Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; 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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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: ▼ Requested edits ► Answered requested edits ► Declined requested edits ► Implemented requested edits ► Partially implemented requested edits   Talk:African Library Project   Talk:Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust   Talk:AlienVault   Talk:American Tap Dance Foundation   Talk:American Thoracic Society   Talk:Aurora Organic Dairy   Talk:Jules Bailey   Talk:Balsamiq   Talk:Baron 3D   Talk:BDTH2   Talk:Becket Fund for Religious Liberty   Talk:Beecraft   Talk:Beepi   Talk:Belize   Talk:Anine Bing   Talk:Bioresorbable stents   Talk:Blufin   Talk:Bombardier Recreational Products   Talk:BP   Talk:BP/Archive 24   Talk:Jorge Horacio Brito   Talk:Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.   Talk:CarMax   Talk:China Medical Board   Talk:Cleveland Clinic   Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests   Talk:CodeFuel   Talk:David Coleman (education)   Talk:Common Purpose UK   Talk:Comparison of web browsers   Talk:Consumer Reports   Talk:Coronary stent   Talk:CUBA Platform   Draft:Cygnite   Talk:Cynefin Framework   Talk:Dani Ploeger   Talk:Datameer   Talk:Dental implant   User:DGG/COI & OTRS templates in process, 2015   Talk:DivX, Inc.   Talk:Drug-eluting stent   Talk:Dunnet (video game)   Talk:Dutch Americans   Talk:Eicosapentaenoic acid   Talk:Elsevier   Talk:Environmental Defence Canada   Talk:European Market Infrastructure Regulation   Talk:Evernote   Talk:Ferrero SpA   Talk:Financial Stability Board   Talk:Sean Gabb   Talk:Gaza War (2008–09)   Talk:Benjamin Genocchio   Talk:George Institute for Global Health   Talk:George Ranalli   Talk:Global Connectivity Index   Talk:Gail Godwin   Talk:Fabrice Grinda   Talk:HeinOnline   Talk:Hempel Group   Talk:Herzliya Medical Center   Talk:Honeywell   Template talk:Honeywell   Talk:Jason Horsley   Talk:Iona Institute   Talk:Jet.com   Talk:Joe Seiders   Talk:Juniata College   Talk:Juniper MX-Series   Talk:Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences   Talk:Kaplan College   Talk:KVOQ-FM   Talk:List of current NHL captains and alternate captains   Talk:Louvre Abu Dhabi   Talk:Paolo Macchiarini   Talk:Macmillan Cancer Support   Talk:Makruk   Talk:Maria Polinsky   Talk:Markets in Financial Instruments Directive   Talk:Helene Chung Martin   Talk:Élie Metchnikoff   Talk:MetLife   Talk:MindMeld   Talk:Misophonia   Talk:Money Advice Service   Talk:Sarah Morris   Talk:Jarret Myer   Talk:Arif Naqvi   Talk:Natural Resources Defense Council   Talk:New Oriental   Talk:NICE Systems   Talk:Swami Nithyananda   Talk:Ogilvy & Mather   Talk:Ohio Institute of Photography and Technology   Talk:Olswang   Talk:Open Society Foundations   Talk:Organizational metacognition   Talk:Parker Hannifin   Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention   Talk:Polyphenylsulfone   Talk:Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park   Venkatraman Ramakrishnan   Talk:Ren Zhengfei   Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contest/preload   Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contribute/preload   Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/correction/preload   Template:Request edit/testcases   Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures   Talk:Royal British Columbia Museum   Talk:SAMCO   Talk:SAP SE   Talk:Satellite (software)   Talk:Dov Seidman   Talk:Shriners Hospitals for Children   Talk:SKS Microfinance   Talk:Sodium oxybate   Draft:Antano Solar John   Talk:SolarReserve   Talk:Sophos   Talk:State Accident Insurance Fund   Talk:Stelio Stefanou   Talk:Daniel Steres   Talk:Sthanika Brahmins   Talk:Quint Studer   Talk:Carol M. Swain   Talk:Tarsnap   Talk:Teledermatology   Talk:The Abraaj Group   Talk:The Climate Corporation   Talk:The Hollywood Reporter   Talk:Thinkorswim   User:Tom at Manifest/sandbox   Talk:Uber (company)   Talk:University Canada West   Talk:University of Chicago   Talk:Uproxx   Talk:Verizon Wireless   User talk:Vermonte1974   Talk:Walgreens Boots Alliance   Talk:Walmart   Talk:Walter Ofonagoro   Talk:WorkCover Authority of New South Wales   Talk:Hansjörg Wyss   Talk:XTO Energy   Talk:Sun Yafang   Talk:Robert Zimmer

Charter School Growth Fund

• Charter_School_Growth_Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acolliercsgf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Belly (loyalty program)

• Belly (loyalty program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

European Graduate School

• European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism in the past by accounts that seem to be linked to the institution. These accounts take issue with the fact that the Wikipedia article for the European Graduate School references its lack of accreditation as a degree-issuing university in the United States. The edits usually involve deleting links to credible and sourced U.S. government websites that record this institution as unaccredited. The EGS website was previously protected from edits to halt this abuse under WP's Conflict of Interest policy (See case here: [1]). Since that time the EGS has taken to misrepresenting its status with Wikipedia on its own website (link: [2]), which claims:

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

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

There's always a problem is saying lack of accreditation, which is something that usually cannot actually be documented. But just as Contextualist (talk · contribs) sys the article history illustrates he repeated efforts of publicists for the school to improperly use anything that might possibly suggest accreditation way beyond their proper meaning. (A good indication of this is anything suggesting accreditation in Switzerland. That country only accredits the schools listed in List of universities in Switzerland, but. like most places, will register almost anything as a business. It's routine in such cases for people to use business licenses as if they mean accreddited. It's routine for state ment about links with other colleges to be used, when they can not actually be demonstrated to be current. We really need a proper way of wording to deal with this sort of situation. (one way is to delete the articles, but that can remove useful smd sourceable NPOV information about a widely publicized "university"). DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We went through this in October. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#European_Graduate_School. The current article text seems reasonable. They really do seem to be accredited in Malta, but that may just mean that Malta recognizes diplomas from them. The recognition by the canton of Valais is much weaker. They're in category J, "Private schools of tertiary level recognized by the Canton", along with two schools of hotel management.[3]. This seems to be related to an European Union convention of which Switzerland is a signatory.[4] There's a EU distinction between diploma acceptance for cross-border employment, and diploma acceptance for academic purposes. The certifications mentioned here seem to be for the first purpose. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked this. Malta recognises one qualification, and based on this EGS states that is is an "EU accredited Institution of Higher Education", which is not a style I have ever seen elsewhere, and the top Google hits are all EGS: [5] - they appear to have coined it. Accreditation in the EU is a matter for member states, and there's no actual evidence that Malta does accredit them, only that one qualification is listed as licensed. Bear in mind that we have had Bircham International University banging on for years about how being licensed by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce is a form of accreditation, which it plainly is not. So I have added an {{editprotected}} to remove that paragraph as WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Bailey

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

"Sir" does not belong in this Wikipedia title. Moved per WP:OBE. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know how notable he really is. He does have a lot of post-nominals but everything about him appears to be from primary sources, so article needs to be hacked down to non-promotional. Culture759 also wrote the article about his wife, Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg, of dubious notability, whose claim to fame is being a great-granddaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Culture759 also created three other articles on very minor awards, Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada, all of which were, coincidentally, awarded to His Self-Promotional Excellency, Sir Anthony Bailey. The Grenada constitution mentions the Order of Grenada but I can't find any other recipients. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: An OBE certainly is a significant acheivement, and it appears he's also been honoured by the Pope, [6] I agree that the tone of the article needs a complete overhaul, but he probably passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree he meets GNG, but the problem is it's from all primary sources, like press releases, so everything is going to come off very slick. Even his intro is very oily - "a campaigner engaged in furthering cultural, educational, commercial and inter-religious relations between Europe, the Caribbean and the wider world." I have no idea what that is. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it odd that the only things that I know about this guy, (I'm a Brit) aren't covered in this peacock article? -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If what you know about him isn't extremely flattering, then I'm not surprised in the least. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors of this article I would like to put on record that I do not know, work for or have met or communicated with the subject or his companies and suggestions to that effect made Мандичка are plain false. I find the subject interesting and notable having been honoured with 20 or so high state awards including being knighted by the Queen in right of Antigua and Grenada and in the UK getting a OBE and twice by the Pope in Vatican. I shall endeavour to add some more sources to each but the use of both statements, official releases and front page media coverages in major publications speak for themselves. Even on the subjects own websites you can download official third party sources are shown which confirm what is stated in the article including letters from Buckingham Palace and others. I agree about the article template agree about the 'Sir' being added to the articles title by another contributor . I am aware of the use of titles in articles but he certainly meets GNG. I have also created and contributed to many other articles on relevant subjects which have merit. I have an interest too in lesser known state awards and decorations and have created articles about them. As to his wife she certainly is of note both in terms of her family and the honours that have been awarded to her. I have regularly removed a number of post nominals but other contributors have seen fit to add them again. Reference is also made to very minor awards Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada ?? These are national state honours founded by a Queen or President or a quick look at the recipients of the Sternberg Interfaith Medal show the signifiant public figures including prominent Heads of State and Government so have received it. Culture759 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Culture759.

Hey, culture, do you think we should cover this guys arrest record? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

hi Roxy the dog, I assume you refer to the allegations made in 1994 which sources show were dismissed by a magistrate and the subject not even sent to trial and an apology issued to him. a quick look at the Press Complaints Commission show a number of apologies being published by uk media in this regard who had referred to it so no to your question would be my thought. . Culture759 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Reader Magazine

• The Reader Magazine ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ginger2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiBalandina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 27century (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

WikiBalandina, (a WP:SPA) has implied without saying that they don't have a COI on their talk page, but has added substantial flattering content containing obscure info such as specific circulation numbers over time. Some edits have sources, but they don't always support the attached details.[7]. Brand-new editor Ginger2020 has done a copy-paste revert of this info with an edit summary accusing me of having a COI, which is pretty funny.[8] Both editors have added promotional info about the environmental impact and benefit corporation status which are sourced to routine non-independent sources, and these claims are also prominently touted on the magazine's website, which suggests promotional intent.

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

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

I haven't done much editing here and I don't have as much experience as you do. My initial impression is that you're more concerned with feeling you are right than anything else, including welcoming work and someone new, even when they have more experience and knowledge about a subject than you. When that becomes apparent-- that they actually might know something that you do not-- your approach/stance is to accuse them of having a conflict of interest or to label their work in negative terms. You also use your superior understanding of Wikipedia in ways that could certainly be considered bullying. You do not appear to be interested in the contributions/edits of others and you take a dogmatic approach to others' contributions-- labeling them as "promotional", questioning their motives rather than acknowledging they may-- because of longstanding interest-- know things about a subject and have a desire to share it. You are not practicing civility in your communications and certainly not in the way you continually change a page and eliminate the work of others because it isn't your work, or because of [fill in the blank].WikiBalandina (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are willing to discuss these edits on the talk page instead of edit warring, we may be able to figure out a way to add some more of the information you know to the article in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I have incorporated some of the changes you have made to the article, although you've since been reverted to a verions with more promotional wording. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. You have been adding content but haven't been providing reliable sources. When I try to discuss this with you on your talk page you avoid answering me, then insult me, and restore the info anyway. Saying that you haven't done much editing is an understatement, since this is the only topic you have edited. The history of the article suggest that undisclosed COI editing is a realistic concern, which is a concern you still haven't actually addressed. You still haven't explained how you know the c. 2003 circulation numbers of the Yucaipa Reader, for example. As at least one other editor has tried to discuss with you, this is a major cause for concern and a possible violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Directory entries for non-notable journals

• Luke.j.ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• sjh88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

sample articles

• Forum Italicum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Economic and Labour Relations Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Australian Journal of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adoption & Fostering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Clinical Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Now-inactive user Luke.j.ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

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)

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:

-- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

User:Bluezell

• Bluezell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

• User talk:BruceGrubb
• User talk:Johnpacklambert

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

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

• OneSky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ausannette.onesky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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)

Has someone gone through the article for NPOV so that the tag can be removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Mitchell

• Jonathan Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ylevental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Comment - And what is your relationship here, @KrazyKlimber:. I see you nominated the article which is fully within your right as a Wikipedia editor. I would like to point out WP:POINT in case you are not familiar. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You should also be aware of WP:OUTING. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• You are both edit warring, stop it. Your claims, like theirs are uncited and therefore hard to act on. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought reverting COI was protected editing behaviour. Proof of my claims will come shortly, but they are off Wiki so I wasn't sure if they would be considered. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's one source. I'm searching for more. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to wonder about WP:BOOMERANG. KrazyKlimber is a new editor who's taken to this with great passion; that's fine, but the conversation here and at the article talk page--I can't access all the diffs, which have presumably been expunged for outing, but [9] gives a picture, and the rest is here [10]--suggests unusual determination. Moreover, these blankings [11], [12] appear to be a bit overzealous. I've seen and reported a lot of COI accounts, and while this may eventually be seen as problematic, it's not egregious. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• • i agree that KrazyKlimber needs to be less strident, but Ylevental has now disclosed that they have a personal relationship with the article subject. I left Ylevental a note on their Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Surbiton High School

• Surbiton High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SHSPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

SHSPR exists as a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest to promote Surbiton High School, and has contributed extensive non-NPOV edits to the school's article. Mlleangelique (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The ad copy seems to have been removed. I removed the collage of images of famous alumni because the middle image was from Getty Images. See file deletion request on Commons.[13] John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

American Film Market

• American Film Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AlviseFalier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• JonathanWolfWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Jennaflower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hi everyone, I'm a film buff who's also done some freelance writing in film industry periodicals. I just started editing Wikipedia a few months ago. However, I noticed some suspicious behavior when I tried to add a few details to the American Film Market page.

Seeing as I read a great article about the AFM awhile back, I decided to use it as a source to add a number of details to the entry. I even added a picture I took. I was surprised and frustrated to see my handiwork quickly undone by a user called JonathanWolfWiki. Even the picture I added was gone! Seeing as the article is a stub, I thought my additions would be welcome. Apart from the annoyance of seeing edits I took a long time to write deleted, I wasn't even given a reason (which I was always given in the past; for example, I've often made mistakes when citing sources).

I thought there might be an error, so I undid the edits. However, I now see my revisions have been undone again by a user called Jennaflower. I don't understand why my edits keep getting undone! Rather than spend time and energy I don't have to undertake an edit war, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to alert the mods.

This is the page after my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=695193433

This is the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=698599196

Prior to posting here, I performed a quick google search. As it turns out, the profile JonathanWolfWiki is tied to Jonathan Wolf (he has edited other entries about himself), a Managing Director of the AFM. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to include my edits (which were sourced, balanced, and informative) apart from a desire to control all content that goes on his organization's entry. That's not how Wikipedia works, and completely in conflict with the spirit of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.. AlviseFalier (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed some peacocking from the article. Right now, there's a reasonable basic article. There's what looks like a 3-way edit war, with none of the parties putting anything on talk pages. Please discuss your disagreements on the article talk pages. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a response to the post by AlviseFalier:

  The edits made by AlviseFalier were reverted back because they were broadly inaccurate, biased and defaming to the American Film Market (AFM.) The changes did not reflect the event, its history or the companies involved. These edits included defaming statements such as: "Initially, the bulk of sales during the AFM were of pornographic films."

  The edits also included inaccurate event dates, inaccurate event locations, inaccurate statements about marketplace conditions, inaccurate statements about the City of Santa Monica, etc.

  The changes made by AlviseFalier are sourced solely from a publication called VideoAge International. It has no subscribers and is distributed free at film and TV events. Four references to VideoAge accompanied the edits by AlviseFalier even though the AFM is covered widely in the media by every major international outlet.

  VideoAge published an inaccurate, biased and defaming “history” of the American Film Market in its November, 2015 issue. I believe that AlviseFalier has a direct involvement with VideoAge and is seeking to use Wikipedia to pursue its inaccurate, biased and defaming campaign and to promote VideoAge.

  I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and open source and welcome and appreciate updates made to the American Film Market. I post with my full name, not anonymously, so others can easily direct their comments to me.

  I would also like to point out that AlviseFalier appears to be violating Wikipedia’s Policy against “single purpose accounts.” This user is new to Wikipedia and has never posted to another Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AlviseFalier.

  Thanks, Jonathan Wolf -- JonathanWolfWiki ( JonathanWolfWiki) 19:47, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against "single purpose accounts". Single purpose accounts are fine so long as they are editing responsibly... which is the same situations as accounts showing a broader purpose. And every new user starts by editing on a single page until they edit another. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful to put the block of text above on the article's talk page. So far, no one involved in this dispute has put anything on the article talk page. Anyone editing the article can find the talk page, and it helps to justify including or excluding that information. Content disputes are normally resolved on article talk pages. Editors with a conflict of interest should write on talk pages, and avoid changes to the article itself. See WP:COI#COI editing strongly discouraged. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Dynegy

• Dynegy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davidonufer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.7.167.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This article in its current form was almost entirely written by these two editors. Dynegy's External Communications and Media Relations Manager is named David Onufer;[14] the IP address is registered to Dynegy, according to the whois record. Before these two editors re-made the page, it contained a great deal of dirt on the company; now most of it is gone. Given that the article was apparently written by the company, I'm not sure how to clean this up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The version at 17:46, 8 July 2015 would be a start, but there would probably be a huge stink raised, so I'd wait for other voices. The 'article' as it stands hurts my eyes. Ow! -Roxy the dog™ woof 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been bold. I've reverted all the edits back to the last good edit dated July 8, 2015. It's just unconscionable that two Dynegy-related accounts would edit this article. Period. Very clear violation of WP:COIN. (Kendall-K1, I apologize if I stepped on your toes and reverted your good-faith edits. It was going to be too hard to restore the article otherwise. My abject apologies!) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That revert seems reasonable. Davidonufer was last active in summer 2015, so that's a dead issue for now. The IP editor does seem to act like a COI editor. IP editor, please register an account. If you're going to do something controversial on Wikipedia, an account lets people talk to you. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Heather Anne Campbell

• Heather Anne Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Mee-Ow Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • The Midnight Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Laucb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

After Laucb had twice removed referenced statements I added to the article about Heather Anne Campbell, I looked at their contributions and noted that they've only ever edited articles with a direct connection to Heather Anne Campbell.

I questioned their activities on their talk page, but received no reply; the same removal has again been carried out by the same user - with no explanation.

It is clear to me that Laucb has a strong bias regarding Heather Anne Campbell, and one way or another, a strong bias is a conflict of interest. fredgandt 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That may just be a fancruft problem; it's hard to tell COI from fan obsession in the popular culture space. What needs to be fixed in the article? There's nothing on the article talk page? John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If no COI is declared, the problem with the main article listed will be the continued unreasonable curation by a clearly biased individual.

Specifically, only the repeated removal of one valid piece of information needs fixing, but this is the only issue I am personally aware of - there may be others - which, where a bias is evident, wouldn't surprise me.

I hope it can be agreed that the user is biased, and as such a COI exists, even if not in the strictest sense. fredgandt 09:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:SPA if not COI? fredgandt

This user only made one edit last year and one the year before, so I don't think any further action is needed. I reverted the removal of sourced material, I don't think anyone would object if you put the rest of it back in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it's what they do that matters more than how often they do it. Anyway, that's that. fredgandt 20:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Orpheus (band)

• Orpheus (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orpheusband (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I've never reported a COI before and would appreciate advice. This article appears to have been created by the subject and most all of the edits have been entered by same. I did place a request that COI be read before continued editing. Pjefts (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• For Orpheusband, start with Usernames implying shared use, Promotional names, and Dealing with inappropriate usernames. It could just be a fan of the band with no COI. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The article is both promotional and contains much uncited information from the band itself. It's not new; it dates from 2006, and was created by a non-SPA editor back then. Over the years, there have been some SPAs involved with the article, including Orpheus metal (talk · contribs) (involving a band of the same name in Australia) and Iwasthere67 (talk · contribs). There was also an edit war over the band's history [15], so sources need to be checked. The band does seem to have two recordings on a major label, although that claim needs to be checked. "Orpheusband" uploaded the band's portrait photos as "own work" at File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG, and File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg. They confirmed ownership of the images via OTRS, so we can assume they have a direct connection to the band and have had one for decades. The article has been tagged for reference improvement since 2011. References are present but not well connected to the text. The COI editor has not replied to requests to communicate on Talk or here. Suggest trimming the article down considerably by deleting unreferenced insider detail. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that User:Orpheusband has a COI for the Orpheus (band) article due to the close personal or business connections that come with owning the copyright and creating as his/her own work the two OTRS images. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• I asked for assistance from User:Marchjuly regarding the images, started the ball rolling on the user name, and tagged the user and article talk pages with COI notices. As for the article text, the referencing is not inline. However, there is a lot of source material out there and much of the Wikipedia article text probably could be sourced. The amount of text is not outrageous as to require trimming. As with any article, any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (see WP:RS). In other words, if you think the material would tend to lead to an argument or quarrel, feel free to trim it. As for the band origin, they originated in Worcester, Massachusetts, but only became known once they moved to Boston. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed Rahif Hakmi and Armada Group

• Mohammed Rahif Hakmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Armada Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Armada Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Armada Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Armada Bluebay Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Rahif Hakmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• PresleySimpson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Ernest McClintock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• FlaviusAetiusLaelius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

All editors have been been creating / editing articles relating to Armada Group and it's owner, and I suspect work for the company (the first is presumably the company owner). Edits seem promotional in nature. {{coi}} tag has been repeatedly removed from Mohammed Rahif Hakmi. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Added editor FlaviusAetiusLaelius, SPA whose contribs include adding the phrase "Armada Towers is imposing magnificent design". Brianhe (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Renzoy16

• Renzoy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Hassle (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• Paolo Onesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
• Canon Recruiting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon Recruiting Group "this is just PR"
• Maximilien de Hoop Cartier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximilien de Hoop Cartier "Ridiculous hagiography"
• ConsumerBase LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConsumerBase LLC (2nd nomination) "Spam promoting a spammer."
• Nofel Izz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - "Overtly promotional poorly sourced paid editing." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nofel Izz
• Zeus Mortgage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - "Unrelentingly promotional." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeus Mortgage
• Rocky Williform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (heavily edited) - (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

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 [16] 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)

Hamsuselvam

• The Gambit (Beyond Nexus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a book by Hamsa Priya Selvam
• Hamsuselvam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Author of self-published book appears to have written article on book then derailed AfD with incorrect page move to user space. Brianhe (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and marked the user page for WP:CSD#U2 deletion. ansh666 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've deleted the book's page since it was up for AfD and there wasn't really any chance of it surviving a full week. I've given the user himself a warning about editing with a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Caliber Home Loans and L1 Elliott

• Caliber Home Loans‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• L1 Elliott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• North America Western Asia Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vi Senior Living, Classic Residence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thomas Pritzker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I stumbled across this last night and felt the content was quite odd. It was the second one I ran across that uses the method of putting up a couple of lines of facts and then pours on the agenda in a negative attack. When I looked deeper there was a history of this handle doing the same in the past. In trying to figure out why and where this is coming from I uncovered that they all have a theme in common, the union Unite Here is involved with each one of them. Just do a simple Google search for 'North America Western Asia Holdings Unite Here' and for the others and you will see exactly what I uncovered. In my research I also learned that this is called a sleeper account WP:SLEEPER. The entries are definitely notable, but I shutter to think this type of practice would be allowed. The history can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/L1_Elliott --RedmondKane (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)