General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Shortcuts: WP:COI/N WP:COIN

Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Commercial usernames may be reported at WP:UAA. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy may be more suited to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Issues with administrators may be more suited to requests for comment on administrator conduct.

Archives

Add new incident reports at the bottom of this page. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics. It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.

The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

• Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored.
• If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them.
• You can tag COI affected articles with {{COI}}.
• You can warn editors about COI concerns with {{subst:uw-coi}}.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.

---

To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline

• Create a new section with the article name

• Describe the dispute using the following format:

* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation ~~~~ or

* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~

• Add new entries at the bottom of the page

To close an incident

• Add Template:resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature
• Old issues are taken away by the archive bot

Contents 1 Possible autobiographies found by bot 2 Requested edits 3 Kenny1452 4 NBeale on Faraday Institute 5 Joey Dauben 6 User:Christopher mentillo/Chris mentillo 7 Aura Light 8 George Eid 9 P2U! 10 User:Schoolofmace 11 User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted) 12 American University of Antigua College of Medicine 13 Mahdipn 14 Edward Davenport 15 Eastman Kodak Company 16 Corporate usernames at Baynote 17 BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington)

[edit] Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

[edit] Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

[edit] Kenny1452

‎* Kenny1452 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - User has created a page called Kenny Stevenson, possible conflict of interest? 5 albert square (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's very likely. That and the copyright violations are troubling. Also created Phil Stevenson, father/brother/etc. which seems likely to be deleted soon as a copyvio of this. -- Atama頭 00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've never reported someone for conflict of interest before. What happens next? --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Each COI case is handled differently, because COI cases range from a very helpful editor who happens to be close to what he is editing, to a highly-disruptive editor who needs to be blocked. Most cases fall somewhere in the middle. In this case, every article created by this editor has already been deleted. I've left the editor a welcome message on their talk page that discusses Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and offers some advice, just in case they're still around. But it's likely that the editor was a "drive by"; registering an account, creating 3 articles, and then leaving. I can see that the only edits that they've done are to create those articles and that's it, no editing of any of the articles after creation, so I think it's likely that they won't edit any further. Thanks again for reporting this issue. -- Atama頭 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NBeale on Faraday Institute

• NBeale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to being "an associate of the Faraday Institute", but insists on editing Faraday Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), adding references to articles, either by the FI's director Denis Alexander, or which make bare mention of the FI in discussing Alexander's comments, in WP:Synthesis support of a statement that the FI is active in "Public commentary on issues relating to science and religion." He does this with the avowed purpose of attempting to establish WP:Notability (in spite of the fact that trivial and/or non-independent coverage cannot establish notability). He has previously been warned of his COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It can't be COI to add refs from impeccable sources (eg Science) and this article has been on Wikipedia since 2006, unchallenged until Hrafn has mounted his forlorn campaign against it, which seems to consist of demanding that people add references and then complaining that its COI when I do. The notability of the Faraday Institute is beyond reasonable doubt, as anyone who works in the field knows. (PS it is not very civil to post on the COI noticeboard without informing the editor complained of) NBeale (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Adding references to a statement, that do not explicitly contain the claim contained in the statement, is WP:Synthesis, regardless of the reliability of the sources added (and the Science reference has not been disputed on the basis of synthesis).
2. You neglected to mention this edit re-inserting honorifics in violation of WP:MOSBIO, removing WP:ASF attribution and re-adding a list of self-published material.
3. The article's sourcing is a bunch of one-sentence-mentions (which WP:NOTE describes as "plainly trivial" coverage) and non-independent coverage. It is therefore perfectly 'reasonable' to doubt its notability.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As the highly respected independent editor DGG rightly says "the notability is clear and obvious". Please desist in this silly campaign. NBeale (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Complete bollocks! DGG is not an "independent editor" (having made multiple edits to the article), and he is notorious fro his radically inclusionist views [well known for his "extreme inclusionist views".] Further, he offered no substantiation for his opinion. Further, this edit, is in clear violation of WP:COI. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that notability is not and cannot be established why don't you nominate it for deletion? Save everyone some time and drama. Unomi (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. One is notability of the article itself (which should be handled at AfD), the other is a conflict of interest from NBeale editing the article. From what I can tell, NBeale has been open about the COI but I would suggest trying to follow WP:SCOIC as some of the edits have been problematic and controversial (reverting edits in violation of MOS calling it "borderline vandalism" for example). Stick to the article talk page if you can.

I see another problem however. Hrafn, characterizing DGG as being "notorious fro his radically inclusionist views" is a borderline personal attack. I'd suggest redacting that statement. -- Atama頭 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see exactly the same problem, and have pointed it out to Hrafn in the past (along with the fact that another editor was just blocked indef for calling an al-Quaeda recruiter "evil". To say "my opinion is you are notorious" is ugly. To say "you are notorious" on Wikipedia is defamatory. I've just at the AfD discussed it again with Hrafn; I can't tell from his response whether he cares much for my view on the matter. Perhaps you independently reaching the same conclusion will lead him to apologize.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• <yawn> (i) You have no basis for directly equating "notoriously" with "evil", let alone declaring that adverb to be per se defamatory. (ii) All this hullabaloo over an already-striken comment. Hrafn^Talk_{Stalk</sub^(P) 07:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}

• _{Notorious -- "ill-famed, infamous, notorious (known widely and usually unfavorably)" See here. Writing for all the world to see that DGG is (not in your opinion, mind you, but is) notorious is defamatory. He deserves an apology, and it might actually help your arguments if your were more civil with your fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}

• _{WP:Complete bollocks: "Its original formula has notoriously strong flavor" -- Listerine; "home to releases from such notoriously independent Northwest bands" -- Knw-Yr-Own Records. Neither of these uses are "defamatory". Hrafn^TalkStalk(P) 07:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)}

• The dictionary definition I quoted above, with a link, is the first one that appears in a google search for a definition of the term. It is simply innappropriate, and defamatory.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(i) I had already rephrased this comment, prior to your comment. (ii) DGG's inclusionism is sufficiently pronounced and sufficiently widely commented upon (see for instance Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development#Statement by User:Kww) that characterising it as "notorious" & "radical" is pretty much WP:SPADE. The article is now at AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That defamatory statement remains above, untouched rather than crossed out. In addition, I would point out that at the AfD on the Faraday Institute right now that you have brought, you stated incorrectly (for reasons I point out there) that NBeale -- disclosing his relationship -- is not allowed to comment. That is inappropriate, as the guidance makes clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche: your comment is in pervasive violation of WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable "Do not misrepresent other people". Beyond that (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) I reject wholesale your premises and your conclusions, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear friend, what in the world are you talking about. Even nowthe defamatory statement remains above, untouched rather than crossed out. And you have the temerity to cross the line and accuse me of misrepresenting you? Really, I'm not sure where the problem lies, but I am offended by your audacity and defamatory remarks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave out the saccharine WP:BAITing. I had forgotten that I had repeated my intemperate (though accurate) statement from article talk to the thread above. Except as excepted here, my above rejection stands ("notorious", NBeale, notability, WP:NORN, everything you say on the AfD and on article talk, etc). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally owning up to your being intemperate and making misstatements. At least, to half of the instances in this string. Its a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

not that I take offense, myself, but for the benefit of anyone who knows me, but I've personally deleted over 9,000 articles in my two years as an admin & probably !voted delete on about 3,000. That's certainly more than I've managed to save. Saving is harder. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, having participated in a number of AfDs that DGG has shown up to that he seems to be pretty balanced, he's far from a rabid inclusionist. And yes, it's definitely easier to delete something than to save it. Anyway, since this thread has turned into a spat between two editors and is no longer about NBeale, Faraday Institute, or COI I'm going to mark it "resolved". -- Atama頭 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joey Dauben

• Joey Dauben (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Joeydauben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional article written by user with the same name as subject. Very few secondary references but full of personal observations not sure it he is notable either but it probably needs a substantial rewrite or is a candidate for deletion. Any advice appreciation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already survived db-person but is completely unsourced so I suggest AfD. Rees11 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Google News shows some minor notability of a negative kind. Not enough to warrant an article in my opinion. The article could possibly be speedied as an advertisement but I'd say just let the proposed deletion run its course. -- Atama頭 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Christopher mentillo/Chris mentillo

Page was created by an editor with the same name, and an IP just added it to Prosperity theology. It is 4th on Google when you search for "Chris Mentillo", I really wish we'd do something about no-indexing all user pages. (Can I add the noindex template to pages like this one?). Several IPs have edited it - they geolocate to the Boston area where he lives. This is a bit more about him (written by him), and a google search leaves me impressed by his publicity skills. :-) Is this page a record for the number of 'See alsos' I wonder? Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the noindex template, it looks like it's commonly used for BLP talk pages to protect negative info from getting out into Google, and the same philosophy should hold true for a BLP sandbox page that's not going to get the same scrutiny as a BLP article. I did the Google search as well, and yes this person does seem skilled at self-promotion (which in general is admirable, but for Wikipedia is a problem). I'd suggest MfD, except that the sandbox is exactly where this kind of article should go, we routinely recommend to people that they use their subpages to work on articles before putting them in the mainspace precisely to avoid premature deletion so I don't think it'd be right to do so in this case. I don't see anything in the article that warrants a speedy deletion either, so I'd say leave the noindex template and leave it alone until this tries to get moved into the mainspace. -- Atama頭 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that, hopefully correctly, but someone else has tagged it for speedy delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with the tag, it doesn't seem all that promotional as written, but I agree that the page was probably created with promotional intent. Let's see what another admin does with that. -- Atama頭 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been declined. Found another problem though, I think that this user may be using several accounts, 72.74.219.159 (talk · contribs) has added to the Mentillo article and created User:Docment/Got money records, owned by Mentillo, and has put it as a link at List of hip hop record labels. [1] Maybe they/he/she doesn't understand the difference between userspace and article space? 72.74.210.53 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same editor.

Now this is odd and worrying. Docment (talk · contribs) is blocked as a sockpuppet. Ah, the sockpuppet page leads me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris mentillo from last month. So, we seem to have an attempt to avoid both the block and the AfD result. A search on Google for "got money records" brings it up as the first hit, and the 2nd hit is Chris Mentillo's userspace article. Maybe this is an ANI issue - or maybe I should just block the accounts and delete both. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Christopher mentillo indefinitely for disruption (i.e. blatant recreation), spamming, and sock puppetry. I have also moved the userfied page to the article incubator; I think all of the pages there are supposed to be NOINDEXed, so it should be safe there for those to make improvements if need be. It's rather late here, so if I missed something, let me know. MuZemike 08:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some clear IP socks here, but anon-only rangeblocking is out of the question as the ranges are too busy, not to mention too wide to block. MuZemike 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep forgetting about the incubator. I'll check to see if anything else needs action after breakfast. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aura Light

• Aura Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - creating article Aura Light about a company ~YellowFives 11:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Aura Light and Aura Long Life lamps have been deleted. The editor has been notified of the COI. I'd consider this resolved unless the articles get recreated. -- Atama頭 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Eid

Can someone look at the article on George Eid and tell me what they think? filceolaire (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be improved but was there a particular COI concern you had? Rees11 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you want the NPOV noticeboard. There is a tag on the article that suggests that it might have neutrality issues and while you've made a COI complaint on the talk page I don't see any basis for it. Single-purpose accounts aren't uncommon on Wikipedia and are used for much more than autobiographies. (Technically it isn't really an SPA, since they did edit May Chidiac.) In any case, the article creator only edited on March 24th and 29th of this year and never edited again, so if there was any basis for the complaint it would be a very stale one. -- Atama頭 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] P2U!

• P2U! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Username is a company name, ad on userpage. ~YellowFives 14:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've speedily deleted the userpage as a blatant advertisement per G11 criteria. Page blanking was not the proper thing to do, there are limited circumstances in which blanking a page is acceptable and blanking another person's user page for being promotional is not one of them. Not a big deal in this case, as the page should have been deleted, but just be aware of that in the future. You've suggested that the person change their username, which was appropriate and helpful, thanks for doing that. Unless and until the editor starts editing in the main article space of Wikipedia there's not much else to do. -- Atama頭 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Schoolofmace

• Schoolofmace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - SPA (shared?) continues to add promotional material to School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester (username is a partial acronym of the institution) in spite of repeated warnings. Username probably falls short of violating WP:Username in that the username per se doesn't promote the institution -- which is why I've brought the matter here instead of to WP:UAA --Rrburke^(talk) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Beetstra blocked them, they must have considered it a violation of WP:Username which I'd say I agree with as it is a pretty clear acronym. Their edits where pretty biased though like saying it "is one of the leading engineering schools in the world and the largest in Europe". Smartse (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

They created some socks after but that's been sorted out too: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Schoolofmace/Archive Smartse (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted)

I am relisting this thread, as the editor has become active again and today has posted a statement here. I still feel it is best to discuss this here, so we can clarify and properly resolve the matter, and eventually remove the tags from the Douglas Coupland article. I've invited the editor to make a brief statement here. --JN466 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Douglas_Coupland#Story_2.

GoneAFK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may be editing with an undeclared conflict of interest.

• [2] (Vancouver/Burnaby IP),
• [3] (note edit summary). --JN466 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions do seem to be a single purpose account, having only related articles related to Douglas Coupland. Their edits certainly cause some concern and suggest a COI, namely inserting lots of images from a personal website. The articles about his novels also need checking, I found this, pretty much a total re-write of Life After God. I'm not entirely convinced of a COI, they could possibly be a devoted fan but it definitely needs clarification. JN has left them a note so hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the situation. Smartse (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP has done some work on the Douglas Coupland article which has addressed most of the style/content concerns, and I've removed two of the tags. --JN466 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the conflict of Interest problems, it seems that the person who recently edited the article, by IP from the University of Alberta, I believe that any over the top language has been attested to. I am the sole editor behind many of the article rewrites, but a partner in the creation of the primary Coupland article. In reference to that, I understand some of the language was improper, but I see that those problems have been addressed. Let us work together to further this article, I am only interested in making this article accurate and well rounded. GoneAFK (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] American University of Antigua College of Medicine

There are several editors who seems to be students (disaffected) and administrators for the school who are actively editing the article. I have been trying my best to have them discuss the issues on the talk page, but have not been very successful. Looking for some more help. Thanks. Basket of Puppies 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

some of it was rather outrageous--one students complaint that he had failed a course but did not deserve to; in the other direction, the article contained details of the fee schedule and the sequence of course. I removed those also. I invite some other admin to review my changes and protect the article if necessary. The deleted material included an image of a student grade transcript intended to support the material. someone who's an admin at Commons also is needed to remove that one. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Students are mad about the school and want to soapbox, I support your actions DGG. -- Atama頭 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mahdipn

• Mahdipn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - User has created a page called Mahdi Pour Rouholamin. Possible conflict of interest? --5 albert square (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Davenport

There are several attempts by Edward Davenport - a confirmed con-artist as reported by the BBC - to edit his page in order to add legitimacy to his scams by claiming a variety of nonsense. He has continually posted under several different names and several different IP addresses, an act which I would imagine to be typical modus operandi for a confidence trickster. I have in the past reported the page for self-promotion and it was frozen for quite some time. I therefore request help from the wikipedia community in order to determine what to do to this page given that I am at wit's end with this article in particular. Rowing88 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eastman Kodak Company

• Eastman Kodak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Wikiscanner reveals many edits may be from Kodak employees; many sections are uncited and read like advertisements. One particular editor, Drr3761 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has outed him/herself as living in Kodak’s hometown and has a pattern of Kodak-related, corporate vanity edits —Parhamr (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate usernames at Baynote

Two corporate officers of the software company Baynote have been editing their company's article with the usernames Jack S. Jia (talk · contribs) (the CEO)& Mjsvatek (talk · contribs) (former VP of marketing). Would these be blockable blatent COI/corporate spam accounts?--Blargh29 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington)

• Ddetwiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - User has created a "Teachers in the News" section of this high school's page with four paragraphs devoted exclusively to a teacher named "Darin Detwiler". Each of the paragraphs have verifiable citations, but the similarity of the username with the teacher's name makes this an obvious COI. Biglovinb (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)