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 2601:200:c001:6c30:541d:2e97:77a7:dc88 (talk) at 09:11, 30 January 2016 (→‎Hei matau: new section). 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:A&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Bruce D. Broussard
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    Talk:Olympus Corporation
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Snow Patrol
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Romesh Wadhwani
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn


    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

    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]
    • Comment The great majority of these journals are notable. When I stumble upon one of Luke's creations, I generally take a broom through it, update and correct links, add independent references, etc. That's easy to do (see WP:JWG for helpful tips). It actually takes less time and is less hassle to do this than to take all these journal articles to AfD (or PROD them). And given that it is often quite difficult or even impossible to convince editors that an article on a non-notable journal should be deleted (for a current example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubrovnik Annals), taking these Sage journals to AfD will in the majority of cases be futile (but not all, note that I have added "prod2" templates to a few of the PRODs of JzG). --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The great majority of them have single-digit impact factors, often barely more than 1, as far as I can see, but it matters not: the spammer has got what he wanted, and we will keep the directory of shit journals. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, having an impact factor at all is rather distinctive: There are something like a 100,000 academic journals around (about 1000 new ones were launched [http://thinkchecksubmit.org/faq/ in 2014 alone) and I think that only about 10.000 are selected for inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports. So inclusion in the JCR is for about the top 10% of all journals. Scopus is a bit less selective, but still "only" covers about 20,000 journals, which is about 1 in 5. So inclusion in either one of those databases, which only happens after a journal has been vetted by a commission of specialists, is rather good evidence that a journal belongs in the top 10-20% of the most important journals world-wide. As an aside, a "single digit IF" can be very high, depending on what field you are talking about. In mathematics, an IF >1 is pretty big, for example. In most fields and IF of 9 is pretty huge.
    As I said above, it is currently already difficult enough to get even less notable journals deleted, because people seem to think that "looks interesting" or being indexed in Google Scholar is enough for an academic journal to be notable. At this point, my personal goal is more to keep predatory journals and publishers out (unless they are so bad that they have generated enough coverage to meet GNG, see OMICS Publishing, for example). And journals that have no shred of a claim to notability such as Journal of Statistics and Management Systems (currently at AfD) are difficult enough to get deleted. So instead of going after articles just because they were created by a COI editor, I rather clean them up from any POV and provide independent references (see WP:JWG) saving my "AfD energy" for the really non-notable ones. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have this weird view that we shoud not reward spammers, and Wikipedia is not actually a directory, of minor journals or anything else. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 21 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]

    I added the article link above and have put this on my watchlist. They have now disclosed on their user page - seems teachable. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Has someone gone through the article for NPOV so that the tag can be removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CNMall41 it appears to be moot now that the article has been deleted. I'll close this COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how this went G11. I did not see anything that made it so overly promotional that it would need an entire rewrite, but I guess I would need to see it again to know for sure. I don't see deleting it due to conflict of interest as a something we should make a habit of unless it was truly so promotional that its only purpose was to promote and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. @JzG If you have access, you can place it in my userspace and I will see if it is salvageable.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Un-archived at request of CNMall41. - Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't deleted as a COI, it was deleted due to promotional tone. Virtually all substantive edits are by WP:SPAs, so this is not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Guy. Unfortunately, I cannot view the deleted copy but I do not remember it being all that bad and believe the topic to be notable. If I can get it restored to my userspace I will see what is salvageable, if anything, and go from there. Could be a lost cause, but I can only speculate without seeing it again. If there is a way to facilitate this I would appreciate it. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Renzoy16

    Renzoy16 is an undeclared shill.
    Above is a selection of adverts he has worked on, some with comments by others.
    He was also working on an advert for Ernesto Gapasin [1] but another shill beat him to it. His two most recent adverts were:

    Nextiva, recreation of deleted article, posted at Nextiva, Inc to separate it from previous deletion. Previously created by another shill, User:BiH.
    Terren Peizer, recreation of deleted article, posted at Terren Scott Peizer to separate it from previous deletion.

    duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Finery (company)

    Article was created and expanded by COI editor FineryLondonSocial, who was later blocked for obvious username issues. They seem to have been replaced by Mariniluca, an SPA. No outing intended, but in this instance they did use a form of their real name and if you Google that username and the word finery, you'll notice they work at the company and in fact are a co-founder of it, mentioned in the wiki article. Edits from both accounts are very promotional. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC); edited 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than the quotes in the product section I do not see anything that violates WP:NPOV. Maybe leave a notice on the talk page about a connected contributor, but the AfD should weed out any additional concerns. Seems rather straight forward article to me. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped the user the {{uw-paid}} template but without more information there's not much to do here. - Brianhe (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Filsaime

    Could we get a second set of eyes looking at Mike Filsaime? It looks like several of the citations aren't real citations, but some kind of affiliate marketing. – Brianhe (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Affiliate links would contain a code within the URL for tracking conversions. These do not so they are unlikely associated with affiliate marketing. However, the YouTube videos do not seem to be related and could possibly be there simply to get views. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    visitFrom in one of the URLs looked suspicious. I am going hands-off on this one but if somebody else wants to delete the YT links, go for it. Brianhe (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a "Further reading" link in the article that makes me think that, either a) the article ought to be deleted, or b) the further reading entry ought to be deleted. Does anybody know if The Verge is a reliable source? Just thinking now because I don't want to get into a BLP violation situation. Smallbones(smalltalk)
    The Verge is a proper edited news source, if a specialist one, that would pass RS for relevant purposes - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, still thinking about the best way to handle this, but here's the main issues. It's clear that Filsaime is a self-promoter whose business is teaching others to be self promoters. The article has gone thru deletion review once and barely survived, and hasn't been improved since. The Verge article, which has been under "Further reading" in the article, accuses Filsaime (and many others) of very unethical conduct, at least bordering on criminal conduct. It uses the word "Syndicate" directly re: Filsaime, though their use of the word may not be exactly standard. If we keep our article, I'd think it would be required that we present something along this line to fulfill NPOV. But that could bring up a BLP morass. Probably the best solution would be to delete the article. Any feedback? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the cleanup done by Brianhe would warrant the connected contributor tag to be removed. It now reads NPOV. For the prior deletion, I would not say it "barely survived." However, I think if nominated again - since the last discussion was in 2009 with looser standards - I think the result would lean more towards deletion. I think my !vote would be delete as I cannot locate anything in-depth at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an anon editor at the article today repeatedly adding links to stuff like millionairemarketingbootcamp.com and experttrainingandcoaching.com. Some help cleaning this up would be appreciated. - Brianhe.public (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not one RS -- can't this just get PROD'd? I see no reason to spend time on it. LaMona (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Win Gatchalian

    This politician is almost certainly notable, but the article is mainly created by an account that appears closely linked to the subject, the subject's homepage is the source of 90% of the sourced claims and the whole article is unencyclopedic, written like an ad or glowing biography and reflects badly on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Jeppiz (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Project Ascension

    Edits are by a team member of the project 50.176.74.64 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernest Lee Straughter

    Apparent autobiography. I'd initially earmarked this for deletion, but some good research by another editor has rescued the article. Unfortunately, the creator is using Wikipedia space to add unsourced content and write their own bio. Assistance requested, especially with respect to WP:OWNERSHIP. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Raheja Developers

    Raheja Developers has been a problematic article for ages, with some people clearly intent on showing the company in a bad light and others intent on whitewashing it, in particular by using press releases, minor awards etc. There were also articles for the directors that were absolutely ridiculous but I think they have been sorted out.

    I don't want to get into a row about the merits of paid editing but, following a series of SPAs, the most recent contributor - Mr RD - turned up and acknowledged their conflict of interest. I had a word with Iridescent, who suggested I posted about the issue here and then stepped away. That seems sensible so I'd be grateful if some fresh eyes took a look at the thing. It is dreadful now, imo, but a lot of the whitewashing went way too far also. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, as a nota bene, construction/property development in India is - along with politics - notoriously corrupt. There probably is substance to many of the accusations that have be made but the balance/tone is unsettling to me. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done just a little looking into this and made some notes at User:Brianhe/COIbox32. It looks likely that a sockfarm is working here and on DLF (company). A sockfarm was found previously; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiaccnt1234. The actual creator of the article Raheja Developers in 2013 was the sockmaster, Wikiaccnt1234.
    This had come up before at COIN archive 92 but apparently fizzled out. - Brianhe (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no doubt that a sockfarm has been operating at the Raheja article and those relating to its directors. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    It is true that Real Estate is a very corrupt and unethical business as currently practiced in India. But, reading majority of the pages on builders in India on Wikipedia you would not know that. The biggest company of India, DLF, was fined Rs 630 crores for unethical practices, and abuse of its buyers. The 2nd biggest company Unitech is awash in litigations, and it's top 4 directors had to spend 1 night in Tihar Jail (prison) before they were bailed out last week. Companies like BPTP have hundreds of cases against them, and homes and shops/offices that were supposed to be delivered in 3 years are still undelivered 8 years later. In all cases buyers have paid almost 90% of the price of the property years ago to the builder. Another behemoth builder Jaypee Associates has over 350 cases in the National Consumer Commission. Raheja Developers has been sued by over 750 buyers in the National Consumer Commission, and cases are pending at the High Courts & Supreme Court of India. There is also case of tax cheating against Raheja Developers at the Supreme Court. In all cases, the builders are powerful enough not to let majority of their misdeeds appear in the mainstream news sources, which is why they do not find mention in Wikipedia. If the tone is a little harsh, even though backed with facts, it is a good idea to edit it so that it is neutral. But, I believe, it should not lull the reader into believing that they are seeing all there is to see about the builder. It should provoke them into investigating a little more before they decide to plunk their hard-earned money (often running into millions) into the coffers of the builders. There are some good builders, and their pages should reflect them. There are some bad builders, and the pages should not hide that. Leoaugust (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lincoln Townley

    User appears to be Townley, based on his uploading multiple pictures of artwork and personal photos, and then adding to Townley page, e.g.: File:National Gallery Exhibition - March 2015.jpg, File:Mickey Rourke portrait by Lincoln Townley.jpg. Has also specified he is author of the pictures, and account is an SPA. User has also been adding promotional material to Townley page. At the very least someone with a very close connection to the article subject. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you gone through for the article for NPOV? Despite there being a possible COI, you are more than welcome to check to make sure the article is neutral. Also looks like the original article went through AfC so someone would have reviewed it prior to going to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have previously but the user keeps restoring/adding stuff so thought I'd bring it here. Majority of the edits on the page are from DeanoJD. Also, there's been multiple edits since it went through AfC (where it was previously declined). I think subject is probably notable, but the editor seems to either be Townley or an associate of his. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Myitsone Dam

    I made a couple of points on the talk page of Myitsone Dam last year – one on 19 February (near the bottom here) after an exchange with Soewinhan. That post links to my sandbox where I've highlighted additional stats in bold. The second point (here) is that China isn't actually the primary market for electricity generated by the dam. As WikiProject Myanmar doesn't seem to be very active I thought I'd post here to see if anyone has time to take a look. As my user page says I'm a PR representative and China Power Investment Corporation is my client. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The usual procedure in this kind of case is to post an edit request on the article talkpage. Does that work for you? - Brianhe (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    R v. Elliott

    It has been suggested by an IP that I have an "undisclosed personal relationship" (bolded in original) with people associated with this court trial, after I made a series of edits to the article and also nominated it for deletion. The IP's allegation is based on a Twitter interaction wherein I replied to a tweet by one of the complainants in the case; that tweet is probably hidden to most users here but the content probably isn't relevant. Although the IP didn't do much homework on the topic, I can confirm that I have interacted on Twitter with both complainants and the defendant in this case in the past. I absolutely have a bias in the subject area represented by this case, but I don't believe that simply following someone on a social media site is evidence of a relationship that rises to a level forbidden by the COI guideline. However, I respect the guideline and so I am requesting a review of the situation. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you expand on this? What's the extend of your relationship with the complainant and defendant? Do you know them outside of Twitter or was it a single solitary interaction there? Also, why did you call that person a "disgusting waste of flesh?" FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The extent of my relationship is Twitter interactions. Guthrie is a prominent local political commentator, and we have followed each other and occasionally interacted online for quite some time, I mean, that's the general idea of social media. I have attended a few events that she has hosted, as an interested member of the public. As for the presence of a "personal relationship", our "relationship" is as personal as my "relationship" with you. My interactions with Elliott are limited solely to Twitter, other than the possibility that he attended one of Guthrie's events which I also attended. As for why I called that person a "disgusting waste of flesh", Twitter suspended their account so I couldn't tell you for sure, but based on the content of Guthrie's tweet that I was replying to, the person apparently made threats of extreme sexual violence against her, and I firmly believe that people who go around making threats of extreme sexual violence against women on the internet are disgusting wastes of flesh. It's highly unlikely that that person was associated with the case anyway, just some random person on the internet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While threats of violence of any sort are strongly deprecated here, and I can understand why one would react strongly to them, were those threats made in wikipedia? It seems not. The issue is your calling someone names here based on what they apparently did outside wikipedia. If threats of violence (sexual or otherwise) were made, the proper response isn't name-calling (also deprecated here in wikipedia). It's action which is likely to address the issue.
    If a threat of violence was made in wikipedia and you believe the threat is a real-world threat, it's a matter for which a response has been suggested (but is not mandatory as of yet) - see Wikipedia:Threats of Violence. The suggested response there is to report the threat to emergency@wikimedia.org.
    If the threats were made outside wikipedia and you believe the threat is worrisome enough to warrant the attention of the real-world authorities, then by all means, inform them in the appropriate fashion.
    But, reading your post, there seems to be a firm lack of actionable information (outside Twitter, anyway, and I have no idea what their policies are for handling threats of violence) regarding the person you called that name. So we fall back on WP:CIVIL, and its injunctions against name-calling (no matter how seemingly well-justified - and as a matter of principle, I don't care for those who threaten women with violence, either). loupgarous (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're addressing. The question is whether I have a conflict of interest with respect to the trial. The threat above did not involve Wikipedia in any way, and indeed it was dealt with through Twitter's channels - the extent of my involvement there was filing an abuse report through the Twitter website, which was actioned (the account was and is suspended, though I can't say due to this report) and then I also called the person a disgusting waste of flesh. I casually believe that WP:CIVIL applies to off-wiki interactions with Wikipedia editors (though not by letter of the policy), so had I identified a Wikipedia editor by their Twitter account and called them names there, perhaps that would be actionable here. However, the person being called names in this instance was using a throwaway anonymous account and therefore is not identifiable whether they have a Wikipedia account or not, and I have no idea if either Guthrie or Elliott have Wikipedia accounts. As for having called that person a name within this thread, I am describing an incident which happened, but I would be happy to redact if you like although I don't think it will affect anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted FuriouslySerene's asking if you'd called someone a "disgusting waste of flesh" as pertaining to a remark made in wikipedia. If that was an error, I apologize. Going from your explanation, you did take the name-calling out of wikipedia, and into Twitter. I'm not sure whether such conversations between wikipedia editors are governed by WP:CIVIL or not. I'd personally try to err on the safe side, even outside of wikipedia, but I don't know if that's asked of us. But please don't feel as though you have to redact the account you're referring to, unless you just wish to avoid having other editors make the same mistake I did, for your own convenience. loupgarous (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector kudos to you for bringing this yourself! There is actually policy that is relevant here - please see WP:BLPCOI. In terms of the COI guideline, please see WP:COISELF. In my view, per policy and the guideline, since you have external relationships with the involved parties (the back and forth on social media constitutes a 'relationship' in my view - if all you had done is talk on some blog somewhere there would be no issue but you have said that you interacted), you should refrain from directly editing the article and if you participate on the Talk page, you should make it clear that you have external relationships. Happy to discuss if you like. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both, this is helpful and I will take your advice into consideration. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodwork84

    Goodwork84 is writing a promotional article on the company Grovo in draft space. The article was deleted at least once in main space. After one deletion they had a short talk with User:DGG in which they were warned about COI and admitted to being "friends" with the company owners. They have not posted a COI notice on the draft nor on their own page. Looking at the edit history for this person I sincerely suspect paid editing. LaMona LaMona (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not being paid to edit anything, and the article is not promotional. It's factual, objective, and backed up by over two dozen credible sources, including Bloomberg, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal. Literally every sentence has a reference. Is helping a friend who is confused by Wikipedia a COI? I'd be happy to add a notice if that's needed, but I honestly don't know how to do that... The original Wikipedia page was up for years with no issues until User:DGG deleted it. When I talked to him, User:DGG suggested that I rewrite the page as a draft with better sources, which I've done. It seems crazy that a business that's been recognized by so many prominent people, publications, and companies wouldn't be considered "notable." Simply trying to get a page back up. Goodwork84 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goodwork84: Just one question: you mention "a friend who is confused". Is this friend a Grovo investor, executive, employee, contractor, or otherwise associated with Grovo? If so, you have a conflict of interest. – Brianhe (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "a friend" in this context unfortunately usually turns out to mean a paid editor, or someone else with COI. We will judge by the results. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's this person's edit history: They began editing on Wikipedia by creating an extensive and highly promotional article for Charitybuzz, a non-profit, then they did Skillshare, which looks pretty promotional (lots of wp:refspam, and then Grovo, another promotional site for a company or organization. The original Grovo article in mainspace was deleted for promotion by User:DGG. The Draft:Grovo article looks like nothing more than an advert for the company although I already removed a lot of refcruft before declining it at AfC (press releases, etc.) LaMona (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to call this one resolved. We got the person's attention, they have agreed to write neutrally and to put a notice on their user page. I'll work with the person on cleaning up some articles as per NPOV, and we'll see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I have a list of folks for whom I have left a COI notice based on an AfC article, and at some point I'll summarize the results. In most cases, the outcome is a resolution to the problem. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepak Arora

    COI article deleted via AfD, no other contribs from this editor in article space. Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2016 (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.

    Looks like a personal and or company promotional effort. All photos uploaded are of this man, all maps are of company locations. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We seem to have a lot of issues with automobile industry (sales)people lately. At any rate, it's been listed at AfD. - Brianhe (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2016 (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.

    Indiamart

    editors

    Noticed this at the spam board (permlink). Perhaps 400+ articles have had indiamart.com links added. The article IndiaMART itself, a subsidiary, and that of its founder Dinesh Agarwal, look like they have been the target of undisclosed COI editing as well. – Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndiaMART (2nd nomination). and note in particular the " IndiaMART Leaders of Tomorrow Award" . , a non-notable promotional award that should as a minimum be removed from all articles where it appears, and should also cause those articles to be examined for promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Spacious and others

    Case #1

    Case #2

    Case #3

    Lumping these together due to the interrelated editor lists -- there is an SPI on one or more of these editors but it looks like it's not going to result in technically confirmed relationships. However, feel free to refactor into multi reports if you think it's better. There is a fresh Contribution Surveyor report on Ireneshih here. — Brianhe (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brianhe, please explain the reasoning behind your inclusion of my username in your report. To make it easier for you, this was my only edit to the Namrata Mohanty article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably simply because you had edited there in April-May-June 2015 with the others, and, like many conflicted editors, you didn't have a userpage. It looks like your edit was harmless minor reformatting and addition of categories, so you should not have been listed. Sometimes errors occur. - Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your prompt reply, User:Brianhe. As my username was added to the list in error, please remove it either by striking it through and adding a note or by deleting it from the report entirely. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Brianhe (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CNNYAW

    A primary intent appears to be promoting this topic, which is now being considered for deletion, and adding external links to other articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've listed my evidence here, but this looks extremely likely to be a hoax. There's almost no web presence, their Alexa ranking is extremely low (going against their claims of high revenue and readership), and there's no mention of them on the official Time Warner website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Herbertrafael

    Herbertrafael has, in the past, created Wardrobe Trends Fashion, which was speedy deleted twice. He recently created WardrobeTrendsFashion, which I nominated for deletion, as it was sourced to press releases. I later noticed that Herbertrafael added Herbert Sim to Oklahoma City University's list of notable alumni. Doing a web search on Sim reveals that he is the founder of Wardrobe Trends Fashion and is associated with ETHOZ Group and CEOWorld Magazine (for example, this press release). Google searches of LinkedIn show further connections. These two articles were also recently created by Herbertrafael and were sourced to press releases. I prodded them. In addition to those articles, Herbertrafael seems to have attempted to created a biography for Herbert Sim at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Herbert Sim. Herbertrafael has avoided answering whether he has a conflict of interest, but his editing history would seem to indicate that he is either editing on behalf of Herbert Sim or he is Herbert Sim. I notice that on Wardrobe Trends Fashion, Herbert Sim's full name is Herbert Rafael Sim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So currently the COI evidence is the name? Is there anything that ties the user to the pages? I see the pages tied to each other and the press releases, but I'm hoping there is something showing a stronger connection to the actual user.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably could have tried speedy with CEOWorld Magazine. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Literally every sentence has a reference (many of which are reliable sources), for example, News Feature on The New Paper and republished on AsiaOne. Another example, Interview News Feature on My Paper.

    Also, the pages WardrobeTrendsFashion, CEOWorld Magazine and ETHOZ Group were written neutrally WP:NPOV. Should you think otherwise, you are free to make edits, instead of listing it for deletion. Meanwhile, to highlight, in the very first place, "COI" was added to the WardrobeTrendsFashion page by my account, to ensure that this was highlighted to other wikipedia editors.

    Also, whether or not, I am Herbert Sim, it is a personal matter, this is becoming a personal attack and harrassment should you wish to pursue this ground. E.g. If my username was something else, would this question even came up? WP:PERSONAL WP:OUTING

    We are here to contribute knowledge (with reliable evidences to support the claim) for a better Wikipedian society.

    Herbertrafael (talk) 08:46, 27 Jan 2016 (UTC+08:00)

    The editor in question has an editing history of editing almost nothing but Wardrobe Trends Fashion related material. So this can be considered a WP:SPA single purpose account engaged in promotional editing, irrespective of who is behind it. John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed about the promotion hence the !votes to delete the articles. However, promotional editing and COI are not the same thing. I hate to see them get lumped together, even though they are often closely -if not directly- connected. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, whoever is behind it is engaging in promotion of Herbert Sim's business interests. But if he adds a COI template to Wardrobe Trends Fashion himself, it seems kind of obvious that he's got a COI there, doesn't it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem obvious when presented. Not sure why you did not present that in the beginning - maybe didn't do enough digging - as you said "Herbertrafael has avoided answering whether he has a conflict of interest, but his editing history would seem to indicate that he is either editing on behalf of Herbert Sim or he is Herbert Sim." Maybe something like "the user added a COI tag for themself" could been clearer. If the article is already tagged as a COI by the person who has a COI, not sure why it wasn't clearer to you in the beginning. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Herbertrafael is now DigitalWizardry (talk · contribs), via a move. Same history. John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CNMall41, I didn't present that in the beginning because I didn't realize that he was the one who added it. I just mentioned it now because Herbertrafael/DigitalWizardry mentioned it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. It actually took me a while earlier until I noticed the name change. Regardless, I think the articles will be gone shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jack London (businessman)

    Single-purpose account Alumzsh has stated that he works of the company that the subject heads and that he is editing at the subject's request. As you can see in that previous Dispute Resolution Noticeboard link, he has attempted to acquire ownership of the page. At the article, he has built and repeatedly restored ([2], [3], [4], [5]) a long bio which is an edited version of the subject's corporate bio, which presents not just sourcing issues, but WP:COPYVIO ones. Attempts to engage him and explain policies on either his talk page or [[6]] get a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response or no response, and he has not engaged on the article's talk page at all. His edits have been deleted and/or tagged by Fyddlestix (talk · contribs), Cwobeel (talk · contribs), and KConWiki (talk · contribs), with no sign that I find of editors supporting him, and that DRN attempt at ownership was properly slapped down quickly. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That will help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    me too. nice work, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tonyeny

    Just an FYI about this ANI discussion: SEO editor - requesting siteban. This editor was discussed here back in July in this thread Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    added articles he worked on that need cleaning; tagged their talk pages and the articles for now. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through two of the articles now with respect to NPOV and removed the tags. Feel free to tag the talk page if you want to put the users on notice. I also left a comment at ANI. Quick question I am hoping you can help with. Aside from the COI & TOU issues, I am not sure there would be an issue with Wikidata entries, despite not having Wikipedia entries. Is this correct. By that I am wondering if a Wikipedia page must exist in order to make an entry in Wikidata?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article for Mr. Kirshner is borderline. If it goes to AfD, ping me and I will glad to leave my !vote after checking in greater detail. I am also unsure of the notability of TravelStore, but reads NPOV. That should take care of the articles, now just have to worry about the editor at ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    updated status of articles above. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article for Mr. Kirshner went AfD. I updated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Canadian Monarchist League

    No evidence of any COI presented despite repeated requests. Despite repeated explanations from multiple editors that their behavior is disruptive, Travelmite refuses to drop the matter. I have blocked them for 24 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2016 (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.

    An editor connected with the Canadian Monarchist League has been editing pages connected with Republicanism in Australia. This appears to be happening over many years. It is a clear conflict of interest, in that some monarchist organisations actively oppose their republican opponents in Canada and Australia. The edits delete or whitewash information in a manner similar to a political campaign. I see evidence of past edit warring, to frustrate other editors from getting involved. I am not sure if this person is paid, but he has a lot of time to do it. For the record, I am not a member of the Australian Republicans, but I was personally involved about ten years ago. I was looking up the article because it was Australia Day.

    I raised this issue on Talk:Republicanism in Australia. The person deleted the claim from the talk page, and has now done this three times, claiming that it is a personal attack. You may judge for yourself. He also deleted another editor's comment twice on the talk page, because he also expressed concern of this Canadian Monarchist League connection. I now claim, that he's trying every effort to get me to back away. This is now outside my knowledge of how Wikipedia handles things. Travelmite (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Let me just add that an administrator (this one) also removed those comments. And I'll add another thing: don't go calling an editor an "official". Just call them "editor" or whatever--your case isn't proven yet. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a prosecutor, I am an editor with information about a serious violation of the rules. I have followed the guideline of presenting my case on the talk page. The matter was discussed, then the person claimed he was being personally attacked and he deleted everything several times. He didn't deny the substance of the violation, but claimed he was being OUTed to the admins on the AN/I page. Admin Drmeis removed the comments, and if that is the appropriate thing then so be it. Logically, he cannot be OUTed unless the organisation name was accurately posted, so that represents the first slip of direct evidence that there is a real connection. I will find out how the admins want to proceed. Travelmite (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify some more information I've discovered, the editor is not a senior official of the CML. Travelmite (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Travelmite, disclosing the real-life identity of another editor is seen as a serious wikioffence. It seems you are unsure of your facts. If you seriously believe that there is a conflict of interest, then you may put this forward via email, as noted at WP:COI, not blast it out in a public forum. Mies is entitled to comment on monarchical matters, even if he is a member of a monarchist association. We don't exclude Canadians from editing articles related to Canada, we don't prevent Catholics from editing articles about the Pope and so on. If Mies is some sort of paid or official spokesman for a monarchist organisation, then there may be a problem, but you had best be very certain of your facts before making any allegations. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor started sending me messages on my home page, at first they said they were going to help. Then immediately, the conversation made no sense and it felt like the person was just trying to push me to give up. I later discovered this person was or is under sanctions for breaking rules. The good thing is that I've found information within Wikipedia that helps to verify the COI claim. Travelmite (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I tried to open a discussion with you on your Talk page, here. What I told you there, is that if you have no self-disclosing diffs you cannot make claims of COI, and if you continue you will be blocked. That is what you have been told by others several times. I tried to explain that to you, and offered to tell you why, and offered to tell you what you can do to address your concerns about article content, which is what I think you are really upset about. If you persist as you have been, you will end up blocked. It is your decision, of course. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If the editor in question is a member of the board of directors, a branch executive, or a paid employee, of the Monarchist League of Canada then it would be a conflict of interest to edit the article Monarchist League of Canada but I don't think it would be a conflict to edit articles on monarchy in general, particularly about the monarchy of a foreign country such as Australia. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And looking at Monarchist League of Canada it appears that he's studiously avoided editing that article for the past 8 years. He did edit it before then but I think it would be a bit excessive for Wikipedia to punish an editor for a conflict of interest he may have had almost a decade ago. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I'm speaking hypothetically. I have no idea if the editor in question is a current or past member of the MLC board, branch executive, or a paid employee or even an MLC member (though there are fairly good odds that a dedicated Canadian monarchist would at least be a member of the organization).Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, I'd like to make the modest proposal that, as (presumably) a citizen of Australia, User:Travelmite should abstain from editing any article concering Australian-related topics as otherwise he may be in a conflict of interest. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Citizenship in a country does not create a conflict of interest for editing about that country. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say it was a modest proposal. ;) Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not serious Travelmite (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No diffs have been presented showing that Miesianiacal has disclosed a relationship with the Canadian Monarchist League. Miesianiacal said they have no relationship with that organization in this dif. There may be issues with WP:ADVOCACY or persistent WP:NPOV editing, but those are matters for other boards. OP has been warned to stop making claims of COI without on-wiki evidence. The matter is under discussion at ANI here and further discussion can continue there. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}} Miesianiacal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[reply]

    Jytdog has prematurely closed this discussion. He assumed personal authority over the case, and I feel what he wrote on my talk page was disingenuous. I've put his "reason" for closing the discussion in the section above, but my matter has yet to be looked at, and should proceed to being investigated by an admin, until I find out from someone how to do that privately. Travelmite (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are complaints about how Jytdog is involved in these issues on the Conflict of Interest Talk page. It seems to be that Jytdog has put pressure on me to not continue, on the threat that an admin will block me. I have not seen anything which suggests that to investigate is any problem. It is said that another editor will come to the aid of Jytdog if further pressure needs to be applied. Hindering an investigation is a serious offence. Travelmite (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can now satisfy the requirement of Miesianiacal declaring his full name within the Wikipedia system, that name having a COI connection the Monarchist League. I am still concerned about the process here. Travelmite (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument that you are in a COI for being Australian wasn't serious, but my point remains that if Miesianaical is affiliated wih the MLC then COI would impact his editing on the Monarchist League of Canada article and specific edits to do with the organization but not on monarchism in general. A better analogy than the one I satirically presented before is that we wouldn't say a member of a church, even someone employed by a church, was not allowed to edit articles on Christianity or that being on the board of an environmentalist group means you're in a COI editing articles on environmentalism. You're simply casting the net too wide. Alexander's Hood (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That aspect of Conflict of Interest is adequately explained by the Wikipedia policy, and it's a widespread notion across government, business and organisations. The interests of the organisation are served by both promoting itself and disparaging direct opponents. The person can be paid, or elected into a position of authority. This in meant to be an encyclopedia, so if the church leader was directly promoting their church, it's different from promoting Christianity generally. Impartial, co-operative efforts wouldn't get any attention. Here we are talking about a 12 year history of disputes, rule breaking and relentless editing, then using the rules tactically and frustrating other editors, so they give up. Wikipedia is made to serve the CML, not Wikipedia readers or even monarchists (who are good people) and this would also justify the person's position in the organisation. Travelmite (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Travelmite, if it were prooven that Mies 'has' a connection with MLC & was pushing that organization's PoV on Wikipedia? That would be a case of WP:ADVOCATE and WP:NPOV, but not WP:COI. -- GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I find no examination of this problem on those policy pages. Aside from what I wrote, what about the misrepresentation. How many times over the years did Miesianaical has deny being a member or officeholder of CML? He tried to convince others he was personally attacked by me via that misrepresentation. Jytdog tried to shut down this thread before I had a chance to check everything. Why are you even defending this? Travelmite (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (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.

    User DaveBurkum editing on Tyler Burkum

    The editor is clearly a WP:SPA. I posted the COI warning template yesterday based on the similarity of the family name. Editor made an edit request directly on the article today, not the talk page and then made a change to it while logged out. I reverted the request and removed the unsourced content. Would like some assistance either with the editor or the article. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    I have been trying to learn how to make edits that could make this article more accurate, but these were removed because of Conflict of Interest issues. I tried to follow COI instructions on how to make requests for others who do not have a COI to make changes, but these requests were also removed. My only motive is to make the article more accurate and up to date. I would appreciate any help anyone can give me. Thanks. DaveBurkum (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    SIA Scotch Whisky

    WP:SPA regarding clear COI. All edits have been to this article or adding mentions of this brand to related articles, even after a clear final warning. oknazevad (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I came here to say the same thing. Some older edits were deleted, apparently, so they don't show up in the user's edit history. Other affected articles, and another user:

    —BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the edit history of SIA Scotch Whisky, seems it was created by SPA User:Starbella- they've been inactive for 6 months, but still worth adding them here I believe. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at User talk:AlessandroSIAScotch, you'll see comments indicating that a prior version of the SIA Scotch Whisky article was created by AlessandroSIAScotch, then deleted by User:Alexf as unambiguous advertising (8 July 2015 at 18:29). Then the other user account (Starbella) was created about 24 hours later (9 July 2015 at 18:47), and that account recreated the article immediately after that. The article revision history only shows the history of the second version of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hei matau

    Sorry if this isn't formatted correctly; this is my first report. User "Hawaii artist network" (which itself seems to violate the username guideline regarding shared used: "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted") has edited an advertisement into the article on Hei mauta--specifically, a link to a vendor that sells related products. I removed the advertisement, and it was promptly re-added. I added an

    tag, and expect it will be promptly removed as well. This represents a clear conflict of interest and is blatant self-advertisement. There are many artists who make these products, and there is no reason for one specific vendor to be linked on a page like this.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=702397698"