Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 23 December 2011 (→Paul S. Farmer: reply to above). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:Aspen Dental
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Claremont McKenna College
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Connections Academy
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Epic Aircraft
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:FreightCar America
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Optum
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas
    Talk:US Wind

    User:Rogerfgay

    An editor with lots of experience in COI issues suggested I post here. I am concerned that Rogerfgay is editing in a self-promotional manner, and that I have not been able to adequately explain Wikipedia policies to him in this area. Here are a few diffs showing self-promotion on his part:

    diff1
    diff2
    diff3. Note that this edit began an edit war. I won't bother posting all the ensuing diffs, but there were many.

    I believe he is editing in good faith and is not intentionally violating Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, he seems to have come to the conclusion that I am on a personal vendetta to block his additions, so I think it would be best if I stepped back at this point. If other editors could do a more effective job at guiding him through the ins and outs of WP:COI, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ebikeguy, for stepping back after I pointed out that you were effectively blocking discussion about improvement of the article. You already mentioned that you weren't doing it on purpose, and I acknowledged that it "gave the impression" that you may have been doing so, even if not intentionally. I still think you're going overboard in reporting potential problems as a way (as you have said) of learning the rules. Continuously pushing to start bureaucratic processes is what's giving the impression that you're obstructing - and it actually does take up time and effort unnecessarily. For your further consideration - was filing this possible COI an act of stepping back? You've already been shown an archived discussion in which editors accepted my participation. Rogerfgay (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been around this situation a bit and I think we'll be OK here. I think everyone wants what's best for WP which gives us a clear avenue for discussion. If there's been misunderstandings or confusion in the past, I think we can assume everyone was acting in good faith and now that a report has been made here, we can get other editors involved in the discussion and solve this matter rather easily as I think reports here generally helps solve issues more quickly than not. OlYeller21Talktome 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that this needs some discussion. Mr. Gay has a long history of writing articles about which he has a strong connection: he is quite upfront about his identity so there is no outing here. He created the articles on his colleague/boss Peter Nordin, the Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB, the company where he is/was employed as vice president of business development, and The Humanoid Project, one of Nordin' projets [1][2]. He has repeatedly added links and information to other articles about this business.[3][4][5][6][7]. He also created the article on Men's News Daily, since deleted as a non-notable website[8][9], where many of Mr. Gay's articles are hosted. He has created WP articles (later determined as POV forks... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Support Policy) which cited his own (self-published) writings, and made other edits citing himself [10][11][12] even after he was aware that WP did not regard Men's News Daily as a reliable source[13] He was blocked for disruptive, POV editing and a pointy AFD nomination of Child Support.[14][15].

    Now all this was a long time ago, but I do think it useful to point that most of Mr. Gay's contribution in Wikipedia has been to connected to advocacy, either of his work or of his strongly held views about men's rights issues. I was very sorry to see that he had returned to engage in more of the same, in this case to insert himself as a notable writer about Father's rights, first as an IP and then logged in. [16][17][18][19]. On the plus side, he did eventually ask, as appropriate, for consensus to for the addition of his name on the talkpage. The proposal hasn't received any support, because it doesn't seem that there is any sign that he is a notable writer per reliable secondary sources. On the downside, I am also sorry that Mr. Gay has returned to guessing at motivations of other editors, including opining that "opposition activists" and "activist trolls" have been thwarting him, and commenting on Ebikeguy above and elsewhere. I have a pretty high threshold for COI editing, and I am sure all the editors are contributing in good faith, but I do think User:Rogerfgay needs to be considerably more careful about promoting himself, his business and advocacy interests on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Because some of the issues Slp1 is citing are from Winter 2007 it's worth noting that:
    a) User:Rogerfgay's contribs to the mainspace show a very sporadic use of WP.
    b) His last edit to the mainspace was to re-add himself to the Father's right's article[20] on December 9th 2011.
    c) Prior to that he has 1 other mainspace edit in 2011, 3 in 2010, 11 in 2008 (including the Nordin and Robotics edits), and the rest end in the period that Slp1 has mentioned above (winter '07).
    The latest mainspace edit and the claim that the father's rights article is "incomplete without him"[21] show a return to the COI issues from the period Slp mentions. These last activities fall under WP:SELFPROMOTE and may be considered to fall within the current community probation on men's rights articles too.
    I believe that no action is required here as long as User:Rogerfgay's future actions comply with WP:INSIDE. As long as he approaches articles that he has, or may have a close connection with, in accordance with this policy there should be no problems--Cailil talk 15:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on contentious topics is a tough sport. I'd like the WP page on Mens News Daily to come back. Activist trolls attacked that too, first removing references, then complaining that content wasn't referenced, then on that basis removing the content, and then setting it up for removal for lack of content. The MND argument clearly illustrates the problem. Editors don't want to mention it in relation to the fathers rights movement, even though it was the largest and most successful fathers' rights publication. This somehow comes from their judgment that it's "unreliable." In what sense? Did it go in and out of the physical plane of existence? Then they contend that the content is unreliable? It provided tons of commentary on fathers' rights issues. So in what sense could it be unreliable? It's a POV source perhaps, but that's exactly what's needed in the fathers' rights movement article - the POV of the fathers' rights movement. Rogerfgay (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this discussion gets archived, I want to voice my concerns over Rogerfgay's comments, above. In them, he has misrepresented my position and put inaccurate words in my mouth. He has also attacked me personally, and other un-named Wikipedia editors whom he labels as "Activist trolls." He refuses to accept the possibility that any of his additions to Wikipedia have been deleted because they were not within Wikipedia's rules. In Rogerfgay, I see an unrepentant disruptive editor who shows every sign that he will cause more problems in the future. I don't think it would be appropriate to take any administrative action against him at this point in time, but I do believe that his edits should be monitored and that future transgressions should be acted upon as swiftly as possible. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EdQuine and BBC World Book Club

    Since at least 2008, User:EdQuine has been posting messages to talk pages about books, with a link to a website "the World Book Club homepage" (run by the BBC) and promoting opportunities to get involved in events about each individual book.

    The first request for him to desist seems to have been in 2008. There have been several such requests since then.

    In 2009 he was asked to make clear whether he had any potential conflict of interest, and declined.

    The talk page messages sent by EdQuine have continued at a steady pace, the latest on 17th October includes an attempt to suggest talk page relevance by including the text "A chance to ask questions to improve this article!" although that's quite clearly not the intention of the edit, since there is no mechanism for information discovered by the World Book Club to be fed back into Wikipedia articles by the organisation. (EdQuine does not appear to do any improvement of the articles whose talk pages he posts these advertisements on.)

    EdQuine's most recent edit, 9th December, was to add information, albeit properly sourced and possibly useful information, to the biography of someone who is employed by the BBC working on the World Book Club program.

    Finally, EdQuine is the primary, in fact almost the only, contributor to the article World Book Club.

    I'm wondering if any steps should be taken to deal with these messages on book talk pages, or other aspects of the editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I have no connection with the BBC or any of its programmes or employees. Anyone wishing to improve the articles on the books or writers can refer to the programmes in editing relevant articles. The programmes are permanently available online after transmission. It seems to me entirely proper for editors to be notified of the opportunity to improve the articles by putting questions directly to the author of books. Editors are likely to be people with an established interest in the subject and likely welcome a heads-up. I am in the habit of removing the notice when the opportunity has lapsed. EdQuine (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I try to presume good faith, I am entirely unconvinced that a SPA which only promotes the interests of this series and related people does not have a conflict of interest. Bulk-scale advertising on talk pages is not productive. a13ean (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence of a close connection but your (EdQuine) extensive history of "Liking" things posted by the BBC and specifically the BBC World Book Club on Facebook, I'd feel comfortable saying that there's a good chance that your aims may be unintentionally skewed by your interest. As for the talk page messages, they're innapropriate advertisement. If the goal was to improve the articles by getting editors to ask the authors questions, this would be original research, in my opinion. If the editor wrote down an answer, they'd be citing themselves (a non-published source) or citing themselves in a published source (if they can actually publish their information). Both bad scenarios. Even if there was some value to have editors as authors questions, promoting it on talk pages is inappropriate. Imagine allowing that for every subject. "Editors are likely to be people with an established interest in the subject" is a statement that somewhat alarms me. While we all edit articles of subjects which we have an interest, we should not promote that at all. I have an interest in Star Wars movies but it's not appropriate for LucasFilms to advertise the creation/opening of a new film on the talk page of the article to make sure that I know.
    I have viewed the mainspace edits of EdQuine yet but based on the talk page edits and statements I've seen, I think that their edits need to be reviewed. As this is one of those in-between cases, I think this can be handled here or on WP:NPOVN.
    Also, I'm going to continue looking for evidence of a close connection. OlYeller21Talktome 19:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me to be a straight forward spammer to me - the posts on the talkpages should be deleted on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Qorvis

    Various assertions on Twitter that PR and lobbying firm Qorvis is engaging in "wiki-washing" for clients. (This is just a heads-up — I've no personal knowledge of the organisation and its activities, but thought I ought to raise this here in case people are unaware.)—A bit iffy (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The few edits I checked are definitely alarming. The search you linked (for "qorvis wikipeda") shows a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up. Regardless of whether or not a close connection can be immediately made, the edits need checked immediately. OlYeller21Talktome 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The details can be found here if anyone is interested. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added links for the users mentioned there. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to be kept posted on the progress of this investigation, as I consider this to be an important issue for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been very busy the last few weeks but I plan on doing one of my case studies on this issue from Tuesday to Thursday. OlYeller21Talktome 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ProjectPM has been researching this extensively in the previous weeks and months. Our current research is at this link - http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Qorvis - and is by no means complete but the best way for us to discuss this rapidly evolving situation would be to contact one of us directly. Danger123 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through a fair number of edits a few days ago and found quite a few problems either removing sourced negative information or adding positive info. There are also a number of barely notable articles created by these accounts which I've nominated for deletion. I don't think their editing is as widespread or as problematic as Bell Pottinger's, but if necessary, someone could start something similar to Wikipedia:Bell_Pottinger_COI_Investigations to ensure everything gets dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good that people are willing to look into this. I now have a lot of free time over the next 10 days so I can assist in investigations/actions (if I can work out where to start). Now, as regards the ProjectPM thing: I'm not totally comfortable going down that road as their investigation into Qorvis doesn't seem focused on its Wikipedia activities, but on its wider PR activities which I think should be out of scope for us here. So I prefer to go with OIYeller21's case study thing, or what SmartSE suggests. What do others think?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I feel that because we can't govern their off-wiki activities, they shouldn't deeply scrutinized but they may be important when showing the overall habits of the company. Ultimately, I think there will be enough on-wiki activity to make an assessment without the need of extra evidence (off-wiki activity).
    I run a children's charity so I've been very busy this Decemeber. After Christmas, I'll be able to actually put some time into the report. I'll also make sure to set it up in a way that others can add information/evidence and I'll incorporate a Bell Pottinger type list so that accounts and articles can be investigated and dealt with on a case by case basis. Sorry for the delay, all. OlYeller21Talktome 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for assistance with Cracker Barrel article

    Last month, I arranged for the placement of a new draft of the article about Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which I had researched and written on behalf of Cracker Barrel. I disclosed the fact, in no uncertain terms, on the article's Talk page when I first posted the request and again when I asked for assistance at WikiProject Food and drink. An editor from that project reviewed the article, agreed it was a significant improvement, and moved it into place.

    Just yesterday, Orangemike (whom I know sometimes participates on this noticeboard) placed a COI tag on the article, implying that the article "may require cleanup", etc., but did not leave a note on the Talk page explaining what is wrong with it now. This is perplexing; I couldn't have done this more by-the-book (per WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI, &c.), and I think a comparison between versions shows plainly that my version is much better—I'd go so far as to say it's now GA level. Of note, there is actually more information about the company's 1990s discrimination controversies in the draft I prepared than there was before.

    Anyway, 24 hours have passed since I posted a note on Orangemike's Talk page asking him to reconsider. Since he has been active on-site since then, but has not responded, it's my assumption that he doesn't intend to do so. Would someone else here be willing to review the situation and perhaps remove the template? Thanks for your consideration, WWB Too (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    As you noted, the version you substituted represents, on the whole, an improvement of the page. However, it is also true, as Orangemike noted, that the new version of the page has been edited by someone who has a close connection to the subject. I would even agree that it now paints somewhat-friendlier than neutral picture of the company. Posting it here is a good first step, an other users can point out specific issues, but it may take a few days. a13ean (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your concern the article might be "friendly" to Cracker Barrel—this is exactly why I sought input on the Talk page and the most relevant WikiProject, rather than immediately taking it live. Likewise, I hope I do not imply any ownership whatseover, and in fact Orangemike has made some edits I that I haven't contested.
    Meanwhile, as far as I understand the warning, it's meant to highlight problematic articles edited without disclosure, not as a "scarlet letter" applied to work by an editor who has followed the rules. Frankly, this is the impression I have, given the lack of explanation or response. I hope you can also understand my concern about how this was handled.
    I'm reminded of a proposal for a Talk page version of this template, which I do think would be appropriate for a situation like this. Anyway, I hope we can find consensus to make any necessary changes and decide the current template is not needed. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the article well enough balanced. The Diversity and discrimination claims contrasts well with the Reception section, for instance. I'm a little dismayed and perplexed that Orangemike has not joined this conversation. In the absence of specific complaints about the article, I would wish to see the COI tag removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who moved the article, I can say that I personally did not find any NPOV issues with that article. That the contributor created it as a part of a deal with the company was unknown to me and I would not have noticed it unless I hadn't read about this page. I believe that WWB Too acted properly and did a good job with the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking account of the header of this page "Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.", I've removed the COI tag. WWB Too seems to me to have complied with the letter and the spirit of COI editing and being a COI editor. We do not mark articles as COI merely because they are written by COI editors, but because they have identifiable problems, and here, no problems have been identified. In my view the tag should not be reapplied in the absence of identification of specific issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your comments and actions here, Tagishsimon and Jeremy. Glad you agree the article is of high quality and the template was not appropriate. As I said before, I do hope other editors will continue to improve it, and if I can be of help in that process I'd like to do so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no complaints. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikepabell

    Mikepabell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user (who appears to have a glaring COI) has created a series of related articles, the subjects of which do not appear to be notable and which I have either tagged for speedy deletion or PRODded. Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse the expat's concerns. I also note that the original version of this account's userpage, before he started writing or editing all the articles about his company and its products, was much more forthcoming about who he worked for; so there is no issue with "outing" him. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Christian (filmmaker)

    Referenced material has been removed by coi editor without discussion, what are other editors thoughts? Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request discussion? Phearson (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's far from the first time he's done that, and it has been explained that that sort of behavior is unacceptable. I'll try explaining some more. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Steare

    Please note Talk:Roger Steare#Declaration of interest. The article was discussed here in November. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed this article and am happy that it's neutral in tone, referenced, and lacking peacocks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham Conway Davis

    Unreferenced BLP, although largely uncontroversial. By the user name, we can assume that the main editor is the subject. Removes tags, and adds links to Amazon. The JPStalk to me 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Conway Davis. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mars Pathfinder

    A close relative of mine worked as a research scientist on Mars Pathfinder, and I'm interested in both contributing to the main article here and creating new pages for the scientific equipment aboard Pathfinder's lander and the Sojourner rover. I don't think this is a conflict of interest because my relative no longer has a pecuniary interest in the project, and I never worked on it myself. Even if these are problems, I think my access to scholarly information about the project and its various experiments is grounds to mitigate any COI that might exist, and I'll be sure to cite the information I contribute. May I ask what this group thinks? Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question; I'm still learning the ropes.

    I don't think that would be a problem provided that you cite your sources. If you are in any doubt, please discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you could make some very valuable contributions to the article. It sounds like you are well aware of WP's COI rules and know how to stay within them. BE BOLD, I say! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input. The article's discussion page hasn't had any activity in over a year, so I think I'll go ahead and start drafting changes and being careful about observing NPOV. -- Darmokandjalad (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Athanasios Orphanides

    I am concerned that the basis (please see here for details):[22] for the above article which is on the current Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, has been put in place by the PR representative of the Central Bank who I believe to be user:Kyproula, if you look at her postings here:[23] they only relate to this article, my concerns arise from the fact that there is a conflict of interest. The article, apart from reading a lot like a CV, only mentions the subject's research contributions prior to 2007, which is the year he took up his public office position as governor, in order to portray him in a more favourable light, whilst ignoring his term as governor, no mention of what he has acheived during those years is made.

    I would have expected some critical presentation of the Governor's time in office and his policies etc. Also, if you look at the article's discussion page another user tried to add a section on the subject's time as governor with criticism based on his policy of regulating Cypriot banks, but it was removed as undue weight. I think, there is a case for an independent editor to look at the article and add a section about recent events i.e. the subject's term as governor between 2007-2012 in a way that is objective and not biased. Thanks 212.31.115.186 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Werner J. A. Dahm

    All of these are apparently either Werner or his socks/meatpuppets. All are s.p.a.s editing only the article about him. I've just had to stub the article, which mostly consisted of a big fat copyright violation (cut and paste from his ASU profile, which [contrary to assertions of his in the past], is copyrighted by the Arizona Board of Regents). Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Classical Movements

    JessicaZaluzecCM appears to represent the company Classical Movements (cf her username) and has created the article Classical Movements. Despite several editors strongly advising her to stop editing the article, she persists in doing so, adding unsourced promotional material. I am attempting to rescue the article as I think the company is probably notable, but am being frustrated by the editor's lack of communication and insistence on adding inappropriate material to the article. Would appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A person with a name matching the username is listed as an employee of Classical Movements on their website. Also note that the editor in question has been blocked now by OrangeMike. Sperril (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And she's indignantly e-mailed me, insisting that her intent was not promotional (an assertion which does not correspond with the tone of her edits). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I nearly reported this too, and I thought about referring the username to WP:UAA when they were aggressively editing the Classical Movements page. The whole article is a mess, it's been CSD'ed twice (once by me), while other editors assert potential notability. It's a coin flip if it will end up in AFD—maybe someone uninvolved would be willing to do a little research and make an independent assessment on the article's talk page? Livit⇑Eh?/What? 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    She might well have had the purest of intentions. People who spend their professional lives promoting a business often believe that what they do all day long, every day, for years on end, is perfectly normal behavior rather than promotional work. That's why the COI guideline warns people about "unintentional bias". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's now a Sockpuppet Investigation going on as two new SPAs just started editing the article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And now all three have been blocked. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul S. Farmer

    Please canyou help? A COI tag was put on this article originally, but after being raised here by Moonriddengirl in September it was removed. I now see another editor has replaced it last month. Can I seek approval to remove, having done so much to clean up the piece earlier? Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The article appears to be neutral and factual to me. I would think that there is no reason for a COI tag unless it is to note the reason for other defects in the article. I believe there is a talk page equivalent to the article COI tag and that's where the notice should be, if at all. However, I will wait for other editors to give their views before making any changes. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not normal for the subject to edit their own page other than basic corrections of fact, dealing with vandalism etc. However having looked at the page it appears neutral, although the closure of the school probably needs to be directly discussed rather than the somewhat enigmatic statement at the moment. However the talk page does need to be flagged to make the subject's involvement clear. Otherwise I think its OK to remove the COI tag, but it needs watching.
    That said I think there is a bigger problem with Dick Sheppard School where Paul is a major editor and where he was an active participant in the various controversies there. For such a participant to make major changes is and will always be problematic whatever the intent. I'd suggest a propose changes on the talk page but don't edit direct there other than basic references and error correction --Snowded TALK 19:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not normal for the subject to edit the article: it's unfortunately normal for them to suffer in silence. However, there's no actual rule prohibiting such editing so long as the end product is what Wikipedia would want, and unless there is an actual, identifiable problem, then that tag should not be used. Its purpose is not to warn the reader or shame the editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed that on that article the tag can be removed, I am tempted to put it on Dick Sheppard School where there are large edits being made to the history of a dispute by an interested party. I know about suffering in silence having enduring various forms of vandalism on Dave Snowden so I'm sympathetic but there are limits. If you look at the edit history of the user then they all seem concerned with reputation management which can easily become problematic. I repeat my suggest that he uses the talk page rather than editing main space as a way forward if he wants to avoid this sort of accusation in the future. I have put the pages on watch so happy to look at them.--Snowded TALK 08:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks all for your time and advice. I'm still learning. I have just reviewed Dick Sheppard School and removed two sentences which had no citation/reference. Do I wait for further comment before removing COI tag for Paul S Farmer or does someone else do it?

    Whilst I'm here I should explain that I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated. --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Office of Nonproliferation & International Security

    NIS Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has created Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. Since this government agency is known as NIS, the username violates policy as it appears to represent the organization. Further, some of the text of the article is copied from the agency's website. Since its a government agency, copyright is not an issue, but plagiarism and COI are still relevant concerns. GabrielF (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiana University East

    Iueweb (talk · contribs) created an article about Indiana University East's Chancellor (Nasser Paydar) which was deleted as a copyvio. The account name gives the appearance of representing the university. GabrielF (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Or perhaps it simply means that the user is a student there. Since there are now no undeleted edits made by that account, I don't believe it requires any further action. If the user starts editing again, then further encouragement to change the account name would be appropriate. (We wouldn't block him or her merely for having chosen an ambiguous account name.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wally Lamb

    Amandatindersmith (talk · contribs) claims to be Mr. Lamb's assistant, and is making changes to the article which do not meet Wikipedia formatting and sourcing requirements. I've asked her to read COI, OWN and BLP, but she continues to make the unsourced changes. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    She continues to revert my changes, I will not get into an edit war over this, but the non-sourced, promotional, BLP violating edits she keeps making need to be reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the edits were so bad. A little biased, but generally seem factual, and I've done some cleanup. There is also a list of references that I'm guessing most of the article could be sourced to - I've recommended that she add inline cites. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Loquar

    The user's very first edit to their user page says it all "Loquar is a marketing company specializing in viral and meme marketing. Founded in 2010 based in Palo Alto." Yworo (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The account has been blocked for spamming/promotion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Phenomenex

    This article seems to be the target of a multi-year effort by the company to promote itself. There appears to be a once yearly update by the company, with promotional wording mixed into the updates, which though most edits may not constitute a gross violation of wikipedia policy, does look unbalanced. An examination of Fasha Mahjoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may also be in order, considering that two of the aforementioned editors edited both articles, and the latter subject is the CEO of the former subject. This article has been spam-clean-up'd atleast once before after promotional material was added. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Rej3ctzNWO

    User appears to represent the music group The Rej3ctz, as their management company, based on this message. Seems to be violative of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    International Acquisition Group

    Hbuckner has created and recreated the article International Acquisition Group which is clearly promotional. From his userpage he is a "Business Analyst for International Acqusitions Group (IAG)" Sparthorse (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=467377881"