Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:38, 24 October 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37.). 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 WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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-wpwikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. 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. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report 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. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. 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 edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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.

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.

User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him

The User name Bruce Cairney has been used to put derogatory comments, contains photo of Bruce Cairney and make some editing in articles on wikpedia seem to come from Bruce Cairney when they have not. This has been continueing since 2006 and still no one does anything. What does wikipedia do about this type of internet stalking occuring within its pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous request for assistance on this when docglasgow Dec/06 interviened on editing of user page ... Revision as of 14:53, 4 December 2007 (edit) (undo)Bacmac (talk | contribs) (→User name created to Slur an individual) User name created to Slur an individual You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 09:36, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

In which articles? I can find no article about anyone called Bruce Cairney? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron Scott - It is the ÜSER NÄME" - User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bruce_Cairney. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this. Username violations are handled at WP:UAA. This might be a more complicated matter than what UAA handles, though. I'm going to copy this to WP:ANI to get administrator attention and comment from other editors, we'll see what happens. I would have replied to this notice long ago but it was incorrectly placed on this page and I kept missing it! :) -- Atama頭 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also nominated it for speedy deletion -- not sure if that's correct, it's a strange situation. But I think it should be dealt with asap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange indeed" - Thanks , i am not very experienced on wikipedia and find it can be very confusing to navigate for some things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tahir Abbas

• 84.13.131.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drtahir007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The second is clearly a COI editor w/rt Tahir Abbas; the IP address is likely the same person, logged out. Both are removing templates (unreferenced and coi). Both are ignoring the relevant warnings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Drtahir007 pretty much claims to be Tahir Abbas himself on his user page. I like your edits to the article, and as it stands now it doesn't look bad (just needs more references). But my opinion is that Dr. Abbas should keep his hands off the article himself unless he agrees to abide by WP:NPOV policy. -- Atama頭 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've worked on the article a bit, he is clearly notable. I've also given him some friendly advice and told him about WP:AUTO which no-one seemed to have pointed him too before. Hopefully he'll get the message that it is best to let others work on the article. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Even when the article comes from someone with a COI (or even the subject) it's always good to have new articles about notable subjects. I'm not surprised you were able to find references, the article seemed to have potential. Excellent job! -- Atama頭 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone take a look at the references for "He is Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a member of the Lunar Society. Abbas has held numerous research grants and has worked with government departments, universities and civil society organizations throughout Asia, Europe and North America." I removed it as I couldn't find any mention of these in third party reliable sources but User:Ecoman24 added some of what I would consider to be unreliable sources to back it up.... Then they reported me to WP:ANI (!) Cheers. Smartse (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Drtahir007 now wants the article deleted as they don't like the way it is now, it already went to AfD in 2007 and survived, so deletion is out of the question. They keep on removing sourced info about their education and family. Another IP has also done this and removed the COI notice again. I'll try to engage the user again but they don't seem to be willing to discuss. Smartse (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've sent out WP:OWN warnings/notifications to the IP numbers. Hopefully they'll see what they're doing wrong. Netalarmtalk 05:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Article in the Observer reporting possible COI and POV pushing

Edward McMillan-Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Michał Kamiński (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following news article was raised at WP:ANI#Edward McMillan-Scott, Michal Kaminski and the Observer and I thought it ought to be commented here. I'm afraid I'm no expert in identifying conflict of interest of POV pushing, so I thought I would rais it here. Stephen! 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The following usernames were noted in the ANI report as ones that have suspect editing patterns, similar to Strasburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is named in the article:

• John_of_Gaunt23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xerxes23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EPP_fanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yorkshire_Bumblebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Saer1957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. Stephen! 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added links to the users. Smartse (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP identified as originating from the house of commons is 194.60.38.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Smartse (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the IP was to add the website www.dirdiver.co.uk to a diving article. I wonder if there could possibly be any connection between that website and someone from the House of Commons? Just idle curiousity. I would hate to see this turn into another scandal like this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See also this SPI on Strasburg, now closed. Stephen! 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the checkuser has gone through and the offending accounts blocked: also including user:Redbus09 and User:Wikiprofile2. No mention of Xerxes23 - is this one unrelated? Were Redbus09 and Wikiprofile2 the only others that showed up? As this case seems to be making the news at the moment, it's important to make sure there aren't any others left hiding in the woodwork... Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma

Trilemma has added to the Alan Grayson article multiple times a 3rd hand account of an internet "poll", that consisted of a radio box linked from the Orlando Sentinel web site. Trilemma added text that suggested that the unscientific poll represented the views of “the Orlando Jewish community,” and “Orlando Sentinel readers” . here Trilemma discloses “a background in methodology”. If Trilemma has such a background, and knew that this poll was unscientific, doesn't that mean Trilemma purposefully misconstrued the facts, and included this poll knowing that it would be misleading?

I asked that question here, to which I received a non-answer that merely side-steps the issue.

Trilemma has deleted information from the Alan Grayson article solely due to claims of “what sounds like a PR firm's output” and similar. For example this “PR statement” was written here and is backed by two high profile editorials about Grayson. (WSJ and Vanity fair in the article) Is this an example of "THIEF! THIEF!" by Trilemma?Scientus (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A better question is, is this an example of a conflict of interest? What are you asking here? Are you just wanting to settle a generic content dispute? Forgive me for missing the point here. -- Atama頭 23:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Allied Artists International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of what appears to be a two-sided WP:COI edit war between Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both sides of the disagreement seem to be able to support their respective cases fairly well, but the results are anything but encyclopedic in content. At a bare minimum, the text and reversions thereto swing from one side of WP:NPOV to the other, and no middle ground appears to be forthcoming. I'm at the end of my rope regarding trying to gain consensus between them, and have gone so far as to post the article for WP:RFC. Any assistance available would be appreciated. Alan (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is either editor affiliated with Allied Artists International in any way? Or is there any other indication of a conflict of interest from either one? Remember that a conflict of interest does not simply mean that a person violated the NPOV policy, in fact there is a NPOV noticeboard that governs those disputes. Conflicts of interest occur when one or more editors working on an article have some kind of connection to the article subject that might indicate a motive other than improvement of the encyclopedia, or if their edits are made to advance or defame some entity that they are closely associated with (for example, an editor spamming his employer's web site link across various articles). -- Atama頭 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a actually a whole nest of inter-related articles. While it's one of the nastiest edit wars I've seen, I don't see any evidence of COI. There are now multiple admins involved from multiple notice boards, and the article has been blocked for a week. It's far from over but I don't think anything more is needed from COI/N for now. Rees11 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation Rees11, that's what I had suspected. :) -- Atama頭 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is now up for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scott Adams

User:Browserguy claims to be Scott Adams, and has extensively modified this article. I reverted the edits and warned about autobiography, verifiability, reliable sources and BLP. I have an ugly premonition I'm about to be skewered as an induhvidual, and want to give everybody a heads-up. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll get kicked out of Dogbert's New Ruling Class. I'm fairly skeptical that Browserguy is Scott Adams (for one thing I'm sure he'd pick a more imaginative user name). -- Atama頭 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked, with instructions to confirm his identity to OTRS to be unblocked. Steve Smith (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal

Dear editor,

Please refer to Josef Tal, and Talk:Josef Tal#COI. I have already asked about the COI template in Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests and received the answer : "There is an obvious WP:COI here and it is appropriate that this is discussed on the talk page and that the article be tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)"

I argue that my edits are in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. I would like to ask for a neutral editor to check the article and assess whether or not my edits conform to the standards and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. In case the editor finds a specific biased clause or any other flaw in my edits, I shall fully support a subsequent correction to be made or discussed. Etan Tal (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a conflict of interest, as defined by our guidelines. I don't believe that Etan is arguing that there isn't. By our guidelines, any person who has a close connection to an article subject has a COI, and being the subject's son certainly qualifies.

What Etan is arguing is that the COI isn't causing a problem. And it's true that the guidelines don't restrict an editor with a COI from editing. It gives suggestions on how to avoid problems, and suggestions on how to resolve them, but doesn't say that Etan is unable to edit. Saying "it's just wrong" isn't really a valid argument. Etan has been very open about who he is, and has asked other editors to point out what he has specifically done that was incorrect. Nobody has yet given any support to the claim that the COI is a problem. Etan has even declared the COI openly on his user page, as the guidelines recommend.

The COI tag that was placed on the article specifically says, "It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." What cleanup is required? What NPOV violations have been listed on the talk page of the article? I see nothing, so the tag is meaningless.

I've also looked over the article itself. It seems to be well-written with extensive sourcing and without being overly promotional. I don't see any basis for NPOV or other complaints at the article. So unless someone comes up with a real complain about the article itself, I think all is well. I'm going to remove the COI tag from the article and leave a comment on the talk page. -- Atama頭 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, and for removing the tag. May I have your permission to copy your full response to the relevant talk-page? Etan Tal (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree that the article has "extensive sourcing", many of the apparent inline citations are in fact notes that seem to be pretty unverifiable. Etan has done the correct thing by declaring his COI but needs to ensure that any content added to the article comes from reliable sources and not from their own personal knowledge. I'm not sure whether we need the entire list of every piece of work either. Smartse (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Etan, you have my permission to copy it if you like. Smartse, granted, "extensive sourcing" might not equate to "proper sourcing" and certainly we want to avoid original research. The article isn't perfect, but it isn't the sort of non-notable, highly-promotional article that often gets created by someone with a COI. I hope that Etan is willing to listen to criticism that will help improve the article. -- Atama頭 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

COI IP at LendingTree

• 12.152.10.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 12.152.10.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In this edit an IP editor at that company deletes a (poorly) sourced statement critical of that company. Several other edits were made by the same IP.LeadSongDog come howl 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a COI warning, they haven't edited since August and to be fair the content removed was poorly sourced and shouldn't be included. If a reliable source can be found then it should definitely be added. I've added the IP links for the IP of the diff and another IP which also links to the company and has edited the article previously. I'll watch the article to check that they don't remove any well sourced criticism, but there isn't currently any, anyway. Smartse (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume it was just a lapse of judgement, not bad faith, but thought it should be noted.LeadSongDog come howl 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

question

Hi.

Im an admin on the dispute infested Persian wikipedia. There are only 8 admins. Our laws are basically copies of EN WP. I need advice from you. My question:

An admin gets involved in a content dispute in an article with some users (7 or 8 other involved editors I reckon). Some r against him, some side with him. Anyway, after a while, he leaves the dispute and quits editing the article entirely, and the fight of course continues and the article is heavily edited every day one way or the other. A month later, the fight heats up again between the same parties. Edit wars break out. The admin (who has not been involved for a month now) jumps in and (citing disruptive behaviour and edit warring) blocks the main responsible user for 24hrs. It turns out this blocked user was the same person the admin was involved with in their intense dispute a month ago. Now some ppl are crying foul, and claiming that since the admin was involved a month ago, and has therefore conflict of interest, he was hence not justified in blocking the user, whether he was right or not.

Do u guys agree? Is a month enough time to not be considered involved? When does one become de-involved? A month after you leave the article? A year after? Was this admin justified in blocking the edit warring user?

I'll read your input. As always, I'm grateful to the wealth of advice u give me.--Zereshk (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one since you have so few admins. As a rule of thumb, if you were involved at all, month, year, decade, whatever, it is always best not to do the blocking since folks can cry foul no matter how much time has past and whether its "true" or not. Being an Admin seems like a completely thankless job and folks on all sides probabley won't like you, but to bad! Maybe block ALL parties that are edit warring and try to get as many "un-involved" eyes there as possible. Just my two cents from a person not wanting to be an admin. Best of luck! --Tom (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This board doesn't refer to conflicts of interest between editors, but conflicts of interest in regards to article subjects. You may have better feedback posting at WP:AN (especially since your question is in regards to the appropriate actions of administrators, and that board is for administrators). But if you want my advice, even though there are only 8 administrators, as long as there are more than 1 that administrator who was previously involved should ask one of the other 7 to do the blocking. As to when they become uninvolved, I would say that time wouldn't be the factor. Even a year later they might be considered involved. As long as the dispute is one that the administrator was previously involved with, and the editors are those the administrator was in a content dispute with, there's still a conflict of interest. -- Atama頭 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Cultural Club and User:SKKlub

• Serbian Cultural Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SKKlub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SKKlub closely resembles an abbreviation for Serbian Cultural Club. The article was created by the user an is promotional in nature, including a events listing,list of principles, and a list of goals. The article has no references, but has a ton of external links. The article would most likely fit criteria for deletion, either PROD or even CSD G11. Netalarmtalk 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a COI welcome for now. A posting at WP:UAA might be warranted, as well as a G11 tag on the article. -- Atama頭 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone nominated it for G11 and it was deleted. On another review of SKKlub's edits, I don't think a WP:UAA report is needed. The Serbian Cultural Club article wasn't the first article created or edited, and their edits are mostly positive. I'd say that now that the article is deleted that we should leave it be. -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

• 66.171.128.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the anonymous user insists on the removal of negative information on the subject. Probable COI with the concerning subject, multiple edits in which negative (but well referenced) information have been removed without a proper explaination. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That content should definitely stay, however nobody should edit war and there have currently been 11 reverts on the page by both editors. I've requested semi-protection and given both editors a 3RR warning. Hopefully now it is posted here, other editors will be able to take control of the situation. Smartse (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP carried on reverting after 3RR and a final warning so is blocked for 55 hours. Smartse (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

7oceans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now removed exactly the same content with no explanation, I've already made two reverts so can someone else please take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Something smells funny there, either old socks or meat. I've reverted and left a level 1 warning. -- Atama頭 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys. I have looked at this page before and was annoyed to see another backhanded way to inject information that is old hat into the article (AGAIN!). And I really made an omission not to tap out a reason. I have edited the discussion to reflect on the bias. What is funny here is Reconsider the static is vigorously defending the only contribution byTruPrint exactly one minute after its removal. Is there a way to investigate this further? -7oceans (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really think that you should report me and have my user checked! -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppetry case here. -- Atama頭 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New update: I've requested that the article be semi-protected, it is now protected for a week. -- Atama頭 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CiCi's Pizza

CiCi's Pizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made possible COI edits to CiCi's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Claims to be a role account for the company's PR department in the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tckma (talk • contribs)

Nehara Pieris

• Nehara Pieris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Strongly suspect COI with user ] (talk · contribs), with edits like "For someone who is still fairly new to the Sri Lankan entertainment industry, the popularity of Nehara Pieris is absolutely phenomenal." Evil saltine (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

NGOWatch / Jon Entine

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

This user has self-identified as Jon Entine, head of NGOWatch.

Apart from making some uncontroversial corrections, he has deleted well-sourced (e.g. from a Cambridge University Press book) criticism from the article about his organization several times, refusing to discuss his reasons except claiming it was outdated, and added promotional language . He has also deleted several other users' talk page comments . As he continues to do both despite being made aware of the applicable guidelines, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on this.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution