Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trincres17 (talk | contribs) at 12:05, 21 September 2015 (→‎One Little Indian artists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    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-wp@wikipedia.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:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zerodur
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    editor

    User:Kcroes wrote an article about Noel A. Alpins than wrote

    Here he links to his own blog [2]. Appears he is a paid PR professional and is editing in an undisclosed manner. Have blocked the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Jim Nyamu and Corneal topography to case. Seems interested in antidespressant medication too. — Brianhe (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a COI declaration on User:Csinacola's page. I have no idea if this is sufficient, being new in this area. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wittenstein and Fitbone

    This IP traces to ISP in Germany, where Witttenstein, the company makes the Fitbone device, is located. All their edits are promotional for Fitbone, and they are edit warring and being nonresponsive on their talk page. Please block as a disruptive editor that is very likely a company rep. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is a confirmed proxy [3]. If you report it at WP:OP, it will quickly be blocked. – Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    done, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    blocked for a week by MaterialScientist for general disruption I believe. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if it causes problems again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I think the problem was not advertisement I think the problem was just me. I want to give other interested users the chance to inform of an other lengthening system. And I just copy sentences from their website and I didn't know that this is advertisement or a conflict. Would it be possible that I can try it again without making advertisement for a company just for people who want to know more about other things? It is the first time that I want to write something on wiki and I didn't realize that it is advertisement. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.2.224 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lighting companies and awards

    editor(s)

    This editor looked suspicious to me before; see BeenAroundAWhile irregularities COIN case, opened 13 August. It ended with no apparent action other than two AfDs. But looking at it since yesterday it looks super suspicious with many of the hallmarks of an Orangemoody thing.

    BAAW had several of SLPalmer55's articles AfD'd on 24 April:

    There's a userspace draft, created 24 April 2015, abandoned 1 June 2015. Looks like the carrot/stick hallmark of Orangemoody.

    Also, SLPalmer55 never answered my question about his paid status. — Brianhe (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what Brianhe's point is. Can somebody enlighten me? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is questionable here. The "recognized awards" aren't hard to win. "In 2009, as the number of commercial LED lighting products on the market increased, the number of NGL entries nearly doubled – to 126, coming from 60 different lighting companies. Of these entries, 43 were chosen as “recognized” winners and four of were chosen as “best in class.”" [4]. I'd suggest propose deletion for all of them. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have neglected this thread, but I am still uncertain as to why my account has been brought up here, particularly in connection with some editing I did about a lighting company which at the time to me seemed to be overly promotional and which I attempted to improve by removing some of the puff. Nobody has bothered to let me know what is going on, so . . . what is going on here? It would be collegial to let me know. Otherwise, I suspect WP:Wikihounding, which is beginning to leave a sick feeling in my gut. Frankly, after all the work I have done to improve the encyclopedia for the past nine years, I do not need this kind of bashing. I hope to hear from somebody with a little bit of sense. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everett Stern

    I caught wind of this from having watchlisted the Talk page of Ladysif, who brought the situation to light. Every single major contributor to the article is an Everett Stern SPA. And on Twitter, Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article, on August 30 (cached here). See further important insight by Ladysif on her Talk page and on Talk:Everett Stern. This is a critical situation because Stern is running for Senator, and this is, in essence, an election promotion article. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit adding in his "political positions" is particularly suspicious, considering. Ladysif (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Toned down the article a bit. Removed family background and semi-promotional links. Seems notable; plenty of press coverage, including full articles from Reuters and Rolling Stone. Someone already took out the "political positions" section, which was a bit much. Please keep watching to prevent the promotional material from creeping back in. John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the cleanup Nagle, but I added a COI tag to the article due to near-certainty that the article has been subject of undisclosed paid editing by at least one editor, this ed's additions have not been erased (yet). See § Gshm50 below. — Brianhe (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See also [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Stern&diff=680121161&oldid=680104538%7Cthese recent edits]] from an IP tracing to West Chester, PA - attempted to blank the talk page and then accused me of libel. Possibly Stern or someone closely related to him as his location on his Twitter bio is also West Chester.Ladysif (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article - He was thanking them for making the events in the article possible not the words. Read the post again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stern states "Thank you to all my friends and family who made all this possible." Not the wikipedia article contents possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Article Editor Ladysif states the following about Everett Stern "He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam." A great number of Americans disagree and this statement is libel, false, damaging, and malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please follow talk page formatting. If you have something constructive to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise please refrain from attacking me for bringing this issue up WP:NPA. You continue to accuse me of having a "political agenda," and having spammed the Everett Stern page "for months." My first edit was on July 28th, on the same day I posted it on the WP:TAFI board, where it was voted down based on WP:N. Ladysif (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement. Around the same time of this demand Ladysif placed the article for deletion. We do not know if Ladysif was part of the demand nor are we making the allegation. It is most likely coincidence and a timing issue. When we saw this COI post we automatically assumed it was the fraudulent party especially when we saw Ladysif. Again, Ladysif probably has nothing to do with it, but after reviewing Ladysif talk page we became very concerned. The staff does not know how to use Wikipedia or make edits appropriately and for that we apologize. As you can all imagine, Mr. Stern was extremely upset and concerned with the posts. We are not interested in legal action nor do we have anything personal against Ladysif. We just want to get this resolved. Please understand that we do not know the process or what is happening right now. On a personal note, Mr. Stern did not thank his friends and family for creating the wikipedia page. His statement is being taken out of context. He was thanking his friends and family because the wikipedia page represents the suffering and pain that he had to go through and what he resulted in accomplishing. The wikipedia page is very important not because of the campaign or the company. The page is important because it makes the sacrifice that he made worth while. We ask that the editors really read his story and what he has gone through. Please tell us what we can do to help your investigation. All of the statements are correct and sourced and the page is accurate. We have nothing to hide. Please understand by posting a COI it seriously undermines the article even though the information contained is true. Again, we are not familiar with this process but the entire staff of Tactical Rabbit and the Senate campaign are here to help alleviate any and all concerns. We understand that the editors are conducting their due diligence to make Wikipedia a better educational environment. Please advise us on how we can contribute. Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, Everett Stern and the Tactical Rabbit team sincerely apologize to Ladysif. We did not mean to personally attack you. The concern was that you were part of the extortion attempt. It has become apparent that you are simply trying to do the right thing. Please understand if the extortion piece was not a factor we would not have reacted in this fashion. Please accept Mr. Stern's apology. We seriously doubt you are involved in any kind of scheme against Mr. Stern. We just wanted to make you aware the reason why this escalated so fast. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please actually read WP:Conflict. An individual's "company" or any other person with an external relationship to the person upon whom the article is written should not be writing, editing, or contributing to the majority of the article. That is why it was brought to this noticeboard. Some editors clearly have connections to the subject, and given that he is involved with an impending political campaign, the article should not be exhibiting puffery WP:PUFF or any other qualities that make it read like a blatant advertisement. See: WP:Neutral Ladysif (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to the IP and to the Everett Stern "team": Wikipedia is not a personal website. Do not use Wikipedia to make whatever Stern "went through" "worthwhile". Do that on your own time, and your own dime, on your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is to be edited by neutral editors, in a neutral way, with neutral noteworthy facts cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I want the Wikipedia article to be upgraded in class, 100 percent neutral, and in full Wikipedia compliance. I appreciate the Wikipedia process to ensure all articles are created on a sound foundation of integrity. I am more than happy to help in the process and I encourage official editors to reach out to me directly with questions.Everettstern (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What the Wikipedia process tends to produce in controversial cases is an article with well-cited bare facts and not much else. Such articles can seem rather cold, but that's normal for Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. John Nagle (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue can probably be closed out now. AN/I seems to be done with it, too. Thanks, everybody. John Nagle (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AArrow Advertising

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Editor blocked, article deleted

    It's probably safe to say that nearly every major contributor to the article has been associated with the company. A very long press release. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fredric Alan Maxwell

    When I discovered this article it looked like this. I edited to remove a list of articles in external links that the subject of the article had written. I also removed the "Spooked" article, also written by the subject, that was being used as a reference for a Secret Service investigation episode. I reworded the content on this event following the lead of a WSJ article I found here that uses language like "he believes" and "he says", and says that the Secret Service and Microsoft declined to comment. The subject is adamant (see Talk:Fredric Alan Maxwell) that his own NY Times article can be used as a source for this event. Legal threats were made, then redacted, but since that is the tone of the discussion I am bringing the matter to COIN to get more eyes on it. Pinging @Tokyogirl79: who has also had contact with this user. Vrac (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know how to state this any clearer. The New York Times fully vetted the story. I gave them my Secret Service file. They are a real publication will real editors that faces real libel action everyday. The New York Times is one of the most trusted media sources in the world. Mr. Vrac keeps claiming that this is not a valid source. As the Washington Post reported, I even got a humorous handwritten fan letter from then-Senator Hillary Clinton about the investigation and the piece. The WJS article he cites isn't freely publicly available. You must pay to get it. What does it say? I've never read it, it never showed up on a google alert. He removed the citation/references of at least six publications directly related to the sentences it referenced, including my congressional testimony that Harper's republished. Is not congressional testimony a valid source in wikiworld? It is common in real publishing in the real non-academic world to cite your source in the prose, not footnotes. Vrac has no evidence -- none -- to put a cloud on on my reputation. Zippo. SO it's okay on WIKI to cast aspersions on my character w/o proof? That's just jim-dandy? Kosher? Removing what parts of my professional life he just doesn't like? THat's just fine? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.125.91 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the relevant text from the Wall Street Journal article:

    Now, in a bizarre turn of events, Mr. Maxwell believes Microsoft is fighting back. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service, which Mr. Maxwell says has been gathering information about him since shortly after he got his book contract. He is suing to get what he says is an "inch-thick file" about him detailing the Secret Service's belief that he made a threatening comment about President Bush in October 2000. Mr. Maxwell says he didn't do it, and wonders if Microsoft passed the tip along to the Secret Service. "My editor thinks it's a coincidence," Mr. Maxwell says. "I'm not so sure." Microsoft and a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington declined to comment.

    Wall Street Journal

    Vrac (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that in this instance I really don't think that Fred or his friend can neutrally edit the article since their COI is so strong. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but by large both Fred and Blevenberg are keen on keeping their specific version of the article, which has some issues. This edit shows that they're very keen to state things as facts rather than claims, which poses a BLP issue since he seems to be the only person definitively stating this as a fact. He cites the NYT article, but the thing about that is that it's written by Maxwell. It's not the same thing as an article that was written by a non-involved journalist because the liability there is different. Maxwell can claim whatever he wants as fact, but a journalist writing about his claims would have to label them as claims. Did the things he's claimed to have happened happen? Maybe, maybe not - but until they're confirmed, they cannot be labeled as fact in his article. I honestly don't think that either person can neutrally edit this article because both seem to be very keen on getting their specific version of events. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure that it'll go anywhere since again, I think that they're gung ho on getting that one specific version that suits their needs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors, editing an article about yourself or your friends is generally a no-no on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SELFPROMOTE. Comment on the talk page, instead. Right now, the article is basically a stub. Notability is marginal enough that it might not pass WP:AUTHOR, interpreted strictly. Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the second editor to question the article's notability; I AFD'd it to see what the community has to say. Vrac (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked out his bio of Steve Ballmer on Amazon. Amazon sales rank: #1,721,799. Currently being remaindered for $1.68. [5]. Reviews are very negative, except for a 5-star review by the author himself. Not a "major work". Voted to delete. John Nagle (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gshm50

    Editor 99% likely advertises on Elance, close name overlap and real-world job history aligns. Also, same headshot on WP userpage. Recent bid on Wikipedia writing job was linked by Doc James from earlier COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility could use some cleanup, but it dates from 2011 and doesn't seem to promote anything commercial. The hype level at Everett Stern has been reduced by two editors. Anything else need attention? John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things we need to do. He needs to be approached/advised of COI in general and TOE specifically; I see no paid editor declaration. This is a step in the wrong direction towards transparency: he deleted "freelance writer and editor" from WP profile at about the same time as taking the Elance WP writing job. And watch for creation of Anthony LaPine, the job Doc James linked to. I've scanned the Elance history and nothing jumped out, but many are private and could have been WP-related. — Brianhe (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    General Electric articles being written by PR department

    I received this notice from an editor purporting to be with the PR department at General Electric corporation telling me that they've been writing their own Wikipedia pages (in response to my speed nom of the Oil & Gas article). There don't appear to be connected contributor tags on any of these articles, and they seem fairly problematic at (very) cursory glance. But it's too big of package for me to unwrap so if someone wants to look at them, there you go. (I'm sure this is just something that requires gentle editor education; if they were going rogue I doubt I'd have received the Talk page notice.) I'm also pinging Acroterion. LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gentle education is indeed called for. Alas, I'm leaving for the airport in ten minutes, so I'll make an attempt at GE (ha!) once I get where I'm going. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a "happy talk" case. The companies are notable, and the material from the PR source is mostly factual, but it's all happy talk. No mention of litigation, failures, business problems, etc. Search business sources for more info. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • GE Oil & Gas - redirects to GE.
    • GE Aviation - kind of promotional, but not finding much bad stuff about GE jet engines.
    • GE Healthcare - hype level seems high; reads too much like an ad. There's a product liability lawsuit settled a few years ago that might be mentioned, but not finding much big bad stuff that was left out. Needs cleanup, though.
    • GE, which has also been edited by the COI editor, seems to be OK. That's an old article. It's become more negative on the company in the last year, as issues about GE Capital have surfaced. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    also add GE Oil and Gas to the list. I stub'd it, but someone else should take a look if it's notable enough for standalone, or better as redirect to General Electric. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, put the connected contrib template on the talk page and asked them to confirm employer. Vrac (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The City Reliquary

    The article for The City Reliquary has been tagged COI. Could a few editors please look at it to determine if this tag is warranted? The article is composed from a neutral perspective and contains nothing but factual information about the museum. Scelentano81 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion. It's a storefront in Brooklyn. Take a look in Google StreetView.[6] The New York Times did write it up, but as a joke about hoarding. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prod removed by an experienced uninvolved editor. It's marginally notable, but probably would not pass a strict reading of WP:ORG or WP:GEO. Suggest cleanup, rather than deletion; it's a tiny nonprofit, not a paid editing problem. John Nagle (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD in progress at WP:Articles for deletion/The City Reliquary. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauren Scott and biopropane

    LaurenAlexS (talk · contribs) appears to be the subject of the biography Lauren Scott. This editor is the major contributor to the article. Lauren Scott is the founder of a company that produces biopropane (a connection that LaurenAlexS removed in this edit). LaurenAlexS is the creator and sole contributor to the article biopropane. I placed COI notices on the two articles, but LaurenAlexS removed them both claiming with the edit summaries "the article is well referenced and has a neutral point of view" and "the article has a neutral point of view". I believe it is completely inappropriate for the editor with the conflict of interest to be the one who determines that the article is sufficiently neutral. I am also concerned about the possibility that a product is being promoted at biopropane where the editor has a substantial financial stake. Personally, I think biopropane should be merged into propane (biopropane is exactly the same thing as propane, but just has this marketing name because of how it is produced), but LaurenAlexS removed my merge suggestion without comment or discussion. Can editors here that are more familiar with handling COI issues please have a look? Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow - six years of editing and not a single edit doesn't appear to be self promotion. I'll take a look at the articles and if they persist take necessary action. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biopropane" is already covered, briefly, at Propane#Biopropane. There's also Biogas. So I proposed deletion. John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User's July edits at Liquefied petroleum gas should also be looked at, given the commercial COI. — Brianhe (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LaurenAlexS identified self as the article subject Lauren Scott here ("my campaign"); there is a major commercial COI in editing all the gas related stuff, and political/personal COI otherwise. — Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments requested from people dealing with Elancers in Wikipedia

    We're discussing the format in which paid editors should disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and it would be useful to have input from folks here who are dealing with this on the ground. Please see here Specific question is whether freelancers should disclose the name of the broker under Affiliation or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw that convo which seems to have become a wall of text. Think I'll comment with a counterproposal that doesn't invite so much wikilawyering. I'm making this reply here to see what other board regulars think of "meta" process issues like this. Is there a sense with anyone else that roposals get picked apart before they really have a chance to be developed? Personally I'm sensing an air of defeatism leading to inertia, or maybe it's the culture scaring away people who would be able to engage with fuller particiption under other circumstances. Views/comments? — Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible music spammers

    articles

    The contributors to the deleted Starkillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seem to have a remarkable history of edits to articles with no non-trivial edits by established Wikipedian editors, e.g. Francesco Rossi (DJ and producer) ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am a nasty suspicious bastard, and I smell spam. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the registered accounts used the pronoun "we" to describe the effort to establish the article about Rossi: "We will be adding more content" and "We changed his name".[8] It looks like a PR agency is responsible. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some connected editors and articles. The creator of Nadia Ali (formerly in Starkillers) has been stewarding it for a while but AGF, it looks like fandom, not COI. Nick Terranova is Starkillers and Brawla Records, according to industry sources. Searching for his name popped up another industry spammer, Segmusic/Aswadband who needs to be blocked as a promo/corpname SEG Music [9]. Another contrib to Rossi article, THIRTY5 Group, Budapest. There are some Budapest IPs in various histories as well. — Brianhe (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Gala Rizzatto (aka Gala) operates Matriarchy Records. This appears to be the source of a second set of conflited editors, perhaps with some crossover to SEG and Starkillers/Brawla. Gala did a Starkillers coversong/video "Taste of Me". — Brianhe (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: or other admin, I can't see into the deleted article Starkillers; can you tell us if I have missed any substantial contributors in the list above? — Brianhe (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Brianhe Hello, I am not affiliated with the original editor of the article whatsoever. I spoke to the admin who deleted the page he asked me to bring the matter up on DRV. I posted on DRV because I believe the participants of the deletion discussion for Starkillers page may not have conducted sufficient research and so I have provided all sources you may need to prove notability. Also whoever edited the Starkillers page may not have followed the guidelines of Wikipedia properly, but that does not make me a spammer. I would appreciate it if I am not called a spammer when I am only providing information that the participants at deletion discussion missed. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also note, I have never been an editor to the Starkillers page previously nor have I contributed in any manner. Thank you!Kiran chandani (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Went through Nadia Ali, and trimmed the article. Less hype now. Removed award nominations, left actual awards, and removed much interview-derived info. Still has 58 references. John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @Nagle: (and others) Worryingly this article is GA status, and Nadia Ali discography is FA – both may need a more careful check and possible delisting. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have been the one who worked primarily on the Nadia Ali article few years ago. I noticed it has been trimmed down. Most of the work there was listed due to the comments made in the Peer Review and GA nomination on what makes her unique. While, I don't have any major issues with the edits but just wanted to point my objection to a few. Writing about her Pakistani-American ethnicity was important because it made her stand out in the industry and it was pointed out to me to add that because of her unique position (though obviously I'm not the expert at deciding if that is important enough to be left). Most of the nominations are for awards, which in big picture don't mean a lot but I think the Grammy nomination even if it was for the remixer should be significant enough to be left. Similarly, the fact that iiO released an album 6 years after she left and something she felt had to be clarified was without any involvement from her was notable in my opinion. However, I admit it could've been more brief. Other than that, I have not been active on Wikipedia lately so I can't comment on any spam users except the odd edit I have noticed changing whether she is Pakistani or Libyan over the years. I can't comment on anyone who has done edits on the Nadia Ali page in relation to her collaborations with Starkillers. My active contributions have been to the Nadia Ali related articles, which have not been many recently due to both a busy personal life and her being relatively quiet in the last few years. MHDH (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominating articles for deletion is an extreme measure, if the topic is notable enough to be useful to our readers. The proper cleanup here is to remove puffery and fluff, to greatly trim the articles and make them strictly factual. That is, unless the topic is truly not notable. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Binksternet: No, PROD was not applied in a punitive fashion. None of the three articles PRODed above have references. One is three sentences long. In other words, it's not so much as a problem of removing fluff as adding something of substance. If you think they should be retained, go ahead and dePROD. Brianhe (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet (talk) I agree with you here. If the notability is there and the error is with the use of language and not enough references then this is something correctable. Kiran chandani (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has specific, and fairly strict, notability standards for bands, DJs, etc. See WP:MUSIC. This is necessary; there were at peak more bands on Myspace than there are articles in Wikipedia.[10] In 2009, Myspace had over 5 million band listings, of which only 1,515 sold more than 10,000 albums. Bands. etc. get into Wikipedia after they're famous. This requires a clear demonstration of passing the specific criteria in WP:MUSIC. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    John Nagle (talk) if you refer to my post on DRV here I have provided a break down of the criterion that Starkillers meets according to WP:MUSIC. I read through it first before doing this. I have provided 3rd party references to back up each fact. If you can, please take the time to go through some of the the references which will help you determine whether there is notability or not. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kiran chandani: Did you know you can request a WP:REFUND of Starkillers, work on it some more, and resubmit through AfC? In my humble opinion the DRV has a snowball's chance in hell, as one commenter put it "DRV is not AfD round 2". I would be willing to help you to resubmit Starkillers, if you will in turn aver that you are not a paid editor. You can refer to the "I do not..." text on my userpage if you want to know what such a statement looks like. — Brianhe (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe (talk) Thank you for offering your help with this! I have gone through WP:REFUND and they directed me to the Admin who deleted the page and the admin suggested I post the matter on DRV. I can assure you I am not a paid editor what so ever for this. I can post such a statement on my user page as well. Kiran chandani (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, contact me on my userpage when you get your refund, with a link to the refunded draft and an assemblage of new sources, and we'll go from there. — Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PROD was removed from Drumcode Records. Not finding much about them in Google other than PR. Are they perhaps notable in Swedish publications? Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-disclosure to those following this thread: I'm working with the COI editor as we discussed above. I will keep a journal here of how it's going. I remain a 100% volunteer editor, of course, and am always willing to consider review of my own editing. — Brianhe (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Iranian linkspam

    Communications in Iran § Technology start-ups edits caught my attention; it's well on its way to being a business directory. Widened the look to other articles and anon editors with Optimum Online IP addresses geolocating to New Jersey have been doing a bunch of iffy stuff. It doesn't look good. I'll be wikibreaking soon, so asking for somebody to take this over. Brianhe (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

    (last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

    To sum it up:

    • D0kkaebi has long been suspected, here and on fr:WP, of being a high-ranking member of François Asselineau's Popular Republican Union (2007). His name is believed to appear in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger").
    • Reasons for this suspicion:
    • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

    I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
    However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
    I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
    Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
    1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
    2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. [11] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. [12] [13] he calls vandalism everything !
    3. [14] he protects bad sources
    4. [15] WP:OR
    5. [16] & [17] & [18] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. [19] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. [20] removes a critical source
    8. [21] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [22] & [23] & [24] & [25] & [26] & [27] & [28] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

    --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
    1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
    2. Same change, same revert.
    3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
    4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
    5. Same changes as above, no justification
    6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
    7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
    8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
    9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

    D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
    1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
    2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
    3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
    4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
    5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
    6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
    7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
    8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
    9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

    --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR, so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

    • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
    • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Balogh

    I nuked it a couple of days early because the many tags correctly identifying promotional content amounted to a BLP problem in their own right. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ownership of biography, including unsourced resume-like listings. It appears that these listings have been copied from the artist's website, without any attempts to distinguish between notable and non-notable works and exhibitions. Most of it can be deleted, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing notability. In the first four pages of hits on Google, the closest thing to a reliable source is a short article on "patch.com".[29] This is an artist in New York; if he can't get press coverage there, he's not notable. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is highly unlikely that WordSeventeen has a COI in this matter. They are a very "inclusionist" editor who often contested PRODs on all manner of articles. They haven't been active for a while so they might not respond to the notice. Vrac (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think when I saw that name I must have been thinking of another editor with "Words" in her name. Have struck out WordSeventeen. — Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BeenAroundAWhile continued

    A conversation was recently archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89#BeenAroundAWhile irregularities, but it kind of ended with a few new disclosures of paid editing, and some discussion of free enterprise. I'd like to hear a definitive statement whether or not these specific articles involved an undisclosed conflict. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles you listed were of course not paid for, or I would have said so. No conflict there. Thanks for asking so politely. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Holcomb

    It appears that Randy Holcomb (RH) and/or someone under his direction is removing content from the Randy Holcomb article contrary to Wikipedia policies. I added a warning about writing or editing one's own autobiography, but received no response and editing continues. Appears to want history of basketball removed and business venture (Alfred's House) 'enhanced'. Much of the information on the page is unsourced. I have added all six current sources.

    • 2015-09-10 diff My addition of Welcome-menu, Autobiographies and COI warning notice, and request for more citations (all at once)
    • 2015-09-10 diff Edit summary: Updates at the request of Randy Holcomb
    • 2015-09-13 diff Request from Holcomb23's account by someone under RH's direction to stop deleting their edits on my talk page: The information you continue to remove is accurate. Randy Holcomb is no longer a basketball player and would like to have current business information instead of basketball information (some of which is inaccurate) seen. We are asking that you stop deleting his updates and allow for new information and the wording thereof left in tact.
    • 2015-09-13 diff I just added this to Holcomb23's talk page. I doubt that it has been read at the time of this post.

    Unfortunately, It seems that my communication attempts with Holcomb23 are not getting any results. Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Folta

    I am concerned about the recent edits to Kevin Folta by the above user (presumably Folta himself). For example, some of the sources added don't seem reliable (blogs, NaturalNews, etc.). Everymorning (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a scientist that never had a Wikipedia page. Activists established one to propagate falsehoods in an ongoing attack on me.
    I simply adjusted the record. I know my situation and provided all appropriate information. Apparently this is a COI? That folks wishing to harm my career can post what they want, but I have no recourse?
    This is not a trivial matter, and I need to know how I am allowed to respond to such instances. Kevinfolta (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevinfolta: It is a potential conflict of interest. I'm sure you, as a scientist, can understand why. You do have a recourse, using the article's talk page. We'd be quite happy to work with you there. Also notice that we have some rules about reliable sources and due weight. We don't do the talking heads thing where they try to give every view equal validity, if your view is backed up as the majority, it will be billed as such on here. If you have anything to be added to changed with the article, please use it's talk page. If it's something like a spelling fix, feel free to correct it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a COI, it's a real-world person trying to fix perceived inaccuracies in a biography and not knowing our Byzantine rules. We have advice and guidance on how to do this, which Dr. Folta needs to get. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blogs, etc. can be reliable under WP:PARITY through WP:FRINGE in this topic when the content is crafted carefully. While being an apparent COI, a lot of the edits actually weren't too bad, so I'd be open to including some of them. I'm just checking up on the page now, so there might be some things that are actually plenty fine in this kind of topic, especially when they are from the BLP subject and aren't pushing a fringe view themselves. Kevinfolta, your best bet as a user with a Wikipedia WP:COI in this article is to make proposed edits on the talk page and others can make them for you. As has been documented in some sources already, it does look like this is a smear campaign from an advocacy in certain degrees in real life, and we do have rules that need to be followed for biography articles such as this (see WP:BLP and especially WP:BLPSELF). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this issue has also been raised at WP:AN/Edit warring#User:Jerodlycett reported by User:wuerzele, I wrote there: "This has been raised as an COI issue at WP:COIN#Kevin_Folta. There appears to be a COI issue, a BLP issue, edit warring, personal attacks, a huge number of recent edits starting Sep. 13, 2015, and a surprising number of involved editors who haven't been editing much else recently. I don't think we can do much for this at WP:COIN, and there are too many editors involved for simple 3RR blocks to help much. This article is going to need some form of dispute resolution. I suggest mediation." This isn't primarily a COI issue we can fix here, it's a BLP issue and a content dispute, and there are too many parties. That's what Wikipedia dispute resolution is for. I suggest that the involved parties all read WP:DISPUTE, and start the mediation process. Meanwhile, please don't edit war; it never helps and usually gets you blocked. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important to draw the distinction between a biography subject coming along to try to fix problems with their biography, and a COI, which would apply to someone coming along to write their biography or to add references to their own work or other vested interests. There is nothing evil about a biography subject trying to fix their bio. We absolutely should engage with them respectfully and give them solid guidance on how to get issues resolved without trashing their reputation (WP:MYBIO contains my usual advice). COI is a real problem, and this is a real distraction from it. I see no evidence at all, at this stage, that Dr. Folta is doing anything other than raising good-faith concerns, as he is legitimately allowed to do. Not liking his views does not make him a suppressive person. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sage Mason

    User:Sagearikmason created the article Sage Mason to promote a biography he's writing, by his own admission. He's been warned a few times about a conflict of interest, yet he has continued to edit the article and remove maintenance tags. clpo13(talk) 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've salted the article and given him some straight talking that I'll block him if he creates it again. I would have blocked him anyway for breaking 3RR on Ford Models but it's gone stale now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dankonikolic

    I am quite concerned about the editing history and contributions of Dankonikolic, especially those that appear to have focused extensively on adding links or reference to an author who shares the name of the Wikipedia account in question. However, I don't have the time or expertise in the appropriate topics to adequately investigate this right now so I'm letting others know via this noticeboard in the hopes that others can look into this and take the appropriate action(s). ElKevbo (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I am about to make some edits on the page on Practopoiesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as I have read a few publications. I think it is valuable information that should be presented on wikipedia to be available in a way that can be critically edited. While I agree that the author of the page should not be the only contributer to it, I recommend keeping it to allow it being reviewed, extended and amended. Gmulder (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to contribute to this topic. It is one of the most important theories of mind with very strong neuroscience foundation and with potential applications in variety fields but especially in AI. If Dankonikolic is really professor Danko Nikolic from Max Planck Institute the Wiki should be proud to have contributor of such a high scientific reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlajkony (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user doesn't only do self-promotion. They do WP:OR too. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a neuroscientist who is also interested in artificial intelligence (AI). In my opinion, the theory of practopoiesis is an important theoretical contribution to understand the brain and to inspire brain-like AI. Wikipedia is a good place to introduce this advance to a wider audience and such a page will provide the space for critical comments and active discussions. Based on this judgment, I have already edited the page two days ago, which also made the first author of the page not its only contributor.
    Importantly, I also noticed that the page was written in a fairly objective manner, aiming at explaining the theory but not self-promotion. In addition, it does not violate the WP:NOR policy, as the content is attributable to a reliable, published source. 3A104 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source that is cited is one written by the editor in question. If there are other sources, I recommend you add them quickly otherwise the article is liable to be deleted again (which raises another question: Can an administrator please compare the current version of the article with the deleted one to see if this should just be speedily deleted?).
    The editor in question has sent me an e-mail message that is quite disturbing; I won't repeat its contents here except to say that it completely confirms and indeed heightens my suspicions and concerns. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can email me using Special:Emailuser/JzG. I am minded to get rid of this person. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A senior editor raised this issue, asking others who have time and expertise to look into the topic itself. Now we got some feedbacks about the value of its content. Do these opinions matter, at all? I thought that in Wikipedia the decision should be made on the ground of community consensus and/or explicitly written guideline, rather than someone’s suspicion, concern, or will to get rid of someone. No? 3A104 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The novice editors who have inexplicably found their way to this obscure noticeboard don't appear to have added much of value to the discussion and certainly don't seem to have responded directly to the serious issues of chronic self-promotion, conflict of interest, POV, and OR that have been raised. Nor have they attempted to edit the articles in question to try to correct any of these issues. ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting text describing this situation is here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/05/wikipedia-cynicism-and-idealism/ , and there are more but curiously, the links to those texts are black listed by Wikipedia and I could not save this page if it contained those links. [[[User:Dankonikolic|Danko]] (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)][reply]

    Avrett Free Ginsberg

    Maybe an admin would like to complete the PROD before the tag is irregularly deleted by an IP from an ad agency, again. Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I semi-protected it, which will allow the PROD to run its course without further IP disruption, but equally will allow good faith removal by any Wikipedian with standing. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is there any legit editing coming out of this IP? — Brianhe (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like it to me. As Brianhe indicated above, the IP maps [30] to an advertising agency FCB based in New York City. Both FCB and Avrett Free Ginsberg are subsidiaries of the same parent ad agency, Interpublic Group of Companies. --Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends how high your standards are for The Good: in the not-yet-deleted contribs, I see gnoming edits,[31][32][33][34] factual bugfix that was incorrectly tagged as vandalism,[35] blp fix-up effort that maybe could be COI but methinks it is a very long stretch,[36][37] fancruft,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44] fan-of-the-sports-team advocacy editing,[45][46][47][48][49] self-reverted test-edit,[50][51] actual vandalism which was auto-tagged as such,[52] prolly vandalism albeit untagged as such,[53][54] likely friends-or-autobiographical COI w.r.t. recruiting-honeypot-article about college alma mater,[55] good-faith deleting linkspam,[56] good-faith removing youtube-sourced info on controversial type of sexuality.[57] Also, allegedly added a NewYorker ref to a COI-encumbered article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    see below. The Avrett Free Ginsberg article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [58]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Richmond, Kentucky

    A WP:SPA, whose edits alternate between constructive and promotional. A lot of external links to local organizations, schools, parks, etc. I've deleted some of the most egregiously promotional, but the user won't communicate and keeps moving forward, so I could use some help. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article looks OK now. It's a reasonably sized city with a long history.They didn't even mention the Gibson Bay Golf Course and Lighted Driving Range at Lake Riba. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SoulCycle

    I'm new to reporting this type of an issue - is there a process for managing articles that get regularly edited by SPAs? Last week, I made some edits to SoulCycle to remove some of the worst of the promo and non-notable (and sometimes just badly written) language. Have it on my 'to do' list to revisit and flesh out with better content (it does appear to be notable, just clunky) and when I went back today, an SPA created that day had undone most of the edits. This appears to be a trend with this article, going back several years of concerns on the talk page. When I made my initial edits, I put the COI flag on the talk page and wrote a note to SoulCycle employees inviting them to reach out with requests, but it (unsurprisingly?) didn't get any responses. I'm still happy to make this Wiki-friendly, but I'm not convinced my edits will survive given the scrutiny. Advice? Alaynestone (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another editor and I did some cleanup. It's now a tight little article about the company, not an ad. Please watch the article. I'm going to work out now, but not at SoulCycle. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Posting here is a good start! There's no particular process to follow, but if content added is obviously promotional like "...founded on the belief that fitness can be joyful. It combines inspirational coaching, high-energy music and a workout that benefits the mind and body" then there is a very strong consensus that the edits should be reverted as I have done to Nycgirl2014's edits. I've also left them a {{uw-coi}} which informs them that they must disclose any COI they have. Now it's a matter of keeping an eye on the article. If there are any new users doing the same then we can get it investigated at WP:SPI or protect the page. I'll keep an eye on it. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That was a much more thorough response than I was expecting. Thank you both. I'll stay out of it for a while and see what happens. Appreciate the intervention before I spent any more time spinning on what to do. Alaynestone (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that didn't take long. The new SPA was User:DSC543. The edit was quickly reverted by a separate editor. Alaynestone (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alvartvnews

    Sockpuppets or meatpuppets likely at work...geographic dispersal suggests job boarding. Sandbox interactions we've seen in UPE cases before when dispersed editors want a clandestine means of communication.

    Alvartvnews connections

    Note - ALVA RTV is the company name, it's headquartered in Ireland. IP editor has stated Ange Luzitu was a founder.

    • 31 May 86.45 IP creates draft [59]
    • 17 August 2015 sandbox interactions take place over a short timespan
      • 219.92 IP adds what looks like a filename [60]
      • Harkennen twiddles filename 1 minute later [61]
    • 1 September sandbox interactions take place over a short timespan
      • Angeluzitu2015 partially reconstructs article in sandbox [62]
      • 219.92 IP blanks sandbox a few minutes later [63]
      • Angeluzitu2015 reconstructs article in sandbox a second time [64]
    Harkennen

    Harkennen has been creating and editing a bunch of business/CEO articles since mid-August:

    — Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    all or almost all of Harkennan's contributions have been helpful. The only one he created himself is an American football player, not a businessman. (Tho I think non-notable -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Buttles (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Island6

    Articles

    Users

    This is something of WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles created and maintained by a group of SPAs. The subjects appear to be mostly notable, however they are promotional in nature and contain large numbers of links to the related organizations. Some cleanup has been done but some more eyes would be helpful.

    User:Coldcreation is the exception in that they are not an SPA. However, at the AFD for the Thomas Charvériat article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Charvériat), the user has exhibited some questionable behavior. On Talk:Thomas Charvériat he states that he knows M. Charvériat and previously had a business relationship with him, but denies any conflict of interest (diff here). During the course of the AFD he stated that he would post sources demonstrating the notability of Charvériat, which he did, but it turns out that those sources are images hosted on a domain controlled by Charvériat himself (see http://whois.domaintools.com/m5project.com). The file dates on this server (see directory listing posted at AFD) appear to show that they were uploaded shortly before Coldcreation posted them at the AFD. This suggests off-wiki coordination. Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff.

    There may be more; this is what I came up with on a first pass. Vrac (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: As stated, I curated shows years ago within which the artist exhibited (mentioned in the article). There was no business relationship, and there is no WP:COI. Coldcreation (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vrac has summed things up well. As to my involvement:

    1. I put up notability tags on Thomas Charveriat, which were removed (diff) summarily by Coldcreation, prior to his disclosure of a connection to the article subject.
    2. I noticed the possibility of a potential conflict for Coldcreation editing the Thomas Charveriat article when he then said " I can attest first hand to the notability of the artist and curator (as well as island6)".[65]
    3. I asked about this and he insisted on disclosing via email, which I declined[66].
    4. He eventually disclosed that he had curated the article subject in four shows at his gallery about ten years ago. [67] To me, that's enough to expect someone should stay back from editing the concerned article, and not participate in the AfD.
    5. More concerning is the sudden appearance, and apparent off-wiki coordination of a set of hard-to-find references for Chévariat, posted on his website [68] and shortly thereafter posted on-wiki[69] by Coldcreation as support for a keep vote. When I looked at the refs provided by User:Coldcreation, I noticed the site hosting the refs was the personal site of the article subject. Wondering when this had come up, I looked at the folder holding these files, and was very surprised to see thy had been posted within hours of Coldcreation finding them. As Vrac says: "Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff".

    As Vrac says, there is notable material here that is deserving of article(s), but the normal editing processes are compromised by the multiple SPA's and the above events. My impression is that something is going on that is not in the interests of transparency and neutral point of view.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tc262 outed him or herself as Zane Mellupe [70]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity, what are the odds of two unconnected users having an almost identical set of userboxes, including the same fourteen userboxes, in the same sequence on their user pages? I'm not good at that kind of math, but two users who speak the same languages, and both like the UN? I guess one could have copied the other's. See the userboxes at the top of Tc262's user page] and and and almost identical set on Coldcreation's user page (at the bottom).New Media Theorist (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Combinatorics problem, answer 1/p (k,n) where n=14. If there are exactly fourteen userboxes then the odds are about one in 1011 (i.e. one in 14!). But if there are 100 userboxes to choose from it goes down to 1 in 1026. By the way Wolfram Alpha can do the math. — Brianhe (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new here, and I have to comment that the anonymous brains behind Wikipedia are very sharp, and very good indeed. And also sometimes funny. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COIN is where the cool kids hang out. By which I mean the über nerds. By which I mean the WikiGods among men (official). — Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate imprecision, so I checked: there are 2526 userboxes in Category:Userboxes. So the math says the odds are somewhat less than 1 in 1047. Putting this in perspective odds of winning a typical lottery are 1 in 14 million. 1 in 1047 is like winning the lottery c. seven times a row (math). Hope this helps. — Brianhe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Island6-Coldcreation "synergy": this Google cache of Island6.org's about page: "Antonio Argueta is creative director of island6. He studied art in Guatemala before helping /name redacted/ to open Coldcreation Contemporary Art Gallery in Barcelona." New Media Theorist, 00:46, 18 September 2015‎
    That would make Coldcreation's username a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. Vrac (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: The username Coldcreation is permitted because it is non-promotional (i.e., there is nothing to promote). The gallery has been closed since 2006 (i.e., there exists no company, group, institution, product or gallery by that name). Coldcreation ( Coldcreation) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly do not understand why it's so hard for Coldcreation to see why other editors might infer a WP:COI, based on widely available sources and his fervent support of Thomas Charvériat's article, and for Coldcreation to recognize this and step back in the interests of transparency and neutrality. Even if Coldcreation has no current financial COI, he has an apparent one given the numerous connections between Coldcreation and the article subject. Seeing as we have no direct verification team in Wikipedia to rule these things out, an apparent conflict brings down the perceived quality and neutrality of the encyclopedia. The sources that connect Coldcreation to Island6 and Charvaeriat are all over the web. Googling "Island6 and Coldcreation" brings five pages of Google hits. All of this information points to a possible conflict, which degrades the value of the encyclopedia when you insist of supporting and editing subjects with which you have, or have had an obvious professional connection. To wit: From Antonio Arguet's Linkedin page: "In between some of the tasks Tony Argueta was the first curator of the gallery helping //name redacted// to organize the first Coldcreation gallery art exhibition, showing and launching for the first time in the careers of the artists like Thomas Charveriat..." Given your amazing contributions in other areas like uploading images of artist's works from the public domain, I do not understand why you persist in a) being cagey about these connections and b) participating in editing and supporting the notoriety of subjects you have had strong professional connections with, and c) not understanding how strong this conflict appears to other editorsNew Media Theorist (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to deny COI, and you continue to not rule it out. In either case, my few edits to the concerned article(s) have been fair and neutral. When you had doubts about notoriety, I stepped in because I was familiar with the notoriety of the artist, and have since listed a series of citations pointing to reliable sources on the subject. This can only help increase the encyclopedic value of the article (when someone else has the time to include the content). I've done the same for hundreds of other articles. There is nothing more to it. I sincerely hope this is clear now and wish to continue going about my business of improving Wikipedia articles. Coldcreation (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are well beyond "not rule it out" at this point. Engaging in off-wiki communication with an article subject that you clearly have a relationship with to procure sources for an AFD, in order to retain a promotional article created and edited by SPAs who are in all likelihood the subjects themselves, and then avoiding responsibility for it, is far from "fair and neutral". This is precisely the kind of scenario that makes the WP:COI policy necessary. The only question left in my mind is whether an admin will find this behavior worthy of sanction or not. In any event I suggest you avoid editing this group of articles. Vrac (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You will see by looking at the edit history of the article(s) in questions that I've always been fair and neutral. Regarding the AfD, notability of the artist is beyond question. The sources exist and they were not difficult to obtain. As far as Googling "Island6", "Coldcreation" (together) I can guarantee you if there were any connection between the two there would be far more than three pages of Google hits (many of which appear to be mirror sites). There is nothing worthy of sanctions. Coldcreation (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply.... Sigh.... New Media Theorist (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Genocchio

    There have been long-running COI problems at Benjamin Genocchio, which I had thought were pretty much under control. Bgenocchio created Melissa Chiu in 2010. Melissa Chiu is married to Benjamin Genocchio. Bgenocchio has said (if I understand him correctly) on his talk page that I and another editor, Bangabandhu, have an agenda in regard to these two articles and have made "unscrupulous" edits. I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look and check whether any inappropriate edits have in fact been made – and if so, rectify them. Note: Bgenocchio and 1artlovernewyork have been found to be the same user; Artmaven77 is apparently not linked to them. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    What long-running COI problems are you referring to? An independent Wikipedia editor just added to the talk page that i had not touched it since 2013 aside from minor edits? They even asked you to calm down (talk) . What is factual is that beginning in august this year you and the user Bangabandhu began inserting entirely negative commentary into the wikipedia entry for Melissa Chiu, my wife. The record shows this. Every time anyone tried to modify or adjust it in some way you guys rejected and restated all of their edits, even ones where there were factual errors. Because of this we made a complaint to wikpiedia and in turn (talk) moved immediately to block me as a user citing a conflict of interest. You accused me of sock-puupetry even though i am not using more than one account. I use one wikipedia login and it is under my name and have done this for many years. i am not anonymous. i am not the same user as 1artlovernewyork-- that account belongs to someone else even though some entries from the ip address are the same. i will not tell you who this account belongs to for reasons that i will outline below. i have no idea who any of the other users are. i don't use wikipedia often and i regret having got involved here to protect my wife.

    I thought this matter was at an end, that Melissa Chiu's account would be properly revised and edit made by these two users reviewed by others with no agenda. In fact i would note that their original edits have either been removed or modified by other editors. Then came September 6-7, both the same users started to modify my personal wikipedia account. that seemed suspicious. This is what i consider to be unscrupulous because it was done while I was blocked as a user, by them, and clearly in retaliation for making a complaint about these users. Frankly given the negative entries that (talk) and Bangabandhu have been invoked in inserting on my wife's page, plus the fact that he is the one who moved to block my access, that would count him out as somebody who could edit my wikipedia entry--doesn't he also have a conflict of interest here?

    i would note that i have not touched either my wikipedia entry nor that of melissa chiu since this issue began (initiated by their actions, i would add), while both parties are continuing to edit my wikipedia page. in fact they have just introduced two factual errors which i have noted on the talk page of the entry and requested they be independently reviewed. i am a public individual, i do not hide behind anonymous user names, and frankly i do not want to be having to respond to these constant negative changes, so i welcome independent review of both these entires. but i would request please that given the pattern of negative commentary on entries for a married couple that both these users and their connected associates be prevented from making any further changes to them and their edits be reviewed. i am not adept at using wikipedia or familiar with its rules but it seems to me that if i can't edit these accounts as a person with a conflict of interest, which is fair enough, then others who have demonstrated a pattern of bias should not be able to edit them either. on this final issue, it is clear that they have gone into my wikipedia entry as a consequence of me getting involved in my wife's entry. I would tell you who 1artlovernewyork is (it is not me) but i am afraid that they will also be subjected to the same kind of vendetta by these individuals.

    User:Justlettersandnumbers and his associate Bangabandhu have accused me of everything under the sun, COi, Sock-puppetry etc etc. but the question remains why both of them have been so obsessed with and controlling of our wikipedia entries? please explain talk) what is motivating your behavior? Why is constantly inserting negative commentary that is really opinion here so important to you? Benjamin Genocchio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgenocchio (talk • contribs)

    • Comment i read some of the article, the talk page and in particular the back and forth comments between the article subject and the two editors. my advice to Bgenocchio would be to stay away from the pages in question. It's not worth your time. Editors naturally perk up their ears when the article subject starts to exert any kind of influence or commentary on the page(s) in question. If you are the article subject, anything you say comes with a built-in bias, and it going to be received with some skepticism by other editors. Why don't you save yourself some time and grief, and do this instead? 1) have one of your assistants (you must have a few of those) set up a Wikipedia account to monitor and suggest changes to the articles in question. 2) make sure they identify themselves on their user page as being an advocate for your cause. 3) leave it to that assistant to take care of your concerns, not by having them edit the article(s), but rather by having them request other editors to make the edits, using the request { {edit template}}. That's my suggestion. I cannot for the life of me imagine why someone in the publishing business would want to get directly involved in editing their own page or pages related to them, and the attendant public discussion of those edits. What possible upside could there be for you?New Media Theorist (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Xavier Aptitude Test

    At least this was labeled a COI edit. Lots of redlink editors suddenly on the edit history. Details to follow. Brianhe (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    XAT is administered by a business school called Xavier Labour Relations Institute at Xavier School of Management. The school is in Jamshedpur 200 miles (km) from Patna where one of the IPs is geolocated. Patna may be the closest large city. Added XLRI to this case. IND b-schools have a poor track record of managing COI. — Brianhe (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this is the proper place to mention it, but you can add Krishchandra83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Krishnac2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being operated by the same person as Krishnacareers360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not think these three accounts are related to the school. Instead, they are trying to plug links to their company's website into many articles about schools and entrance exams. On the other hand, it was their company (Careers360) that was instrumental in exposing the dodgy dealings of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, as noted here. So there you go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

    I am new to the wiki world and I was wrongly self-editing my company's by accident.

    The page has been spottily edited since 2012 and did not have any coherent paragraphs or sections. I work for a nonprofit law firm that does religious liberty litigation and I want to update our page that shows our Supreme Court victories, our history, and the up-to-date cases we have been working on.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Rgcolby1023 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi@Rgcolby1023:: I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and then making recommendations for changes to the article on Talk:The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Once you have done so, go ahead, and make a request here on this notice board, and an editor can help review those changes, and ensure that the changes are made both neutrally while minimalizing the Conflict. Sadads (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rgcolby, thank you for your disclosure. Don't be alarmed, but I have tagged the article with the conflict of interest tag, to indicate the 40 edits you made to it in the past couple of months may have altered the neutrality of the article. It will be removed once an uninvolved editor decides it's appropriate to do so.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Avrett Free Ginsberg

    COI/SPA editors piling on their employer's website. Afgwiki is a self-declared corp officer [71]. Attempt via WP:UAA to block username as a role account failed, perplexingly. The IP is from FCB, a company also owned by Interpublic Group. These PR companies are an alphabet soup. More Interpublic Group shenanigans are in the archive from a recent, fairly major socking/COI incident. These repeated indications of real black-hat stuff associated with this place are troubling. — Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @ any admin (JzG ?) recommend blocking 170.200.144.19 immediately. Just look at their talkpage. — Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that Interpublic had probably signed up at Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms but can't see it now. But if anybody can go thru the alphabet soup and find it, I'd appreciate it. Which brings up the thought - why don't we invite them to join that group? This would be a constructive way to address the problem. I don't see any rules that would prevent any editor from making such an invitation, but it's clear that doing it badly would cause difficulties. Let me know what you think on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [72]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:DGG, can you (or somebody) please re-incarnate the Talk:Avrett Free Ginsberg page as well, it was WP:CSD#G8'd. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin COI editing shock

    Resolved
     – Tiggerjay (talk)

    I just added an infobox to Semmle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is my wife's firm. I have given them some advice on posting to the Talk page and how not to be evil on Wikipedia. Dell is one of their customers, but I'm pretty sure it's Dell Software Group, which is a separate business unit - there's no connection at all to the datacenter consultancy practice, which is where I work. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're not employed by Semmle or Dell I don't see any reason to report this, but thanks for putting the info here. I'm not too clear about the "datacenter consultancy practice". Is this part of Semmie, Dell, or another company completely? If it's part of Dell I'll suggest putting that on your user page, as part of a normal, low key COI statement, but it's definitely not a paid editing disclosure that's needed in that case. Hope this helps, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick review of your edits on the Semmle page and they look fine. Good work! As Smallbones said, it might not be a bad idea to make a small/minor reference to your potential COI on your userpage. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazakhstan

    Articles

    Users

    Consistently sanitised content, to the point that it is encyclopedically useless. The article Elections in Kazakhstan for example contains no mention of the fact that elections in the country are widely considered a "travesty", to quote The Guardian.

    The accounts named above are typically red-linked single-purpose accounts focusing exclusively on Kazakhstan articles.

    Previous concerns by Alex2006 and NeilN: Talk:Kazakhstan#Observation_on_content.

    Prior press reports detailing PR and Kazakh government involvement in Wikipedia:

    Given that the last one of these press articles reports that Johns Hopkins University took money from the Kazakh regime for academic reports, it is striking that Human rights in Kazakhstan quotes a laudatory Johns Hopkins report prominently in the lead.

    There is of course an abundance of sources critical of the Kazakh regime – just check mainstream newspapers' reports on human rights in Kazakhstan, or the Kazakhstan report of any reputable human rights org (example: "Kazakhstan heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In 2014, authorities closed newspapers, jailed or fined dozens of people after peaceful but unsanctioned protests, and fined or detained worshipers for practicing religion outside state controls. Government critics, including opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov, remained in detention after unfair trials ... Torture remains common in places of detention." – Human Rights Watch; not the impression you'd get from reading Wikipedia).

    It's just that they're either not reflected, or deleted, as in this case (the accurately cited source was page 55 of [73]), or drowned out by masses and masses of fluff to the point where any critical content is lost in a sea of boring bureaucratic details.

    The overall effect is that Wikipedia supports the Kazakh government agenda, to the extent that I've seen a Kazakh embassy tweet the Wikipedia article on Kazakhstan. [74] Andreas JN466 12:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only totally agree with Andreas. I have the Kazakhstan page on my watchlist, and can confirm that since many months an avalanche of "news" in soviet-bureaucratic style are reducing the information contained in this article to noise. These edits are performed by brand news "users" who after being warned plainly disappear, only to be substituted by new ones. Alex2006 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could these articles be semi-protected to make it more difficult for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Also, checkuser? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elections in Kazakhstan should be rewound to the 2013 revision [75]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another example from President of Kazakhstan:

    Kazakhstan's 5th presidential election was held on April 26, 2015.[6] Nursultan Nazarbayev was re-elected with 97,7% of the vote.[7] 858 observers from 19 countries were present at the polling stations during the election.[7] International and local observers have reported no significant violations.[7]
    International observers from 19 countries commended the organization and transparency of the elections held on April 26 2015.[8] Politicians, professors, analysts and journalists from the US, Great Britain, Croatia, Latvia, etc. praised the openness of the electoral process and the transparency of voting procedures at the polling stations.[8]

    This is cited to RT and the regime's own Astana Times. Here is what the BBC said: "The result, giving 74-year-old Mr Nazarbayev a fifth consecutive five-year term, had never been in doubt. [...] He ran virtually unopposed as his two opponents were both seen as pro-government." Here is what Aljazeera said: "The Central Asian country's marginalised opposition did not put forward any candidates for the election and Nazarbayev ran against two candidates widely seen as pro-government figures." None of that is in the article. Andreas JN466 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a section with international criticisms to the Elections in Kazakhstan article for balance, as this should not be whitewashed. Let's see how long it lasts. Valenciano (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone have access to relevant Central Asian studies journals? JSTOR has Central Asiatic Journal, and the defunct Central Asia Monitor and extant Central Asian Survey should be relevant here, and much more trustworthy than the easily influenced news media. Speakers of Russian may do well to use Gosudarstvo Kazakhstan (not sure of the original title), giving the earlier history of the state, while anyone here should be able to use most of the 1,309 works that appear in WorldCat under the subject heading Kazakhstan--Politics and government. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Nyttend. The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia (2014, Oxford University Press), p. 601, quotes Marie Helene Cote, "A Sobering Reality: Fundamental Freedoms in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Twenty Years after the Soviet Collapse" for its assessment of the human rights situation in Kazakhstan ("Despite promises of gradual reform made by the authorities [...], the situation in Kazakhstan has deteriorated.") That's an Open Access document (pdf Google html cache) that would make a useful source for the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, as well as the Human rights in Kazakhstan article, all of which are currently woefully inadequate.
    Other openly available and fully up-to-date Kazakhstan country reports from organisations regularly cited in the academic literature include:
    I'd suggest these could be summarised in the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, and be used as major sources for content in the Human rights in Kazakhstan article. The current status reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dennis Brown has indefinitely semi-protected Kazakhstan per this request at WP:AN. If you want the others semi-protected, leave a request at WP:RFPP, pointing to this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andreas, Human rights in Kazakhstan should probably be reverted to 14 March 2013 or thereabouts. I looked at a few with a view to adding semi-protection, but there haven't been enough recent edits to justify it, apart from the main article that Dennis protected. Sarah (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One Little Indian artists

    Joewood91 (talk · contribs) and Trincres17 (talk · contribs) (who are likely the same person, at least an edit of Trincres17 to my talk page strongly indicates this, and also seems to admit the COI) are single-purpose accounts promoting artists represented by One Little Indian. Examples are God Damn (band), Wild Palms (band), Olga Bell, Fufanu (band) and various deleted articles (plus various likely copyvio images on Commons). My instincts tell me "block and delete all", but they are writing about possibly notable bands, so I would like some advice here before I do anything more drastic than putting COI tags everywhere. Any suggestions? —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are not going to allow these band Wikipedia profiles, and I must mention these are all credible bands receiving national radio airplay, and in order for them to have active and proper BBC Music Pages, they must have Wikipedia pages, how can we possibly allow them to have active Wikipedia profiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewood91 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disallowing the bands to have Wikipedia profiles, I have asked you not to create articles about them. In my experience, notable bands will eventually have somebody writing about them. —Kusma (t·c) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joewood91: - We are very interested in notable bands having articles - see WP:BAND for the inclusion criteria. Your assertion that they have received national attention is not directly cited in the article itself, which is what detracts from its credibility as a band which should receive a WP article. Take a look at that BAND article and fixup the page as necessary. However, the concern that Kusma brought up was regarding a potential for you to have a Conflict of Interest in this subject and the possibility that you might be introducing WP:SPAM into the article. In general, if you have any official connection with these bands, you should not edit them. Fans of bands are the next group of people which often have problems creating or editing articles because they don't provide information in an encyclopedic way. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just note that God Damn (band) are unquestionably notable. Coverage in The Guardian: [76], regular mentions in Kerrang, NME, etc. Same for Wild Palms: [77]. [78] Let's also note that even if Joewood91 were an agent for the bands in question or their record company, there is nothing in current policy forbidding him to edit, provided he openly discloses any paid relationship in line with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Andreas JN466 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this, I am certain the user is an agent of the record company. Unfortunately my interactions with the user go like this (paraphrase; look at their and my talk page for the full story): me: "hey, please familiarise yourself with our policies" they: "what do I need to do to have an article about this band?" me: "please look at our conflict of interest policy and follow it" they: "what do I need to do to create an article about this band?". Apparently I am unable to talk to them, which is why I am posting here asking for help. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the background. I'd say the first step should be compliance with the terms of use, e.g. by a note on the (as yet uncreated) Joewood91 user page that makes clear Joe works for One Little Indian Records. He's willingly disclosed this in his discussion with you, so it's pretty clear it's just ignorance that he did not disclose it on his user page or in any of the other ways envisaged by the terms of use. (Also, Joe, please only use one account.)
    As for the content, the God Damn article looked okayish and factual to me, while Wild Palms has too much uncited material. Now Joe may think, 'Why is that a problem? I know the stuff is true.'
    Joe, this is not a question of not believing you that you're telling the truth, but a question of making sure the material is verifiable against an external source to begin with, so it doesn't morph out of shape over time as people play around with it. (See I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax, How pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia and Guilt by Wikipedia for examples of how this can happen.) Citing sources does not make it impossible for such problems to occur, but it makes it somewhat less likely. Ultimately you don't want Wikipedia to tell people plausible nonsense about your artists a few months or years down the line. Andreas JN466 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, thanks for the advice. As Andreas mentioned, God Damn (band) are clearly credible and worthy of a page, I have updated the Wild Palms (band) with further references, and will do so for further entries. In regards to openly disclosing any paid relationships, what is the best practice for doing this? Thanks, Joe Wood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trincres17 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ushtima e maleve

    Hertizsedlon recently blocked as confirmed Orangemoody sock. Looks like this article Ushtima e maleve was his focus. Which makes all editing on that article open to question. Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thompson Coburn

    Suspected terms-of-use violation (no disclosure). Misleading edit summary: [80] Andreas JN466 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes.
    1. Kindly go through the person's contributions and assess them for neutrality.
    2. Please come to your own conclusions on whether there is a likely terms of use violation or not; if you think there is, please leave the accounts a talk page note advising them of the terms of use requirement to disclose any paid relationship (and if you think there is no such relationship, please let me know, and I'll be able to email you further background).
    3. If appropriate, please add the involved contributor template to the article's talk page, as I am quite sure that the user might return if there were any significant changes to the article they found disagreeable.
    4. Please note ThompsonCoburnmktg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for user name violation in 2013). Andreas JN466 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establishing if they have a COI is rater moot since their are either inactive, or blocked-- and the page has already been appropriately tagged. Additionally you seem to be skipping steps such as attempting to resolve in the talk page, or use WP:BRD methods to resolve your content concerns. A quick review of those edits show either updating statistical information, or the of some WP:SPAM content which would easily be resolved by simply having you make these edits. There is no editwar, or active COI editor, so any finding here wouldn't bear any more weight then you boldly making the changes yourself. That is, unless you have some specific COI or BIAS in this situation, and need another editor to become involved because of your inability to edit the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saks Fifth Avenue marketing team

    This IP has also edited various financially connected articles, e.g. Richard A. Baker (businessman) (chairman of HBC) and extensively:

    The edit pattern resembles that of some other IPs active in the same area, e.g.

    There are probably far more related edits that deserve scrutiny as well.

    Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI:
    I am the "experienced editor" HaeB is referring to. I semi-automatically filed an AIV report already with huggle. While I wasn't involved with HaeBs' decision to come here, this forum may, in fact, be more appropriate. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Ver

    The subject of the article is editing his own article. I've edited that article in the past and would prefer that someone else handle this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the user has left a message on Talk:Roger Ver, and a link to a PGP signed copy of the same message[81]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravi Tripathi and others

    Sample articles

    Accounts involved


    I don't think there's any outing issues here as they edit under the names, have photographs on etc, and their PR agency references the Wikipedia work as well as patroller status on hi.wiki. This edit to an archived discussion is quite suspicious too. They've been quite persistent in creating articles and have tried multiple approaches. There's obviously some other accounts that have to be either duck or SPI blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, @SpacemanSpiff:, It is quite hurtful. I am here denying your all the allegation. I'm not being paid by anyone. It's very hurtful, I'm emotionally attached to Wikipedia. As I'm contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I have contributed a lot not only English but in Hindi Wikipedia as well.

    I have my an other account with Username Jeeteshroxx, as it was created by me when I lost my password of this account. Later i recalled my password from a rough book where I had written passwords of my Gmail, Facebook etc accounts. This is not a new thing you are saying, on Hindi Wikipedia many people knows, as it was previously discussed on Hindi Wikipedia. And i had given same clarification about Jeeteshroxx. When i had recovered password of this account, later when i came to know about that people cannot operate two accounts as per Wikipedia policy, i stopped using Jeeteshroxx. As you can see i am not using that account since long.

    You have pointed that I have edited Ravi Tripathi page. For your kind information, I just want to clear it that I do not no personally know Ravi Tripathi. I edited Ravi Tripathi article just because he hails from district of my native place. No any external link, I have.

    You have given a link of under constructing Blog, alleging that I am linked with any PR firm. No, No, I'm not linked with any of PR firm. And not even interested in it.

    Which link you given that was a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. This company is being planned to be set up my village friend Rahul.

    And me and Rahul is not involved in any paid editing of Wikipedia article.

    Let me tell you about others. I created article Golden Book of World Records, when i had created series articles of world records like India Book of Records, and Asia Book of Records. behind creating these articles i had thought that, these are book of worlds records. it should have articles like Guinness Book and Limca book. So i just created.

    And about Suvigya Sharma, i came to know about this painter through a post shared by one of guy on Facebook. So i goggled about him with curiosity to know more about painter and i found enough media coverages about him, which passes notability guidelines. so created his page. When i was creating about his article i came to know that he received Bharat Gaurav Award, so i created an other article with name Bharat Gaurav Award, as i came to know about it that is one of the important international awards, given to Indians and Indian diaspora. no any personal connection with anyone neither Suvigya nor Bharat Gaurav Award. Your allegation sounds just a harassing to me.

    I edited Muzammil Ibrahim article by thinking to improve the article as it had some tags describing less references. Do not remember exactly, which tag was placed.

    About, Paul Myres, I read about him in News on 17 Sept. His story was quite inspiring. so goggled to know more about this man, and got enough media coverages about him. so created Wikipedia article about Paul Myers. And nothing.

    Well, I think, i should give bit introduction about myself. So that you can understand me in better way. I am pursuing Bachelor of Management studies in Marketing, I am poet by interest, writes in Hindi, i am art lover , I have bit knowledge about web designing, much attracted to know current affairs about politics, bureaucracy, business and arts.

    Here, I clearly denying your all the allegations. Personally, I do not believe in paid editing and conflict of interest. As it is not good for Wikipedia as it would defer the quality of article. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you then explain the PR agency that you run along with the other partner (I see that you have now made the site subscriber only): archived link.?—SpacemanSpiff 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    No, No it is a kind request please do not call it a PR agency. As i have clearly mentioned it that it is a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. Rahul, who is my village friend Rahul, planning to open it but unfortunately he is not much concentrated over there as he is busy in his personal life, getting married in November. He has taken me in his company just because i have bit knowledge about web designing. There is only two people that is me and Rahul, no any partners. In my biography, whatever, he has updated is just to build my profile. As I'm marketing student of BMS. I have studies many subjects, including Public Relations in 5th semester. This is the reason why he has mention about PR. And about blog, I have said that it is in under construction, so no reason to make it live. And Again I'm clearly mentioning I have NO any affiliation with any PR related firm. Denying allegations. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you have to come clean on this. The cached copy clearly shows that you are in violation of the ToU and a testimonial from one of the article subjects. At this point, I don't see any recourse but to prevent you and your business partner from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And then you're claiming here that you've never interacted with Ravi Tripathi, but here you claim otherwise. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brianhe/COIbox24 has the ContributionSurveyor analysis for Jeeteshvaishya. Article creations by Jeeteshvaishya or Jeeteshroxx, as reported among the ContributionSurveyor top 20 results, subtracting purely geographic entities, are:

    This list is completely consistent with publicity-seeking individuals and groups being written about by a PR agency. — Brianhe (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to me quite a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid-editing, especially given the cached website for the PR agency, which was changed once this complaint was filed. I plan to indef. User:Jeeteshvaishya and his sock account for ToU violations and promotional editing but wanted to post here first to check if there are any precedents for/against such actions, and suggestions on how the articles should be best dealt. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The web page is unambiguous, that at least some of this is paid editing. We've sometimes given some degree of amnesty to previous undisclosed paid editor who have come clean, either of the own volition or after an accusation, but this is the opposite pole: not only undisclosed, but denied with an attempt to hide the evidence. I do not think we have a formal policy on blocking for TOU violations, but for ones of this nature I think we have so far had no hesitation in doing it. (In any case, promotional editing is a perfectly good block reason)
    As for the articles, we seem to not have a policy that articles written by undeclared paid editors (before they are blocked) will be deleted. Even after they are blocked, we do not have a policy to delete them unless the paid editor is the only significant contributor. The Orangemoody case was an exception, and in my opinion a bad precedent. Of the articles listed here, Munishwar Dutt Upadhyay, Satyaveer Munna, Ram Vilas Vedanti and Guru Nanak High School, Mahim are unquestionably notable by our usual rules. Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri) and Prem Lal Joshi are most likely notable also. Some of the entertainers may be also, but I cannot judge in that field. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sudoku solver article, Rohan Rao, created by same user. I removed one ref that was a dead link and looked iffy as a source anyway. But some Indian press sources remain; he might actually be notable. — Brianhe (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @SpacemanSpiff: Your comment seems me quite ridiculous. I said no, means no. I do not know Ravi Tripathi personally and do not have any connection with. Why you guys do not understand that. I emailed him to just seek his permission for using his photo. And Nothing. If can see, when I had created Ravi Tripathi article, that time I picked some photos from Google and uploaded on Wiki Commons, as that time not had much knowledge about Wiki commons and copyright issue. Still I'm not familiar with Wiki Commons. I emailed him for seeking his permission just thinking that if I took permission then I can upload photos on Wiki Commons. But still I'm not able to give or prove that I took permission. Some photographs has been proposed for deletion now. Let me clear you again that I'm not linked with any Ravi Tripathi, I do not know whether my village friend has received any testimonial or not. Blog of Web designing and Software company was created by him only. As per my knowledge, he haven't received any testimonial, might be, he has made any false or fake testimonial. But if he had made any false statement on blog, I'm not going yo suffer it. And again saying and will say more 100 times, i'm not being compensated by anyone. Your are saying, business partner, It is ridiculous and rubbish. Company is still not born. How can you say that business partner. Haven't made any business. Nonsense. And yes, I will again say I haven't violated any rules of Wikipedia.

    Why you people do not understand, I'm a 20 years old guy, who is still studying, I'm student. And Mr you are saying you will prevent or stop me from editing Wikipedia. Oh please, do not say like that. Wikipedia is not yours. It is ours. It is our Wikipedia, I am contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I'm proud Wikipedian.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Abecedare and Brianhe, I haven't made it clear that it is not a PR agency, why you don't get it. It is web designing and software developing company, which had planned to set up, but still not born. Just stop calli g it PR agency. I gain say big No, I haven't involved in any activities, that violates Wikipedia policy.


    @Abecedare: @Brianhe:, Repeatedly I am saying i'm not involved in such activity. I'm not being paid by anyone. And i'm not interested in it too. I respect Wikipedia's each and every norms. Your allegations hurts.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @DGG: Sir, let me tell you, if had created article like Saurabh Dudeja, Rajesh Baniya, the reason behind creating these articles only that I thought these people people should have Wikipedia article. It doesn't mean that i'm involved in any paid editing.

    Just like i created Wikipedia articles Bajrang Bahadur Singh, because he was freedom fighter and served as LG of Himachal Pradesh, and hailed from my native district. Created article Ram Vilas Vedanti, who has been Member of Parliament of my native place. Created Munishwar Duty Upadhyay just because MP and freedom fighter from my native place. Created Guru Nanak High School, because I had completed schooling from here, I love my school. When I was creating article Rajesh Baniya, that time I came to know about that Rohan Rao was 1st in that Sudoku championship, so created article about him. I created article Satyaveer Munna, as he hails from near by my native place. I created Belha Devi Temple, because it is famous temple at my native place. I created some articles like Ali Quli Mirza, Sampat Devi Pal because I used to watch Bigg Boss, I came to know about him through Biggboss. I created articles of Rajyasabh MP Pramod Tiwari and MP Harvansh Singh, it doesn't mean that i am linked with these people, I created just because these people are from my native place. and contributed I contributed to articles like Matunga Road, Mahim, Kabootar Khana, Kadeshwari Devi Temple etc because i know this places, is it is located in Mumbai, my current location. Have contributed to literature related articles on Wikipedia, The only reason is i love poetry. These are reasons behind creating articles. That's all.

    Yet I have heard about harassment on Wikipedia, not I'm witnessing it. It is extremely sad. Please do not harass me unnecessary.

    If you think any article which is created by me, has less news references as per Wikipedia's policy, violates any rules, just nominate it for deletion. I will google and try to find out references, and would introduce to the article and try to improve the article, if that doesn't work, then you can delete it. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=682079313"