Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 58

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Duplicate on website marketing 1,750.00$ trumpets

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

I initially saw Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets and started trying to improve the article adding copy and refs (which I have now removed), and initiating a RM to a WP:COMMONNAME, but then a duplicate of the article on a private website http://kehuna.org/silver-trumpets/ with accompanying advert appeared:http://kehuna.org/trumpet-order-page/ "The price of the trum­pet is 1,750.00$ (sub­ject to change), and requires 2 weeks for deliv­ery (US orders)." etc. ...

• I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is probably in order, but before doing that, want to double check here on whether COI is suitable grounds for AfD? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A COI is not itself a suitable argument for deletion. AfD is used to determine if an article should be deleted because the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Issues that result from a COI can certainly be cause for concern but usually other policies are guidelines would be used to delete an article (namely WP:N for WP:A7, WP:ADVERT or maybe WP:NPOV for WP:G11, and WP:COPYVIO for WP:G12).

In this case, the article appears to be a copyright violation and qualifies for WP:G12 speedy deletion as it's a copy of this article posted 15 days before the WP article was created. I have marked it for G12 deletion. We'll see what happens but in any case, the article should be watchlisted and the editor informed of our relevant policies and guidelines (I'll do both). OlYeller21^Talktome 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, if you notice that text is taken directly from another website as you did in this case, please either mark the text for deletion or let someone know so that it doesn't slip through the cracks. You can always report it Wikipedia:Copyright problems or I can help if you're not sure. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller, Thanks for sorting that out In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Dominatrix

• Dominatrix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MJDS12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User MJDS has made a few edits now to Dominatrix page promoting her own services as a professional dominatrix, which I have reverted. She is also now using her own user space as an advert, and I fear may resume editing in article space. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I feel like this may have been reported in the past. I'll take a look at it today. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

src: anmerkungen-des-uebersetzers.com

Imagini

• Imagini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chovy1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I discovered this article (as I often find potential COI issues) at the copyright problems board. The copyright issues I detected have been removed and revdeleted, but I noticed what looks like an awful lot of puffery (one issue corrected; one noted at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imagini). I'm trying to knock out some of the nearly 40 day backlog at CP and don't have time to look. I know that no one here may want to take this up, but just in case I thought I'd drop it off. :) It could use an experienced eye! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it today. Thanks, Moon. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

João Gilberto

• João Gilberto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gil Lopes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Gil Lopes is the principle of www.showbras.com.br. He is claiming (quite likely correctly) that João Gilberto has been under showbras's representation (or something like that) for a quarter century. While this may be true, Mr. Lopes hasn't provided any WP:RS about this, and I'm having trouble getting him to understand why we need more that just his say-so along with pages on his website. Could I have a hand with this please? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say more about what is happening. For 25 years my company Showbras, cared for the management of the artist Joao Gilberto. This is public knowledge, we were quoted by major newspapers, trade worldwide and signed all the albums recorded by the artist during this period, as producer or executive producer. In the data sheet of the disks is referred to management. In addition to posters of important presentations are published on the company website. The site of the artist, the artist's most complete site with bio, photos and press material, including major newspapers published the world's environment is Showbras, for obvious reasons. I presume that before all this would be natural that the information in the Encyclopedia of the artist could use as a reference we have. I could not take pictures and publish contracts on Wikipedia, I can do is bring the information to cite a source here and the site of the artist, the most complete site, repeat. I do not suppose there is a conflict of interest in being myself the owner of Showbras simply because Showbras is a company with more than 30 years and several important Brazilian artists in its cast as it is easy to check the website of ShowBras. What I present is the reference site of Joao Gilberto, not the site of Showbras.

Anyway, until this is understood, I did not tell the Showbras or me in the article. --Gil Lopes (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how do I do? I have to sell Showbras that my contributions are allowed on Joao Gilberto? Should I ask someone I know to go on Wikipedia and write the truth? My testimony to the Wikipedia is censored by the fact that I have participated in the story? My company is perceived as being my own person and therefore can not be cited as actually accomplished? I think the rules are being read and interpreted the wrong way . And please, i would like you consider your own rules: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article". That is it! We are talking about exactly these, so...--Gil Lopes (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Gil; Bem vindo. I don't write Portugese well but I can read it and I had a look at the Showbras site and at your user page on pt.wikipedia and I see that the Conflict of Interest rules and guidelines have been discussed there at length. I assure you that the rules here on en.WP are just as strict. This is not because we think you are lieing. On the contrary, as the agent for these great artists you know more about them than anyone here, however your job is to act for them, to support them, to make them look good. Over the years we have found that people in your position have great difficulty in writing from a neutral point of view and so we ask you to present your information on the Talk page for other users to consider and add to the topic page.

You have already done the most important thing - you have created a page for Joao Gilberto on your own site. His WP page already references this as his official web page. If there is something you want to add to the WP page make sure it is covered on his official page on your site first then drop a note on his WP talk page telling us there is some new info there and what it is. You could even mark the page on your site as licensed under CC-BY-SA so we have the right to copy stuff verbatim if we want to, without having to rewrite it in our own words. If you don't get a response on the talk page then after a few days create a new item here on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (WP:COIN in wikispeak) and that should bring someone to check it out.

A note on your site is useful to verify basic facts - what year records were issued and how you spell their titles etc. For bigger claims - like his invention of bossa nova - or for stuff about showbras itself we will be asking for independent sources.

Another thing you can do is put more information about yourself on your own user page. Tell people who you work for, list the artists you represent. Don't make it an advertisement for your company but a useful reference page so people know to come and ask questions. If you have references to portugese language sources and other editors have problems with them then feel free to contact me on my user_talk page and I'll see if I can help. It might take me a few days to get back to you though - I've been busy lately. Hope this helps filceolaire (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear sir, thank you for your interest in the subject, I did more than I should, I occupied my time on improving the information in Wikipedia in Portuguese and in English, the result is a big hassle. First the disrespectful treatment that Wikipedia has me down, the violent way in which it cuts and especially the insistence on ignoring the issue and treat it in a way so vile. We're simply talking about the greatest Brazilian artist. I too have to prove what is in the public domain, I think too much fiddling with pages created in the environment ShowBras, think over what they are asking me. I have fulfilled all the requirements when I spoke in cnflito tried to join a series of citations, doubted unjustly, unfairly cut. I'll put an end, do what you want, do not go Criative Commons, I do not agree with it, I realize that this is actually an option from the Wikipedia. Manifest myself in other forums on the subject. But thank you very much.--189.60.189.35 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

src: wiki.guildwars2.com

hot dog cart

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog_cart#References%7C Hot dog cart
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.26.125.112
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selmedica&action=history |Selmedica
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.85.133.143

This IP address has inserted external references to an ebook guide published by convicted criminal Perry Belcher and has deleted the record of Belchers conviction for a laundry list of health-related fraud from the entry on Belchers criminal enterprise [[1]] - as noted on the talk page [page] there is a sustained pattern of deletions to hide Belchers criminal past and current, ongoing probation for Internet-related fraud and there also appears to be a general pattern of inserting links to external commercial sites owned or controlled by Belcher from several IP adresses going back to 2008 when Perry Belcher was editing the Wiki articles on himself 80.202.234.120 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suzzy Roche

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

Today a new editor, who says that she is the article's subject, has arrived. First she made a total overhaul to a version that was very much like a personal web page. When that was reverted she blanked the page a couple of times. I semi-protected for a week to bring a halt to this without needing to actually block her. She has since expressed on her talk page a desire to clean up the page about herself.

I wrote a fairly long personal welcome, hopefully explaining a bit the situation. I'm hoping that she comes back with a willingness to work with Wikipedia, instead of working against us. To this end, assuming that she is willing to take things slower, could I get a person or two willing to assist her in improving the article within Wikipedia's needs? - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the page on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. She referred to my comments as "condescending". Sigh. Between you and another editor who has chimed in on her talk page, I'll let you guys handle this moving forward. I've unprotected the page, and I'll bow out of the situation for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Suzzy seems to have figured it out; we'll be able to work with her just fine. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

src: 1.bp.blogspot.com

Relativity Media

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

The IP editing claims to be (on the talk page) a VP of this company correcting "inaccuracies". His edits were unsourced and he removed sourced information, so I have been reverting him. However, I don't really know anything about this matter and now he has posted some sources on the talk page. Some of his changes may therefore actually be justified, but I don't feel competent to judge for myself. I had previous posted a note on the talkpage of the Film WikiProject, but have gotten no response. Perhaps someone here can have a look at this situation. Thanks. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the identity claim. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:209.66.115.190 notes: "My name is Greg Longstreet. I am the Interim VP of Corporate Communications at Relativity Media. On 7/12/12 I deleted a section of our company profile that was added without our consent that did not accurately reflect our company (Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover)."[2]. The Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover material was removed by:

• Keen.adam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[3]
• 174.233.133.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[4]
• 192.220.255.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[5]

It's not clear which of the user accounts removing the content belong to Greg Longstreet. I think the removal was justified, but since User:Guillaume2303 and User:Jprg1966 restored it, I'll leave it to another editor to review. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the removal is justified, don't worry about reverting me. As I wrote above, I don't know much of these things (and really don't have time to delve deeper into this). I reverted the IPs and Keen.adam because their edits seemed POV (and from the talk page they have a COI). There are references for the different executives leaving the company, but I have no clue whether these are reliable sources or not. My sole purpose in posting here was getting one or two knowledgeable editors to look at this article and then remove it from my watchlist. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Adam Keen is exec VP of worldwide publicity at this company. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the material again. Weak sources, biased due to segregrating the history. It appears that something negative is going on with the company and the material probably makes it look worse than it is. OTOH, its mostly about a corporation rather than raising BLP issues. I couldn't merely delete the material. More effort would be needed in reviewing what's going and reviewing the references. I don't think COIN needs to stop the COIs from removing the negative info or help ensure it stays in. At the moment, the back and forth between the editors may move the content towards a more neutral tone while still conveying the information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Turzai

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

Name suggests account has COI. Only edits besides those to Mike Turzai (the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House) are to Jim Christiana (another Republican Pennsylvania House member). Three edits to Mike Turzai [6] [7] [8] sought to remove a reliable source describing the remarks and add an ex post facto unsourced explanation to Turzai's remarks on Voter ID. In fact, Turzai's remarks have been described as a "smoking gun" in several sources (see [9], [10]). Additionally, it might be worth taking a look at whether this account is in violation of WP:ROLE. Because I don't know who is editing with the account, I can't say for sure whether this is an impermissible shared account. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A politician for 11 years and a lawyer before that and Wikipedia summaries all Turzai has said in public into a quote from June 23, 2012. Seems POV to keep the voter id law statement in that very short biography. The "smoking gun" description by the several sources are more relevant to the articles on the several sources than to the Mike Turzai article since they are not desribing some life event of Mike Turzai but instead are describing their own thoughts. PAHouse's edits seem more about having a focused interest than a conflict of interest. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Boxbe

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

User has declared their connection to the company that is the subject of the article. User was warned in April about the COI guidelines, but continues their pattern of removing anything resembling criticism in the article and rewritting it to resemble an advert. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this statement is a connection to the company or a wannabe. Either way, it does seem to support the idea that the account is a WP:ROLE account. There's a negative Guam article from 2009 on the company.Beware of Boxbe However, edatasource just bought them,[11] so there must be some value in the company. Nikboxbe has left a lot of negative items in the article. The lead says, "Boxbe is a free service that purports to screen spam in personal email." Boxbe doesn't screen spam in personal email? or do we merely want to imply that to the reader. The topic is notable, so AfD is out. The article could use clean up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Bilau

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

Editor stated in a now deleted edit (here's a copy), "I am the creator of the deleted article and Senior Writer for IAPMO, the organization that publishes the Uniform Solar Energy Code. All information in the Wikipedia entry is accurate." That was in response to an article I marked for G12 deletion (a copyvio).

The understandable lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines has most likely popped up in the rest of their edits and I need help sifting through the edits, created articles, and uploaded files. There's only 76 in total (not included the deleted ones) so it should be too bad. I'm rather busy at work today and won't have time to go through them all right now. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sk8terguy27 created and edited Tom Rice for promotional purposes

I've got a user Sk8terguy27 who's created and edited Tom Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) primarily, if not solely, for promotional purposes. The article has been tagged CSD G11, and I think the user needs to be blocked. Can someone take action on this user and article? DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The speedy was declined by another admin user. Anyways, this belongs at the COI noticeboard. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved section from AN/I. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I removed the G11 because the article isn't unambiguous advertising. Also, as far as I can tell there's no clear signs of COI. Upon closer inspection it seems that the 'Issues' section does raise some questions over COI. -CTS talk 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly some of the prose in this article does seem to have been written by someone favourable to the subject. I removed this section for example. This article does need more eyes on it, especially in election season. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the original post: while there are some issues with the page and the intentions of the editor, I don't think that it is a blockable offence. -CTS talk 11:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there was an edit war and apparent 3RR violations by both parties involved. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reboot (fiction)

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

The situation isn't incredibly problematic, but is worth keeping an eye on in terms of balance and bias. An external link was added by an anonymous user, with a glowing edit summary about its author. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nathanandrewmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Nathana has created a draft submission (submitted while I was typing) at AfC of an article that they obviously have a connection with per their username. Based on the evidence, it appears that this user is a representative of this musician or might be the musician himself. On to the article itself: it's not a blatant violations of policies, however it has no references and doesn't really appear to be written following the manual of style (I know that none of these are extremely bad issues, I though I would just summarize the condition of the sub). I'd like to know what action to take on the now-on-hold submission. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not having references is a serious issue and enough reason to reject an AfC submission. if it would be created without references, then a WP:BLPPROD would be in order. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

/me faceplams. I didn't thing about the BLP policy, your right! That would be pretty bad. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not likely that User:Nathanandrewmusic would have a conflict of interest in editing something in project namespace. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's not really project namespace, it's an Articles for creation submission. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AFC is project namespace (that's why it has the WP before it) and Articles for creation is a WikiProject. As for the article, there were no referrences and a quick search didn't turn up any, so I don't see how there could have been a basis to move the article to article space. The page could have been listed at MfD to handle any COI issues. As a twist, the page was speedy deleted(?) under BLP(?). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

Life Time Fitness

A contributor perhaps associated with Life Time Fitness has been contributing mightily but the long lists of all the locations looks like advertising.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The user appears to be attempting to insert this version of that article that they created in their sandbox. The only major difference is some non-existent categories and a large list of locations and when they opened for business. The list of locations isn't needed - at all. I removed the red categories from the article as well.

Hopefully the editor responds here regarding their connection with the company so that we can discuss the issues with them. Until then, I'll watchlist the page and help steer it clear of advertising. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The photos[21][22][23] seem professional. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor hasn't edited for over a week and the article appears to be in good shape besides some possibly copyvio photos. I'll keep the article on my watchlist but I consider this to be a stale case at the moment. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog

Ivan Massow/User:LisaThorne

Sicap

• Sicap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Katestoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Iosif Szenasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sicap is a probably not notable technology company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicap). All or most edits by Katestoney seem to have the purpose of promoting this company throughout Wikipedia by means of external or internal links (e.g., [24], to take one edit at random), and most of these changes appear highly questionable in view of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV, among other relevant policies. I am considering rolling back these edits and blocking the account. What do others think?  Sandstein  09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a straightforward COI given [25]. I'm not experienced at all at AfD, but would the easiest thing to do just be to wait out the AfD and then look again at the this if it survives? Fayedizard (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Letting the AfD conclude is usually the best way to go in this situation, in my opinion. I think the article could have been deleted per WP:A7. Iosif Szenasi, the page's creator has some association with Sicap as every page on their website has "Gazduit de Iosif Szenasi" written at the bottom. I can't seem to find out what "Gazduit de" means. Katestoney, assumably Kate Stoney, is the communications manager for Sicap. As for notability, I haven't gone through the list of articles but a Google News search and a Google News Archive search produces many hits. Many of them seem to be press releases and non-English articles. I'm also not sure if searching the word "Sicap" would return articles about subjects not related to the Sicap of the article in question.

The article looks fine right now so there don't appear to be any fires to fight. I've issued both users our COI template to help direct them to helpful reading. If there's any change, one of us should report the change here. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Bedfordshire

• University of Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webteambeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• FryerPaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Just noticed some recent edits to the article University of Bedfordshire by a new user, Webteambeds (talk · contribs). Mostly the edits look valuable, constructive and informative, but I did notice the user has "updated" the reputation section, with some older critical material now removed. So I thought it might be worth an experienced WP:COI specialist just having a quick look, and perhaps gently introducing the new user to our COI policy. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I rang the University Web team just now and spoke to a friendly guy - I've alerted them to this page and to some of the wikipedia policies that they need to be thinking about (sourcing, removal of negative sourced material, copyvio being the major ones). The might potter along here shortly but if they don't I'll do a cleanup on the page in the next little while. Fayedizard (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been further edits which are very similar from a new account User:FryerPaul. This name is very similar to the name of an employee of the university (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-fryer/4/743/436). I have added them to this discussion and will inform them of the discussion. In general these edits remove what might be seen as negative publicity for the institution (the 2004 controversies) and, along with the addition of some no doubt valid and sourced information, there is a lot of irrelevant, unsourced information that looks like marketing (e.g. "The University of Bedfordshire offers the opportunity to study part-time for full degrees in the evenings at both our Luton and Bedford campuses" - is not suitable to my mind). My reading of WP:COI indicates that they should not be editing this article in this way and the changes should probably be reverted until this can be sorted out.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out your concerns. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original login was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Fayedizard (talk)have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don't do.

We have been overhauling and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken links and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.

Before making changes we looked at many other University entries and have adapted the format and structure they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_hertfordshire
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Northampton
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Montfort_University
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia_Ruskin_University

We can understand the concerns that you have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable - however I'd ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is readily available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul and update our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.

I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we'd like to keep that in please.

We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which has been removed - we will reinstate this today. However as it relates to Luton University, a former incarnation of this institution, and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is today.

Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution but the people who study, teach and work there?

Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.

Thanks again for your help.(If someone can get rid of the extra bulletpoint that keeps appearing in our bullet lists that would very useful - especially if they can let us know how to do it!)

FryerPaul (talk) 9:20 20 July 2012 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by FryerPaul (talk o contribs) 08:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So this is good - the criticism section is back and the university is engaging - lots of progress. However, the editors involved are (obviously and understandably) inexperienced and the article has puffery issues - anyone want to volunteer to take a section and pare it down? Fayedizard (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi FryerPaul. Wikipedia articles should reflect what others say about a topic, not what a topic says about itself. That helps keeps the length of an article on the topic in check and is what makes Wikipedia stand out from the rest of the internet. I suggest removing any information in the Wikipedia University of Bedfordshire article that comes from sources that are not independent of the subject. For example, remove all material from the University of Bedfordshire article that is sourced to http://www.beds.ac.uk . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The "criticism" section may be back, but it was not really a criticism, but the beginning of the reputation section. It is now in a different context that demotes its significance. It should really go back where it was at the start of the reputation section.--SabreBD (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a crack at it, and it looks like at least one other editor is working at it as well. As near as I can tell, this has adequate attention and is being resolved, with nothing much more to do at the noticeboard level at this time. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your hard work on this VQuakr. I think most of the issues are resolved at the moment. As long as the relevant editors follow the guidelines they have been pointed to this should be fine.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:FredLipman

I'm not sure how to handle this, so I'm just leaving a note here for editors more experienced in this area. All of the contributions from FredLipman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appear to be sourced to and promoting books by Frederick D. Lipman, so there appears to be a conflict of interest related to this promotion. Deli nk (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep losing whole edits. I need to get this fixed.

He cites his book and the URL in the citation leads to Amazon, on several occasions. I don't want to get the diffs again only to lose them but he's only got 20-something edits so it won't be hard to find.

I'll be back once I figure out why I'm losing 20% of my edits when I hit save. It's incredibly frustrating. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They're on L3 WP:EL warning and seem to be starting to understand the problem and backtracking. I'll keep an eye out and report back if I feel it's needed. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Toodst1

Sebastiano Venturi

• Iodine deficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

An Italian researcher on iodine is a problem in my mind, and I think this is the best place to bring it up. Sebastiano Venturi does work on iodine, and has two bad habits - inserting his own work into various articles (somewhat appropriate articles, but in tenuous ways) and creating multiple accounts. To date I have found the following:

• Ventur-sebastiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Sebastiano venturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Venturi47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Venturis1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

His work seems to be tenuous and speculative; for instance, the following text [26] is based on this source from Bentham Science Publishers, who apparently have a pretty terrible reputation for being a scientific journal equivalent to vanity press pay-to-publish. It's not pubmed indexed and the page itself has numerous adds on it (which might not be terrible, but is suspect). I'm going to alert some other editors who have noted similar stuff in the past and start removing what I consider suspect. Any suggestions or comments would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed links, citations and statements sourced to Venturi from about 20 articles; most of them were verbatim repetition of the same statements and links, much of it about the evolution of iodine in animals 500M years ago. Seemed suspect, seemed like spam, couldn't find supporting references outside of Venturi and when I looked, generally it was one of these four accounts adding the links and information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The COI would come from inserting his own work into various articles if it were primarily to promote his own work. See WP:SELFCITING. If it is secondarily to promote his own work, and primarily to convey information about the topic, then that may only be a bias issue for WP:NPOV rather than a COIN issue. There's a May 2010 report at Fringe theory asserting that Sebastiano venturi appears "to aim to make his own research about iodine, lipids and evolution feature as prominently as possible in Wikipedia. There are some indications that the whole thing may be fringe science, such as a low number of Google hits for "iodolipids", and most content about this topic being associated with Venturi himself." So it seems the issues are over a longer period of time. As a first step, you may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to help address the multiple account issue. I think if we get a handle on the multiple account issue first, that will help reduce the remaining issue workload. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not expert, but I noticed that he is persistent and it seems that he is often (maybe always) citing himself. User:Sbharris is someone who has dealt with him and is more expert than I am. I am sort of an expert on organoiodine and selenium chemistry, which are related to his apparent areas of expertise, and have never seen any broadly constructive edits that do not end up citing his papers. My guess is that he is trying ineptly to build a reputation through Wikipedia or something like that. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk o contribs) 11:10, July 21, 2012?

Thanks for the suggestion, done. Should I alert the four accounts or is the pointer to this section adequate?

It looks like the edits are pretty strongly promoting, it's always the same small set of papers, pubmed searches and (admittedly brief) checks on emedicine and similar links didn't turn up support for iodine and stomach cancer or breast cancer as a current point of interest. I left a small number of citations on a couple pages when it didn't look egregiously self-promoting and wasn't claiming anything ground-breaking. I've alerted a wide variety of other editors who have scrutinized Venturi's edits in the past as well (Sbharris was one), I'm hoping they will have sufficient expertise to indicate whether individual edits might be more solid (it would take me days to figure this out given the number of claims). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good start. A main goal is to first try to contain the situation (perferably via the cooperation of the COI editor) and then work on the clean up. This situation is complex because of the multiple user names, multiple articles, the expertise needed to address the topics, the length of time over which these edits have been posted, the issue of whether a particular use of a cite is primarily to promote his own work or primarily to convey information and, if primarily to convey information, whether that information is biased or neutral. Hopefully, Sebastiano venturi will post in this thread. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back and turned up nothing but those four [27]. At this point the only thing I see as necessary is blocks of three of the accounts with redirects to the most recently used one, and if possible have someone with the appropriate expertise review the additions. That's probably not me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ventur-sebastiano is the only account that's been recently active. If we can't get any response to the talk page notices, a two-week block of this account may be the best way to begin. He has never left a comment on user talk or article talk, but did respond once to a copyright complaint back in 2008. Lack of talk comments may sometimes be due to not being comfortable in English. If we can't locate any generally-useful article contributions that don't cite his work, rolling back all of his changes may be the simplest approach to take. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ This is a difficult case, as Venturi is treading in waters which are speculative both because they make hypotheses about the evolution of biochemistry 500 million years ago (which needless to say, hasn't left us too many fossils-- see evolution of dietary antioxidants), PLUS a foray into an area of biochemistry that isn't well-worked out even today (see iodine in biology. To wit-- what is most of (i.e., more than half) of the iodine in our bodies doing?? (in males, about 1/3 of 14 mg total body iodine is not in the thyroid. [28]; in women, it's more). What is its function? The body carefully hoards and stores it, but not for making thyroxine. Clearly some is being stored by the breast for secretion into milk so babies are not iodine deficient. But men store a lot of iodine outside their thyroid glands also. Perhaps mammals secrete iodine in all of our sweat and salivary glands, just to make sure that women secrete it in milk (soft of like man have nipples but don't use them). I dunno. It is indeed true that only half or less of the body's iodine is in the thyroid, being used to make and store thryoid hormones. We haven't a clue as to what the rest does. There have been persistant suggestions (based on growth of thyrectomized animals when fed iodide) that perhaps other cells in the body can make their own thyroxine. This was never proven in the 60's and people seem to have lost interest. [29]

The "alternative medicine" view of iodine is that (as iodide, and even as elemental iodine) it's a rather ancient reductant which absorbs free radicals, rather like the bromine in fire retardants. If this was iodide's first function in life, it might well make sense that it went on to become a cofactor-like molecule that did what the parent element did, but better (you see that in molybdenum, selenium, t-RNA and a lot of places in biochem). And the selenoenzyme's functions in modulating iodine metabolism might make more sense if one antioxidant system was handing this job off to another, evolutionarily. However, we can't be sure. So far as I can find, Venturi is the only person who has written extensively about it, although all the alternative medicine sources go back to him in their suggestions that healthy people might need more iodine than just what it takes to make thyroid hormones. [30]. In the end, I hate to see Venturi either surpressed or encouraged. He can't be written out entirely, as he has published on non-thyroid functions of iodine in at least one peer-reviewed source The Breast (journal). On that topic, if we won't let him quote himself, I'll be glad to cite him as a review of ideas there. On the other hand, he has few supporters on the evolutionary side (not because anybody thinks he's wrong, but it's just too long ago-- you know, there was a fire in the evolutionary records office), and he hasn't exactly gotten into the major evolution journals and most of his iodine biochem stuff is speculative. But so is all the stuff in WP's articles on Abiogenesis! It may fail WP:MEDMOS as a treatment for breast diseases, but may not fail WP:RS for speculation on evolution, as the standards are lower ;). My behavior in the past is to try to keep this stuff from swamping major articles like iodine, and letting it have a bit more free-reign in Iodine in biology and even more in Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Perhaps some of the last violates WP:MEDMOS, but I"m haunted by the idea that these ideas should at leats be mentioned as hypotheses (where they can be cited), in case they turn out to be "right" (or garner a lot more support in coming years). Iodine might be just the thing for fibrocystic breast disease, even if evolutinarily, it didn't get into thyroxine in any of the ways Venturi thinks it did. These are separate issues. As is WP:SELFCITING. Should we not give WP:SELFCITERS more rope, if nobody else is available who has a better idea? I can't think of any better evolutionary explanation for what iodine is doing in today's organisms, and apparently neither can anybody else. It seems to me that the major harm self-citers do, is in crowding out other people's alternative ideas, in fertile fields. This one isn't a fertile field, so the damage is small. And again, it's not off-the-wall-non-scientific craziness. SBHarris 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sebastiano venturi appears to be publicizing his in Wikipedia efforts off Wikipedia.[31] I posted a request at Italian Wikipedia for assistance.[32] Sbharris, what ever you decide is fine with me. Per your post above, it seems that the info can be located in some articles. Conveying the information from whatever source takes precedent over sebastiano's thoughts on the information (e.g., no sebastiano quotes) or support of that information from his source material (info should be from multiple sources, not just one). Maybe pursuing the matter at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be more productive. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be much more comfortable with Sbharris re-adding the information he thinks is worth including. I do have a couple comments though - if nobody but Venturi is publishing in the area, it does seem somewhere between fringe and low-end science. If his ideas have not been grasped and extrapolated on by others, that suggests it's not convincing or interesting for most science, and per WP:UNDUE we should be very cautious to avoid soapboxing it out of proportion to its weight in the field. Regarding the comparison to abiogenesis, even if it's as speculative as Venturi's work with iodine it's at least well-debated speculation involving a large field of scientists who discuss (and criticize) each others' work. Our threshold isn't how speculative something is, it's impact on a field. If alternative medicine is seizing it, that almost certainly means it is being oversold as magic. If it's not used as a treatment for breast diseases, that would be the place where I would be least comfortable involving, or even mentioning, his work. I think my preference would be leaving it out of most parent articles, and including it in child articles with "it has been suggested that iodine might..." with a (relatively arbitrary) two sentence maximum, using one of his most recent publications and leave it out of medical treatment articles completely.

But mostly I would like to say thanks to Sbharris for taking the time to respond as thoughtfully as he did. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Dear Wikipedia,

regarding le article "ANTIOXIDANT: History" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antioxidant&action=history

I permit to report that in the

=Line 15=:

"As part of their adaptation from marine life, terrestrial plants began producing non-marine antioxidants such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), polyphenols and tocopherols. The evolution of angiosperm plants between 50 and 200 million years ago resulted in the development of many antioxidant pigments - particularly during the Jurassic period - as chemical defences against reactive oxygen species that are byproducts of photosynthesis."

the above sentence is derived from my paper ( Venturi Sebastiano: "Evolutionary significance of iodine" published in Current Chemical Biology: Volume 5, 3 Issues, 2011, and in: "Evolution of dietary antioxidant defences". European Epi-Marker_ Vol. 11, No. 3 :1-12. July 2007

and not in paper of Benzie where only the evolution of antioxidants in human diet is reported.

Thanks

Yours

venturi-sebastiano (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Sebastiano venturiventuri-sebastiano (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

_____ You can see below my paragraph:

_____ ... When about 400-300 Mya some living plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life (Venturi, 2000). In marine-fishes, plants and animals the terrestrial diet became deficient in many essential marine trace elements, including iodine, selenium etc. Terrestrial plants, in replacement of marine antioxidants, slowly optimized the production of other endogenous antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, tocoferols etc., some of which became essential "vitamins" in the diet of terrestrial animals (vitamins C, A, E, etc.). ... When about 500 million years ago plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine-deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life. New endogenous antioxidants appeared in plants as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids. A few of these appeared recently, about 200-50 million years ago in fruits and flowers of angiosperm plants... ____

Volume!

Articles about the Melbourne tram system.

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

Hi all,

I have a conflict of interest as I'm involved with a tramway preservation group in Victoria, Australia (I'm a member of the TMSV board), I have declared my COI on my userpage, and have tried to avoid editing the page about the organisation I'm part of, but have edited twice, in good faith, to fix errors (I hope this is ok, and am happy for them to be reviewed by another editor, and reverted if found to be a breach of policy).

My main question relates to my editing of articles about the Melbourne tram system, I have on a number of occasions used our publication (Running Journal) as citations on pages such as Trams in Melbourne, is this acceptable behaviour, or should I not use these articles as sources? For some context, the articles in question were written in the 1960's and 1970's on historical matters, they can be viewed here and here, feedback is greatly appreciated so I can continue working on pages related to Melbourne's trams, I have also posted my COI on the Trams in Melbourne talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My view. You should be careful - as you are being - when editing TMSV. Use of the journal sounds appropriate, given the specialist nature of the subject. I tend to think you've done everything you can with respect to COI, and should continue on as you are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be making a good effort to edit in the face of your COI. To help you out further, in any Wikipedia article, to help stay out of trouble given your COI, you should only use reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. In other words, if Running Journal is connected to the topic in which the Running Journal reference appears, it should be removed. You might be able to use info in Running Journal in articles not related to Running Journal. Given your COI, you might want to post a request at WP:RSN to get a ruling on whether Running Journal is a reliable source and what articles you should not use it as a source. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'm trying to be conscious of potential errors, and avoid them. I understand and agree with what Wiki is; an encyclopedia, not a platform for promoting self interest. However, editing a topic that one is close to makes this line somewhat ambiguous at times, and this is where I'm having a slight problem. The articles I'm linking to are historic articles about Melbourne's tram system, I have not used articles to promote or source info about either the TMSV or Running Journal, I feel that although the info would be useful (being primary source and recording the history of the organisation), it could be contentious and it's best left for other editors to make those changes, or for me to write proposed text to be added, and place it on the talk page for the consideration of others (in accordance with COI guidelines on the subject).

The main question I'm after clarification on is whether the use of Running Journal for sources fits under WP:SELFCITE or WP:LINKSPAM. There are four citations (13, 22, 23 and 28) and a link to the "Reflections" section of our website in the "External Links" section, which lists (only) historic articles, that have been reprinted on the website in HTML rather than scanned PDF's. A second question is whether my COI should preclude me from writing/improving articles about other tramway preservation groups in Victoria? Thank you for helping me out with this. Liamdavies (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your TMSV board position means you have a COI with the Tramway Museum Society of Victoria topic. It does not mean you have a COI with the Trams in Melbourne topic or any other tramway preservation groups in Victoria. You might have a bias on the Trams in Melbourne topic -- I'm going out on a limb and assuming that you think trams in Melbourne are a good thing -- but I don't see how any bias on your part would amount to a concern from another editor in your editing the Trams in Melbourne article. Rather, your expert knowledge on the topic would be a welcome contribution to that article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Expert editors. In any event, bias issues are dealt with at WP:NPOVN, not at COIN. Running Journal is the journal of TMSV, not Trams in Melbourne, so I don't think using Running Journal in the Trams in Melbourne article is WP:SELFCITE. WP:LINKSPAM is for links listed under the "External Link" subsection, not footnotes. There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia articles to promote or source info about either the TMSV or Running Journal as a secondary effect so long as your primary effort is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Footnotes are a great way to get external links into an article. If people we not motivated by some self interest, many of Wikipedia's articles wouldn't have been written. So long as the end product is a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article, secondary promotion effects are not that much of a concern. I think you are stressing too much over this. Relax, edit away, and enjoy yourself. If someone is hassling you, feel free to post back at COIN. In the mean time, consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria, where you can find other Wikipedia's with interests similar to yours. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Recruiters

• Institute of Recruiters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Azmatmohammed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I'm coming here for some advice. I recently became involved with two other editors in reverting edits on Human Resources and Recruitment which appeared to be aimed at positioning promotional information about an organisation called the Institute of Recruiters(IOR). The edits were undertaken by User talk:78.148.26.156 and User talk:Azmatmohammed both of whom appeared to be solely involved in editing these pages with content relating to the Institute of Recruiters. It was then drawn to my attention by another editor that the user name 'Azmatmohammed' happens to be identical to the name of the Director General as advised on the IOR website[34] and that there might be a conflict of interest issue with the article Institute of Recruiters which was created and has been maintained solely by User talk:Azmatmohammed the anon IP referred to above and another anon editor with a similar IP address. I have recently posted a polite message on User talk:Azmatmohammed with a {{Uw-coi}} template seeking clarification as to whether there is a connection. In any case the content of this page is largely promotional with no reliable sources cited and would need to be overhauled almost 100% if it were to be retained. There is also a question over the notability of the subject as the importance of the organisation has clearly been puffed up by suggesting it has international or even global status when in fact it appears only to be operational in the UK. I am not in a hurry at this stage to proceed but what is the suggested next step to handle this having allowed a few more days to elapse? Thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tmol42 You seem to keep deleting information from a legitimate British Institute from Wikipedia pages. The Institute of Recruiters in an official British Institute governed by the UK Secretary of State and given rights to use the word 'Institute' in its title. Your blatant deletion of its entries into Wikipedia are no more than mindless vandalism. Under what knowledge authority are you deleting entries form a British HR and Recruitment Institute. The details of the founders are irrelevant, it remains a British Institute and you are destroying accurate Wikipedia pages because of your ignorance. See http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1073846/institute-recruiters-institute-training-occipational-learning-join-forces-provide-qualification-hr-pros http://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/hire-escape/2011/06/institute-of-recruiters-opens-its-doors.html -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmatmohammed (talk o contribs) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Recruit seems to meet WP:GNG. I removed {{notability|Companies|date=July 2012}} from the article. User:Azmatmohammed appears to have a conflict of interest with the Institute of Recruiters[35]. If the user is not the Director General, that raises WP:IMPERSONATE issues. Azmatmohammed, please comment on whether you are Azmat Mohammed, Director General of Institute of Recruiters. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Growmore

• Beema Bamboo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beema bamboo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Growmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Shamil developer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Growmore Biotech (http://www.growmorebiotech.com) is propogating Beema Bamboo. All of the user Growmore's edits involve or promote beema and lack supporting citations. The user name is against WP policy, as this using WP to promote. The user has not acknowledge repeated warnings, though there may be a language barrier. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. E8 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike has already blocked the user for a WP:USERNAME violation. They once requested account confirmation so that they could upload a file that they owned the copyright of but they never uploaded a file (didn't out themselves). It does appear that the user's sole purpose, at least up until the block, was to promote a Growmore product called "Beema Bamboo". We should watchlist Biomass, Bamboo, Beema Bamboo (failed AfC) in case they come back with the same purpose. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There's about fifty Beema Bamboo news articles. However, most of them are press releases to Business Line, Market News Publishing, Market Wire, M2 Presswire, etc. There's a few legit reliable source articles, but some of those probably are press release inspired. Even for editors who know how to write a Wikipedia article, it would be difficult to wade through the published info about Beema Bamboo to put together a Beema Bamboo article that meets WP:GNG. Growmore Biotech appears to have a better chance of getting past WP:GNG and info about Beema Bamboo feedstock probably could be put in there. I'll suggest that on User Growmore's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A new user named Shamil developer is editing Bamboo. I'm not sure if they're linked or what their intentions are at this time. I'll monitor and report back if needed. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shamil developer is back at it, attempting to promote Beema bamboo. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent vehicle technologies

• Intelligent vehicle technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lperez2029 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User has asserted ownership over the page and of the trademarked phrase "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies", presumably as owner of the company. The article appears to be about the concept, not the company (not lowercased phrase in article title, general content is 80% about the concept). This has led to ownership of the article and weird discussions on the talk page. Some help sorting it out would be appreciated. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This and this were the first two comments I read and in my opinion, are cause for alarm. The editor obviously has a misunderstanding of Fair Use so I have explained it and warned them on the talk page. They've made borderline legal threats and seem to think that owning IP entitles them control over all mentions of that IP. I've given them a way out so that we can work together on an article so I think we should see how it goes. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, here's where Lperez2029 "allows" WP to keep the article and identifies himself as "Luis Perez" who is the owner of the technology and plays some role in the company that goes by the same name. This, along with their actions constitutes what is in my opinion, a very strong COI. Like I mentioned above, I'm trying to write the ship but I sense that a topic ban man be needed and may also lead to a legal threat and indefinite block from editing per WP:NLT. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He has deemed that my comment was "unintelligible" and that I may be a sock puppet. I've asked him to attempt to reread my comment.

Anyone else have an opinion here? I'm thinking that if this doesn't turn around in the next comment, I'm thinking the only next step is a block. OlYeller21^Talktome

Article appears to be a content fork of Intelligent_transportation_system - I'd be willing to nominate for deletion on that basis...Fayedizard (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should probably address the COI first then determine the individual notability of the concept and the company. If they're both notable, split the two with a disambiguation (apparently that's a word). If one is and one isn't, merge content into one article with a mention of the non-notable subject. If both aren't notable, delete all of the content entirely. But like I said, notability will be easier to deal with once we deal with Lperez2029. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A Luis A. Perez owns a Intelligent vehicle technologies US trademark. If the intelligent vehicle technologies article is limited to WP:RS coverage of Intelligent vehicle technologies as it relates to that trademark, then the topic probably does not meet WP:GNG. If the intelligent vehicle technologies article includes WP:RS coverage beyond that covered by the trademark, and there is no reason why it should not since Wikipedia coverage is all countries (not just the U.S.), then the reliable source links in the article (not the article name) could point competitors towards evidence of a failure to control the use of the trademark outside Wikipedia. Even including WP:RS coverage beyond that covered by the trademark in the intelligent vehicle technologies article, I don't see it passing WP:GNG. As for the COI issue, I'm not seeing much cooperation from Lperez2029 and instead am seeing things move in the opposite direction. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The US Government[36] and Ford[37] were using 'intelligent vehicle technologies' descriptive before that trademark holder's 2004-05-17 usage, so I'm not getting the hostile WP:OWN replies. Others noted way back in 1994 that the smart road between Blacksburg and Interstate 81 north of Christiansburg was going to be a test site for intelligent vehicle technologies. The term intelligent vehicle technologies seems notable as a descriptive term, but not as a trademark. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this user probably has an issue with admitting he's wrong. Outside of his interactions at this article, I found these edits concerning: [38][39][40][41] (pointing out that he had broken WP:3RR at Independence Day (United States)). I didn't dig very hard for those. His latest response, in my opinion, is his defensive way of admitting defeat. I have zero tolerance for this user at this point. I'll be watching him closely and reporting him to the appropriate noticeboard if he should run afoul of any of our policies or guidelines. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search on the term "Intelligent vehicle technologies" and found about 80+ articles using that term (none in relation to a trademark). Over time, the Intelligent vehicle technologies article eventually will reflect a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. That means Intelligent vehicle technologies being a descriptive term, rather than a distinctive term. You can trademark a distinctive term, but can't trademark a descriptive term. If this guy keeps acting hostile to you, someone eventually may rewrite that Intelligent vehicle technologies article to bring out its descriptiveness, which won't bode well for his ability to enforce his trademark. Then he would be stuck. The Wikipedia article wouldn't be deleted at AfD and it couldn't be changes without additional reliable sources showing a more predominate meaning than how the US government and Ford used that term. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)

Not surprisingly, Lperez2029 has been indefinitely blocked for violating WP:NLT. The article in question has been greatly improved but I think we need to asses the notability of each topic and move forward accordingly. I'll read through the articles today and see what still needs to be done but obviously, everyone else is invited to do the same. I think the best place to discuss this from now on is on the talk pages of the articles themselves (Intelligent transportation system & Intelligent vehicle technologies). OlYeller21^Talktome 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Brookfield Asset Management

• Brookfield Asset Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hammerstone2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a potential COI regarding a legal case. The user has denied the COI,[42] but I still want to submit this to make sure, since COI edits regarding legal cases can have real world consequences. The user's additions are located here. Gold Standard 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I added Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit above since that more likely is where any COI resides. When it comes to lawsuits, you generally need a judge's ruling before anything either party writes makes its way into Wikipedia since the point of both sides is to be biased and provide their 1/2 of the truth. This removal seems reasonable even without there being a COI. Seems unlikely that the current lawsuit could be more than a footnote in the article, given that companies' 1899 beginnings. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit is not an article in the article space, it was the user's article at AfC. I suggested initially that it be merged with Brookfield Asset Management. Gold Standard 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the link in this thread in case the Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit artice gets recreated again. Editors can look at what links here and find this discussion. Hammerstone2012 might have a COI with Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit, but, unless Hammerstone2012 works for Brookfield Asset Management or has some other connection, Hammerstone2012 probably doesn't have a COI with the Brookfield Asset Management. Hammerstone2012 denied the COI so, without more, Wikipedia:Assume good faith indicates that he doesn't have a COI. If Hammerstone2012 is suing Brookfield Asset Management, then he probably has a bias, and bias is dealt with at WP:NPOVN. I don't think the issue has risen to a need to post at another noticeboard. Talk:Brookfield Asset Management is the place to deal with whether info on Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit should be added to Brookfield Asset Management article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you think we should close this? What should I tell Hammerstone2012? Should I tell him to start a new section at the article's talk page, just go ahead and add the info, or wait for a judge's ruling? Gold Standard 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no COI, so this thread can be closed. My personal view is that the editors of the article should wait for a judge's ruling in the case to determine whether that information is part of a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature to add it to the article. The article is about a corporate entity with assets valued at over $150 billion, not some person. Brookfield Asset Management probably is sued and sues others all the time and probably have at least twelve significant lawsuits going on at any one time (any many more if you count low value injury lawsuits on their properties). It seems best to determine whether to add that info to the article on the article talk page rather than a notice board. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Like other COI editors, paid editors should adjust to meet the requirements of WP:COI rather than the other way around. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel that ideally, COI editors learn our policies and guidelines and should be held to the same standards of editing (following all policies and guidelines) as any other editor. That being said, ideals don't solve every problem. I'm interested in learning more about any potential solutions. I'll head over there and make myself familiar with the proposal before commenting. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - a couple of us also put together some improved templates for {{request edits}} to make them easier to review with an AfC-like template process.

• {{request edit | A}} = answered
• {{request edit | R}} = proposed re-write or substantial changes
• {{request edit | P | My reason}} = partially implemented
• {{request edit | D |ADV}} = declined for promotionalism
• {{request edit | D | D}} = declined - discuss with interested editors first
• {{request edit | D | V}} = declined for sourcing issues
• {{request edit | D | O}} = declined, well-written but one-sided or has omissions
• {{request edit | D | R}} = suggested changes removes sourced content
• {{request edit | D | S}} = not specific enough
• {{request edit | D | T}} = declined for editorial reasons not specific to a content guideline
• {{request edit | D | C}} = declined, no consensus was reached

This should make it easier to provide a COI with quick feedback, but put the burden on the COI to improve the content, instead of enslaving the volunteer to help them. You can see what the templates look like here. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Durham Musician

• Bobby Durham (country musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maria durham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Bobby Durhams biography is intentionally written to omit historically correct facts pertaining to my involvement in his carrer as part of THE DURHAM BROTHERS duo. I have in good faith made corrections to reflect that the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act actually belong to our joined efforts and work as a duo. Musical recordings presented to be solo work such as DO YOU STILL DRINK MARGARITAS and others misrepresented as his solo work. This practice is misleading, inaccurate and unfair not only to the readers but to myself as a recording artist and performer. My respectful edits are consistently taken out and replaced with the same misinformation mentioned above. A gold record is mentioned that never took place, this items bring to question the validity and accuracy of Wikepedia as a reliable medium. What can be done to promote and maintain accuracy in this bio. Respectfully, Wayne Durham THE SIDEMAN --The Sideman (Talk) 23:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Provide verifiable citations of published information in reliable sources which contradict the current content of the article. If there is nothing published which supports your version of the story, there is nothing we can do. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find any news articles mentioning "Do You Still Drink Margaritas." Google books[43] didn't return any results as well. You note, "the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act." Is your brother Bobby editing the Bobby Durham (country musician) article? Who is Maria durham? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sister Roma

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

I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk o contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians. Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk o contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for problems caused by editors with a conflict of interest. There seems no indication that here, only a simple content dispute, which should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page or, if that fails, by WP:Dispute resolution. See WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

These three people are accusing everyone who touches the article as working for Sister Roma, the tags were removed but the deletions and bullying continue. " I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved." Isn't that sweet? Panther Pink (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors does seem bullying and meatpuppetish, but it's not COI, so this is the wrong place to be discussing it. There are more eyes on the article now as a result of this notice; with any luck, the situation will improve; if not, there are better ways to deal with it than continuing to bring it up here. Abhayakara (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

THEY were the ones accusing everyone else of COI. The tags are not being re-added every time and I thank you for trying to make them defend their sweeping deletions. Panther Pink (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Panther Pink is almost certainly Sister Roma or one of her mates from the "order." The article was started by Benjamin Hohlman (User:Benjiboi) a paid editing advocate and pornography promoter who is a friend of sister roma's (and a fellow member of their group the sisters of perpetual indulgence, an activist organization). The article has been groomed by a succession of Benjiboi's socks over the years (he is now banned from wikipedia; like "sister roma" benjiboi's socks likewise had a habit of attacking his critics as having COIs while he was busy stuffing wikipedia full of promotional articles on himself, his friends, and pornography studios he was involved with). Sister Roma is a very minor drag queen and the article continues to be filled with promotional and fawning language, often relying on poor sources. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here. But is has nothing to do with whomever "Panther Pink" is complaining about. Aint wikipedia grand?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bali ultimate, if you are making a COI accusation, you should do it here, but you should do it properly. If you are not making such an accusation, discussing the article here is not appropriate--discuss it on the talk page. User:Panther Pink, you should do the same--it just isn't going to help matters for you to continue this discussion here. Abhayakara (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? "Properly?" I most certainly am making an allegation of conflict of interest. I am asserting that Panther Pink is either Benjiboi (of the 100+ socks and the long and poisonous career of using identical tactics to those being used by "Panther Pinks"), Michael Williams (AKA "Sister Roma", a close friend of Benjiboi Hohlman) or one of the other socks that have trolled wikipedia from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for quite some time. The fact that the vast majority of their edits are self-promotional is a problem. That they scream harassment (accusations of criminal activity were benjibois favorite smokescreen for his lying) and all the rest is just sauce for the goose.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Properly" means you need to say who you are referring to, and what their conflict of interest is, and give evidence to support your allegations. Evidence of the form "because the editor is adding text to the article that I disagree with" does not support a COI assertion--you should read WP:COI for a list of valid COI assertions. If User:Panther Pink is in fact the same person as Benjiboi and is sockpuppeting, or was previously found to have COI, and is pretending to be someone else to escape the COI label, then you would have a point, but you should be able to provide evidence that this is the case, not just a wild accusation. Similarly, if Panther Pink is Michael Williams, you should be able to demonstrate that this is the case. Abhayakara (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Good evening everyone. I see from looking here that, following the COI template, an editor experienced in COI has already given some sensible advice - including the word 'evidence'. Everyone posting to this thread appears to be rehashing previous augments from that one, so I believe it might be sensible for this to stablise on the talk page and not here. Lastly... Panther pink, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, and express my regret that nobody appears to have done so yet. I'm hoping you've survived your baptism of fire and you're happy to keep improving wikipedia, although I suspect you might find it easier to learn your craft in some of the less controversial areas of wiki first and then come back to the article. I'd like to see this thread closed off personally - if someone comes back with a set of diffs and a username then it might be best to start a new thread. How do others feel and closing? Fayedizard (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. Abhayakara (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear from Pink Panther if the account is not controlled by Sister Roma or User:Benjiboi or User:Sfdrag (one of benji's confirmed socks) which have both edited the article (it's a near certainty that other benji socks also edited the article) or another of the members of their so-called "order." Here's his ban discussion for those interested in his M/O. [44]. And here's the SPI archive case page (minimum 50 socks confirmed and many more IPs) [45] and here's a link explaining his involvement with self promotion and connection to the sisters of perpetual indulgence and sister roma (Benji created not one, but two autobios on himself under the "names" DJ Pusspuss and "Sister Kitty Catalyst; he was asked about his connection to self-promotion and "the order" as far back as 2008 and lied about it all the way til the point he was finally banned). [46] Bali ultimate (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this editor has a severe hangup on either Sister Roma or someone they assume is working for her. As I said before my extent is that I saw her interview on TV and thought she was fascinating. To the same degree i am working for Madonna, David Beckham and Justin Bieber! This should also be noted as the reason this IS a COI issue in that they accuse everyone who tries to improve the article as being her employees or coworkers, etc. So the improving of the article is prevented solely on the COI accusations of suspicion. Panther Pink (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

This is a weird one. I am Canadian so I may be wrong. The list may be long if I am not. It wikilinks to many articles but only has 120 employees in the infobox. Notability, RS, COI, spam, merge to The Pew Charitable Trusts etc. I thought I would post here for thoughts as well. Feel free to {not done} {resolve} if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Warning Cross posted. I started at help desk and then pump/tech to see if they can database search a few users for the wikilinks.(leave at bottom?)

This is a widely-cited organization in U.S. politics, on opinion polls and analysis. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Widely cited, but I am curious about their Survey methodology. They don't list the sample numbers on their site. Gallup and Angus Reid claim 1000 calls a day. I am wondering if they just call 50 or so and sell their numbers for less. That is why they are cited so much. They make WP:NOT easily I guess so RS and COI probably aren't an issue then. Feel free to close this section as goose chase unless someone else wants to kick it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred Lipman

• Initial public offering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FredLipman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I warned User:FredLipman that Wikipedia discourages self-promotion,book/link canvassing, etc. In the case, the user claims to be a well-published authority on some topics. Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself says this may be appropriate in some circumstances as long as it's not excessive. See talk page discussion here OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added links above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

'Create artist wikipedia'

• Create artist wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nikxhinfanatics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Claims to be a fanatic of a person named "Nikki Xhin". The page mentioned above (since PRODed by me due to WP:N/WP:NONSENSE/WP:COI) tells the reader to find the person in question and that User:Nikxhinfanatics will write/wrote articles for her. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, for too many reasons to list. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not solve user's issue, however. Needs to be blocked. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 08:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't edits made to the article but it doesn't look like you've ever spoken with them on their talk page. They should have at least been warned about the discussion here. There's no way a block is coming unless the now-deleted edits were incredibly egregious. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was run-of-the-mill for non-notable people wanting to be discovered. Similar articles get created and speedy deleted all the time when they're written about friends from school, siblings, etc. --C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Moons

• The Moons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Schnitzel Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Mrrooftop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Anna Sbr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.155.86.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.156.55.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Bengordelier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Lois Moon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeb123abc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Most of this feud is taking place at The Moons where an edit war is taking place with several meat or sock puppets. Mrrooftop has been blocked but Anna Sbr quickly took their place. Now the listed IPs are reverting my edits and the edits of DMacks. Bengordelier, Jeb123abc, and Lois Moon are WP:SPAs who have been making edits here and there. Ben Gordelier is a band member and "Lois Moon" may or may not be related to the band but their unreferenced edits suggest some personal knowledge of the band.

I'm usually able to handle these situations myself but this crew is particularly persistent and I don't like dancing around WP:3RR.

This is the edit that's getting tossed back and forth right now. It's, "Full of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." and they've ignored all attempts at discussion. I'm not as concerned about that as I am the rest of the content of the article and all of the article for bands signed to Schnitzel Records Ltd. and all of the numerous files uploaded about The Moons, Schnitzel Records Ltd., and the bands it has signed. I've only turned over a few rocks but this appears to be a very widespread issue. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified your listing by adding the pages in the collapse boxes. I listed Schnitzel Records at AfD. The Schnitzel Records article has been around since December 2009?, not sure what prompted the recent flare up of SPAs, IPs, edit wars, etc. There's a lot of non-free images that have been uploaded, which needs to be reviewed. "The Moons" appears to meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes [47], [48], [49], [50] with filler [51], [52], [53]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I just added another WP:SPA to the list (Max Fis (talk · contribs)). I've been fighting a fire at work the past two days so I haven't been able to do anything besides revert and warn. I may have more time after 2pm EST today but I don't want anyone to think that I've taken care of this yet. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to start an SPI and roll out some blocks. I'll work on the SPI but I've got a really super fun meeting in an hour that will hopefully not last more than 5 hours. I'm not going to cry if someone beats me to it. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller and I had a lengthy conversation on this case within the broader context of converting covert COIs to less disruptive and potentially even helpful above-board COIs and how the first step of any conversion is convincing the COI to disclose.

This isn't an ideal example, as ideally conversion attempts would made at the first couple edits, rather than when an organization is in this deep, but I offered the accounts an "invitation to disclose" (call it an experiment). Just an idea I'm toying with, but I think a lot of COI problems would be resolved easier if the COI was informed of the benefits of disclosure and asked to do so if they have one in plain-english. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mrrooftop (talk) blocked a week, as he went straight back to edit-warring after his first short block. King 4057, sorry if that conflicts with your attempt to engage them, but Mrrooftop had a notice of this discussion, he didn't come here, he just re-inserted (for the ninth time, if I counted right) what DMacks well described as "a mess of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I mentioned to OlYeller that converting a COI means you are AGFing. I wasn't AGFing the case or at least didn't think it was salvageable. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

List of video game developers

• List of video game developers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MirMahna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esprisco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.177.122.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 2.37.59.223.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is pretty obviously the same ESPRIS video game developer suggested by his name, which he is attempting to insert into List of video game developers. MirMahna is the name of his game. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

MirMahna is mentioned in Hindustan Times July 13, 2011 and World News Connection August 13, 2011. When spelled differently as Mir Mahna or Mir-Mahna, the topic actually might be WP:GNG notable. See, for example, "Iran unveils national herotic computer game". Iran Daily. February 28, 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2012.  If you figure on there being Iranian source material, that with about fifteen English sources may make the topic notable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Leefodi

• Faun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Puddleglum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peryton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leefodi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

While I think the edits have been made in good faith (the editor has not set out to vandalise), I suspect the following account was established by an author for the purposes of promoting a series of books. The name of the author and the username are the same (Lee Fodi) and every edit so far (5 in total, 3 substantive) has been to include details of that author's book series in various articles. I suspect it's a matter of not knowing the rules rather than purposefully breaking them. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lee Edward Fodi is an Canadian children's book illustrator and writer and his books got some good press: "Lee Edward Fodi's drawings are divine" 2005,[54] editor's choice 2006,[55] Most of the press is about his appearances or his book, not him. I didn't find any source information about peryton or puddleglum related to Fodi. I'll post a note on his talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jsteininger

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

Issue has been reported here several times ([56][57]). To sum up the issue, a person using accounts that appear to be the subject of the article keep changing the date of birth listed in the article[58] which is currently backed up by reliable sources. I've attempted to start a discussion with the editor several times on their talk page but they continue to cite themselves in their edit summaries, claiming to be the subject of the article. They've passed an L4 warning. I don't see any other way to address this than with a block. Any admins around that can assist? OlYeller21^Talktome 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the November 15 date. The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007.[59] He was 21 on the date May 24, 2007.[60] Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He was 23 on the date December 8, 2010.[61] He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010.[62] Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun.[63] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/ is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records. Then there's this, which also shows a birth date of 11/15/1985, but that could have been added by someone. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we are *not* allowed to use public documents or court records to support a date of birth. If otherwise reliable sources differ, both dates can be quoted if it seems significant. One of the two can be chosen for the official DOB and the other mentioned in the text as a conflicting report. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source with the specific birth date of November 15 or even the birth year. There might already be links in the article to support the birth date. The public documents/records establish that Jsteininger is wrong about the year being 1987, so it seems reasonable to exclude 1987 as being the birth year from the article, particularly when there is no source to support 1987 as the birth year. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If so, what wording do you actually want to put in the article? Just omit mention of his date of birth? EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think omiting his date of birth at this point is the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Any suggestions on what to do with the user (presumably the subject of the article)? Their intent seems to be to list the date that they feel is or know to be correct. I'm not suggesting that we go with their self-citation but I'm not sure they're going to be happy with that solution. I'd suggest we discuss it with them at this point but they've avoided all attempts to discuss. Perhaps it would be best to remove the date, see if they attempt to change it again, then block if they do? OlYeller21^Talktome 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble started when the date of birth was added to the article. I think if we remove the date entirely (since no reliable source and it is contentious material, that may calm things down. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding whether Jsteininger has a COI with the Jeffree Star article, Jsteininger is holding himself out to be Jeffree Star (Edit summary: "I think I know my OWN birthdate, thanks".) So either there is a COI or a potential WP:IMPERSONATE issue. To protect Jeffree Star, we may want to ask Jsteininger to prove he is who he says he is by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  There is no conflict of interest here. Both the subject and Wikipedia have exactly the same interest here, which is to get an error out of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  Unless we're looking at Age_fabrication... bit of an interesting one... Fayedizard (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cape Henry Collegiate School

• Cape Henry Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CapeHenry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, with a COI username, has added massive amounts of copy/paste material to the article. I stumbled upon an incipient edit war just now and reverted everything since it all came straight from the school's website. I put some of the urls in my edit summaries before I realized that the whole article was copied and just rolled it back. I will notify the other editors involved now. -- alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the COI is pretty obvious - but also User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has got a good hold on the article - I'm not sure this needs much more action, unless we think CapeHenry is a violation of WP:USERNAME? Fayedizard (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn

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

The article Greg Quinn has been created and lightly amended over several years by User:Currantman. The article is quite laudatory of Quinn and contained multiple links to his commercial currant growing concerns, I wonder if it is mr Quinn himself? There are few sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done, could the experts here offer some advice? rgds 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn owns the ELECTRIC CURRANT trademark[64] and a bunch of other CURRANT related trademarks.[65] The article's boast about Quinn's currant efforts seem true.[66] There are at least ten to fifteen news articles on Quinn and the currant. The biography article could be better written to be directed more towards Quinn and not the mighty currant. I'll put a note on Currantman's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he last edited on 9 February 2012.[67] Hopefully, he gets the message. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of a pass at this today - much of the content is already in the Blackcurrant article (and also cited there) and it made sense to me to avoid Wikipedia:Coatrack issues. This has left the article effectively stubed though - so I'd be happy if people wanted to revert and do a more delicate approach (a bunch of the paraphrasing was a touch too close for me also) Fayedizard (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism

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

Editor User:Naturalistic has identified himself as author Paul Harrison (pantheist). He wrote the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books). Some editors (perhaps including himself?) have mentioned that book (and its sales website http://www.pantheism.net ) in two articles: Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism. This led to a Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN. It would be great if some COI experts could provide some insight at that DRN discussion page. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Kluger

• Adam Kluger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• keywordrenewals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.202.128.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.84.115.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User appears not to be currently active, but is the creator of the three articles listed - all of which were originally blatant advertisements for Kluger, who was the subject of this controversy wikinews:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire for attempting to solicit product placement of Double Happiness Jeans in a Pussycat Dolls song's lyrics. I'd tagged Adam Kluger for proposed deletion, but now see that this page (created 4 may 2009) is a re-creation of a previously-deleted article in December 2008 per User talk:Keywordrenewals#Notability of Adam Kluger. I've reinstated any mention of the controversy at Product placement#Music and recording industries and The Kluger Agency (these were being replaced with Kluger self-promotion, although I haven't reviewed the full history to see if there are other WP:COI accounts behind these edits) but it may be worth keeping an eye on the affected pages (if they're salvageable) or speedying them (if they're advertising). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Texas, 2012

Right-wing authoritarianism

• Right-wing authoritarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Social conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

There has been an ongoing conflict in social conservatism over an apparent academic/psycho-political trope of painting conservatives as "authoritarians". Our article on the primary thesis is right-wing authoritarianism and it does have a criticism section, which however is dismissive of contrary views. The more-or-less current form of that section was added in this edit by User:Jcbutler, who left about a year ago. J. Corey Butler is in fact a social psychology researcher. The problem perhaps is that he publishes on this particular topic; for example, I was quickly led to this paper. Therefore, in dismissing critical responses, he is defending his own research. I appreciate that credentials matter, but this seems to me to be crossing a line. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of one's own writings in Wikipedia is generally considered a mortal sin for editors. Collect (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he ever used one of his own papers as a source. It's quite apparent, though, that as far as a criticism section in the article in question is concerned, he would be one of those criticized. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BeijingWest Industries

• BeijingWest Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MagneRide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Delphi Automotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mandrin2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk o contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

It's a single purpose account - but it hasn't edited for over a year - I popped a note on their talk to alert them to this post just in case they are lurking.Fayedizard (talk)

Doh! Fayedizard (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Banks (Falklands Veteran and Entrepreneur)

• Tony Banks (Falklands Veteran and Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ian Robertson (Professor of Psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andro Linklater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), particularly in relation to this edit
• Jonathan Yeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ?Livemusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GH - AC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user's edits appear to be almost entirely BLP articles (with the exception of Livemusic, a company), and primarily consist of positive POV articles created and edited by said user. Unfortunately, the seemingly SPA nature of the account leads me to suspect that this may be a case of paid editing. Zaldax (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zaldax, thanks for bringing this here :) I'll admit I'm struggling to find much evidence of a COI - 78 edits spread among half a dosen different articles doesn't appear to me to show much of an agenda... Am I missing something?Fayedizard (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, not a problem! When I observed the editors contributions, it seemed suspicious to me that all of their contributions related to the creation of BLPs (with the exception of one company), and quite positive ones at that. One item which alerted me was the heavy editing of Andro Linklater, and then the addition of one of his books to the Spencer Perceval article. Furthermore, the very positive article written about Tony Banks set off a few alarm bells; particularly the page title, promotional-esque language, and the heavy use of primary sources. I'll admit that there is a good chance this is entirely coincidental, but I saw enough of a pattern that I became suspicious enough about the editor's motives to overcome my initial assumption of good faith. If, however, GH - AC comes forth with a satisfying explanation, and it does turn out to be coincidental, then I'd be happy to welcome them to Wikipedia, and work with he or she to avoid any such misunderstandings in the future. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that there's a case to answer - looks like a fairly normal editing pattern to me... asking the editor to come here and explain themselves feels a touch bitey... :( Fayedizard (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally struggle to understand a circumstance like this morally. I note that Jonathan Yeo has a fairly balanced "critical reception" section. The articles appear only slightly promotional, but are basically ok (they passed NPP). GH has not taken ownership of the articles and has allowed others to improve them. As of today, disclosure is merely "advice."

The legal department of any major corporation will tell you that any online communication done without disclosing your affiliation with the company is not kosher, but Wikipedia specifically doesn't seem to have any rules against covert behavior that doesn't significantly undermine its neutrality or openness, which in all honesty is a much easier way for a COI to proceed. If (a) GH-AC is a paid editor (b) there are no NPOV or OWN violations, but we still (c) feel he/she did something wrong, this seems like validation for a discussion on making a disclosure policy.

I may be mistaken, but it seems under our current rules, all there is to do is notify them that if they are paid, it would be a best practice to disclose. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cash Cash

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

Looks like Cash Cash's management team has found this article. They've been bombing it with promotional material and selective rewriting of the musical group's own history. Attempts to initiate discussion with the IP failed, but they've registered an obvious COI account and continued. Chubbles (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I poked the article a bit - do we have any evidence that this is a conflict of interest (rather than say, a fan in new york whose expressing themselves though wikipedia)? Fayedizard (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all circumstantial, but the IP and account have added a promotional photo, written the text in an adverty style, noted things like minor international successes that few domestic fans would be aware of (airplay on a Dutch radio station?), inserted the name of the band's management group, and added a huge laundry list of "clients" of the band's "professional production team". WP:DUCK. Chubbles (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a real up-and-coming band, there should be plenty of good material in the news media about it; in the meantime, it should remain a stub until contributors know how to add to it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP, and now the account, have been very persistent in reverting everyone's attempts to excise the promotional material. Should I request a block? Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had [68], but it appears to have vanished in a confusing way- it's my first request, can anyone tell me what happened? Fayedizard (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked. Fayedizard (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• It may have been copyvio from this news article. The news article phrase "Makhlouf, the lead singer of Cash Cash, a young bubblegum pop foursome from Roseland" appeared in a the Cash Cash and Roseland, New Jersey articles: [69] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Source of article : Wikipedia