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 KrazyKlimber (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 5 January 2016 (→‎Jonathan Mitchell). 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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Julie Carpenter
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Concentrix
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Cumming Corporation
    Talk:Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission
    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:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Nigel Edwards (health)
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:GoToGate
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
    Talk:Andrew D. Maynard
    Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive)
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moody Nolan
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Amy Padnani
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:The Student Room
    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:Unity (game engine)
    Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Watches of Switzerland
    Talk:Geoff Webb
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zyn


    Charter School Growth Fund

    It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

    CobraNet

    In July 2013 I removed a "Licensed manufacturers" section from the article [1]

    A few days ago Scottywong, the creator of the article, a retired editor and admin with an impressive list of contributions to Wikipedia, reverted the deletion.

    Kvng, who has declared coi [2] and claims to be the inventor of CobraNet [3], has twice restored the content, even after declaring his coi.

    I don't believe Kvng should be adding material even remotely like this per WP:COI. I've not reviewed Kvng's other edits to this article.

    I'm also concerned that Scottywong's professional interest in the topic (identified here along with his declaring he has no FCOI), his being the creator of the article, and his creating the article as his very first edits from this account; is interfering with the need to focus on content, sources (of which there are no independent sources at all), and the relevant policies.

    Discussion about the content is here. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems unnecessarily antagonistic. We're trying to have a discussion with you about the content, and you're just wiki-lawyering yourself all over the place. This is going to make it a lot more difficult to have a discussion about the content. User:Kvng has no financial interest in CobraNet. His thoughts on the subject are no less valuable than yours or mine. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI covers interests other than financial, which is why Kvng needs to restrict his editing, and why I mentioned your editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking further, Scottywong has a definite conflict of interest with the content he restored. I've asked him to respond or revert. As there have been some WP:OUTING problems concerning Scottywong's identity, I hope we can resolve this without evidence, but no matter what I will not divulge his identity. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that COI issues are apparent here and it is worrying that Kvng has edited it heavily and has been edit-warring recently. COI rules weren't so prohibitive back when it passed GA so I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to hide the COI or promote the product, but they shouldn't be editing the article directly from now on. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Scottywong's coi, though a financial one, isn't to CobraNet as a whole as is Kvng's, so I don't think he needs to restrict his editing to WP:COIADVICE except with the content where he has a direct conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had no financial interest in CobraNet since 2006 when I amicably left Cirrus Logic. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for repeating that. How about addressing how closely you think you should follow COIADVICE given you are the creator of the product, which is the issue? As an expert on the technology, you've much to offer and I don't think your biases would be a problem if you restricted your edits to COIADVICE for everything other than the technology. Your biases are clearly interfering with the need to have high-quality, reliable, independent, secondary sources in the article; which the section your restored has none of 11, and the article has one of 32. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a distinction between making changes to the article and restoring the material Ronz deleted without consensus. I have opened an RfC to help resolve this. I may not have stayed abreast of changes to WP:COIADVICE but it looks like the last time I made a significant change to the article was July 2012. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI doesn't make the distinction. If anything, edit-warring making multiple reverts where you have a conflict of interest is a bigger problem. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate the edit-warring accusations. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Struckout. Are you going to address the issue? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I have any further issues to address with you here at this time. If anyone else has a question or something I need to hear or respond to, please {{ping}} me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about me, but about whether or not you are able to follow COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Given Scottywong's behavior, I've opened a discussion at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Maxxsonics

    Maxxsonics, now in its 2nd deletion discussion had only 1 reliable source and a bunch of press releases as sources. I edited it to 1 of each, and there is nothing left of the article. I asked @Hcparvin: if he is a paid editor and he said no., but this doesn't appear to be correct. I can e-mail an admin on this if necessary. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article deleted via AfD. John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Williams (DJ)

    I initially came across this user via the article for Williams, as it was up for speedy deletion via A7. I noticed that the article had some promotional puffery, but decided to let that slide since it was slightly ambiguous. Things that stood out include the sentence "His role at iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel, has continued to evolve."

    I nominated the article for deletion via AfD since A7 didn't really qualify and took another look at Kazmandu2's edits a bit later after noticing that they referred to themselves as a "we" at the AfD page. I quickly noticed their second page in the draftspace, which I nominated for deletion. It was very, very unambiguously promotional and looked to be taken directly from marketing materials. Content from that article included peacock language like "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" and "There were lots of companies catering to small to medium businesses, but Bryan wanted the challenge of working with the Biggest and Best names in the industry." There was also a list of people they'd worked for. A further look into matters shows that they uploaded this image as fair use, which implies that they own the copyright to it.

    I flat out asked Kazmandu2 if they had a COI, only for them to claim that they don't. To be very honest, I don't believe them. Their edits and the way they spoke at the AfD suggests that they are someone hired to create an article, likely someone from Rockstar Marketing. I should probably block them for the "we" comment, but I wanted to give them one last chance to come clean. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I usually assume better faith from people, but this all feels a little too dishonest for my tastes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ended up just going with my gut reaction and just blocking them. There's far, far too much evidence to suggest that they're a paid editor. The image uploaded to the Commons is concerning somewhat there's a walkthrough that goes over the various policies for images (so they should've been aware that they couldn't upload something that wasn't fair use or that they didn't own the rights to) and that they did this separate from Wikipedia suggests that they're passing familiar with Wikipedia. I don't think that this is something of Wiki-PR proportions, but I do think that they'll likely be back. Again, I normally try to assume far better faith of people, but this just seems like a WP:DUCK scenario since they're pretty much engaging in all of the stereotypical paid editor habits but were trying to claim that they weren't a paid editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy reading "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" can safely assumed to be PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like there are some IPs coming in to edit now, so I think that this might require some further intervention. The following IPs have begun editing:
    @2602:30A:2CF0:90:492F:4F51:A343:4DBF: This editor created Draft:Daswise, which has just been started and has the same spam issues. They also ask for the draft for Rockstar be restored here.
    @2600:1:A140:546:C106:385E:D6B9:935D: Another IP, edited Kazmandu2's talk page and appears to be the same editor. They'd made a pretty bad faith comment towards me asking them if they were a paid editor. That's usually a pretty big sign that I'm correct, given that innocent people are rarely this defensive.
    I'm debating taking this up to SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm bringing it to SPI. Now there's Scottdaddy2222. A search for the name and Rockstar Marketing shows that he's very obviously the company's owner. This pretty much shows proof that it's this company. What makes it worse is that they're trying to hide it, which is extremely unethical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added one more editor and a draft. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that! I'm leaning towards blocking this one as well as a block evasion and an undisclosed paid editor. This company is turning out to be another example of what not to do if you own a marketing company. I mean, if Kazmandu2 had just been honest about their COI I would've just warned them about making promotional edits and mostly left it at that. However lying is pretty much one of the worst things you can do on here since it's the epitome of unethical and deceptive. There's not much more that they could have done to make their company look terrible. I really hope that they're not ramping up to be the next WikiPR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Protect the article maybe? --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm tempted to say that we should leave it just so we can pick them off one by one. I wonder if they're just trying to make themselves look bad at this point, given that they don't seem to really be looking at any of the warnings. I think it's safe to say that this company has zero scruples. Do you think that we should reach out to some of their clients to ask them to stop? Daswise has a facebook page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhishek Agrawal

    Editor Krish512 !voted in deletion discussion at Abhishek Agrawal [4], and re-created the article on 15 December at Abhishek Aggrawal (note doubled letter "g"). Anon editor inserted link to article under first name at [5], and Authorabhi added it under second name at [6]. Appears to be self-promotion by nn author and/or cohorts, and attempts to circumvent the community-based article review process.

    ManyAll of these same editors were warned in November at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Abhishek Agrawal. – Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Belly (loyalty program)

    Article was created fully formed by a one-edit account; then maintained by a string of SPAs. Best I can tell it has ever had only one substantive editor who is neither an SPA nor anon. It has a telltale list of unknown awards and company social media links. Needs a thorough scrub at least. Brianhe (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    i cleaned it up and have it on my watchlist. 03:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    European Graduate School


    This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism in the past by accounts that seem to be linked to the institution. These accounts take issue with the fact that the Wikipedia article for the European Graduate School references its lack of accreditation as a degree-issuing university in the United States. The edits usually involve deleting links to credible and sourced U.S. government websites that record this institution as unaccredited. The EGS website was previously protected from edits to halt this abuse under WP's Conflict of Interest policy (See case here: [7]). Since that time the EGS has taken to misrepresenting its status with Wikipedia on its own website (link: [8]), which claims:

    The entry on Wikipedia has been vandalized and is inaccurate. We are in formal communication with those responsible at Wikipedia and have asked them to lock the site until it is replaced with a correct page listing.

    A review of the edit history on this article reveals that this is exactly the opposite of what happened. Several EGS-linked accounts were repeatedly vandalizing the site by removing sourced references to its lack of US accreditation, and the page was temporarily locked from editing to prevent EGS-affiliated accounts from continued vandalism. In light of this pattern & given a clear indication on this institution's website that it is trying to remove relevant and sourced but unfavorable information about itself from its wikipedia article, I'm reposting it here and asking that a permanent Conflict of Interest notice be placed on the article's talk page to govern further edits from a persons that are formally connected to this school. Thanks - Contextualist (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's always a problem is saying lack of accreditation, which is something that usually cannot actually be documented. But just as Contextualist (talk · contribs) sys the article history illustrates he repeated efforts of publicists for the school to improperly use anything that might possibly suggest accreditation way beyond their proper meaning. (A good indication of this is anything suggesting accreditation in Switzerland. That country only accredits the schools listed in List of universities in Switzerland, but. like most places, will register almost anything as a business. It's routine in such cases for people to use business licenses as if they mean accreddited. It's routine for state ment about links with other colleges to be used, when they can not actually be demonstrated to be current. We really need a proper way of wording to deal with this sort of situation. (one way is to delete the articles, but that can remove useful smd sourceable NPOV information about a widely publicized "university"). DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We went through this in October. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#European_Graduate_School. The current article text seems reasonable. They really do seem to be accredited in Malta, but that may just mean that Malta recognizes diplomas from them. The recognition by the canton of Valais is much weaker. They're in category J, "Private schools of tertiary level recognized by the Canton", along with two schools of hotel management.[9]. This seems to be related to an European Union convention of which Switzerland is a signatory.[10] There's a EU distinction between diploma acceptance for cross-border employment, and diploma acceptance for academic purposes. The certifications mentioned here seem to be for the first purpose. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked this. Malta recognises one qualification, and based on this EGS states that is is an "EU accredited Institution of Higher Education", which is not a style I have ever seen elsewhere, and the top Google hits are all EGS: [11] - they appear to have coined it. Accreditation in the EU is a matter for member states, and there's no actual evidence that Malta does accredit them, only that one qualification is listed as licensed. Bear in mind that we have had Bircham International University banging on for years about how being licensed by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce is a form of accreditation, which it plainly is not. So I have added an {{editprotected}} to remove that paragraph as WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IsAnybodyDown?

    Resolved
     – No COI evidenced presented. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of Interest - User NatGertler is clearly being paid to edit the article in question on behalf of outside antagonists. --98.165.218.244 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what "outside antagonists" would be here, but no, User NatGertler (who, by the way, was not notified of this discussion) is not being paid to edit this or any other article by outside antagonists, inside antagonists, stateside antiquarians, cowhide anteaters, or anybody else, despite the towering lack of evidence that has been presented against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    98.165.218.244 and Nat Gertler, No COI evidenced has been presented, so I marked this thread as resolved. No issue was listed either, but the article talk page raises an issue of whether Chance Trahan should be connected to the website. I added references to the article talk page, which support connecting Chance Trahan to the IsAnybodyDown website and supports writing a biography article on Chance Trahan. Dryvyng being associated with Chance Trahan does not thereby associate Dryvyng with IsAnybodyDown. I read the articles on Dryvyng[12][13] and there is nothing in there to support including Dryvyng in the IsAnybodyDown article. NatGertler, User:98.165.218.244's edit summary advise is correct, so I suggest that you may want to consider undoing this edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockfarm working on information technology researchers

    checkuser-confirmed sockfarm

    This situation needs more eyes to figure out what the sockfarm was up to. In an unusual twist, an editor claiming to be one of the article subjects, a person in a highly visible U.S. government position, has asked for one of the articles to be deleted [14]. Brianhe (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Add Checkuser blocked T2e3f5f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that motley crew (apologies to the real Mötley Crüe)--Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the sockpuppetry, thought I would comment on the article deletion of David Bray. I will repeat what I said there - "I hope that anyone voting to keep the article is not doing so despite the situation - being that there is a COI with the article, potential sockfarm, and now the subject of the article requesting deletion and maybe trying to keep the article to prove a point. Yes, I am assuming good faith, but I am also tackling the elephant in the room so sorry if anyone is offended." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is strange. All three articles are quite favorable to their subjects. Yet one of them (or someone pretending to be them) wants their article deleted. This does need further study. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought exactly which is why I took an interest in it. Seems like a genuine request from someone who does not wish to be in the public eye - despite being in a position that will attract such. If you look at the press, he seems to do a great job of staying away from features or in-depth articles about him, which makes me think it is a genuine request. However, it also raises the question of why a sockpuppet - assuming there is a financial interest involved - would create the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the subjects have a connection to Emory University but not sure how the 3rd would be connected.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote at WP:AN/I "... I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Wikipedia:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray." Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. If you can confirm that it is genuine, that would be a step in the right direction.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Confirmed as genuine via ORTS; see AN/I discussion. The problem seems to be not with the present version of the article, but a previous version with more personal details. There were so many personal details because the article subject wrote and self-published an autobiography, which is available from Amazon and in Google Books.[15]. He apparently regrets that now. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and trending towards deletion, so this problem may go away via that route. John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Subodh Kerkar

    Article has become a vanity page for this artist, with much unsourced content, including biographical detail, descriptions of individual artworks, and the standard resume listing of non notable gallery shows. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir Anthony Bailey

    The BLP Sir Anthony Bailey was written by an SPA, Culture759 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits only concern Bailey and his various honors. I added the PR template to the article and it was reverted without explanation. The article needs to be neutrally written and retitled - "Sir" does not usually go in titles unless they are baronets. He has a PR firm (culture is one of his areas of speciality according to his website, www.anthonybailey.org) and I would have to guess Culture759 works for him. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Sir" does not belong in this Wikipedia title. Moved per WP:OBE. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I don't know how notable he really is. He does have a lot of post-nominals but everything about him appears to be from primary sources, so article needs to be hacked down to non-promotional. Culture759 also wrote the article about his wife, Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg, of dubious notability, whose claim to fame is being a great-granddaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Culture759 also created three other articles on very minor awards, Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada, all of which were, coincidentally, awarded to His Self-Promotional Excellency, Sir Anthony Bailey. The Grenada constitution mentions the Order of Grenada but I can't find any other recipients. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: An OBE certainly is a significant acheivement, and it appears he's also been honoured by the Pope, [16] I agree that the tone of the article needs a complete overhaul, but he probably passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree he meets GNG, but the problem is it's from all primary sources, like press releases, so everything is going to come off very slick. Even his intro is very oily - "a campaigner engaged in furthering cultural, educational, commercial and inter-religious relations between Europe, the Caribbean and the wider world." I have no idea what that is. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it odd that the only things that I know about this guy, (I'm a Brit) aren't covered in this peacock article? -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you know about him isn't extremely flattering, then I'm not surprised in the least. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the main contributors of this article I would like to put on record that I do not know, work for or have met or communicated with the subject or his companies and suggestions to that effect made Мандичка are plain false. I find the subject interesting and notable having been honoured with 20 or so high state awards including being knighted by the Queen in right of Antigua and Grenada and in the UK getting a OBE and twice by the Pope in Vatican. I shall endeavour to add some more sources to each but the use of both statements, official releases and front page media coverages in major publications speak for themselves. Even on the subjects own websites you can download official third party sources are shown which confirm what is stated in the article including letters from Buckingham Palace and others. I agree about the article template agree about the 'Sir' being added to the articles title by another contributor . I am aware of the use of titles in articles but he certainly meets GNG. I have also created and contributed to many other articles on relevant subjects which have merit. I have an interest too in lesser known state awards and decorations and have created articles about them. As to his wife she certainly is of note both in terms of her family and the honours that have been awarded to her. I have regularly removed a number of post nominals but other contributors have seen fit to add them again. Reference is also made to very minor awards Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada ?? These are national state honours founded by a Queen or President or a quick look at the recipients of the Sternberg Interfaith Medal show the signifiant public figures including prominent Heads of State and Government so have received it. Culture759 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Culture759.[reply]
    Hey, culture, do you think we should cover this guys arrest record? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    hi Roxy the dog, I assume you refer to the allegations made in 1994 which sources show were dismissed by a magistrate and the subject not even sent to trial and an apology issued to him. a quick look at the Press Complaints Commission show a number of apologies being published by uk media in this regard who had referred to it so no to your question would be my thought. . Culture759 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Centre for International Governance Innovation

    It appears this page has been written and maintained by employees. Luthair (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reduced hype level. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    jake sasseville

    It appears the Jake Sasseville page is being used to make unsubstantiated claims about being the youngest television host in ABC history, and other non-cited grandiosity. I made a correction, citing the correct information, but someone immediately reverted it to the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.

    Not seeing the problem. Please provide a diff, showing the specific edit you are complaining about. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    National Business Furniture

    Appears to have been created for pay, see http://terryhull.net/10343.html Luthair (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did some article cleanup. However, the article may not pass WP:GNG. Anybody else want to take a look? – Brianhe.public (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Luthair: I agree that it obviously was a pay article, although it was 4 years ago, when the paid editing rules weren't so strict. I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Reader Magazine

    WikiBalandina, (a WP:SPA) has implied without saying that they don't have a COI on their talk page, but has added substantial flattering content containing obscure info such as specific circulation numbers over time. Some edits have sources, but they don't always support the attached details.[17]. Brand-new editor Ginger2020 has done a copy-paste revert of this info with an edit summary accusing me of having a COI, which is pretty funny.[18] Both editors have added promotional info about the environmental impact and benefit corporation status which are sourced to routine non-independent sources, and these claims are also prominently touted on the magazine's website, which suggests promotional intent.

    Currently, the only substantial independent coverage of this magazine is a 2011 article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing plagiarism accusations, and a Courthouse News brief about the magazine editor's subsequent libel lawsuit.

    The article did not include the plagiarism accusations when it was first written by 27century. That editor is a relatively new account who has created a several promotional articles about unrelated, obscure, recent topics, which speaks for itself. It looks like many of these articles were deleted or are up for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't done much editing here and I don't have as much experience as you do. My initial impression is that you're more concerned with feeling you are right than anything else, including welcoming work and someone new, even when they have more experience and knowledge about a subject than you. When that becomes apparent-- that they actually might know something that you do not-- your approach/stance is to accuse them of having a conflict of interest or to label their work in negative terms. You also use your superior understanding of Wikipedia in ways that could certainly be considered bullying. You do not appear to be interested in the contributions/edits of others and you take a dogmatic approach to others' contributions-- labeling them as "promotional", questioning their motives rather than acknowledging they may-- because of longstanding interest-- know things about a subject and have a desire to share it. You are not practicing civility in your communications and certainly not in the way you continually change a page and eliminate the work of others because it isn't your work, or because of [fill in the blank].WikiBalandina (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are willing to discuss these edits on the talk page instead of edit warring, we may be able to figure out a way to add some more of the information you know to the article in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I have incorporated some of the changes you have made to the article, although you've since been reverted to a verions with more promotional wording. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. You have been adding content but haven't been providing reliable sources. When I try to discuss this with you on your talk page you avoid answering me, then insult me, and restore the info anyway. Saying that you haven't done much editing is an understatement, since this is the only topic you have edited. The history of the article suggest that undisclosed COI editing is a realistic concern, which is a concern you still haven't actually addressed. You still haven't explained how you know the c. 2003 circulation numbers of the Yucaipa Reader, for example. As at least one other editor has tried to discuss with you, this is a major cause for concern and a possible violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Directory entries for non-notable journals

    sample articles

    Now-inactive user Luke.j.ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is employed by Sage Publishing. His main space contributions consist, as far as I can tell, solely of creating a series of directory entries for Sage journals. The majority of these journals are not in the least bit notable. The "sources" are, in every case I have reviewed, merely the journal descriptors in various directories - and of course this text is not independent. I think they should all be deleted but there are a large number of them. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of creations is indeed large, over 300 articles. I've listed the latest 5 above for perusal. The full list is at User:Brianhe/COIbox31.
    Off-wiki evidence also links sjh88 to Sage through January 2015 with high probability. - Brianhe (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Luke.j.ruby noted here: "I am an editorial assistant at SAGE Publications based in the London office." Here's a list from which to work:
    List of 329 new pages by User:Luke.j.ruby
    -- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bluezell

    Editor's sole purpose seems to be to spam links to user's talk pages offering "assistance" in the form of links to a website that they purport to work for. It didn't feel like a straight AIV or spam blacklist case (but maybe it is) as they aren't actually editing articles so I wasn't sure the PAID rules applied directly:

    are two examples, but essentially all their edits are the same. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OneSky - removal of COI notice by editor who has a COI

    This user appears to have a major connection with the subject and they have made many contributions to the article. They continue to edit the article and have removed a COI notice from the page, which I reverted. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Mitchell

    User has made substantive changes and denies COI. He is not telling the truth. He has a personal online friendship with the subject through Facebook and through his blog Autism Gadfly. He has also appeared on the blog of known friend Oliver Canby. He should not be editing the article and I have tried to revert his edits but he has chosen to edit war forcing me to come here and report him. He must go through the COI procedure on the talk page to get his edits approved by non involved parties. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=698405391"