Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:


Charter School Growth Fund[edit]

Stale - account seems to have been abandoned but I left a message on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

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

Oy, we never got to this. They haven't edited since August 2015 so they probably walked away. I have opened a discussion with the user on their talk page in case they come back and am watching the page... will close this anyway. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Renzoy16[edit]

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)

Finery (company)[edit]

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)

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)
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)
  • I still find this article a bit troubling in that the only people contributing to it have all been SPAs, and every time we call out one of them another one or two pops up instead. The latest is an IP from a PR agency. At the very least, this article needs eyeballs on it, I think (although it is double-tagged already). Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I cleaned it up and removed the tags. Went looking for sources to see if it meets GNG. Found some and added; appears that it does. Watchlisted. Not much else to do here for now. Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Jytdog. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Myitsone Dam[edit]

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)

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)
Thanks Brianhe, have used that template as suggested. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User DaveBurkum editing on Tyler Burkum[edit]

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)


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)

I've opened a discussion with Dave at their Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, they were removed because they were not sourced (see "unsourced content"). I also suspected you of having a CoI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Amrita Rao[edit]

User: Tusharlove has stated on the article's talk page that he knows the subject of the BLP personally and that he has been employed by her to edit the Wikipedia article. Reproducing my post from the article's Talk page. "You mentioned in your first post (dated 17 February 2015) that you work for her, as in, you are employed by her and one of your tasks at the job is to edit the Wikipedia entry by her name. In another post (dated 8 January 2016), you outright mention that Amrita Rao wants photos other than the ones present in the article to be uploaded onto Wikipedia. That also indicates she is reading this page and instructing you about the content to be added or removed. Now you write that you know her personally. Your actions are a gross violation of the policy of conflict of interest. Please refrain from editing the article further. Also, I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources (WP: RS). Any information you contribute to Wikipedia in your personal capacity may not count as a reliable source. It needs to be properly referenced."

In 2013, I has received requests from a large media house employed by the subject of the BLP to help them edit the Wikipedia entry. I had educated them about paid editing and Wikipedia's CoI policy back then. Both these instances point to a case of persitent CoI editing and paid editing. -- Rohini (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth_Spann_Craig[edit]

Article was at AfC with user Ecraig21. COI template added to talk page Nov. 18. Article was repeatedly rejected. Hooniveet created article in mainspace with same content diff. Hooniveet is a redirect from Ecraig21. Article is promotional and subject is of dubious notability. LaMona (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow the history of that article is ugly. As for the user, a rename was requested by the user here and done here. User blanked the page of the COI notice that LaMona gave here. I will try to talk with them but given their aggression I am not sure how this will go... but they stopped being active in Nov 2015 so I am not sure they are even around. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to take a crack at editing the article since it has a lot of RS problems and I'm not sure it meets notability. Would you prefer that I wait until we've resolved this COI? I note that none of the above users seems to have paid attention when tags were placed on the page, so they might be long gone. LaMona (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Elance-driven content[edit]

Following up on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_90#Checking_Elance. An article on a topic brought to our attention by Doc James has just popped up. – Brianhe (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The subject doesn't appear notable and that editor's contributions certainly fit with the modus operandi of undisclosed paid editing. The account that was mentioned in the previous thread was linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kickingback77. I'll start an AFD and an SPI later on. SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
noted that Smartse did as promised. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Buncee[edit]

Article Draft:Buncee was created by User:Banwaitharsh. User was notified on Nov 9 2015 of potential COI because Harshdeep Banwait is the name of the company's accounts manager. Buncee team page Article had be rejected at AfC (no record remains). On 20 November User:Linc22shan created article Buncee in main space. On 22 November user was given COI notice on their talk page User_talk:Linc22shan#Conflict_of_interest which user denied (but I don't believe). User continues to edit the article in mainspace. Article is promotional and lacks sources for the majority of its content. I got frustrated and tried to speedy it, but in fact the article may have merit. However, the COI issues remain. LaMona (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems Buncee has been G11ed by @JzG:. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I just checked contribs - neither has remaining contribs that are recent now that the article is deleted. Suggest we check contribs again in a while and then close if the accounts are abandoned. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Phil Waldrep[edit]

Single-purpose account, judging by the username and their edit history focusing only on this one topic, plus their content being added to the article is unsourced. Have posted COI template on talk page. sixtynine • speak up • 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think she intended to disclose that she works for Waldrep with her username - we just need to make sure of that and then teach them how to follow the COI guideline. I have left a note on her Talk page to start that discussion. Thanks for bringing this to the community's attention, Beemer69 Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed some PR from the article. Phil Waldrup Ministries might deserve an article (Ex-President Bush Jr gave the keynote speech at one of their events), but the person himself doesn't have much independent coverage. John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
hm. i agree. I don't think either makes GNG ( a passing reference about the Bush visit to the church that you mentioned, is all i found in independent sources) I won't nominate it as I would like to speak with Hannah without getting into content. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
New SPA, "Wikipedia824", doing what looks like resume inflation. I took out "Waldrep has also received a State of Alabama medal of honor for contributions to the lives of senior adults.[2]", which was cited to a Waldrep ad in a brochure. There doesn't seem to be a "State of Alabama medal of honor" known to Google. Checked the Congressional Medal of Honor list, just to be sure.[3] He's not on there. John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for calling that up. I cleaned up the article, looked for sources, found few, nominated for AFD, tagged the article Talk page, and notified the new user of COI guideline. Have also notified both users of the AFD. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems a good call. This guy just isn't very notable. Since the article is mostly about his books and other products, WP:AUTHOR is the proper notability criterion, and he's not close to passing that. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Elks of Canada[edit]

This users username, and the fact that the user has only posted glowing information on the Elks of Canada lead me to suspect it is an account from that organization.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Facilitated Application Specification Techniques[edit]

User:Grush edited the page Facilitated Application Specification Techniques with the statement: "(Corrected description - FAST was created by me, Gary Rush, IAF CPF)" diff. After being reverted, he again posted 30K of content, with this message "(I am Gary Rush - I wrote the article in 1985 that coined the name and I created FAST in 1985. I am correcting the previous description which was completely flawed.)" diff . That article is highly promotional, including his email and phone number. He is now in the process of creating Draft:Gary Rush. I placed a COI notice on his talk page on Feb. 1; he has continued to edit the draft article without replying. LaMona (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just deleted the FAST article again. I think the topic is probably notable, but the article was just a mess. Deb (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
He re-created the FAST article with most of the content being a copyvio (which is possibly his own text, but it's far too promotional for a neutral encyclopedia). Per Deb's comment I've pruned it back rather than deleting it again. As far as this report goes, Grush admits his connection to the topic. We just need to persuade him to follow our policy.  —SMALLJIM  17:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
He re-created it in this last 24 hours? That would explain why I saw multiple deletes. There was a version from before when he discovered it that had multiple editors - that might be the best starting point. As for persuading him, I've contacted him three times about COI, and he hasn't appeared here nor commented elsewhere. Perhaps it would help if he would hear from others... I feel like I've done what I can. Personally, I'd like to see his account blocked, since he's now creating an autobiography. LaMona (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that he has since edited the FAST article under is IP diff here. This is the IP he answered with on his talk page. So he has not stopped editing the article. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've had a look through the deleted versions to see if there's anything pre-Grush that was worth salvaging, but I can't say that there was. Yes, I noticed the IP edits – at the moment I'm AGF that he's accidentally editing while logged out. But that AGF will quickly end if he continues edit warring or adding non-encyclopedic/promotional content.  —SMALLJIM  21:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Simone Forti[edit]

Editing only at this article. All content added by user is unsourced save for citing subject's own work. sixtynine • speak up • 00:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor and a student of dance history, I can vouch that Simone Forti is a very important figure in American postmodern dance. I can also vouch that WP's dance coverage is broadly quite underdeveloped. The user should be politely and respectfully made aware of WP:COI, WP:V, WP:Username, and WP:NPOV, but the material added is mostly policy-compliant and a significant improvement to the article. The user must not be subjected to WP:Hazing.
There is a problem to resolve in that WP cannot accept the perfectly good academic citation Simone Forti, in conversation with archivist Rena Kosnett. Los Angeles, CA. January 14, 2015., but this can be resolved through courteous outreach. FourViolas (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello - thank you for your comments. I am addressing these issues on the Help Me ! section of my talk page.
I am working with that person and article, and I'll see it gets done right. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Eric the Prince[edit]


Apparent autobiography by a non notable, promising to write many more such articles. One may take that with a grain of salt, but for the moment we seem to have a promotional account, plus a likely sock or meat puppet. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor has additionally created promotional article for Mac Lucci that is up for CSD due to lack of notability and third-party sources, with image in article tagged for copyright violation. sixtynine • speak up • 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would like to help by creating articles on artists according to the standards of the Wikipedia community, I mentioned in the 'talk,' I am not intending to use Wikipedia for promotional use but to document Rap Artists just as Lil Dicky, G Eazy, and all sorts of artists are featured here, I run Rap.com as I said, and I am interviewing the artists, it's a passion of mine to find out artists life stories and acknowledge their accomplishments, if there's anyone I know the most about it's myself, and I have asked my father, my friends in the industry, and others to edit this article and add or take away what they want to, I am here to write articles on other artists who I interview, and I started with myself so I can learn more about what needs to be said, and what needs to be left unsaid and to make high quality content and articles. Please let me know what I can do to edit the article or if it simply needs others to do so. I want to be on Wikipedia everyday and I can add a wealth of resources and information to a ton of artists pages, all I do is go through rap news and interview artists, please help me with this one, and in the mean time, I am going to start a few more on some of the artists I have already interviewed, and if there's anything wrong with those pages please let me know, thanks guys, and please help guide me to make this fun and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Notability states: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic - all statements are cited, and more are to be added with the proper citations. This is a very important thing for me, I have held off on having my own Wikipedia because about 4 years ago I tried to make one and it got flagged like this and deleted and I never said anything, I know I had worked about 15 hours on it and the next day I came back and it was deleted and all of the information was deleted and I couldn't find it and I felt so burned, and I'm sure a lot of other artists have had the same thing happen to them. I would like to be able to feature artists, cite the sources, and be a big help to the community of Hip Hop to really feature artists the right way because there's so much bs on the internet about them and I want to feature them on Wikipedia with the facts and acknowledge their accomplishments, being recognized means everything to an artist, and I want to be able to help them showcase their work the right way. I am doing this as a volunteer because I want to see artists who have worked hard and have toured worldwide have a place in Wikipedia, can you please allow me to have others edit my article "Eric the Prince" over the next 72 hours and after then if everyone approves it can stay and may I please start submitting articles on other artists and may I please get some help on how to do everything correctly? I absolutely love Wikipedia as I have said and spent so many hours on it and donated to Wikipedia and I want to be apart of it after watching the TED Talk that the founder gave. Thank you guys for talking to me I really appreciate it and I again humbly, ask give me 72 hours to have other sources edit the article, and to submit other articles and to have you guys let me know what I need to know to make sure nothing gets taken down for any reason that I can help, I am reading all of the articles that have been linked that you are linking and will apply everything that I learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talkcontribs) 04:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I am intending no purpose of promotion, as the founder of Rap.com I am trying to create articles for Rappers on Wikipedia, and add information to other Rap Artists who are already on the Wikipedia, this is my first day editting on Wikipedia and all I am doing is looking at other rap artists profiles already here on Wikipedia and using the same format, I am not seeing any difference between the articles I have created and any other current rap artist profile. I would also that everyone speak to me directly and help me do this properly, I have been conducting interviews and studying Rap/Hip Hop, watching every documentary, and would gladly like to contribute to Wikipedia and have Rap.com as a reliable third party source that can be cited on Wikipedia as interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapAuthority (talkcontribs) 21:17, February 4, 2016
  • updated the headers. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • noted that SPI has closed. Not sure we are going to have more to do here. Will hold off archiving these to see what emerges. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Papers[edit]

COI appears pretty obvious, not only through the account's name, but via numerous edit summaries that state 'approval' of content changes by the article's subjects. Conflict is pretty well established by admission. My concern is whether edits to The Washington Papers substituted sourced content for copyright violations. If someone can check to see which content had precedence, then we could proceed to remove unacceptable text, or merely note that it's not sourced. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B095:6CD9:12FD:9C11 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I've cautioned them over their username and COI edits. I'm fairly certain that this is someone at UVA, likely a student, that was asked to come and make edits concerning the project. The edits they made put a lot of undue weight on the project, so it absolutely needs to be edited down. As far as copyvio goes, some portions do appear to have been taken from here and more of it appears to be close paraphrasing from somewhere. At the very least it's fairly promotional enough to where it'd need to be edited even if it isn't a copyright violation. See this for an example. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've given them the name of a contact at UVA and asked them to submit a ticket through OTRS that gives Wikipedia permission to use the text. I am worried about the undue weight, but it's not so bad that it would be unsalvageable and my main concern here, other than the copyvio, is that the article has some slight puffery going on here. This is all likely unintentional and just sort of what happens when you send someone to make edits that is unfamiliar with this sort of thing. I'll drop the contact a note to let them know that I sent someone in her direction. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Also e-mailed the person in question and CC'd the director of the project. The contact is someone who I think has limited knowledge of Wikipedia, but she does work with the UVA's library system and my inclination is that the papers project is run through the special collections department. I may be wrong in this, but if it is then they may need to get the library involved in order to grant permission. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jason Graves[edit]

The user is an SPA on the article of the same name. Added copyvio material to the article from Jason Grave's internet site. No response to multiple attempts to discuss the COI, username, and COPYVIO situation on his talk page [4]. The article had been tagged for having been edited by a probable COI editor but the tag was removed by Jason Graves [5]. When the tag was restored it was immediately removed again by an IP (just 2 minutes after Jason Grave's last edit) [6]. After a two month break Jason Graves has returned to the article, removing the COI tag again [7] and copying more material that is already online elsewhere. I have not yet determined if this is material that was at one time in this article and was mirrored before being deleted here, or if this is another copyvio.

It seems very likely to me that this user is indeed Jason Graves and thus has a COI. It's also likely that he has edited this article recently using at least one IP. Note that the article was created in 2008 by another SPA, User:Jasongmusic, who granted permission via OTRS to use copyrighted material in the article. I contacted OTRS about this article and was told that the original ticket could not be applied to the new material added by Jason Graves.

So, either we have a COI editor who is aware of the permission issues but is choosing not to follow the correct procedure for granting permission this time, or less likely, we have a case of WP:IMPERSONATE. Meters (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm debating giving them a short block for adding copyrighted information. They've been warned multiple times prior to their last edits and they've still continued adding copyvio. I'll try reaching out to the website itself to ask them to update permission. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Tokyogirl79 is more generous on this than I am. The username (a violation of the username policy) and the repeated removal of the COI notices would be sufficient for me to want a block on the user. In addition, the article is barely referenced, so as far as I am concerned it could be deleted for not meeting notability. It is unacceptable to state that the music has been licensed for TV shows without some verifiability, or to claim awards without proper references (that one goes to an interview). It seems clear that he has composed music for many games, and may be notable, but the WP skills of the editor of this page are seriously lacking and bordering on fraudulent. Since this has gone on for quite a while, I don't see how any more warnings are warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)p
In what way is using your own name a violation of user name policy? I have an obvious curiosity on this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes LaMona please do reply to that. If you got a bit carried away that's fine - please just REDACT accordingly. It is important here at COIN that we talk about blocks with care and only for clear and repeated violations of policy with no sign that the user is "getting it". Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no username issue unless the user claims not to be Jason graves. That's why I brought it to COIN. I don't usually post here, but my understanding is that is the right thing to do with a suspected COI editor who has not declared said COI. I'm looking for a consensus that this is a COI, so that for a start, the COI tag on the article can stick. Meters (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, under the "Real Names" section: "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." So the problem with the username is that it is 1) either proof of COI or 2) could be construed as someone masquerading as the person. I obviously should have worded it that way in my message. LaMona (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The username didn't bother me too much, although I will say that it kind of came off as a company username like "Jason Graves Music Inc" or something to that extent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The article subject is notable, with lots of awards and credits. There are better sources than the one in the article.[8][9] The subject of the article is in the position of having been heard by hundreds of millions of people who have no idea who he is. While the editor behavior is a problem, the article seems mostly legitimate, although it needs better citations. John Nagle (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Antony Coia, again[edit]

Reopening discussion; the prior case petered out (see archive 93). Specifically, there was no response to my entreaty to clarify the apparent COI. But the editor is still making problematic contributions. I just did some cleanup of copyvio where someone had apparently scanned a number of articles, uploaded to a file share website under the name Antony Coia, then Pizzole inserted the website as sources here in contravention of WP:COPYLINK. These insertions were made since last COIN case: [10] and [11]. This is a significant problem. Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pizzole when evaluating contributions to article(s). – Brianhe (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Although the COI may be of interest, the movie database article fails decidedly on sources, which are all informal fan sites. The same is true of the article about Coia. While he can just assume another username and continue creating these articles, removing the articles through the deletion process may be the more effective approach. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No COI. I added sources because they are important newspaper sources and aren't written by the subject of the page.--Pizzole (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The first bullet in WP:NOTHERE is "narrow self-interested or promotional activity": perhaps there is no COI and Pizzole is just a fan, but the editor is a clear SPA, and their behaviour is indistinguishable from an editor with an inappropriate COI promoting their own work. I don't see that having other editors take time to respond to timewasting arms-race AfDs (with hard-to-follow Italian-language sources) every time Antony Coia starts a new project would be "more effective" than blocking the user as a not-here-to-build-an-encyclopedia promotional WP:SPA. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not my fault if you don't understand italian language. Sorry.--Pizzole (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm with McGeddon here (except that I don't have any trouble reading Italian). This is serious, long-term disruptive behaviour and the usual waste of editor time, a precious resource that could better be spent on building an encyclopaedia (see the current edit-warring at Antony Coia). Indef-block as WP:NOTHERE so that we can all get on with something more interesting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is nominated for deletion. It strikes me that is Pizzole is blocked from editing, they may not be able to explain why the article is notable. Shritwod (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pizzole has not really tried to explain anything. He has resorted to threats of deleting the work of those who put the article up for deletion to try to intimadate them into not nominating it for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Animal Charity Evaluators[edit]

I believe User:Eric Herboso has an undeclared conflict of interest. He recommended keeping the Animal Charity Evaluators article in a deletion discussion, but is himself a blogger for Animal Charity Evaluators. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:7588:653:6216:2A44 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have worked with ACE, and this is why I have never edited their wikipedia article. I did not realize that an AfD comment would count as a conflict of interest, though. I will edit the AfD page to make this more clear. — Eric Herboso 01:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Julie Friedman[edit]


Maguffinator is likely Julie Friedman's husband, Jeff Steele. It looks as though Maguffinator created article for his wife.

https://www.pinterest.com/maguffinator/3d-printing/ https://twitter.com/maguffinator

My 2 pence: User is a major contributor to Jeff Steele also. I'd say highly likely. Uamaol (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruise (film)[edit]

No evidence of a COI. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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 article in question is an overtly promotional and fairly unnotable piece on a yet unreleased indie film. It has been featured on the frontpage through the DYK process.--Catlemur (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Cruise (film), it's clearly promotional dross and the worst kind of recentism, but I doubt very much that the creator (a very long-term editor here) has any involvement with or connection to the film. It reads as somewhat promotional because it's entirely based on press releases masquerading as "articles" in trade publications and padded to make the minimum character count for DYK. I'm not sure what can be done about that, apart from taking it to AfD. There simply aren't any sources available that aren't promotional. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that TonyTheTiger has also made considerable contributions to various articles related to Emily Ratajkowski bringing the article about her to GA, being a top editor for Blurred Lines, and creating the We Are Your Friends (film) article (another film of questionable importance).--Catlemur (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused on why this issue is being raised here. Many biographies that have been raised to WP:GA and WP:FA standards have editors who have been involved in related articles. It does not mean that there is a WP:COI. I just am a huge fan of this woman and enjoy researching her activities. This research finds its way onto WP. I am not watching this page because this is a fairly baseless claim. Let me know if I am in any trouble for being a fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I seems that I was unable to produce enough evidence of COI and therefore I would like to ask the admins to close the discussion.I also apologize to TonyTheTiger, however I will pursue the deletion of Cruise (film) for reasons mentioned above.--Catlemur (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


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.

Canadian Association for Equality[edit]

I'm posting to ask for help dealing with a number of apparent SPAs who have been making problematic edits to our article on the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), a Toronto-based men's rights group. These accounts all share a singular interest in our article on CAFE and (in some cases) in our article on the group's founder and director, Justin Trottier. Each of these accounts edits almost exclusively on these subjects, and on closer inspection, many of the edits that they've made to other pages often turn out to be related (eg, adding Trottier as a notable alumni to our article about his high school), or removing criticism from our article on Katherine K. Young, a men's rights activist who has participated in multiple CAFE events.

These accounts' edits are problematic because they have been continually removing any suggestion that CAFE is a men's rights group (which is how the vast majority of RS describe them), removing extensive, well-cited material that reflects negatively on CAFE (here's one example), and adding large amounts of material that reflects positively on the group but is most likely undue (eg, sourced to the groups own website or youtube channel, cherry picked quotations from a small number of opinion columnists who happen to support CAFE, etc.) They often use misleading edit summaries to try to try to hide what they're doing [12][13][14].

Note that the names of these accounts all fit a particular pattern (first name, last name, 3 digit number), and that a couple of them have been found to be sockpuppets in the past. Most recently, 2 of these accounts have cooperated to upload a set of images, with a second account re-uploading images which had been deleted from wikimedia. The images all appear to have either been drawn from CAFE's own website and publicity materials, or to have been taken by someone who was physically present at a CAFE event - see this one and this one, for example.

The article has very few people watching it and I am not comfortable continually reverting these SPAs (they rarely, if ever, engage on the article talk page). Any/all advice is appreciated, and the page desperately needs more eyes on it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here Fyddlestix. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and continued sockpuppetry also looks likely so to start with I've started another SPI. It's unfortunately difficult to review what actually changed in this diff but if you are confident that the version your initially reverted to is better sourced and more neutral I'd advise you to go back to that. I'll keep an eye on it as well. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Smartse, will do. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
bunch of blocks were handed out.. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Gun trusts[edit]

Two very similar articles seem to be packed with references that could be considered refspam. Examples:

  • guntrustdepot.com
  • guntrustlawyer.com
  • secureguntrust.com
  • 2atrusts.com
  • utahtrustattorneys.com

Not sure how bad this is or whether cleanup is necessary. More opinions wanted. – Brianhe (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think these two articles need to be merged. Much of the text is identical and there is nothing to say why one is different from the other. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter[edit]

Our rules allow paid editors to draft articles in their own user space and then propose them for placement. CorporateM has done so in this instance and he is not to be faulted. However, I believe hat his draft is imbalanced by not even mentioning the subject's acknowledged and widely publicized role in the Hollywood blacklist. I request additional eyes on this article. See Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter#Draft. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Civil Liberties Association[edit]

This is just a quick note to direct your attention to a discussion already happening at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_editor_CafeHellion_on_article_Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association_.28OCLA.29, where a COI editor launched an attack thread at another editor. There is some additional material/conflict at Talk:Connie Fournier. Rather than post here again, I just want to point you to ANI: the discussion needs some more eyes, and since I've edited a few of the articles in the last day or two, I don't feel comfortable taking administrative action myself--but I think action is called for. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)