, along with Wikipedia, is a wiki-based online project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. See Signpost/2008-03-03. Wikipedia Signpost 2010-12-13 notes that the "Encyclopedia of Life (a project to document all known species, announced in 2007 and estimated to cost over $100 million) incorporates Wikipedia articles in its entries, and has them classified as "trusted" or "untrusted"." Also, Wikipedia got $3 million that is connected with Encyclopedia of Life.
Throughout the years, academics working for the Encyclopedia of Life were vetting Wikipedia articles on biological species. See Signpost/2011-01-03. EOL Encyclopedia of Life verbatim copying CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is fine. For example, if a Wikipedia editor is "an expert on a subject" and having trouble getting other Wikipedia editors to accept his original research or even his less than popular point of view on a topic, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that expert editor from posting the material at Encyclopedia of Life, release it CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and wait for someone else to verbatim copy it into Wikipedia. Also there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent Wikipedia editors from copying their Wikipedia material into the Encyclopedia of Life -- (content can be copied from Wikipedia into the EOL) -- to give more weight within Wikipedia to their expert opinion on a topic over another Wikipedia's expert opinion on a topic. Wikipedia supposedly isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia article yet, the Wikipedia articles listed at User:Magnus Manske/Books/EOL apparently were posted at and vetted as "trusted" by EOL (see Signpost), and those EOL articles apparently can be used as reliable sources within Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life actually isn't redundant to Wikispecies as our main focus is on aggregating a wide variety of information (including biological descriptions) about species from a large variety of sources (including scientific databases, Flickr, Wikipedia, and as soon as we can sort through the technical issues, Wikispecies, which focuses most on taxonomy not description). As some have noted, we've brought Wikipedia content onto EOL where our credential curators are (slowly) reviewing it. We're also encouraging people to contribute to Wikipedia. I wondered if my added links would be a problem -- that's why I have done only a few (perhaps ten so far?) mainly as a test to understand how it is done and to see what the impact is. Erik Moeller of WMF is on our EOL Council and has been working with us to establish effective means of interaction between our projects. Csparr (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, the addition of an external link to the EOL runs counter to the first guideline at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, regardless of any questions concerning whether or not using EOL as a reference involves circularity of source information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Will try to be a good citizen in the future! I'm assuming that other Wikipedia editors who are not on staff at EOL can cite our pages if they think they are useful. Csparr (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID appears to apply, yet there are many articles with external links to EOL. See this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

@Csparr - yes, I think that is the recommended procedure. Although it actually might be acceptable for EOL staff to cite EOL pages on Wikipedia (providing they make their EOL connection clear on their userpage, as you have done), but I'm not sure - that was part of my original question. I'm guessing it's probably safer not to. On the question of external links, a lot of editors are completely unaware of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and of course it takes more effort to read through an external link and cite the information it contains within Wikipedia (rather than just adding it as a link at the article's end), so some articles can end up having 'link farms' at the bottom of their page, which isn't really how an encyclopedia should function, as I'm sure you'd agree. It's good to have you on board as a good citizen! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BeijingWest Industries

• BeijingWest Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MagneRide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Delphi Automotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mandrin2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

Craig Graham

• Craig Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (now userfied to User:Sydneysider1979/Craig Graham per AfD)
• Sydneysider1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (WP:SPA new account name OK)
  • 124.169.7.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (WP:SPA probably simply not logged in denies edits)
  • 203.45.45.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (WP:SPA ?)
  • 175.38.61.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (WP:SPA ?)
  • Bigbubblemedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (username violation, COI (PR agency))

Editor is a PR agent (online media speciality) who works with subject of BLP. Lied about COI [1], then admitted it [2]. WP:SPA. Disruptive editing on article - repeatedly removed AfD template despite warnings, refuses to edit other articles despite multiple COI warnings, repeatedly making controversial edits (peacock terms, unverified claims), will not admit to edits as IP (AGF by error) but still no dialogue, so cannot change behaviour. Widefox (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There also is a 24 April 2012 COI report on Craig Graham, et al.[3] The Bigbubblemedia username was blocked 23 April 2012, and editor began editing as User:Sydneysider1979 from then on. The efforts in response to the 24 April 2012 COI do not appear to have been sufficient. I posted a request to join this discussion on Sydneysider1979's talk page.[4] Editor has posted on user talk pages (the last user talk page post being 01:28, 27 April 2012),[5][6] so perhaps he will join this discussion and we can resolve this without having to block the editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP 124.169.7.4 edits are of the same style (multiple changes in close succession, with no edit summary, all from Australia, all WP:SPA, in period when Sydneysider1979 was not editing article, adding bio info not covered by any ref). Similarly the two other IPs 203.45.45.125, 175.38.61.179 . Widefox (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Still refusing to discuss as requested by Uzma Gamal and me, and instead continues to edit COI article (now userfied). Widefox (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record I am not ignoring you. I have been trying to find out where to talk to you all. Whether it be on your own user accounts or on the page that is now deleted, but I've just come across this page. I must say I am a little disappointed with the way this has worked. I have used Wiki in the past and it was never this difficult. I understand you have a site to protect, but to be honest with you I have found the communication strategies stressful. Every time I tried to do something right, I was abused for what I was doing and have now been blamed for stuff I didn't do. I did not come in to this to make your lives difficult, or my own, I came in to this to add valuable content to the Wiki site for someone who I believe deserves recognition for the work they have provided to Australia and Internationally. Regardless of whether I have a connection with this person or not, they deserve to be featured on Wiki. I appreciate your hard work as editors and the site needs editors like you to keep the site clean. I do not want to be banned, I just want to add and edit content. Can you please tell me what the next steps are? As this page has been userfied, does this mean I can correct it and then resubmit? I understand the COI and the NPOV. Can I create a different style of page? Or am I to no longer have anything to do with this article? What happens to the article now? I would appreciate you explaining in words. Thank you Sydneysider1979 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979

You can appeal the AfD deletion of the Craig Graham article by posting a request at WP:DRV. However, a better approach may be to continue to edit the userfied article and then post at Wikipedia:Requested articles. A problem you may be having is because you are writing what you know about a topic first and then trying to find reliable source info to support it, which usually leads to less than satisfactory results. A way to write a Wikipedia article is to gather all your reliable source information first and then develop the article based on that. In other words, reliable sources help build a Wikipedia article. As I posted at the AfD, the name "Craig Graham" is so common in the world, that I am unable to search any reliable source data base and come up with info on this specific "Craig Graham". I can find 1,000+ articles on "Craig Graham", but am not going to read each one looking for info on this specific "Craig Graham". I would be happy to help develop the article once there is sufficient reliable source material links. If you are connected with this specific "Craig Graham," then perhaps you can get a list from Mr. Graham and create a link list in the userfied article. Some other's create a web page (outside of Wikipedia) and include an "in the news" page where they list links to reliable source coverage. Those in the news pages may help Wikipedia editors locate reliable source info. (Note: The article also is at Cat in the Hat/MarkBurberry32 sandbox.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sydneysider1979, glad you have replied. As Uzma Gamal says, it just needs references. Widefox (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

USACK

• USACK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Usack-okc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Removal of templates, ownership of article, introduction of content copied or closely paraphrasing that of organization's website. WP:SPA, with intent only to promote the subject. 99.168.84.134 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear conflict of interest from Usack-okc's edit summaries.[7] Usack-okc's edits to Wikipedia also were to promote personal and USACK organizations interests. Daniel Case blocked the Usack-okc account from editing Wikipedia indefinitely because of the username and the article has several templates at the top. The USACK topic meets WP:GNG, so AFD is not an option. Hopefully, the article will be cleaned up over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

An OTRS agent, Moonriddengirl, is working with the article. The entire article isn't a copyright violation but I it's probably best to wait until OTRS is done before further investigating/correcting issues that the COI has created. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council

• American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 209.6.69.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not really familiar with how the COI/N works, but am posting a notice here hoping that a neutral editor could take a look at the American Legislative Exchange Council article and suggest action, or take action, regarding the series of edits by user 209.6.69.227 which may be COI editing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of COI against 209.6.69.227 in the above 2 May 2012 report. There was no evidence of COI in the 17 April 2012 Rush Limbaugh/Conflict of interest report on 209.6.69.227, either. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SaltyBoatr; Just to be clear; filing a COI is an assertion that you know who an editor is, and that the editor has a Conflict of Interest, ie an undisclosed commercial or personal involvement in the subject that precludes that editor from objectively editing. It is true that SOME editors use these filings to harass and try to bully other editors who have differing view off Wikipedia, but that is NOT their proper use. As I understand, you just want someone to intervene in the editing process, because you do not like the way the article is shaping up, and have seen this done in other circumstances. If this is true, PLEASE consider withdrawing this filing before there has to be a debate as to your notice. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems an impossible hurdle to establish evidence of conflict of interest with an anonymous editor. (Maybe that is just the way it is.) That is what I don't understand about this process. 209.9.69.227 seems to exhibit a clear pattern of COI editing, but that is just my opinion based on observation of his/her editing behavior. Plus, the geo-locate seems to include "K Street" as the possible origin. This requirement of 'established evidence' seems to be a catch-22, with anonymous editing easily circumventing the rule. I suspect this issue has been hashed out before, I am just ignorant of the consensus community policy here about anon-COI editing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Salty; I'm not trying to be harsh, but it doesn't seem like you understand what COI is or the ramifications of what you are doing are. Let's back up. What do you mean by "exhibit a clear pattern of COI editing,"; that doesn't make any sense unless you know WHO the editor is. BTW, Wikipedia can easily trace the IP, and does so; unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy mongering like you just did (K Street) is completely inappropriate behavior. Assuming you are unaware, and again, no real harm done, but don't do it again. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented by SaltyBoatr for 209.6.69.227 having a COI. 209.6.69.227 isn't even a WP:SPA . Widefox (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible to present COI evidence with an anonymous editor? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you ARE stating you had no evidence, correct?. If you have no evidence, you should not file these claims. You have yet to say what or who led you to make a claim that you had no reason to file.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it isn't. I'm sure there are K Street scum editing all over Wikipedia anonymously. All we can do is to keep an eye out for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. Our grim suspicions are not evidence. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Gear up. It's gonna be a long accusational political season (e.g., The Republican primary, as told by Wikipedia edits. and this) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jsteininger

• Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Jeffree Star discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jsteininger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username indicates that they are the subject of the article. Edits indicate the user has removed sourced information and added unsourced information as well. Devin (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this has been an issue here before. I'd search and link it but I'm stepping out for dinner. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. It has been brought up before. Devin (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe this issue needs immediate attention. Jsteininger claims to be Jeffree Star and is unhappy with the information presented in the articles about him and his products on Wikipedia (see here for proof). Devin, your reaction has obviously not been productive and I personally believe that failing to mention your previous report in your new report is borderline forum shopping. You were told to use the talk page to discuss the issues with the user and have not once attempted to discuss the issues with the user and have resorted to edit warring. Per WP:BLPEDIT and the Arbitration Committee, "Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns". You have not done this and again, you have not attempted to discuss the issues with the user via talk page. Please explain this. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jsteininger last edited on 7 April 2012,[8] which was almost a month ago. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chip's Challenge

• Chip's Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Allack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I tried to clean up the sub-section for Chuck's Challenge (link), a sequel to the video game Chip's Challenge. Allack has been consistently reverting those edits, reinserting direct links to the game's iTunes site, and added large, uncaptioned screen shots into the section on the game. Allack has openly admitted to being in contact with Chuck Sommerville, the creator of both games, on my talk page. In addition, Allack has been inserting a photo of Chuck in the middle of the lead of the page. The copyright history of the screen shots also points to a COI, at least to my newbie eyes. I made a number of suggestion to him/her, but Allack has mostly just ignored them and kept reverting my edits. Oh, and Allack appears to be an SPA. I'm not sure if this is COI or SPAM, but I do think a brief mention of the game in the article is warranted. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gray. From my quick assessment, it looks like there's definitely some unneeded pictures in the article and several external links that don't conform with WP:EL. The uploads from Allack have gone through OTRS meaning that the owner of the pictures, presumably someone who can give permission from Chip's Challenge, is in contact with Allack, as you pointed out. It's not definitely a COI; I've worked with the subjects of articles on their articles but I wouldn't consider that a close connection or implicit proof or problematic editing.

Let's get some more eyes on the page and address the issues. If there's a COI, it will become more clear with time. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This spreads to Wiktionary as well (see here). I don't know the policies and guidelines over there but I can't imagine that it was intended to carry a definition for "fire boots" specific to this game.

Also, I'm not entirely certain that this game is even notable. I'll read more but notability may not have been established. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks a lot better now. My main source of suspicion is the consistent reverting of the page, but on the other hand, it doesn't look like Allack is an experienced editor. We'll see what happens. When you say the game may not be notable, are you referring to Chip's Challenge, or Chuck's Challenge? Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I listed Chip's Challenge at AfD (here). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't quite get this at all. First the article is said not to be factual and from an unreliable source. Then when a reliable source does comment it said to be a COI. COI does not mean some one who has first had information cannot post. It means they can not be biased to their point of view. For example a biased point of view would have removed all the community and ‘clone’ software links. All I have done is report on what Chuck is doing now, as this is what he is asked daily and the Chip’s Challenge page is the fans starting point for that information. As unlike games today, 20 years ago game where made by individuals.

Regarding Grayfell comments each time he has made one I done it. Make the images smaller. Make the information factual. Group the images together. Edit the text to a single paragraph. So I have been editing the page as per his suggestions. The text is purely factual when a game was or is being released. There is no ‘Buy X for price Y from Z because it’s the best game in the world ever!!!!!’ Grayfell last comment was 'There are a couple of other points, but that's a good start. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC). So please let me know what you’d like me to do as I have been looking after this page now for 2 year. Allack (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Allack, the edits I made had nothing to do with reliable sources. Secondly, you may be a reliable source but the information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable to anyone at any time. That means that you would need to be published somewhere then that published text can be assessed for its [[WP:|reliability]].

There may or may not be a COI; personally, I don't care either way. My edits were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that govern the text found in articles. That's why I removed several external links from the body of the article and several more from the external links section that go to unofficial fansites and forums. That was all done per WP:EL, a guideline that governs external links. I then removed a picture from the lead of the article per WP:LEAD and I did not put it elsewhere in the article because I don't believe it has a place in the article about the game (it may in an article about the creator of the game, if he's notable).OlYeller21^Talktome 14:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello OlYeller21 your comments are fair and helpful as they explain what needs to be done to make the page better. So I now understand Chuck's photo should not be in the lead, and it should be included later in a simlar style to the Mona Lisa and Leonardo da Vinci. Regarding the external links I did them as people kept on writing not verified so I added them to prove they were true.

Regarding your first point how do I get verifiable as ever time I say I know the source I get shouted at and told I can't write anything due to COI?

Finally why is the page due for deletion? Allack (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Allack. Glad I can be helpful. First off, someone felt that the subject of the article wasn't notable. We have a inclusion guidelines that determine what will be included in the encyclopedia. I wasn't sure at first until I realized what game it was. I wouldn't be too worried about the article being deleted. I feel that it's notable.

Secondly, for your words/opinions/etc. to make their way onto Wikipedia, they'd need to be published. They can be published online, in a book, in a magazine, etc. but the source (whatever you write) will be up for editors to scrutinize and determine if you are a reliable and knowledgeable source. For instance, I can write about My Little Pony but I know nothing about it so my opinions aren't exactly important for an encyclopedia to take note of. Citing yourself on Wikipedia can be tricky and it's something that many people are conflicted over. As with COIs, I feel that focusing on the text and making sure it follows WP's policies and guidelines precludes other issues.

Lastly, the links you added can be in the article as references but most likely can't be used as external links. You can read about how to cite sources at WP:CITE.

If you want, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have either here or on my talk page. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense so how do I go about verifying my user name Allack to my real name. As I am well 'published' on Chip's & Chuck's Challenge? Allack (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the word 'published' in quotes? If these are not articles published in reliable sources such as reputable magazines, newspapers and books, they are not useful or verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Because published means different things to different people. Outside of Wiki published means you have written a book or released a video game . However to answer your questions I been Wiki published via reputable magazines & gaming websites, along with releasing a video game. Allack (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercer University School of Medicine

• Mercer University School of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Emc7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 198.190.246.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.244.183.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In October 2011, the SPA account Emc7171, created the article. As a patroller, I didn't see that the school was notable independently from the university so I redirected the article to Mercer University#School of Medicine. It also copied most of its text from the University's page. Recently, Emc7171 deleted the redirect and placed a new article which they had been preparing in their sandbox area. I nominated the article for deletion with the intent of merging any new info into the Mercer University article and conclusively redirecting the article until the school itself is found notable. An IP (98.244.183.95) claiming to be Emc7171 responded in the AfD stating that they had added another reference. The IP 198.190.246.25 that made the edit which Emc7171 later signed belong to the hospital where the doctors and students of the school of medicine practice. I'm obviously involved so I think a fresh set of eyes on the article may be helpful. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a connection between the IP 198.190.246.25 and User:Emc7171 (please post a diff). The IP address 198.190.246.25 is connected with Mercer University School of Medicine (e.g., The IP address 198.190.246.25 belongs to Memorial Health University Medical Center (AKA Memorial University Medical Center[9]). Per the Mercer University School of Medicine article, Memorial Health University Medical Center is one of several teaching affiliates and hospitals of Mercer University School of Medicine.) The IP address 98.244.183.95 belongs to Comcast Cable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didnt' read the whole comment from the diff I previously posted. 98.244.183.95 claims to have made an edit to the article, the edit was made by 198.190.246.25 which belongs to the hospital where the doctors and students of the school of medicine practice. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't follow the comment. However,
(i) 198.190.246.25 is connected to Memorial Health University Medical Center (see above),
(ii) Memorial Health University Medical Center is connected to the Mercer University School of Medicine topic (see above),
(iii) 198.190.246.25 added a reference to The Journal of Academic Medicine in the Mercer University School of Medicine article,[10]
(iv) User:98.244.183.95 indicated that he was the one to add the reference to The Journal of Academic Medicine in the Mercer University School of Medicine article,[11] and
(v) Emc7171 edited User:98.244.183.95's AfD post in a way that indicates Emc7171 is User:98.244.183.95.[12]
--> Emc7171, 198.190.246.25, and 98.244.183.95 were used by Emc7171 and each has a COI with the topic Mercer University School of Medicine.
I added {{Connected contributor}} to the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller. As there is no argument regarding content or neutrality, and the matter of determining notability is one of policy, WP:N, and is based on community consensus, I don't understand the relevance of your sleuthing. I will happily refrain from any further edits if wikipedia so desires--although I in no way profit from the production of this article--but I think your real issue was originally with notability, and in relation to this issue this has no relevance. emc7171

You're correct that a conflict of interest has no bearing on notability. I never said that the COI has any connection with the notability of the subject. I would appreciate if you would correct yourself or point out where I've implied that a conflict of interest has anything to do with notability in this case or others.

The "relevance of my sluething" is to be determined by others. That's why I brought it here, a noticeboard that assess as deal with conflict of interests, and took no action on my own. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's all fine, just please don't accuse me of bad faith is you did on my talk page. I am unfamiliar with the policy here and was merely expressing my confusion regarding your efforts, not making assumptions regarding your motives, which I believe to be noble. Per WP: Faith "Although the assumption of good faith is dictated by Wikipedia policy, there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose. They also can be inflammatory and hence can aggravate a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle." User:emc7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.246.25 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you didn't make an assumption about my motives? I thought that's what you were doing when you said, "your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller." Being new isn't a crime and I dedicate a large portion of my time to helping new editors learn the ropes on WP. They can be really overwhelming to new editors. Your apparent conflict of interest may or may not prove problematic and it's not place alone to determine that. In fact, because I was involved with the article before discovering the COI, I chose not to determine if the COI is problematic. That's it. My goal is to improve this encyclopedia and that's it. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I said "I don't quite understand your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller." There are no assumptions drawn here: in fact, the very nature of the statement implies that I lack an assumption, as I admit that I "don't understand". Assumptions are drawn on conclusions, and thus logically a statement wherein I admit ignorance could not be considered an assumption. I could see how you might "assume" that I was implying something negative regarding your intentions, but I assure you I was not. Again, I feel your motives as an editor here are noble and unbiased. But let's please end this discussion: I appreciate you clarifying why you took the action, and it answers my question as to why you performed it. Again, I'm new here, and am still familiarizing myself with policy. Thanks. emc7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.183.95 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sure we can work together amicably in the future, regardless of the outcome of the AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mywikipro.com

• Bernie44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A NY Daily News article has an interview with the owners of mywikipro.com who apparently charge people $300 to start their Wikipedia articles. The company, run by Erez Safar and Aaron Wertheimer lists some of their clients on has removed their list of clients from their website. The primary editing account seems to be User:Bernie44 and it looks as if Safar has written his own Wikipedia article (Diwon) as well as the article for his record label, Shemspeed. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles created by User:Bernie44:

• Alex York
• Chicago Jewish Star
• DeScribe
• Diwon (listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diwon--Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Dub Proof
• Friedrich Gutmann
• The Jewish Star (Alberta)
• Kosha Dillz
• L'CHAIM Vodka
• Shemspeed
• Sol Goldstein
• Y-Love
• Yossi Fine

-- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that User:Bernie44 has a COI. The above noted nydailynews.com article[13] says that Animation Block Party promoter Casey Safron pays mywikipro.com "to update the article about Animation Block Party," Safron's annual animation film festival run out of Fort Greene and that film maker Aaron Wertheimer is the one who "crafts the articles from his living room in Bedford-Stuyvesant." Given what the nydailynews.com says and that User:Bernie44 is the Wikipedia editor with the most contributions to the Animation Block Party article,[14] seems likely that User:Bernie44 is film maker Aaron Wertheimer who has a COI in the Animation Block Party topic and other Wikipedia topics developed by mywikipro.com. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Further, on the above. There is a thread on Jimbo's talk page about MyWikiPro,[15], User:Bernie44 has 26 day old pending request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eli Schwebel, and Diwon is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diwon. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do you think about this solution? What if we email all known clients and offer to update their pages for free if emailed? Obviously, we'll still have to follow WP's policies and guidelines but showing these companies that people will do this work for free may be the best way to upset the paid editing market. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to try that. It might work for some of them. Of course, considering he already updated them, they must have already paid him, so it's not like you'd really be changing anything. I have to say though that he writes some pretty good articles. Silverseren^C 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Afte reviewing Diwon, I've come to agree that some of his articles have been hammered into passable shape, but just looking at L'CHAIM Vodka, specifically before it got cleaned up, shows the he is still very much deserving of special scrutiny. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like L'CHAIM is the only article with that issue. It might be because it's about a product, which I also have trouble making sound neutral and not advertisey. Silverseren^C 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

For User:Bernie44, I think you can add {{Connected contributor}} to those article talk pages where he contributes edits per the above discussion, if needed. On reviewing some of the articles, it doesn't appear that Bernie44 is predominately using Wikipedia to promote his own interests at the expense of neutrality. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the story was picked up by Time Magazine on their 'Moneyland' blog: [16]. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Nicole Henderson

• Jessica Nicole Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JessicaHendy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username of article creator (JessicaHendy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and single purpose edits of creator and suspected sockpuppet Ratfield100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JessicaHendy ) indicate conflict of interest and self-promotion regarding this non-notable subject. COI User Warning left on both editors' talk pages. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jessica Nicole Henderson article was WP:SNOW deleted at 03:46, 6 May 2012 by DGG[17] per the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Annette Betté Kellow

• Annette Betté Kellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Annettebettekellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't bring this up before because I didn't think it was a big deal. I still don't think it is, but I just wanted some input from more experienced users to definitively assure me that this doesn't violate policy or something. As I recall, I noticed the creation of this page by the user in question while RC-patrolling a couple months ago. Judging by the username, the user is the subject of the article. To my knowledge, this isn't actually against policy. I've kept the page on my watchlist to ensure that nothing bad went down; so far nothing awful has happened. Edits by the user have been constructive, and none of the content is outright promotional (unsourced and could-be-better-written, maybe, but I think there's some level of lenience called for there, given the new-ishness of the article). In short, I don't think there's any problem here, but I just wanted to double-check. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Numerous problems, mostly with references. Fixed.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for cleaning it up. I had meant to do so myself a while ago but it slipped my mind. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Miller

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

Ddarty recently added a URL to this article and in the edit summary stated, "Added Shannon's current foundation information and URL to official website. This edit was made by an official Shannon Miller Lifestyle Representative". I see no problem with the edit but as that article has had COI issues in the past, I wanted to make a note of it here. The article carries a COI tag and has had several NPOV, SPA editors make problematic edits over the years. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll leave the {{COI}} tag on the article page and I'll add {{Connected contributor}} for Ddarty to article talk page. Just so we have everything in one place, there is an old BLPN report and AN report.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Natalia Livingston

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

Biography is being edited by an account claiming to be the subject, removing sourced content and replacing with unsourced. I've urged them to use the article talk page to discuss this. Conflict of interest appears relevant. Article suffers from several dead link references; though the content doesn't appear controversial, updates from reliable sources would be helpful, otherwise perhaps more content will be removed. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subject has explained here [18] that she'd like to remove sourced content about a medical event, which was covered in an interview in USA Today [19]; my take is that it's not defamatory, so it stays, but more eyes would be appreciated. As well, she'd like to add unsourced personal content that probably doesn't belong. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm done there--some of the requested changes made sense, others strike me as image micromanagement. Would appreciate other editors taking a moment or two to have a look. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved, with the account(s) working in good faith to improve the article. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nate Weiss

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

Saw a report on this at BLPN,[20] and reposted here. "Nswsoccer" matches Nate S. Weiss soccer player. Nswsoccer is the #1 contributor to the article.[21] As noted at BLPN, the Nswsoccer user account is being used to deleted unflattering comments (including referenced ones) and added numerous, sometimes unverified, positive information about Nate Weiss.[22] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Freshmobile Conflict of Internet

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

Issue regarding the Samsung Galaxy S III article

The IP user initially added an external link to "Freshmobile" on the Samsung Galaxy S III article. That external link was removed by me because there was an existing external link that listed the specification of the Samsung Galaxy S III. The existing external link was to gsmarena.com which is considered a reliable source by many technology enthusiast. The IP user also renamed the title of the GSMarena link to another title that does not accurately represent the content of which it holds. The IP user was informally warned in the edit summary statement. Within a 24 hour period, a relatively new user (Freshmobile), removed the GSMarena link and added the freshmobile link. It's obvious that the Freshmobile user should be banned and the IP user should be closely monitored in the future to prevent any further spamming incidents. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Case blocked User:Freshmobile at 14:16, 10 May 2012 due to the similarity between the username and freshmobile.net. The similarity between User:Freshmobile and freshmobile.net plus the edits are enough to declare a COI. Not enough connection between User:Freshmobile and User:202.153.47.235 to declare a COI for User:202.153.47.235 at this time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LLAuctions and user:Pirateslifeforme

• Various articles - see user contribs
• Pirateslifeforme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's an odd one. New editor today, 16 edits so far and they're all near-enough identical. Removing cited refs that use a commercial auction house http://llauctions.com to source prices for various high-value items. All use the same edit summary, "Section removed because it was used to promote a business. It provided no relevant historical information and used subjective text." Here's one example, for George Nakashima furniture.

Now IMHO, it's entirely appropriate to use a credible auction house as a RS to give an indication of item values like this. Stripping out a section like this is excessive. Doing it repeatedly, with an identical edit summary, is just too suspicious. Doing them all in 20 minutes flat, with an editor who's evidently already experienced, and I can hear quacking too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They were all self-cited references by the commercial auction house. While it is all well and good for an auction house to add to wikipedia much like any other user, they were using it for advertisement purposes. They used subjective text that presumed the market for items that they sold was growing. That is a conflict of interest. I am in line with the Wikipedia Code of Conduct for removing these sections. They had no relevance at all to the artist, and were used to gather consignors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirateslifeforme (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely concerns about COI are better - or should at least also be - aimed at the person who added all this material to all these articles, cited to the same auction house and following a familiar format with in-text references to the auctioneer by name, rather than someone removing each example of it, however methodically? The account/editor in question is quite open about what they're doing, which is to be lauded at one level, but it's still feels a little odd. The account removing them may or may not have some interest the other way to hide - such as, say, being from a competitor out to erase all reference to a rival auction house - and notably has indeed made few edits other than removing this material; but prima facie, the COI seems less there, especially in terms of impact on WP content. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So why no discussion with User:Joe.waddell ? Also, are you an undisclosed sockpuppet and who of?

For that matter, let's all have ourselves a nice little wikilynching on Joe.waddell, who after all has declared an involvement with LL Auctions. Worse than that, the blackguard has been going around adding _content_ and _references_ to articles. You know that's not allowed! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a "wikilynching", just a bid to get a bit of clarity on the issue here and on both of those involved in it; at least that's what I'm looking at. Perhaps User:Joe.waddell is slightly being hoisted by the petard of their own honesty, but, as I said - having only come across this issue when I spotted what I thought was a reasonable removal of their content on an article that I had just edited, and then realising there was a whole swathe of similar additions/removals - the COI here is, prima facie, rather obvious on their part, with or without that admission. I also disagree that someone adding referenced content is necessarily in the right - such content can easily be made-up, partisan POV, copyright infringement, barely disguised advertising or simply crap etc etc. We need to exercise a bit more judgment than that, surely. Equally, being open about what you are doing does not necessarily mean what you are doing is OK. N-HH talk/edits 08:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• No evidence has been presented to show that Pirateslifeforme has promoted his/her own outside interests at the expense of neutrality. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

COI also includes suppressing any mention of potential competitors, not just excessive promotion of one view or outside body.

I see no excessive promotion of LL Auctions, and using them to source prices is reasonable.

I don't believe that Pirateslifeforme is a new editor with no past edit history. As they're hiding their other identity, and their edits under this identity have such an obvious agenda against a particular body, then I'm naturally suspicious that they don't also have some further interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pirateslifeforme is entitled to the bentifts of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and responded above with a rational basis for his/her actions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

They may or may not be a sock of another user but you can't just assert they must be and then conclude that they are therefore "hiding their other identity". The reason why they might wish to remove a whole bunch of similar additions in this case is rather obvious - they've explained it and others have backed up their argument. Even if you don't agree with their reasoning, you can't just conclude that therefore there must be some more sinister, COI motive. As for the problems with the original auction house additions, see below. N-HH talk/edits 14:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Joe.waddell

• Articles having a connection to a product auctioned by the auction house where Joe.waddell works.
• Joe.waddell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admitted COI[23] and appears to have contributed to Wikipedia[24] to predominately promote/advance the interests of the auction house company at which he works more then the contribution advances the neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia aims of Wikipedia. Another editor observed about Joe.waddell's edits,

They were all self-cited references by the commercial auction house. While it is all well and good for an auction house to add to wikipedia much like any other user, they were using it for advertisement purposes. They used subjective text that presumed the market for items that they sold was growing. That is a conflict of interest. I am in line with the Wikipedia Code of Conduct for removing these sections. They had no relevance at all to the artist, and were used to gather consignors.[25]

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal, can you show specific edits where something was added inappropriately (ie substandard reference, puffery etc); if Joe.waddell follows Wikipedia's pillar rules you know WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS etc then essentially it does not matter what his motivations are; at WP we can't police motivations as you know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

After determining a COI, edits by such editors are given special scrutiny under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Joe.waddell admits to having a COI, and my notice board posting then is a request that his edits be reviewed under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as serves as a notice that links to his user page. As for edits, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/llauctions.com. Pirateslifeforme appears to have gone through some of the contributions and revised those contributions that advanced outside interests more then the contribution advances the aims of Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all of Joe.wadell's contributions follow the same format - the addition of a sentence and/or image to a WP page on a wine estate or artist, saying "Recently a painting/photo/case sold at auction for US$xxx.xx" often with the specific addition of "at Leland Little Auction ..", such as this one. While one can argue that there is some encyclopedic interest in knowing the value of certain things, as attested at recent auctions, one-off sales of things are hardly notable per se. If the value of something is of specific relevance to the item or artist in question, whether as a general trend or even as an occasional one-off, this will be recorded - and can be cited to - third-party sources such as media reports. An account that does nothing else but add details of random non-notable one-off auctions run by the same minor, local auction house to a range of pages, adding links to the site of the auction house and usually including the name of the auction company in WP text and image captions - while admitting to working there (something they did not do initally btw, despite their belated openness about it) - is surely ripe at best for COI scrutiny, if not outright reversion of their additions as blatant spam? It's not just their motivations, it's the manifest, cumulative effect of what they are doing. I'm slightly confused as to why someone removing much of this content is the one being singled out, per the above, related section. N-HH talk/edits 14:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe.waddell seems well intentioned and should be thanked for disclosing their COI. However, an auction site will never meet our standards for reliable sources and so the content should be removed. It's essentially WP:REFSPAM regardless of the motivation behind it. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Indianrailwaysindia

• Bhopal - Jaipur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indore – Bhopal Intercity Express (A.C.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indianrailwaysindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This username is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. The articles mentioned here are created by the user, they are about their trains and appear to be witten in a promotional tone. They have been adding "peacock words" and promotional terms to other articles as well, which are also about their trains, for example [26], and also removing maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}} from such articles even if they do not have enough sources. jfd34 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian Railways is an Indian state-owned railway company headquartered in New Delhi, India and Indianrailwaysindia is editing articles on railways. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Butler (music)

• Jack Butler (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liam.kelly1984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Band page is highly promotional. Band member's name is Liam Kelly, so presumably this is the same Liam who wrote this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

COI notice left on user page, article prodded as non-notable.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Cave

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

Cinaweb is a marketer for Bryan Cave and constantly changes revisions to a previous version which a) reads as a marketing tool and b) has numerous errors in the narrative, not least the number of offices for the firm: the detail shows 22 yet through the marketing narrative it will say 25, 26 or 27 depending on the paragraph. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message about this discussion on Cinaweb's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done some clean up removing lists of offices and history info that was copy and pasted from the website. I've also blocked Cinaweb as a role/spam only account. What I don't quite understand is that 156.47 is an IP owned by Bryan Cave. How come you're reporting a company that is working for you?! SmartSE (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)