Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Art Plural Gallery

Art Plural Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CorneliaHTang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vijayaartplural (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
58.185.1.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two accounts that have edited almost exclusively the article on Art Plural Gallery and those on artists represented by the gallery, such as Dane Patterson, Tian Taiquan, Fu Lei (Artist), Qiu Jie, Bernar Venet, Thukral & Tagra, Fabienne Verdier and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing the conflict is aided by diffs/links showing a connection between the user behind the user name and the topic of the article. I don't find a COI at this point in time. CorneliaHTang has 108[2] of the 168[3] revisions to the Art Plural Gallery article and her talk page shows a desire to contribute, but that she might not be aware to how to go about it. I'll post a note[4] on her talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, 100% agreed on the first point. But I can't actually do that, can I, as to do so would be outing? As for the talk page note, many thanks, yours is much better than the one I left her. Let's see if she takes any more notice of yours than she did of mine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs/links would be those posts that the person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on/in Wikipedia. The Art Plural Gallery article is not a troubled article. Vijayaartplural has few edits and the information notice on Cornelia's talk page should be sufficient for now. If she continues along the same lines as before, WP:NPOVN may be a better noticeboard to post at. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bewildered by your response. Those diffs you mention would only be available in the case of a declared conflict of interest. Here you have two people who are very obviously employees of the gallery (or masquerading as such) adding wholly promotional content about it and about the artists it represents, vast chunks of it lifted direct from the gallery's own website. The fact that they have not declared their conflict of interest does not make it less one. Or is it OK to edit when you have a conflict of interest as long as you don't actually come out and admit it? I don't think so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. This discussion is to determine whether COIN is going to declare that an editor has a COI for a specific article. CorneliaHTang and Vijayaartplural do not yet have a COIN declared COI. Part of determining whether to declare a COI is to establish through diffs the editor's connection to the topic (see the top of this noticeboard). Editors may post in Wikipedia things like ... I work at ..., I maintain a website on behalf of ..., I'm good friends with the owner of ... . Diffs to such posts help COIN determine whether to declare a COI. The Art Plural Gallery article appears to have been cleaned up. CorneliaHTang received a notice and has not posted contrary to that notice.[5] Is there something else that needs to be done? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see her recent edits. Meanwhile, 58.185.1.178 has also edited Art Plural Gallery, and turns out to have an edit history that resembles in many ways that of CorneliaHTang. WHOIS indicates that the range 58.185.1.176 – 58.185.1.191 is assigned to Art Plural Gallery, 38 Armenian Street, Singapore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that my first post on her talk page would cause her to pause and discuss. I posted another note. If that doesn't work, we'll have to kick it up a notch. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that CorneliaHTang has uploaded fair use image File:Avant Premiere.jpg with a licence which stipulates "In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties" and stating that the copyright belongs to Art Plural Gallery. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear there is a conflict of interest. When someone uses the actual name of an employee of Art Plural, or includes "artplural" in their username, they are hardly being deceptive. Though some edits are promotional, others are adequately sourced while others can be adequately sourced. I think what you've done - attempting to open up a dialogue with the editor(s) - is the best way forward. Sionk (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Express: more eyes please

I would be much obliged if experienced editors (especially admins) from here could add Optical Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to their watchlists and keep an eye on the article and its talk page. There's a slow-moving but long-running conflict between editors with opposing conflicts of interest, and I don't have the time at the moment to monitor things as closely as I'd like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some editors appear to be obtaining negative, but sourced, event information (possible foreclosure, purportedly not closing a deal when they said, closed a subsidiary, pre-tax loss, owner resigned from the board of another company) and adding it to the article with some being removed by other editors. You might want to cross post at WP:NPOVN. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that two editors are specifically cited for COI at the very top of the talk page. Has their conflict of interest been admitted or demonstrated? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one has on their user page. The second one has not declared a connection. --Drm310 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd say that the first user's disclosure is completely inadequate, as it fails to indicate on the article talk page that he works for the company. The second editor's conflict disclosure is confusing, as it does not indicate what his conflict is. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is also inadequate. It is clear that a company employee has been able to gain editorial control by proxy of the content. The content is inaccurate and overly advertorial. The info box contains financial information that is historically correct but has been superseded by further audited accounts with large losses that have been reported widely. It needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.85.37 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim DeMint

Over the last few weeks I've been looking for editors to review a request I left on the Jim DeMint talk page. I left the request, instead of making changes myself, because I work for The Heritage Foundation where DeMint is the president. The discussion on the talk page ended up being mostly about what conflict of interest editors in my position should and should not be allowed to do and in the end I was only able to get a little bit of feedback on my actual suggestion.

During the discussion, I revisited the conflict of interest guidelines and saw this noticeboard mentioned. I'm wondering if someone here can take a look at my original message and maybe provide some feedback or advice about how to move forward with this. I'd still really like to see some positive changes to the section under discussion, the Reception, policies, and politics section, so the two tags can be removed. Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I would say your version is better than what's there, but I understand the other editors' objection even if they were couched in "I don't like it" terms. For example, the list (bad list, bad) in the current version mentions the subject's position on abortion - you omitted it completely. You omitted the school prayer bit, establishment of English as official language, and you coached the visit to Honduras in a way that makes it sound less controversial than it was. I didn't check all the sources in the current version, it's possible I guess that they merited removal if they were poorly sourced. But your version comes across as a bit of a whitewash, rather than being neutral or better written. People are understandably going to be very cautious when you have a COI, so I'd recommend incorporating everything present in the current version if possible, or offer an explanation as to why that's not appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a bias, but you might not have a COI. Are you a low level employee at the The Heritage Foundation? Your use page says "as part of my current role at The Heritage Foundation, I'd like to help improve Heritage's coverage on Wikipedia". Are you saying "my current role at The Heritage Foundation includes improving Heritage's coverage on Wikipedia"? Does The Heritage Foundation approve, instruct, or other wise consult with you on your Heritage Foundation Wikipedia edits? If you give more details along these lines, I can let you know whether you have a COI. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thurmant, I've reviewed your request and incorporated it into Jim DeMint's article, with a few wording changes and keeping a couple of the bulleted items, without the bullets. I don't suffer from paranoia, so I am untroubled by COI or paid editing or any of the related nonsense. I couldn't care less if Jim DeMint himself wrote what you're requesting—we are supposed to evaluate the edit, not the editor. Your requested addition/re-write is NPOV and well sourced, so I added it with a few tweaks. Thank you for being patient. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the draft I proposed. I appreciate the help here, the changes you and Gandydancer made look good to me. Thanks again! Thurmant (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tameka Norris

Tameka Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2stupid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yalehell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.250.228.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three monothematic WP:SPAs; there may be more. The IP geolocates to New Haven, CT, which may not be entirely coincidence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 2stupid is close enough to Norris to have taken this picture. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Johnmoor

Johnmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possibly related editor

Morning277 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly related

Articles (lists are likely incomplete)

Aloma Mariam Mukhtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angela Tsun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) television and radio presenter
Buharism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CAS Calc P11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cloud Security Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), software product security group
Cremorne Point Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CruiseCompare.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dave Crenshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) author and public speaker
Dellamarie Parrilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Douglas Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FullCircle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grammarly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a Grammar checker software product
Ijegu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IzzoNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremy Levitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Australian lawyer and entrepreneur
Laura Myntti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael John Hurdzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) golf course architect, author, retired military
Navarino Icons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Okpoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PerspecSys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), software product security company
PodProperty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), online legal service provider
Service Seeking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Software and Information Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), software product trade association
Steve Rizzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) motivational speaker
Steven D. Waldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Atocha Star Emerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Golden Eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VentureDNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VisionOSS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VOSS Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WiLAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deleted articles

Academic Journals Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danielle Cortes DeVito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GoImprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Johnmoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Randy Gage (prosperity coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), self-help and motivational speaker
Samara James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Why Obama Will Win in 2008 & 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Process

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758 - Single purpose account 9 July 2012 report by Johnmoor
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnmoor/04 November 2012 - investigation closed without action
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221 - 20 August 2013 User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz, no result
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221 - 24 August 2013 User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz, Result: Stern warning to Johnmoor[6][7] from Alex Bakharev
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, ongoing

Johnmoor (talk · contribs) is a ~~paid editor~~ likely a paid editor. He appears unable to understand and follow WP:COI.

I'm not sure how much evidence we need to make it clear that he's a paid editor versus calling on WP:DUCK and being done with the situation.

Currently the deleted edits counter is not working, but it's pretty apparent that much of his editing is deleted because it's fit's speedy deletion criteria or is similarly poor.

The first encounter where I noticed his poor editing was when I came across Grammarly. It was little more than advertising though salvageable [8]. I've worked on the article since then (May), and have found Johnmoor to be an extremely inexperienced editor when it comes to working with others and understanding relevant policies and guidelines. His WP:OWN problems alone should be sufficient for a block. However, since I recently learned that ~~he's a paid editor~~ he may be a paid editor, I think it best to hold off on documenting the WP:OWN problems. Nevertheless, the problems found in Grammarly, the use of poor sources to create highly promotional content, appears typical of most if not all of Johnmoor's editing problems, and directly violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

Recently I saw this discussion on the possibility he might be a paid editor. I noted that I'd not seen any evidence he was a paid editor, but his behavior is that of a paid editor. I followed up with the editor that started the discussion here, when I realized that there was indeed evidence he was a paid editor. As noted in that discussion, Johnmoor's ability to obtain images and permission to download images indicates he's been in very close contact with the people and organizations he has written articles for. I also noticed relationships between some of the individuals for which he's written.

Is there an easy way to get a list of articles he's created? His current edit count (with deleted edits currently not working) is 774, so there's not much to go through. That is, if we actually want further evidence... --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmoor is not hiding his identity, as his user page links to Facebook pages with his name, which link back to his Wikipedia userpage. I don't see any links to the ODesk account under the exact same name. Someone with an ODesk account might have access to information linking this together better. Is this enough to say he has a clear COI here? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook page doesn't appear to use his real name, or at least not the same name as on ODesk. So I'm not able to post a link to the ODesk account here because of the risk of outing. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I first went to the Facebook page it just said "Johnmoor", but looking again I realise that he provides his full name in the profile. As he has linked to that from his userpage, and the profile is public, I don't regard it as outing to link to the ODesk account, which is under the same name as the Facebook account. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that started the discussion on his talk page. I think at this point it is clear that A) he's a paid editor (both from on and off Wikipedia evidence) and B) he's more disruptive than helpful. I'm also worried about the fact he apparently lied about being a paid editor on his talk page. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnmoor posted "No, I am not being paid to edit here."[9] @Johnmoor:, do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited? If so, please explain. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of membership sections to articles on Cloud Security Alliance and Software and Information Industry Association in order to list the single company PerspecSys as a member is not reasonable editing, and as clear an example of COI as I have ever seen. The manner of defense of the article on Randy Gage at Del Rev. The recreation of the previously deleted article Pod Property, containing an section with the contents: "they arranged a co-ownership agreement for two friends who pooled their deposits to buy an apartment in Surry Hills, New South Wales in 2008. The company also assisted a brother and sister in 2008 to buy an apartment in Sydney's North Bondi and helped them to look for a second one too. In 2013, PodProperty drew up a co-ownership agreement for the sales of a five-bedroom house in Cottage Point, New South Wales waterfront on Sydney's Pittwater." The range of topics would seem more compatible with paid editing than COI, but for editing such as this, the distinction hardly matters. I think it justifies at the least a long block, but I have too much involvement to do it personally. FWIW, looking at the editor's many deleted articles, I notice some editing on articles also edited by Morning277 DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmoor works through ODesk, and doesn't appear to be directly connected to Morning277. Morning277 may have subcontracted through ODesk, as there was evidence of another ODesk-based paid editor being subcontracted by Morning277 in the past, but I'd regard it as equally likely that a client tried ODesk after being unsuccessful with Morning277. The article Grammarly was originally created by Elance-based MooshiePorkFace, and my guess was that Johnmoor was hired by the same client, although it is also possible that Johnmoor was subcontracted. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that it is very common to see crossovers between freelance paid editors on articles - the client doesn't have an ongoing relationship with the contractors, as they would if they were working through a firm, so they will often hire a different person to make updates or recreate the article, and sometimes two or three people are hired for the one job. It makes it difficult to tell if it is a case of collusion between two people, or if two people were hired independently by the one client. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the activity revolves around removal of concern tags in articles is interesting - we've received quite a few queries via OTRS in the past week from people asking if someone at Wikipedia is responsible for contacting them and offering to remove ugly tags from their articles, for a price. Seems the Morning277 monkeys are getting desperate since we've blocked them from creating new articles. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morning277&co are also responsible for the placement of many of the concern tags in the first place. They uglify articles and then approach the subjects of the articles offering to de-uglify them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to support that? If not, I think that is too strong a claim to make. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was originally suggested to me by one of their former clients. I was able to 100% confirm it via a chain of evidence that I can't post on-wiki without violating WP:OUTING and half a dozen other rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - just being cautious. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defence

We all have various reasons or aims and skills which determine how we contribute as Wikipedians. Mine is to write articles, particularly, to rescue articles that were poorly contributed or deleted. Once in awhile, I improve on existing articles, especially, those tagged—inappropriately or appropriately—for improvement.

As for this COI investigation, I will highlight the following:

The title itself does not suggest an investigation into my activities, it has rather condemned me already.
The initiator of this investigation, Ronz has a sole aim to stop me from further disputing the contents of Grammarly with him; see Talk:Grammarly.
It is noteworthy that the dispute on Grammarly began with the tagging of the article by Ronz, and I am not the first contributor to dispute his tag.
It is also noteworthy that this is not the first time that DGG would be suspecting me for sock-puppetry, no courtesy notice was given to me when he initiated an investigation on 04 November 2012 (see here), and I was aware of his suspicion when I asked him recently to remove protection from Randy Gage; see here and here
My user page is linked to my Facebook page, which then links to my Facebook profile; I do not own the oDesk account being linked to me, and I believe that Bilby is not unaware that there are persons in the world and on the internet who bear exactly the same name—either fake or genuine.

I will like to repeat part of what I said to Hobit on my talk page, "I think you should judge the contents of my works and not the motive; after all, assuming good faith is a good virtue here. I save articles of notable subjects which have been in trouble due to poor work or un-encyclopaedic tone of previous contributors. I understand that many people would want to spam Wikipedia and many Wikipedia advanced users are often sceptical about the motive of articles concerning commercially inclined subjects, but I also believe that subjects which deserve a Wikipedia article should have one; after all, knowledge is golden, everyone should have it, and Wikipedia is a good knowledge resource." (see here). And I will conclude by borrowing the words of Jehochman as he response to Hobit's investigation of him for COI, "This is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Let's keep it loose and not subject people to inquests. Just look at the edits. The editors are all mysteries." (see here). Thank you.
—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you say you are not the ODesk editor. Fine. I've changed the title of this report from "Paid editor..." to "Editor...".

Could you please address the other evidence? --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also answer the question given previously, "do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited?" --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oDesk

His "moorcoop" facebook page used to link to and quote the oDesk account in question. The entry is dated November 28, 2011 and titled, "Make Money Legally Online!" The information is still available in Google's cache. I think we're done here. Anyone think he shouldn't be blocked? --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Webows111

Webows111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sarah Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three monothematic WP:SPAs. Blackbow17 knows Morris well enough to be able to upload her artworks to Commons with correct permissions as "Own work", e.g. File:Vogue SM.jpg, File:Paine Webber (Midtown).jpg, File:Endeavor.jpg, File:SM RedOwl.jpg. Vandayam has also asserted that he/she is the copyright holder of Morris's work, at File:Sarah Morris The Conversation.jpeg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing an external relationship to Sarah Morris for Webows111. If Webows111 has edits similar to Blackbow17 and/or Vandayam, you might try WP:SPI. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are too few edits to determine whether the user has a conflict of interest or not. Only three edits and two of them are identical (due to reversion). The editor has included lots of inappropriate links, but I think that a well-meaning inexperienced user might do something like this without having a conflict of interest. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Vandayam

Vandayam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sarah Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three monothematic WP:SPAs. Blackbow17 knows Morris well enough to be able to upload her artworks to Commons with correct permissions as "Own work", e.g. File:Vogue SM.jpg, File:Paine Webber (Midtown).jpg, File:Endeavor.jpg, File:SM RedOwl.jpg. Vandayam has also asserted that he/she is the copyright holder of Morris's work, at File:Sarah Morris The Conversation.jpeg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This photo shows that Vandayam likely received permission from Sarah Morris to take the 15 November 2010 photo for which Sarah Morris posed and which Vandayam, the copyright holder of the work, subsequently publish under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Vandayam made a variety of edits the Sarah Morris page January 2013 to March 2013, and has not edited any other article.[10] Vandayam also became the copyright holder in a work by Sarah Morris (Sarah Morris The Conversation), from which Vandayam indicates Vandayam created this derivative work on 1 April 2013. Vandayam last edit was 2 April 2013 to the Sarah Morris page.[11] There is a similarity on how Vandayam uploaded this Sarah Morris work (own work and I am the copyright holder), and Blackbow17's (own work and I am the copyright holder) uploading of other Sarah Morris works:[12][13][14][15] and has almost exclusively edited the Sarah Morris article.[16] -- Jreferee (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On his user page, User:Vandayam refers to himself as "he", but Sarah Morris is a woman. Assuming that the information on the user page is correct, Vandayam isn't Sarah Morris herself. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my conclusion also, Stefan2. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, File:Sarah Morris.jpg (uploaded by Blackbow17) is identical to File:Sarah morris black jacket.JPG (uploaded by Vandayam). Could an administrator confirm this? Who is listed as author of the files? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lastkingkoby

User:Lastkingkoby
Lastkingkoby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed that Lastkingkoby triggered an edit filter for creating autobiographies with his user page and submitted the article for creation, but was declined. Normally I would ignore it but it appears that he's tried twice before to create the article, which was quickly speedy deleted. His only contribs are to his user page, the above mentioned page creations and minor grammar edits to OVO sound and it appears he's WP:NOTHERE. Jns4eva (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pet

Pet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Startswithj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Are you the owner or the guardian of your pet? 2% of US citizens live in municipalities that substituted "owner" for "guardian" in local legal terms, while remaining 98% are pet owners as per local legal terminology. Use of term "guardian" is campaigned by animal rights organizations such as PETA, HSUS and others that oppose an idea of animal ownership. Professional associations such as American Kennel Club, American Veterinary Medical Association and so on oppose use of "guardian" term, and rightfully claim that it is misleading. Pet in a version of editor Startswithj who keeps reverting my edits already can be used as illustration to this statement: A pet (or companion animal) is an animal kept primarily for a person's company or protection, as opposed to working animals, sport animals ^[1] One can state that working dog is kept for person's protection, but this is not nearly what the mentioned editor meant. I oppose use of "guardian" term as being equal to "owner" term in the article. I already tried to tag the page, and asked for help. See Pet talk page and/or edits history of this article for more.

References

^ A pet (or companion animal) is an animal kept primarily for a person's company or protection, as opposed to working animals, sport animals.[1]

-- Afru (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's definition in contrast to working animals predates my contributions by several years. I'm also not advocating equal weight for guardian, just concise, balanced mention. The "rightfully" statement above, the "so you admit" and "Mommy" statements on the Talk:Pet#Owner_vs_Guardian, and the animal-related infoboxes on User:Afru show a stronger COI. Wikipedia:NOTIGERS. Startswithj (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "guardian" issue is not one to be balance with "owner" in the pet article. It is a subtopic of pet legalities that probably could be treated in its own Guardian (pet) article. As the pet article now reads, guardian should not be mentioned as "Pets commonly provide their owners (or guardians) physical and emotional benefits" in the article lead per WP:LEAD. I do not think "owner" is a good term to use either. Pets provide children of pet owners and house guests of pet owners physical and emotional benefits. A pet lamb or a pet horse lives outside the home and does not provide the same physical and emotional benefits as an indoor dog or cat. The "Pet" article needs to be written broadly when describing pets. Afru, Startswithj, perhaps you can replace the "owners (or guardians)" lead sentence with "Animals commonly provide people emotional benefits when kept as companions and cared for affectionately." As for the COI issue, I do not see anyone meeting the external relationship requirement for the "pet" topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fields (businessman)

Resolved

– Article has been updated.

Mark Fields (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karenuntereker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there, I've posted twice on the talk page and gotten no reply. I am the US Social Media Manager for Ford Motor Company and Mark Fields is our Chief Operating Officer since earlier this year. The "Career in business" section was updated with his new title but the first sentence and the blue box to the right still use his old title. I've provided links to both his biography for Ford Motor Company and the press release when his role was announced. His biography: ^[1] and the announcement: ^[2] Thanks so much! Karenuntereker (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. You and I have something in common. When I repair my Ford, I don't read the Ford instruction manual. I torque the bolts to any amount and tighten them in any order I think fit. Of course, I don't get paid to repair cars. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David LaChapelle

David LaChapelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Mockler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PASSIST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12.40.226.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dlcstudiony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This seems to be quite a big mess. There may be more editors involved than those I have listed.

Michael Mockler is the real-world name of a person associated with David LaChapelle, credited for example on this page; I have no way of knowing if the editor is that person. Has edited only David LaChapelle, including substantial copyvios from the artist's website.
PASSIST made ten edits in June this year, removing (sourced) criticism and negative press from the article. Has not edited any other article.
12.40.226.82 has edited only David LaChapelle. Three edits have the edit summary "changes made by David LaChapelle Studio".
Dlcstudiony is a new account. Its only edits to date have been to upload this image to Commons, with the note "Image shot for David LaChapelle; rights given to LaChapelle Studios to do with as they please", and to add that image to the article.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI editing at Naveen Jain yet again

Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
173.160.176.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
173.160.176.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.103.74.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Past COIN reports: January 2008 December 2010

Yes, coi-editing at Naveen Jain again. I'm not one to report COI problems until they are bad, so it might be helpful to look closer at the other ip's on this and related articles.

173.160.176.110/111 are new WP:SPA ips registered to "NAVEEN JAIN NAVEENJAIN". The ip's have repeatedly violated BLP and NPOV with their editing, and have attacked me to justify their viewpoints.

A couple of edits from 110:

[17] Providing sources that don't actually verify the information.
[18] Updating the organizations Jain's involved with, while removing the most notable one and a bit of context about it.

I don't believe this editor is one of the past ip's, and so a block would be the easiest solution. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.103.74.91 is an Intelius ip. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an open proxy check on a number of other ip's that are on confirmed proxy servers. I've never done this before, so I'm not sure this is an appropriate next step with them. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the check are that they are cell phone ip's, with the exception of one which is a hotel. No action taken. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check on COI issues

Miyagawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all. I've recently become an unpaid contributor to the website WhatCulture! and I wanted to know where I stand with regards to COI issues. I have no wish to work on articles relating to the website itself (I can probably count on one hand the number of company related articles I've ever worked on), but I wanted to check if there was any issues with my continued use of the website as a source. I know that I won't be able to use anything I write or contribute (as it'll be Original Research) but I wanted to know where the line was before I accidentally stumbled over it. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

Partido da Imprensa Golpista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Lemos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A COI case very easy to understand. The article talks about a "imaginary party" (yes, a party that does not officially exist) in Brazil, which would aim to keep the "bourgeois capitalist" power through "media coup". That is, the article itself is problematic , partial and biased, because it talks about an offensive term created by left-wing extremists in Brazil, to attack his opponents . Analyzing the Al Lemos edits, we realize that he is expanding the article exactly three years since its creation. The problem is, the referred user makes very few editions at Wikipedia, and mainly on politics articles , always trying to attack people and parties linked to the Brazil right, with his main (I would say, only) focus "watch" these articles (specially Partido da Imprensa Golpista). Al Lemos acts as a single-purpose account. He is always expanding the article based on COI , because this user has notably anti-press behavior. I request that this user receives a permanent ban , because there is a great possibility that he is receiving payment of leftist parties Brazilians interested in maligning the press of the country (there are in Brazil and throughout Latin America , a growing trend to censor all news/press organizations , attempting against democracy ), to edit on Wikipedia. This user have no more intention in contribute to Wikipedia, just want to use Wikipedia structure to attack what he hates. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources used in this article are non-reliable sources, from blogs that pretend to be serious sites like Observatório de Imprensa and Carta Maior, organizations that are sponsored by parties of the left to attack the "capitalists". Other sources are from left-wing extremist writers. The entire article is a big Conspiracy Theory ceaselessly propagated in the head of the Brazilian people to feel hatred from the "richs" and elect "the saviors of the political left". Rauzaruku (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've detected a lot of ORIGINAL RESEARCH too. This user is collecting fragmented information to create "someting from nothing". This article is a masterpiece of illusion. Rauzaruku (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same old "watchdog" talk. The article was created originally in Portuguese in 2009. The English version has a lot of well-credited and academical sources. There's no vestige of original research in it. And I am an editor with more than 2,000 articles created only in Portuguese (with little few about political issues). So, I recommend that Mr. Rauzaruku find something useful to do and let those who want to work in peace. - Al Lemos (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who are you. But now you will start to rewrite this article like an adult, not this garbage version, trying to tell your version of history. You've created a ton of articles? Me too. This don't make you an angel. This article is a pure political propaganda. If you don't start to write this in a impartial version, you can be sure that I'll start to access the administrators here, article copywriters and those who I need to stop your COI. You purposely ignores multiple connections and issues related to the article, and puts only the parts that interest to you, and also, insert original research without verifiable bases. And then I even begin to check other COIs that you verty likely should have done here. "This article was created in Portuguese in 2009", so what? Some people tried to delete this article in Portuguese because he is a giant COI, with massive speculation and accusations without foundation. This article, into the Portuguese Wiki, was created by a used that have a PT star in his personal page (complete COI, to the PT party is interesting to use the Wiki strcture to attack his opponents), and the other two versions (english and spanish) was created by a very suspect user which came in wikipedia only to create these articles and never done anything more, disappeared (another COI). The article subject is a party that don't exist and the creator of the term has no credibility as a person, by the sources I've added. This article is most referred to Bolivarian Propaganda than anything. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr

Flickr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jakerome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
McGeddon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Beginning on May 20th, 2013, there was a major redesign of the website Flickr. I began a section under Flickr's "Controversies" section pertaining to this major redesign of a website that purportedly has 10's of millions of users. The discussion about the redesign began here: [19]. After months of criticism to remove the content from actual users of Flickr, as well as major removal edits, an RfC [20] resulted in the removal of the entire section. One of the contentious discussions/issues related to an article by a 'journalist' named David Pogue [21]. Recent news has confirmed Pogue is now an employee of Yahoo (owner of Flickr) [22] and considering an article by [[Vice magazine] about COI on WP due to paid edits [23] I would like to open up a COI case on this contentious issue. Keep in mind, other Controversies such as "Censorship", a "Virgin Mobile Ad" and "DMCA copyright implementation" have had much less Wikipedia contention and discussion and remain in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is turning into WP:HARASSMENT, WP:DISRUPT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and WP:BADFAITH. User:CaffeinAddict has a history of harassing people on Talk:Flickr who disagree with him, accusing them of conflicts of interest and being shills for Yahoo/Flickr. This has gone on long enough, and I'd like some sort of administrative action taken against him. These accusations show absolutely no good faith on his part at all. I have attempted to work with this user, but he has rejected all attempts at consensus, and, instead resorts to temper tantrums and bad faith accusations. As is evident on the talk page, I have raised issues of WP:UNDUE with the other controversies, but no one responded, which, in my opinion, established that there was no consensus and no interest in pruning them down, as we did with the Flickr redesign. I'm sick and tired of User:CaffeinAddict's behavior, and all attempts to work with him have failed. I have sought his input in determining a consensus-based resolution in this debate, but he instead insulted the closing admin, rejected attempts at reaching consensus, and announced that he was leaving Wikipedia forever. This kind of user is not here to make an encyclopedia, has no interest in reaching consensus, and is clearly a single purpose account dedicated to airing his grievances as a disgruntled Flickr user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted the admin who closed the RfC that ignited these COI accusations, and I have requested that he comment here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say so far is that what is presented here is a list of involved users and a description of a content dispute that one user doesn't seem to want to let go of. What I don't see is any evidence of or even a logical argument suggesting that any of the other users involved has a conflict. This looks as likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG as an indictment of the other participants. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC in question was an open straw poll which attracted nine users, six of whom felt that policy supported the removal of the material, with four of those users taking no other part in the discussion or the editing of the article. User:Jakerome did not participate in this RFC, having already abandoned the discussion (and perhaps Wikipedia) a month previously, after feeling "harassed" by User:Caffeinaddict over a possible COI. I myself have no professional or social connection to Yahoo, and have received no compensation for any of my edits to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have stated that as well, but I think it should be pretty obvious that I too have no professional, social, or financial connection to Yahoo/Flickr, was unaware of any redesign at Flickr prior to the RfC, and was summoned to Talk:Flickr by RfCbot. I stuck around to make a few uncontroversial edits to the article when I decided it could use some copy editing, but that's it. I agree that Use:Jakerome was hounded off Wikipedia by Use:CaffeinAddict, and I doubt that he'll show up here to defend himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dredged up some diffs. RFCbot solicited me to comment on Talk:Flickr on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the page was also on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the mainspace article was on July 24 (diff). It is trivially easily to validate these statements, as seen in the article history and my own contribution log. My arguments in the RfC were rooted in a stated preference for minimalism, as seen on my user page and in other policy discussions. Is there anything else that really needs be said? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should really stay on point. This forum is not about myself as an editor, it is about a possible COI in relation to the Flickr, Yahoo and the removal of a controversy on Flickr's wikipedia page. I would defend that I am not in any way harassing any user. User:Jakerome also used very strong language and accused users of various things during the debate. Again, this is not a case about Wiki-Bullying anyone (however you all have used WikiLawyering to some effect against me) - this is a case about a possible COI. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant behavioral issues may be discussed if you bring a case to one of Wikipedia's noticeboards. In this case, your behavior looks very disruptive. This discussion is likely to focus on what problems you are causing rather than on your accusations against others. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - what disruptive editing? - I haven't edited the Flickr page since the RfC. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really need to be pointed out in excruciating detail? Try reading WP:DIVA. You are strongly exhibiting several of the criteria: spurious, public threats to leave the project; rejection of consensus; bullying editors (Jakerome) over trivial disputes; keeping long-term grudges; and insisting that everyone else is being disruptive while presenting absolutely no evidence, which is disruptive in itself. I suggest you either start presenting some evidence in the form of diffs or you withdraw your accusations. Do you have anything to say about what I've already presented? Are you still pushing this ridiculous assertion that I have a CoI, after I've shown that RFC bot invited me to the discussion? The frustrating thing is that you knew that was the case, because McGeddon and I had discussed it during the RfC, when I suggested that we needed more input from uninvolved editors, and McGeddon pointed out that I myself had been summoned by RFC bot. Seriously? Would a shill actively solicit more uninvolved editors (diff)? I'm getting myself a bit worked up over this, because this case is so poorly thought-out and obviously based on WP:HARASSMENT. I think that I've conclusively demonstrated that my behavior has been the opposite of biased; that I was solicited to post on Talk:Flickr by a bot; and that User:CaffeinAddict knew these facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you've bullied me on the Talk page more than anyone. If you just want to WP:link to various things to try to wikilawyer me away from this forum, go ahead. The COI claim still stands. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Wikilawyering? Have you presented one shred of evidence yet? Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Link to actual behavior indicative of a CoI in the form of diffs. You know why you haven't? Because you can't. There is none – only evidence to show my lack of a CoI. You've all but admitted in this previous post that you've done this because your feelings got hurt, more evidence of disruptive WP:DIVA behavior. Do you know why I keep linking to Wikipedia policies and providing diffs? It's because that's what you're supposed to do. All you've done so far is make baseless accusations with no evidence. Keep digging that hole, User:CaffeinAddict. This is going to come back and bite you in WP:ANI. If nobody is going to provide any evidence, I move that this discussion be closed and we move the proceedings to WP:ANI, where user behavior is more on-topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a quick comment here as I observed this conversation as well as look at the Flickr Talk Page, I would have to agree that maybe this should move forward to WP:ANI as there seems to be no resolution here at all. Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If some admins can verify/assure that there is no COI (my main suspicion being User:Jakerome ) then I'm perfectly satisfied and know we followed up properly. Moving to the ANI might just continue this small group of us bickering... but I would suggest an admin make that call. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COI on All Tomorrow's Parties (band)

This page was created and written by Wladek Sheen (who later renamed his account.) He seems to be the lead singer/guitarist of this unsigned band and the refs on the page are mostly from very questionable sources like blogs and fanzines. A possibly misguided regard for WP:WORLDVIEW on my part has prevented me from sending the article to AFD, so I tagged the page for COI instead. Now User:RumpelStylish, a single purpose account that could very well be a sock or meat puppet has appeared to revert me. I'm not going to edit war over that tag, but can I ask someone else to have a look at this situation? Valenciano (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the article you try to remove is confirmed by federal Russian TV channels and newspapers. You're not right anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.72.99.126 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for you, Valenciano. Your request makes no sense. Do you consider MetroLyrics, Moskovskij Komsomolets, Russian federal TV channel Moskva 24, Russian Music Box (TV channel) and RIA News agency are "very questionable sources" too? These are the links: 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6.--95.72.99.126 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is something we should discuss on the talk page or at an AFD, not here, so I'll reply to you very briefly. I'd suggest you read WP:BAND. I'm not convinced that your group meets any of that criteria. Regarding the links you post above, only the Московский комсомолец one comes close to what we need. The rest are very brief mentions that your band has played gigs in the Moscow region. This link, like a lot of the others, is about a music festival which lots of bands play at and your group gets a brief mention. Those links prove that yes, your group was one of many playing at a music festival, but not that you have the individual notability for a band to meet WP:MUSIC. All that is besides the point of this noticeboard, that the article appears to be being used by the lead singer/guitarist of a group to promote his band, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Edit warring to remove that maintenance tag is a very bad idea, which can only lead to your account being blocked. Valenciano (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally since making this post, I notice that you have blanked the article's talk page, in violation of WP:TPG and again removed the COI tag, which four editors have now added. Your editing is now bordering on disruption and I would respectfully advise you to stop, before you end up blocked. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened an SPI case into the three editors with a likely COI. The outcome of that SPI will likely be relevant to this discussion. --Chris (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarette

Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E-cig-information (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tribs' speak for themselves. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One elance bidder, at least two en.wiki accounts, many articles

Hello all,
I think I might have stumbled across quite a large WP:COI problem. The Muhammad Ali K. account on elance has won a large number of bids to write articles here; mostly BLPs and businesses. The exact identities of many elance bidders are unclear, so it's not always easy to make connections, but here's what I've found so far:

This elance advert for an article on Bruce Temkin. 4 days later, Bruce Temkin was created by Just A Common Guy (talk · contribs). It's more like a resume than an encyclopædia article.
this elance advert for an article on Erik Wahl. 2 days later, Erik Wahl was created by Just A Common Guy (talk · contribs). Again, it's more like a resume than an encyclopædia article.
This elance advert for an article on Mike Ghouse. One day later, another spammy article created by Just A Common Guy (talk · contribs).
This entertainment agency advertised on elance for an article to be written. Two days later, Just A Common Guy created an article on one of their people, Jerry Carroll (comedian).
Just A Common Guy has created other articles. Baybars Altuntaş, Doug Lipp; they look spammy. I cannot see what was in Ted Garrison; DGG speedy-deleted it as G11. Just A Common Guy has also uploaded images for these biographies, which often get deleted for copyright reasons.

The article described him in the lede as "an American engineer, consultant, author and speaker" and went on to repetitive elaboration, mostly of the speaking and consulting. (The only book of his I could find on Worldcat had exactly one library holding), I am extremely suspicious of articles that claim notability in multiple professions -- especially when two of them are as a speaker or consultant. A proper bio of someone who is actually notable in a specific field will list that field as the notability. Only promotional articles do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there's an Elance ad here placed by somebody using a photo of Chip Eichelberger - one of Doug Lipp's colleagues.
Now it gets interesting. This elance advert is for an investment company in the UAE. Won by the same writer on elance; but on the same day a different account, Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk · contribs) created a promotional article on an investment company in the UAE, and another on its founder.
This elance bid to "put up an article" on Morris Waxler "that won't get deleted", won by the same account as all the others. One week later, Muhammad Ali Khalid created Morris Waxler, which has some fairly serious NPOV problems. There was also Dean Andrew Kantis; it was taken to AfD. I don't know who created the Kantis article but it seemed to suffer from serious WP:COATRACK on a medical topic, and its two main defenders at AfD were Muhammad Ali Khalid and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep".
This elance advert is for a musician in New York. The same day, Muhammad Ali Khalid put up a puff-piece on Eva León.
This elance advert for an article on an author and physician. The client lives in Rochester Hills, Michigan. On Elance, Muhammad Ali K. won the job on 13 September. Over on en.wikipedia the next day, Muhammad Ali Khalid wrote a spammy article about an author and physician living in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
This advert placed on 04 September by somebody in a small village outside Flitwick, in Bedfordshire, in the UK. Later that day, Muhammad Ali Khalid started a drastic overhaul of a BLP of somebody living in Flitwick, in Bedfordshire, in the UK. The article now looks wholly positive.
This elance advert placed by an attorney in Hawaii. The same day, Muhammad Ali Khalid created an article on an attorney in Hawaii; its main problems are high praise and low notability, and it's currently PRODded.
Looking through other articles created by Muhammad Ali Khalid, there are more problems. Innovative Investing Symposium was speedy-deleted by Malik Shabazz as G11. David Drake (venture capitalist) (and his business LDJ Capital), and Tim Bilecki all look like puff-pieces on low-notability subjects.

So, I conclude that one person has been paid to write lots of problematic content, and they have used multiple accounts to cover their tracks. At no point did either of the main accounts declare any conflict of interest. Do we need to get SPI involved? I think it could be a good idea to flush out any other accounts. After I posted a COI warning on User talk:Muhammad Ali Khalid, something very strange happened; Muhammad Ali K's most recent bids changes status to "Job cancelled" and "pending cancellation". I think that this editor has realised he's been caught and is now covering his tracks. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Khalid was the primary editor of Dean Andrew Kantis (which I got involved with upon noting some severe BLP issues relating to someone with whom Kantis has differences), and will also note that the first AfD of Morris Waxler followed a pattern similar to the Kantis AfD, with the only concurrence with Khalid's keep being a new SPA, User:Rogerdavis101. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's interesting. I wonder whether checkuser would be helpful (partly to flush out other accounts). bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note a SPI report has been filed here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the SPI. Sorry for the long and hard-to-follow post; it took a lot of time to make a series of connections, and most of the posts on elance try to conceal the subject of the article they want written. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have any reason to apologise. It looks to me as if you have done an outstanding piece of detective work, and highlighted why we urgently need an effective paid editor policy and code of practice for dealing with such behaviour. Mike Ghouse seems to me a perfect example of the appalling sort of article Wikipedia will end up hosting if we don't do something about this now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the proper method--we just have to apply it. Examine articles more closely, list the dubious ones for deletion, and follow up all related articles. In any case, we can only prohibit what we can detect. Myself, I consider borderline notability plus borderline promotionalism a sufficient argument at AfD. Most of the articles have now been prodded; the only reason I'm not speedy deleting some of them is so more non-admins here can see the evidence first. But I well remember trying to delete two articles on borderline notable bands written for ridiculously trivial sums of money, only to find at AfD that those knowing the subject considered the bands clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the update. If the deleted Ted Garrison was American, then (considering the dates) that article probably corresponds to this client of Muhammad Ali K which I hadn't been able to identify before. I haven't been able to identify all the articles associated with Muhammad Ali K. but we've got almost all the recent ones. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point almost all the articles have been nominated for deletion as either Prod or AfD, either by myself or by other editors. There's one I'm still checking on, because it's in a field where if there is any notability , I might be wiling to rewrite, and there's one iI would appreciate an opinion on by someone who knows the standards for the subject field, Jerry Carroll (comedian). Some of the other people might conceivably be appropriate for articles also, but that will need to be done by someone who knows and respects our standards--and if so, the first step would be getting rid of the current material. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.

The SPI revealed another account, Jacob Pabst (talk · contribs). This account created seven new articles but also edited some existing articles (one of which, Emily VanCamp, overlaps with Just A Common Guy). bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point exactly Bob?

You have sent me a message stating "I have raised concerns about some of your edits" When I go to what you say I edited I see that you have smeared me by stating "an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." Really? Since you have no idea that this account has been on Wikipedia for 6 years basically what you are saying is I have no right to state my opinion. I find your statement "Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." extremely offensive. I don't know the author, I don't know Muhammad Ali K, I don't know Dean Andrew Kantis but I do live in Chicagoland and know of his story. It was among 60 others that were presented to The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation. A Doctor lost his license for basically blinding people. I state my opinion and have a far deeper knowledge of what happened then you and say keep. Then you just outright accuse me of creating an account to vote keep. I ask, What is your point exactly Bob? Are you seriously accusing me of sitting in wait for 6 years, then being some part of a conspiracy? You have some perceived notion that only people like yourselves have a say so in what or what should not be on Wikipedia and you know what? You are right. I have no time to defend myself or "edit" what you just proved is in reality just a very biased blog. I am too busy with life and teaching at a National Lab. You have basically attacked me for stating my opinion but yet you make no mention of the people who posted far more things then me against said article. It was an AfD and I stated my opinion which I later changed saying "I think it needs to be rewritten properly" and you question my right to comment? It would be like saying that your account appeared for the sole purpose of making false statements. This is why I want nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. Since TRUTH is not a requirement and your accusation just proves that, really what is the point? In a way I'm glad you had to message me. I looked up your account and you have many Wikipedia Awards. Good for you! Yet it is people like you that try and censor anyone who comments on Wikipedia. That is why in the Real World Wikipedia is taken with a grain of salt. It is a bunch of people who decide what is worthy or not of basically a blog. I don't have time for your wild theories on something that was settled a month ago. I have better things to do. I wanted to participate and then realized I would just be part of a fraud. Thanks for your outright attack on my right to comment. Basically commenting on anything is a COI. By the way I took the exclamation point out of your accusation against me. Sorry for the edit. Gibco65 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gibco65: It looks like you were caught up in a sockpuppet investigation by mistake (see discussion above and this). It happens sometimes, sorry. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the explanation and apology BUT I feel that a proper apology should come from the person who made wild wrongful accusations AND opened a sockpuppet investigation on me and another innocent person. That would be bobrayner . In his overzealousness he actually started a sockpuppet investigation on me and others and outright accused me of creating an account for the sole purpose of adding keep to an Article that was up for AfD. I'm glad he found his culprit, it really wasn't a big surprise since Muhammad Ali K was on elance advertising his services. Basically bobrayner will probably get another "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" but at what cost? A wild witch-hunt that smeared a couple people. How many people have been accused by him over the years and exonerated? To Wikipedia this is acceptable and encouraged behavior? I find having my integrity questioned by someone without a shred of proof to be unacceptable behavior. He has six Barnstars for being "The Defender of the Wiki" How many innocent people were accused of wrongdoing in his quest for those accolades? Basically I find people like him to be offensive. "I stumbled upon something and now I'm going to accuse a bunch of people of wrongdoing." To me it is borderline paranoia and yet he gets praise for his wild accusations. He had his man from the start but that wasn't good enough. This is the problem with Wikipedia. You want people to contribute and when they do they are accused of wrongdoing by someone whose sole purpose seems to be to start trouble with other people. That's my take on bobrayner and from reading his talk page I see I'm one of many who feel the same way. It's Bobs way whether he has a clue as to what he actually editing or not. The outcome of his big "investigation"? One week blocked for Muhammad Ali K. Was it worth smearing two people for this? Then on top of all of it he doesn't have the decency as a man to apologize for an outright mistake. Gibco65(talk)14:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A considerable wall of text. Gibco65 Could you explain what Bobs conflict of interest actually is supposed to be any time soon? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a response to the above thread. I'll bump it down a subheading level. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a response to Free Range Frog. Unlike Bob I'm not stating that Bob has a conflict of interest. I'm merely stating that I find his accusation offensive and that I would think that if you are going to run around just accusing people of things, when they are proven to be unfounded it would be proper to apologize. Yes its a little long but it explains how I feel about the false statements and investigation that was initiated against me for making a simple comment on an AfD. You would be pretty insulted yourself Roxy the dog if it were you. No COI is implied, just rabid fanaticalness. Gibco65 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, it was Bob himself who directed me to this page in his message. Gibco65 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Investment Company

Advanced Technology Investment Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
harrisonrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After following up for several months to have amendments made to our page and closely following the COI guidelines, I have made edits to the page which are non-controversial, firmly backed up by news and academic articles from multiple sources, and core to the work of the organization and thus the relevance of the page. Given that I have a conflict of interest, which I have previously disclosed, I welcome the further edits and refinements of the community. Harrisonrice (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article uses the firm name much too often, and is written in the short choppy sentences of a press release: use paragraphs for connected ideas. Of the material you added (1) the last sentence in History & Growth is speculation; all you can say is that the project was placed on hold. (2) "Within the first three years, ACE4S will seek to..." is also pure speculation--when you have done it, only then does it belong in the article DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had replied to Harrisonrice on the talk page of that article per an earlier thread at this noticeboard. I missed his reply to my reply and had stopped watching the talk page—sorry! I agree with DGG and will try to take a closer look soon, if RL allows. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Saxena

Manoj Saxena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Halenorma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Monothematic WP:SPA keeps on working on this article, which has already been deleted twice and is now nominated again. Manoj Saxena is head of Webify Solutions Inc.. Draw your own conclusions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there seems to be something seriously wrong with the archive search on this page. I thought I had seen this here, so searched for it, both by article name and by username. When I didn't find it, I posted the above. I now find that it is already at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Manoj Saxena. Apologies all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joemeservy

Joemeservy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Joe Meservy has a fairly obvious COI, and has routinely deleted comments about his COI on his talk page. Not all of his editing is problematic, but some of it is. I can't explicitly disclose the COI without violating outing, but... it's really obvious if you take a look around elsewhere. It's likely that he has links to Wiki-PR, but I'm not requesting that ban be applied here - but it would be fabulous if someone could take a look over his edits and take appropriate action, etc. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have NO links to Wiki-PR, whatever that is...Also, I am an American with a keen interest in rock groups. Accordingly, I regularly make updates regarding rock groups of which I am a big fan. I have NEVER once received payment for such an act in the last two plus years.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Please immediately refrain from making un-based accusations without evidence. Regarding COI, I am currently an unemployed law student--hopefully that alleviates your concerns.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to our WP:OUTING policy, I can't post my evidence on-wiki without your consent. I'm pretty confident I'm not making a baseless accusation however, and will gladly send evidence, via email, to any admin passerby who would like to see it who doesn't stumble upon it yourself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking through old contributions, I found a way to make the connection apparent without violating outing. In this old diff of Joe's sandbox, he describes himself as a senior agent at a talent agency that represents Imagine Dragons. Joe made edits to Imagine Dragons, as well as a number of other bands he represented, while he was representing them. He's basically written most of the article for ID, a band he personally represented. This represents a rather large and rather obvious conflict of interest. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Dragons have been represented by APA since 2011. I patterned all of my edits off the pages of other bands of similar genres on wikipedia. Moreover, Imagine Dragons meet requirements for notability (they released a major label album which was certified for sales, they went on a publicized tour, they received a nationally recognized award, etc) as have the subjects of any wiki articles I have edited. Finally, I would underscore the incontrovertible fact that I am not nor was I ever paid to edit the wiki pages of any of these artists. The sole exception to this would be some edits I made to The Killers pages for a short period of time where I was on a salary. Those edits were done in accordance with the wikipedia rules of 2011, when they occurred.--Joemeservy (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia is disclosure - and conflicts of interest don't necessarily have to be financial. If you represented a group, you presumably have a pretty close relationship to that group and have feelings about them that may bias your editing pattern in one way or another, even if you no longer have a direct financial tie to the group. If your CoI (and you do have one) is disclosed, then other editors can be aware of it, and can keep that in mind when looking at your edits. Would you mind adding a mention to your user page that you formerly ran a talent agency that represented artists whose Wikipedia pages you have since edited? I'm willing to take your word that none of your ID etc work has been financially compensated, but disclosure is still an important thing to help ensure neutrality. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh at first, I was expecting a bigger COI than apparently exists. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rpinkett and Randal Pinkett articles

Not sure if this major enough, but for your review: I noticed a few edits on articles I watch where a new user, User:Rpinkett, has inserted references to "Randal Pinkett" and his career in articles about Randal Pinkett and institutions connected to Pinkett. Not sure if this is the actual Randal Pinkett, but this smacks of COI/Self-promotion if it is...while Pinkett is a notable person, I'm rather certain this is not entirely proper, but not knowing how y'all seem to go about it. User's contributions: [24] --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A pet (or companion animal) is an animal kept primarily for a person's company or protection, as opposed to working animals, sport animals.[1]

[2] ttps://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/people/mark-fields.html

[3] ttps://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2012/11/01/ford-says-mulally-to-remain-as-president-and-ceo-through-at-leas.html

[1]

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards