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 Haadaa (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 24 February 2017. 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
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    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:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Opang Jamir

    Article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opang Jamir. Editor indeffed. (non-admin closure) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2017 (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.

    The username suggests it is used by two people (Opang and Metsubo Jamir), that created 10 of the 36 sources of the article. The remaining sources appear like they are not independent. The article is about one of the two people operating the account, that allegedly won a contest, whose article was deleted for lack of notability. I've started an AfD to delete the article and I've got already 1 vote for delete, that stated the account was a "WP:SPA", i.e. a single purpose account. The "single purpose" of the account is creating an autobiography, and this is a conflict of interest. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like a pretty clear COI. The user continues to edit the article, and has not engaged either here, at his talk page, or on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kendall-K1:: Thanks for voting delete. The deletion was unopposed, the article got deleted and the user got indeffed with the block summary {{uw-spamublock}} <!-- Promotional username, promotional edits -->. The account's single purpose is creating an autobiography.[1] Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Editing statistics for Opangjamirmetsubo". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
    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.

    AnEditorNameA

    User has been referred to WP:COI by User:Meters and I multiple times but has not disclosed or responded at all. User makes promotional articles about heads of the design company Design Within Reach, and in several cases has made disruptive edits to already existing pages, or has hijacked a page such as John Edelman, in order to subvert New Page review. On both pages about people when looking at the pictures provided, they claim that they are the owner of the images(here and here); it is their "own work", which provides more evidence. User:GabetheEditor (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking of opening this myself. I believe "reverted" in the first sentence should read "referred". [fixed, no longer needed] The user in question has recently stated that he is not being paid for the edits, but has not addressed COI fully.. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Edelman. More comments later. Meters (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise - I also placed a Conflict of Interest template on the talk page of this editor. A new editor creating articles about one specific company and their senior staff - definitely not typical of a new editor and a sure sign of a conflict of interest. Assuming Good Faith is a noble thing, but common sense overrides all. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected the linked article from John McPhee to John McPhee (entrepreneur) Meters (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. my AGF is done. This appears to be a COI editor, and despite his denial, quite possibly a paid one. There is also an attempt to move an existing article out of the way so that a new article could take its title, an attempt to highjack an article, and a very strong possibility of socking in an attempt to derail an AFD,
    A new editor, AnEditorNameA, changed a redirect into a promotional company article complete with copyvio material from a PR source. The editor restored copyvio material and promotional material after it was removed. Linked to the article from existing articles Rob Forbes and Herman Miller (manufacturer). Created promo articles on senior staff John G. Edelman and John McPhee (entrepreneur) and linked the various articles. (Note that he first tried to cut and paste John Edelman out of the way to John Edelman (Baseball) and when that was undone simply tried to highjack the article [1]). When John McPhee (entrepreneur) was put up for a promo speedy within minutes an IP (User:50.74.232.106 ) with zero previous edits (and no subsequent edits) quickly showed up to contest the speedy. Fair enough, the speedy was quickly declined, and it could have been an unintentional edit while logged out, but when the article was taken to AFD, a new account User:Designtime1225 was created and made exactly two edits: adding an "OLD AFD" template to the talk page falsely claiming that the AFD had closed as KEEP [2], and then removing the AFD template from the article [3]. This aggressive defense smacks of paid editing. Meters (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AnEditorNameA initiated. More comments there are welcome. - Brianhe (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just a matter of COIN being backed up. We've only got a couple of admins who are active now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI unsurprising results; account is now indef blocked. All three articles are either deleted or redirected. I think this is done now. - Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers

    Article deleted as copyvio and editor disappeared. Nothing else to do at this time. - Brianhe (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2017 (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.

    New article created by a user with similar username hinting at COI. User has not responded to COI messages on talkpage. At the least, this article needs scrutiny of the total of six sources used, three of which include the group's Facebook page, website, and press kit. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed one particularly inappropriate section. I think there is some genuine notability for some of the people, but the bio sections on the others should be removed also. I leave it to those who know more about the genre. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the marketing links to Amazon. The rest will be difficult because it relies on primary sources and has no inline citations. Almost requires a complete re-write. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new to Wikipedia, and need more info on this COI issue. I would like to make the improvements with any of your help. Before it is deleted, I would be happy to make any changes to help it be in line with the rules of the site. I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. Please advise me on how to do so correctly, and we will have no more problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlyssaBrewer103 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An identical version of this article was deleted last week as spam and for copyright violations. I've nominated it again. The above claim, I am Alyssa Brewer, Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers' publicist. I feel that I should have the biggest right to compose their Wikipedia page. well summarizes the problems here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To whom it may concern, since everyone is completely overly critiquing the Gary Brewer and the Kentucky Ramblers page and you have nothing but time..I challenge you to check my facts on the page and see if you can write a better article. Do your research and verify all my info. As I can assure you it is all genuine and verifiable. The page is not finished. All that is currently listed does not even tip the iceberg on what they have done on their 37 active years in the music business. Why would anyone waste the time to publish false information. Please understand a lot of time and effort went into this article, and it is specifically done for the band's fans to be able to read about their favorite Bluegrass band. I have added certain things that were asked for. Thank you, and I hope we can work this out without having to delete it. AlyssaBrewer103 (talk)
    • Now a new account has popped up and removed the templates, including speedy deletion. I'll ask for page protection, and when this is done I'd recommend a sock puppet check. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a sock puppet check? And can you take the speedy deletion box be taken down? There is no material in the article that I can see that is questionable. I will check again. There are now 17 citations or so, and the warnings are still there. There are plenty of Wiki pages linked and a lot of citations citing info to reliable sites. I checked each and every one. I do believe that the page is a great project, and whoever is helping me knows their stuff. If you could please respond to my comments, I would greatly appreciate it. I am feeling quite harrassed for this is my first time ever doing a page or editing one. The people in this thread are stating vague reasons without giving the specific content that is a red flag. Instead of threatening to delete it (for unknown reasons to a new user) please just give me the help and time I need. AlyssaBrewer103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In brief: Sock and meat puppeting refers to editors using multiple accounts, or having friends edit sympathetically, either to avoid being blocked or to give an appearance of greater numbers. As for the sources--many that you added appear to link to the group's website, which is a promotional vehicle and not a reliable source. Most of the prose is indeed promotional in tone, and most of the editing bears the print of conflict of interest. As well, much of what's there is a copyright violation. All of this is explained by the warning templates. The problem is that thus far no administrator has deleted this blatant press release. Many new editors mistake Wikipedia for a promotional venue; that is the case here. The reasons this has been nominated for deletion are eminently clear, as they were when this was deleted a week ago. 2601:188:1:AEA0:9C72:D001:B02E:25B8 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a waste of time. Congratulations you have been no help. We need no help with extra promotional vehicles. There are no copyright violations for I am the representation of this band, and Gary Brewer owns all of his content. A band's website is their most reliable source for info because AS YOU SAY it is a promotional vehicle. They make a living from this, and they couldn't do that if any of it were untrue. Please go ahead and delete my account and anything you want. I am done working on it, and I know you will delete it anyways. AlyssaBrewer103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several messages on your talk page that point you to the various Wikipedia policies that are relevant here. If you refuse to read them I don't know what else we can do to help you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2017 (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.

    Site soliciting clients

    People per hour A site soliciting paid clients S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this. Looking at their portfolio, they claim to have written Taschen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Vanna Bonta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Taschen claim is BS AFAICT, and Vanna Bonta was created by Worthywords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who I blocked 18 months ago. User:Doc James has had some success in getting pages like this taken down before - seeming as they are either lying or blocked, maybe that might work? SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This job listing seems to have been carried out (very poorly!) by an OM sock: [4]. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    InfoQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the company seeking promotion in that advert - was also created by an OM sock. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reported the user and requested the listing is removed. If I don't get any response, WMF legal might be able to pull some strings. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The link has been taken down (along with a SEO one too). Kudos to the site. SmartSE (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Warshak

    Every contribution from these three users involves editing the article Richard Warshak, adding external links to warshak.com, or adding references to Richard Warshak to other articles. The article on Richard Warshak may be an autobiography (article creator is Warshakn who has an obvious name connection) and contains plenty of promotional text and peacock wording and the article contains 15 links to warshak.com. Deli nk (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Edit:one additional user, Rawars, added to the list. Deli nk (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. This one's really bad. Almost all the references are to books written by Warshak. I don't think this guy is even notable, and this may be an AfD candidate. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following message from Rawars was left on my talk page and may be useful to this discussion: Deli nk (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "I appreciate your investment of time and energy in diligently editing the entry about me. As the subject of the page I did not want to make a change on it, even to remove the three template warnings added at the top regarding a contributor with a close connection, words that promote ina subjective manner, and COI and NPOV. But I did want to call your attention to the following. About five years ago a relative updated the page primarily by adding citations to my published work, references, links to other Wikipedia entries, and external links. I shared with her my concern that her identity could cause COI concerns and she has not contributed to the page since 2012. I reviewed the changes she made and find that these reflect a neutral point of view with information that is easily verifiable by consulting the academic journals whose citations she added. She is not the person who created the entry for me and I do not know the identity of the person who did that or made other changes. I see no other COI or BPOV problem on the page and hope that the statements of issues at the top of the page can be removed."
    Rawars, personally, I think there still are conflict of interest issues to be resolved because the article was created by someone you know and has seen little editing from anyone unconnected to you. With all due respect, the whole point of the conflict of interest guidelines is that it should be someone other than you that determines that the article reflects a neutral point of view. That's why I started a discussion here - to solicit assistance from independent reviewers to have a look. Deli nk (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SonarQube

    Edit request has been addressed. - Brianhe (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2017 (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.

    I work for SonarSource SA, the company behind SonarQube.

    Unaware of the COI policy, I edited the SonarQube page this morning to remove most of the egregiously outdated information.

    Two outdated points remain: the "Live SonarQube instance" URL should be updated from http://nemo.sonarsource.org to https://sonarqube.com. The site has been renamed, although there is a redirect in place for now.

    Also, the screenshot in the summary box is outdated. I've attached a more current one.

    Current screenshot for SonarQube

    Ideally, someone would make these changes for me.

    BTW, I've no idea whether this is the right place to post these additional requests (in addition to the initial request for forgiveness) but I can't quite make out from the instructional page what I'm supposed to post on the relevant Talk page. Ganncamp (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You may find the plain and simple COI guide helpful. I left a note on your talk page and added a {{connected contributor}} template to the article's talk page. I'm having problems reaching http://sonarqube.com, so maybe someone else here can help with that change. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry BlackcurrantTea (talk), I got the protocol wrong. It should be httpS://sonarqube.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganncamp (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All taken care of. I think this can be closed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2017 (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.

    Neiyay

    I blocked this user yesterday as an obvious undisclosed paid editor. Articles created / extensively edited:

    people
    corp and other

    SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Working my way through the list. Have proposed deletion of at least two of these so far. Fitria Yusuf is problematic as heavily cited to Basa Indonesia sources. Any thoughts on how to deal with it? - Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I'm done now with the cleanup on this set. Neenyo is beyond my interest/ability to discern notability for genre musicians, so I'll leave it alone. - Brianhe (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hearsay Social

    Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Hearsay, and I've proposed several specific updates to the article on its Talk page. These include updating the company name, adding a logo and some other info to the infobox, and clarifying and adding detail to the article. I won't be editing directly due to my COI, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and implement my suggestions or offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, checking in again here before this gets archived into the abyss. Has anyone had a chance to take a look at my request? Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I changed the name (moved the page) to Hearsay Systems and the URL because these seemed to be the most urgent, and relatively simple. For the others, I'm afraid I must refer you to the note about the requested edits backlog. I also changed the name at Wikidata, though didn't figure out how to change the URL there. Since it was imported from here, it may update automatically. Thanks for your patience and being open about your COI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for your help! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AMCA Toronto

    Created by new user the day they joined. Notwithstandng the promotional nature of their original version, the main thing is the logo. Both the source and author is AMCA Toronto, but it was uploaded to Commons on 3 Februrary this year- by User:Captcharro themselves, thirty minures before they put it into their draft. So clearly a close connection to the company. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was deleted [5] at the user's request. I guess that leaves the logo at Commons, not a matter for this noticeboard. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Showstudio.com

    Someone take care of this. Please and thank you. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You can add Nick Knight (photographer) and User:Pookylee to the list. Fairly obviously either people from the company or someone they hired. A promo block would be super duper. Both accounts are ad only par excellence. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN:, Thanks for that, but still one more to clean up. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pookylee hasn't edited after you told them about COI and disclosure. They should have a chance to follow policy before a block is levied. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. Obvious paid editing farm is obvious, but whatever works. TimothyJosephWood 15:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at AfD. Prognosis doesn't look good for the patient. - Brianhe (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnvr4 and Beacham Theatre

    Boldly closing this per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Strongly recommend to Johnvr4 that they heed the advice to start working with other editors lest they be seen as not here to build an encyclopedia. - Brianhe (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2017 (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.

    Hello, I am an editor of Beacham Theatre and am in discussion(s) (3 of them to be exact) at WP:ELN#Beacham Theatre and two other places. I am being falsely accused of WP:SOAP and promoting X (plus Y and Z) when submitting arguments supporting additions of relevant external links to that entry that aid in understanding for the reader. I have pointed out that these accusations are without merit and uncivil yet they persist as the primary argument against inclusion of the links in question WP:IAR being another argument for exclusion. Several links are being debated. How does one prove that they are not promoting (X, Y, or Z) and seek another opinion for clarification on the matter? For example does this the link increase the understanding of the reader of this statement at the entry Thank you.

    Example: "The late nights at the Beacham featured DJs, beat matching, rare and obscure dance music on vinyl records, intelligent lighting, and themed decor that at times included original paintings by local artist Rollo."

    External link: Blacklight art by Rollo via The Orlando Weekly "Then and now: Orlando's legendary EDM culture" Johnvr4 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Theroadislong (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Local consensusWP:UCEPE Johnvr4 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I thought there was a strong COI case, I would have notified you. I didn't, so there are no accusations relevant to this noticeboard.
    I already asked if you want an explanation for what I meant. The offer is still open. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @user:Ronz Sure I'll listen to any clarifying explanations. For the record, It was not just one editor and I interpreted the "comments" as accusations that I was connected, intending to promote (X, Y, or Z), or worse had been paid to do it. That is is why I came here. I thought they could check it out with a tool or something... The page was my labor of love for history about a building-even (or especially) the very ugly parts of it which no one would ever consider a promotion. I did an architecture report in college in the 1990s that only touched on history. Someone there over 25 years ago gave me copies from a box of of papers they inherited. Now that I edit WP, I gathered my old notes, sources online, and in local archives and started editing. That is my connection. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the background. WP:SOAP introduces distinctions between encyclopedic vs promotional content. Wikipedia has rather massive efforts to curtail the problems of promotional content, of which this noticeboard is a part. When someone adds a link to the work of a non-notable figure (Rollo in this case) to an article where that figure's work has only the briefest of mention (it's not even clearly referenced in this case), then that link will likely be removed as promoting a non-notable figure's work who has only tangential relevance to the topic of the article. An editor that adds many such links will likely face being blocked for adding promotional material.
    I think we should wrap up this discussion, but I wanted to give you some response. --Ronz (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be another place where you have gone off the rails. The above link is not to a Rollo web site (if there even is one) or about rollo It has one pic of his art directly relating to the subject or the entry. The link is to a slideshow about Aahz and the cultural significance it created. Aahz is the Alternate name and reason for the international notability of the Beacham. The link goes to a feature about subculture that late night at the Beacham theater (AKA Aahz) spawned. The feature explains: "Explore the roots of Orlando's thriving EDM culture by reading our cover story Dance dance revolution, an oral history of all-night raves, legendary DJs and other important ways that Orlando's '90s dance culture majorly influenced EDM as we know it today. The pics simply accompany the source article Then and now: Orlando’s legendary EDM culture and each pic (there are several Aahz-related images) has a caption with how it relates to the main article which is cited in the current entry. Those photos add to the understanding of the reader. For example: what was rollo art? Where did the name "Egypt" or "Unity" for the Beacham come from etc.
    Perhaps you should have posted your explanation here: WP:ELN#Beacham Theatre#Arbitrary break (specific link discussions) instead of the WP:TENDENTIOUS edits that you did post in lieu of discussion, a simple answer, or any semblance of a quality argument supporting your position here: [6] and here: [7]. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt you'll get anyone to agree with you, much less gain consensus. --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've forgotten that consensus is based on the quality of an argument. Like this one:
    "...Those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theater presided over by Collins and Dave Cannalte, and nurtured by Beacham promoter StaceBass... From then on the crowds would refer to the Beacham as "Aahz" no matter what the owners called it." [8]
    Your subjective opinions and WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:POINTs in place of valid discussion have zero merit in determining consensus. Your WP:VOTE does not count. It is irrelevant. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I promoting? If so, what? And How? (manual sign) 18:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC) JohnVR4
    Can I suggest that you stop being so aggressive and start assuming good faith, you are a single purpose account with no other editors currently supporting your tendentious edits, Wikipedia works on consensus and you clearly do not have it. Theroadislong (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2017 (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.

    Lucy Dodd

    Reviewing the article, a COI tag had already been put on article. More than 95% of the article has been created by User talk:Davidlewisgallery. I'm not quite sure what to do. It might already be reported. scope_creep (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the article is notable. It concerns a new artist. Can't see how she can be notable scope_creep (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Scope creep. I've taken the liberty of fixing the article and user links in your notice above. I had a look at the article, and note that she has had several exhibitions, two of them reviewed in the New York Times, and at least one in Art in America which indicates a fair amount of notability. However, the main editor needs to change their user name per WP:CORPNAME. Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool. I'm glad something worthy has came out of it, an article about somebody that involves creativity, that most sublime talent. scope_creep (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    With the exception of two edits to Geronimo Stilton by Humtvdramaedit, all edits by both users have related to Hum TV. HumTV123 received a COI notice on [9] 4 February. I posted one for Humtvdramaedit [10] a little while ago. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Michelle B. Cowley CV.

    The article has been deleted. As there is no article, there is no COI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Corrected formatting post close. Also, COI can still exist without an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2017 (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.

    Since the creation last year by the curiously named SPA editor above, this article has been going up and down my watchlist [redaction]. It was declined for Speedy delete early on on the grounds that being a Royal Statistical Society elected Fellow was grounds enough to establish notability. I have my doubts, but wanted other opinion from here. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You caught my attention with the phrase and improved my Monday mood immensely. Some article cleanup just now, but more eyes on this would be good. The autobio (?) editor is still at it and obviously not yet engaging in discussion here, the article talk, or their own talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor seems to have new-editor issues with sigs but has at least now posted on talk:Michelle B. Cowley. Oh, they also confirmed that they are the subject of the article. I'd like to step back from this as they had a problem with my tone on the talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad I improved your mood; if we didn't enjoy ourselves here there would be no point. Your improvements are appreciated, and at least Cowleym is now in a discussion. We'll see how that progresses. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to be the spoilsport here, but we all please should bear in mind that discussions on this page are likely to be read by the article subjects. Although I am sure there was no bad intent, in the context of discussing a BLP about a female academic (or anyone else, for that matter), expressions such as [redaction: the one used above] should most definitely not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? -Roxy the dog. bark 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, really. If the subject of the article saw this thread, what sort of impression of the professionalism of Wikipedia do you think she'd get? I don't expect to see anything like that again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a personal rule about posting on a subject when really effin' angry. I don't normally do it, and it saves me loads of grief I believe. Firstly, my comment was about the article not the subject of the article. It said the article right there in the comment I made, at the beginning. It was there to distinguish between the article and the subject of the article. Meh. Point taken though. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted the article per the users request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 16 February 2017 (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.

    SpotOption

    A person announcing themselves as the marketing director for this binary options company is WP:OWNing the article. First as an IP that geolocates to the company, then with a registered account a few minutes later to make identical deletion of sourced content. Both appearing to be at work wikiwashing the content. Because of WP:REALNAME I believe their claim to work for the outfit. Admin intervention may be required. -Brianhe (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, their statement "The description was erroneous. As the VP Marketing director of the company, only my description should be valid. (Tag: references removed)" was a bit much. Keep watching. SpotOption is the back-end behind most of the binary option industry, including Banc De Binary, an area where we've had huge COI problems.. John Nagle (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At first I thought we were being trolled, the claim was so over the top. *shrug* -- Brianhe (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we are getting legal threats from a brand new SPA [11]. Really could use an admin here. - Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SpotOption is closely linked to Banc De Binary, either as SO's formerly largest customer, or having BDB's CEO as one of SO's founders, or both. The rumor-mill says that BDB is just rebranding and will relocate in another place under a different name (actually I could source that, but the newspapers saying that are pretty much just speculating or giving general warnings IMHO). In any case, I can't see any place now for making fine points on Wiki rules about the binary options industry, which has huge regulatory problems now, especially when they appear to be made by COI editors.

    Just to be clear on my own POV, I wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/Special report about Banc De Binary Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Smartmatic

    I am a user who updates Venezuelan articles often and add to Wikipedia as I read along. I began editing the Smartmatic article for the first time months ago in October 2016 when I was introduced to the topic in my reading. I did not have any intentions as I was just adding from what I read. My edits were soon combatted by various users and sockpuppets who had connections to Smartmatic. The reason I am back here is to make sure that the article is protected from further COI edits and potential sockpuppets.

    So, the user AVM has been making edits on the Smartmatic article since 2008. AVM, who said on my talk page that they are "a personal friend of its (Smartmatic's) CEO" has continued to remove sources and accuse users of having an "ill-intentioned resolve to damage the reputation of a Corporation". Following this, they removed the COI tag from the article, even though AVM was involved in the COI/Sockpuppet investigation themselves. I do not wish to have AVM blocked from Wikipedia as they have contributed to Wikipedia in many ways, though since they have a personal relationship with the CEO, I am asking for advice on how to resolve further conflicts.

    As for the user E-DemSnoopy, I am curious of their intentions since they are a recently created account (27 January 2017) that was made just weeks following the ban of Smartmatic's main sockpuppet user, Smmtt (31 December 2016). Soon after their account creation, E-DemSnoopy began editing Smartimatic and editing the page of Antonio Mugica, the CEO of Smartmatic. Their edits have not been too contentious, though the timing is suspicious due to the preceding sockpuppet edits.

    Knowing how deep users have gone defending Smartmatic in the past, making multiple sockpuppet accounts, I am starting this discussion to protect the article and I would be happy if my suspicions were wrong :) --ZiaLater (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Context can be gained from previous discussions re Smartmatic in archive 108 and archive 109. This article is an ongoing problem. - Brianhe (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi ZiaLater I am quite surprised you are actually bringing me into all this discussion. First, I have no personal connection with Smartmatic or its CEO, so to leave that clear from the beginning. Second, I am sorry that I started editing when you had an ongoing investigation, it might seem bad timing for you, but I did not realize that was a problem. Then, I know I am a new editor and because I know how intimidating and harsh other editors can be, I read all the available guidelines and materials about WP before starting, so I have to say I feel a bit attacked to be mentioned here without reliable arguments. Just above our lines, we can read: "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." and "Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline." I seriously think you have not respected neither of those guidelines with me. I just asked to improve a questionable reference cited over 10 times -supporting serious facts- in just one article (and that it does not have a link!) and I then took the time to write in the talk page, asking with my best intentions, for help (I am sorry, but I do believe there are some of us who want to start editing Wikipedia without secret agendas, and who want to actually discuss the disagreements on talk pages before coming here).
    I have not repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period (nor in the Smartmatic or Mugica articles, electronic voting, eDemocracy, eGovernment, Estonia elections, that are the articles I have come across to edit so far, because of my interests), so please I would very much appreciate it if you first approach me as a fellow WP editor (in talk pages, assuming good faith as I do with you and the rest of the community).
    Moreover, and concerning the Smartmatic article, after I read it and found it lacking of valuable information I decided I could collaborate with some editions, and then I saw all the conflicts going on in the talk page. I am the kind of person who likes challenges, so you got me there. Even if all your edits have been to add negative references to this organisation (which I do not think violates WP policies, except maybe for encouraging some of other editors to balance the content and achieve a NPV on the article); I got curious (as you say) about why you created the article of its CEO (living person), and that's why I went to research further and make some editions (not deleting anything, just adding). I am sorry, but I will keep on researching about these topics (events, organisations public and private working on eDemocracy) and when possible I will try to keep adding references and balanced content. It is a fact, the more people try to unbalance an article, the more editors will come to edit. I surely will. If you want to tag me as COI or sockpuppet, I will try my best to explain to you and other wikipedians and monitors why I am not and I hope they do assume good faith and check the editions and references.
    Just to let you know, not every person who edits the Smartmatic article has a conflict of interest, but then, would you mind if I ask whether you do? Thank you. (Ps. I wrote in the talk page of the article, to see if we can reach a consensus on the one reference I challenged. Sorry, I thought that was the proper path to follow in WP). E-DemSnoopy (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not accusing you of anything and not trying to out you. I just wanted to make sure that users editing the article were not just popping in out of nowhere, I've seen it happened. Don't be offended by it at all, especially if you're not guilty you shouldn't have to worry. I wanted to raise the concern since Smartmatic has been controversial to edit for some odd reason. The sources do the talking, our interpretation should be set aside. But like I said above, I'd be happy if my suspicions are wrong, so I do have good faith but just would rather be safe than sorry.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You Made Me

    This user, who is the subject of the biography Todd Meagher (entrepreneur), has been trying to remove/alter information in the above article by claiming in the edit summary that a lawsuit requires it (also see this response to reversion). In addition, he has made edits to his own biography to remove mentions of a lawsuit, which I suspect may be one and the same. Not sure what to do here. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I added an autobiography template to Todd Meagher (entrepreneur) and a COI-editnotice to the article's talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has been blocked for making legal threats. --Drm310 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Magento

    Highly promotional content being added by these two users, one with a username that implies a connection to article subject. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    101.99.23.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 180.211.96.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have also contributed to this. HaiNH1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote a related article which looks like an ad, Magestore. I've posted notifications of this discussion for all of them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wayne Dupree

    I was watching Twitter for tweets about Wikipedia and possible issues when I noticed a tweet pop up with personal information on an IP editor who had vandalized a Wikipedia page. More interestingly, the person who tweeted it was the subject of the Wikipedia article. What concerned me most is that he said "glad we're on it." I tagged a few issues with the article and then raised my concerns on the talk page, with a link to the tweet. Nearly immediately, Cllgbksr asked about it on my talk page, and I simply directed him to the talk page of the actual article. About 30 minutes later, he replied saying that the tweet had suddenly disappeared and that he couldn't see it. I was now suspicious. I looked back in history and saw that this guy had created and effectively owned the article with nearly all the edits to it by him. I'm not quite sure what to do at this point, as I've never seen something like this before, so I finally decided to post a notice here. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 21:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @What cat?: I replied "almost immediately" because I noticed the tag you put on it when I was reviewing the article after editing it. I engaged you on your talk page as to why you tagged it and you redirected me back to the Dupree talk page, of which I responded for you to please check the link you provided that was the source of your "concerns", since I clicked on it and there was no tweet. You then provided me with an archive. You tagged the article based on what now appears to be a screen shot of a tweet and is a big miss and unfounded speculation, trying to paint "me" as the "we". You, nor I, or anyone else, has any idea who the "we" is he's referring too but him. One or several of his thousands of fans who listen to his show, could have told him about the vandalism and he assumed they fixed it and maybe he just took it upon himself to report the vandal on twitter after seeing that user in the article revision history, since anyone can access Wikipedia and view history including him. Do you think Sean Hannity doesn't review his own article on Wikipedia and who makes revisions? There is no "there there" on closeness...other users have contributed to the article...some more substantially than me... so your statement "created and effectively owned the article" is patently false. Last, I recently cited more secondary credible news sources re: Dupree and am in the process of creating a social media section since his tweets gain national media attention. Also, if you took the time to read the talk page history you'd see discussions with other users in this regard. So you can get off the "owned the article" talking point Cllgbksr (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not get too bothered about what's happened off-wiki and concentrate on the content here. What I see here though is that the first version of that article contained a lot of information that I can't find elsewhere online such as the DOB and the names of the subject's children. This is certainly indicative of a COI and while the article is now reasonably referened (apart from the DOB), I'm not seeing the kinds of sources required to meet WP:BIO and the use of a promotional biography as a source is not ideal. SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: I can clear up why his kids names, DOB and other background info was in the first version. As I explained to one of the other editors who asked my connection to Dupree when the article was being created, I was in Cleveland last summer during the RNC and interviewed Dupree for the purpose of doing an article on him (as a black conservative I find him interesting, the interview was something I wanted to do) when his radio show was covering the Republican convention. My interview covered his background, I asked for his age (DOB) and his childrens names, his parents names, what his life was like growing up, his service in the military and his career in radio. Standard questions any reporter would ask of the person being interviewed. It was the first time I had met Dupree and haven't seen him since. I am not affiliated with him or his radio show in any way, shape or form. I have experienced a lot of pushback on his WP article, which I believe is because he is a black, conservative, radio host that supports Trump. The sources are being picked apart. I find it disturbing that after his article was vandalized, I was the person being targeted because of the contributions made to the article, I had nothing to do with his tweet, and the vandals were given a pass. So I'm a little pissed off right now that my credibility as a neutral WP contributor is being called into question, because a "Columbo" was trying to connect dots that weren't there. I find this to possibly be a racist, bigoted and politically motivated response from WP editors who do not approve of black conservatives and I find it highly offensive to be treated in this manner. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: I don't disapprove of black conservatives. This isn't a political inquiry, nor is it based on race or anything that is not simply "the interest of Wikipedia as a whole". I would do the same thing to any Wikipedia article where the same odd activity as such occurred. Please assume good faith and do not accuse people of such things just because of a dispute. Anyway, said information violates WP:NOR (as you likely already know), and the sources were being picked apart not simply because of any "targeting" but because they have issues. I agree with Smartse on the promotional biography: I noticed it was not ideal and the fact that it is the most cited source bothers me greatly. In fact, I'd say the source is very questionable due to the seemingly promotional nature, to be honest. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @What cat?:That biography was published by Conservative Political Action Conference. An organization that has been in existence since 1973. An organization that has enough notoriety to be on Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence to suggest they are not a credible source? Cllgbksr (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: ...None of those are actual criteria for identifying a reliable source. As well, my point is not hindered by any of those. In fact, I'd also like to point out that since said conference has him as a speaker and has given awards to him, despite the obvious political motivation, they may also have conflicts of interest that are simply financial-wise: they may be interested in making all their speakers seem like important people so they appear to have a collection of speakers whom are all notable, so more people buy tickets. WP:V notes that "Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources." and they clearly may have interests other than simple professional reporting. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 17:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @What cat?: Per WP "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." WP:Biased. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: In specific contexts. I would like to note that my source also quite clearly states: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves." This is a page on a living person, not the Conservative Political Action Conference, and therefore it should not be used as a source. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @What cat?: You're the one labeling Conservative Political Action Conference as a questionable source. I've asked you for evidence to support they aren't a credible source for the biography they published on Dupree. Second, re-examine what you wrote minutes ago-- "In fact, I'd also like to point out that since said conference has him as a speaker and has given awards to him, despite the obvious political motivation, they may also have conflicts of interest that are simply financial-wise: they may be interested in making all their speakers seem like important people so they appear to have a collection of speakers whom are all notable, so more people buy tickets." -- When I see the word "may" used several times that's a red flag. Your entire argument to discredit them is based on your own subjective opinion of how you think they do business and operate. If you can find a biography that CPAC has published that was later fact checked to be false, please link me to it. Cllgbksr (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaker Bios are almost always written by the speaker. Even if this is a rare case where someone else wrote it, CPAC has an obvious interest in promoting their speakers. We can use it, but only like we would use any other self published source - for content that isn't particularly self-serving, and not to establish notability should the article go to a deletion discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: Should I go ahead and make edits based on this fact using WP:BLPSELFPUB as a guideline? – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 18:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: The article does not warrant deletion discussion. Dupree's notoriety has already been established by other sources than CPAC. This has already been litigated on the Dupree talk page. One user being GorillaWarfare who is an administrator and arbitrator who wrote "Everything in the article is cited, and where sources affiliated with Dupree are used, I feel they're used in compliance with the guidance on primary sources."Cllgbksr (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: We are not discussing deleting the article, as far as I know. We are discussing the content of the article and how it should be edited. As well, you should remember that admins are people too and they may miss issues. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare was discussing some sourcing tags, not notability specifically. And with all respect to GorillaWarfare, no single user, even an admin/arb, decides if an article is notable. The sourcing on this article is really weak - the only biographical sources I see are self published, the others are either trivial mentions or instances of Dupree acting as a pundit - and simply appearing on television and giving an opinion isn't a lock on notability. I think there's a decent chance this article would be deleted if someone were to take it to AFD. This guy may well be notable, but the sourcing we have right now is not demonstrating that. As to WP:BLPSELFPUB, if you think you can make an article better, you should. Getting reverted is no big deal, and it'll give a concrete foundation for a talk page discussion. - MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: Indeed: all news sources either mention Wayne Dupree as "one of two programs by RSBN" and never more than in passing, or simply as a pundit. Simply for discussion's sake I have given names to all the sources that I think are reliable (may have missed some) with the name tag. BusIns, Politi, and SalonT simply mention him in passing due to his show being one of the original programs on RSBN. WCBMBE, CNNChr, and MSNBCa seem to only have him on due to him being a pundit: none of them have him on for more than a single episode according to the sourcing. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 19:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: I'm going to tell you why you don't see the softball WaPo and NYT articles that Wikipedia loves to use for sourcing. Wayne Dupree is a black conservative radio host that supports Trump. He's not going to get those articles from the media that go into a lot of depth on his background. It's a political conflict of interest for the left leaning media. And if Breitbart writes one about him - you'll say the source isn't credible. In the conservative world Dupree is a name that is recognized and he has interviewed a lot of notable people including our President multiple times on his radio show. I'm not the least bit shocked that "Liberalpedia" would want to delete this article. It doesn't fit in their left leaning narrative. It's always going to be subjected to extreme scrutiny. What cat? says it's not a black conservative thing - but I have to wonder. Of the contributions/edits I've made to other articles, articles I've read on Wikipedia more thinly sourced than this, I've never, ever seen the type of pushback this article has gotten. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: If you see more thinly sourced articles then cite them. I'm editing this article because I had noticed it. I am not able to edit articles I have not seen. As well, Wikipedia is not about the truth. It's about what's verifiable. It's not our fault if the media does not talk about someone. Please assume good faith. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @What cat?: "Please assume good faith"... Okay... Not that you need my permission, edit the article then. I will continue to work on the article to make it better. Any suggestions you may have on improving the article will be appreciated. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: Well, the issue is, indeed, as I had claimed it wasn't before until MrOllie brought new info to the table (sorry?), now the deletion of the article because the sources are either in passing or not enough to claim notability. Sorry that I hadn't looked into it before. I'm going to make an effort to look for some relevant, notable sources and then if all else fails, go to AfD. Hopefully someone there will have a source that I had missed if it comes to that (which it hopefully would not) so the article can stay instead of being deleted. – 🐱? (talk) (ping me!) 20:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed closure Would anyone object if we close this thread and take the sourcing conversation to the entry's talk page since it seems like this conversation is not longer about COI? (And for my two cents, while I understand why there were COI concerns, I also accept Cllgbksr's explanation of where the unpublished information came from; it doesn't feel like COI to me, it just feels like a new editor who didn't get all the help they should have at AfC about Wikipedia sourcing standards--if you check the edit history, you'll see the entry was moved out of AfC with, even if we count generously, only a single mention in a single secondary source: so it makes sense that an editor working on their first article would take that to mean the sourcing was sufficient; they'd have no way of knowing that's really, really unusual for AfC, and likely to draw this kind of scrutiny.) Anyway all to say, we seem to be done with the COI issue yeah? Innisfree987 (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cllgbksr: Thank you for clearing that up, I hope you can understand why it appeared suspicious and that this discussion is only out of concern for neutrality rather than anyone's race or political views. I agree that discussions about sourcing are best done elsewhere. I am also making my own searches. SmartSE (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Understood. Appreciate you looking for additional sourcing for the article. @Innisfree987: No objection on moving to the entry talk page. Cllgbksr (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Martine Leavitt

    An IP claiming to be the subject of the article has removed cited material they do not like. [12]

    Reported without comment or prejudice. Article is on my watchlist due to previous AV edit. Gricehead (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    While I'm here, could one of the arbitration committee stalkers of this page do a courtesy revdel on the IP's edit summary on this page, they left an email address. Otherwise, the article may start going up and down my watchlist like a ... yoyo. I'm inclined to replace the removed section. It's well sourced, but there may be unspoken issues there that I sympathise with. The subject appears to have blanked her personal website too. The question is why? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Info was sourced and contained details of a visiting academic appointment to BYU, and extant in the article is details of Mormon book awards so hiding her LDS connections doesn't stretch to removing accolades. The period at BYU is significant info & should not be redacted. It appears the author has exercised editorial control over the article in the past - details of name change (sourced) removed by .ca ipaddr & edit summaries 'Adjustments requested by Mrs Leavitt)'In short, no reason to not re-add this sourced info, winning mormon awards brings notable status to her religious affi;iation.--92.5.85.99 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Matchbox Championship

    After looking over the article, which had no sources cited, I added citation needed templates and read the revision history. Upon reading the username of the person who created the article, I noticed their username was very similar to the article they had created. I used Twinkle to send a welcome message with the COI notice in it for reference on their user talk page. After returning to the article, I found that the same person who created the article, had reverted my edits for citations needed, and added more unsourced information to the article. I just finished typing a message asking why on the article talk page, and also restored the citations needed templates. After looking at this users contributions, I found that the only article they are working on, is the one they have created. See here: Contributions/Matchbox123. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been deleted [13]. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Amit Kumar (president of Honest people party) Comment

    I checked the website listed on the article, and it is exactly the same name as the editors name who created the article. Upon checking this users contributions here: Special:Contributions/Amitryan there are only two articles he has contributed to. Also on his talk page, there was another similar article that was CSD:A7 that was deleted due to notability issues. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been deleted [14]. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IQ Option

    This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anyoption and then recreated by User:Rrusl u, an absolutely pure SPA. The company's website has been blacklisted for spam. The article has been tagged by others as advertising, orphan, and copyvio. I removed the most obvious advertising and now have been reverted by the SPA. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone! Well, I just recovered the piece that I've been working on lately and protected it from Smallbones's act of vandalism — I have no other words to describe what he did to it. It's my first article, true, and I'm ready to improve some of its minuses, but not in such a way. This user replaced the paragraphs that appear advertising to him with judgemental and speculative subvertisements (that, above all, sound rude and not really stylistically correct) — that's all he's done. From my perspective, this article was previously deleted with no purpose and with no due attention. I tried to build it again from scratch based on all I managed to find about IQ Option on the net. All advertising, orphan, and copyvio tags should be first reviewed and justified on the article's talk page. At this point, no one has posted any evidences of advertising or copyvio and no one showed any will to discuss the issue in a positive way.Rrusl u (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rrusl u (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

    Chain of editors

    I was following up on someone something I thought might be the work of a paid/COI editor, when I began to notice connections and a pattern: an editor with few edits would create an article -- usually in a sandbox before being moved -- and a different editor (also with few edits) would expand it or even work on it while still in the other editor's sandbox. Rinse, lather, repeat. Working backwards along this chain, I found four bits of info along the way which seem particularly suspicious:

    A chart can be found at User:Calton/Watchlist#Group_4 with the connections, but the basic list of editors is:

    Articles are:

    --Calton | Talk 09:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh, it looks like someone's already opened an SPI investigation. --Calton | Talk 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Between that and the work you've done, perhaps all of them will be caught. One can hope. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed more related editors that are linked to one PR company:
    SmartSE (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shimmer and Shine Elasto Painters

    Article on a basketball team created in one single edit by a "new" editor. Perhaps it's copied from somewhere or otherwise this is an incredibly gifted editor... Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a huge COPYVIO to me. needs deleting imho. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But copied from where? I need the source before I can delete it. --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance it looks identical to Rain or Shine Elasto Painters. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources cited for any of it !! Trying to identify the original source from which it is copyviod is I agree difficult, Google gives me loads and loads. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At AfD, voted delete. Please go there and vote so the AfD can be snow closed. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an exact copy of Rain or Shine Elasto Painters except for the change of the team name. And in case you don't know, Shimmer and Shine is a Nickelodeon TV show, and not the name of this team. The creator of the article is clearly vandalising, and I am pretty sure the article can be speedied. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just click on the logo in the article and that becomes extremely evident. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have speedy deleted the article. Lectonar (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should probably close the AFD then. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Philipp Plein

    articles
    users

    I have cleaned up the article before, since it seemed to be dedicated to promoting this fashion designer. Lately, an SPA turned up and reinserted much of the puffery I deleted. I suspect a COI, but proving it is difficult if not impossible. Can I get some eyes on this article? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is definitely a problem with promotional tone and content at this article, and I agree that a conflict of interest looks likely here. I have reverted to your last version of the article. Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There's a pattern of inserting promotional content, and re-adding it when other editors remove it, mostly by A3789. I posted a notice about this discussion on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A3789 has been blocked indefinitely. [16] On the off chance they're related, I added a level 1 advert notice to the talk page of an IP editor who added back the promotional content. It might just be a new editor trying something out; it's their only edit. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another older editor, User:Globetrotter15810, reappeared today and has been blocked as sock of A3789. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A3789. Deli nk (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Veritas Capital

    Aabril2794 first two edits were to delete information from Veritas Capital. The third edit not only deleted an entire section but the editor used the summary "Content deleted by request of Veritas Capital." They went on to delete even more of the article with no reasoning given. I reverted these deletions and gave them a COI warning based on that edit summary. They waited two hours, and deleted all the same information again. I outright told them a second time that they must disclose any conflict of interest they have. There has been no reply. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly a self-admitted COI editor. The article looks OK, with the COI edits now undone. Google news search doesn't turn up any unmentioned major events that need to be in the article. We seem to be OK unless the COI editor comes back. John Nagle (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AfC integrity and Centipede Press

    Please refer to integrity concerns on article talkpage. The editor reintroducing deleted material hasn't responded there, nor to my query on their user talk. Brianhe (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I added Dcmapa to the above as well, although to their credit they have not edited the article. It seems the article has quite a few citations which are not really useful. It could do with some trimming as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wander Creative Productions music PR

    HotHat started the 1GN article; now somebody apparently related to Wander Creative Productions is taking on a spinoff artist. I think this might be the blocked editor HotHat aka Bluedogtn sockfarm. But maybe not, hard to split WP:SOCK from WP:COI sometimes. Pinging Walter Görlitz who seems to have experience in this article space. - Brianhe (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Central University of Science and Technology

    User with apparently COI name created the article using sources from the institution and promotional language. Maintenance tags were added and they deleted, with warnings given on their talk page, but all were ignored and the same editing continued, eventually leading to a 31 hour block by Widr for disruptive editing. After the block the user has returned and made the same problematic edits. I have put a level 1 'paid' template on their talk page asking them to engage/disclose, but at this point I'm not sure if they are even aware they have a talk page, and they have not responded to anything there or at the article itself. I considered reporting for vandalism/disruptive editing again, but thought perhaps this was the better forum? Thanks Melcous (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whether the editing is COI or not, it's time to re-block Custwiki. Since their first block expired yesterday, they have:
      • repeatedly removed cleanup templates without explanation or addressing the problems identified
      • copied text verbatim from copyrighted sources
      • added inappropriate external links
    They have been warned about all of these by multiple editors, and have done them again anyway, without engaging in discussion. Perhaps a second block will get their attention and make them realize that there are some rules to follow and they don't own the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: editor has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Melcous (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:It seems they have declared a connection. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the connected contributor template on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Fashion Net

    Last year an IP accused me of having a conflict of interest at Fashion Net. Now Haadaa would like a review of my edits there for the same reason. Would anyone like to take a look?

    Haadaa is an SPA who has mostly been using {{request edit}} in a perfectly acceptable way, but who has not – to my knowledge – declared a conflict of interest. Haadaa, do you have some personal or professional connection to Stig Harder and his various businesses? If so, you are obliged to declare it. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We request a review of whether Justlettersandnumbers may have a conflict of interest after his/her repeated removal of edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion_Net.Haadaa (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed haadaa's latest edits. Roxy the dog. bark 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haadaa, I've looked at the last hundred article edits for both Roxy the dog and Justlettersandnumbers, as well as their most-edited articles. Neither has an editing pattern which leads me to believe they have a conflict of interest. I encourage you to
    1. Assume good faith
    2. Read the notice about Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy which I posted on your talk page, not as an accusation but as information
    3. Use edit summaries to describe your edits, not to repeatedly question the motives of other users.
    Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a further article, created yesterday, to the list. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    .. and have just speedied it. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could Justlettersandnumbers and Roxy the dog please reveal your identities? If not, we have reasons to believe you're affiliated with competitors and will be reporting you, including at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Haadaa (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, them not revealing their identities does not mean you have reason to believe affiliation with competitors. If you have evidence that they are affiliated with competitors, the place to report it is the very page you're on now. However, be aware that it takes more to show a conflict of interest than just showing they are making edits that you don't like. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't believe they have a conflict of interest only if they refuse to reveal their identities (if they don't, it will just corroborate our suspicion). We believe they have a conflict of interest (and that they also are colluding in a concerted attempt to belittle and intimidate) in that they consistently remove legitimate edits sourced from independent media, like the page for the International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences that they hastily deleted.

    International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences
    AbbreviationIAFAS
    FormationApril 7, 2016
    TypeFashion organization
    PurposeSupporting the fashion industry as fashion, tech and ethics combine to redefine the future.
    HeadquartersBeverly Hills, California, United States
    Founder
    		Stig Harder[1]

    The International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences (IAFAS) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of the fashion industry.

    Executive members of the Academy, including Diane Pernet, Chair of Fashion Department at Paris College of Art Donald Potard and Launchmetrics President Eddie Mullon[2][3] have since 2016 been selecting the nominees and winners for the annual FASHION NET Awards.[4]

    FASHION NET Awards (2016)

    Winners in the other categories can be found at fashion.net/awards/2016. [5]

    Award Winner
    Designer of the Year Alessandro Michele at Gucci
    Womenswear Designer of the Year Sebastian Meunier at Ann Demeulemeester
    Menswear Designer of the Year Thom Browne
    Lifetime Achievement Grace Coddington
    Inspiration Award Imran Amed

    References

    1. ^ https://www.fashion.net/stig-harder
    2. ^ Kaltblut Magazine Announcing the Nominees for the second annual Fashion Net Awards
    3. ^ Branko Popovic Nominees Announced for the 2nd Annual Fashion Net Awards
    4. ^ http://www.delas.pt/nuno-gama-nomeado-para-os-fashion-net-awards-2016
    5. ^ Winners Announced for the Second Annual FASHION NET Awards


    Are you trying to silence us by deleting our comment here as well? Haadaa (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=767150271"