Talk:London Pride (beer)

CoI

This article, like others on Fuller, Smith, and Turner products, has been subject to blatant Conflict of Interest, with editing by a user named FullerSmithandTurner, as well as a single-purpose account named OrangeMe which has edited only Fuller's Brewery and articles on Fuller's beers. I have cleaned up these articles to some extent but they appear to require continued labelling so that other editors are aware of the CoI and can take action accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad you finally bothered to motivate your tagging. Do you think the community will fall in awe of a plain tag? I am not convinced, however, that a user with such a barefaced name would have anything to do with the company as such. Don't you think that their advertising department would be smarter than that? I therefore believe the tag should be removed. Luke (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you please respect Wikipedia's rules of civility. I believe the tag is absolutely necessary for the reasons stated, which are unfortunately irrefutable; accounts have been abused more than once for this purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information given on my talk page. I am still confounded why you would not find it necessary to motivate your tag in the first place. I still do not find your assertions proven, and I do not think its my - but your - task to demonstrate evidence for the claims you are making. Luke (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look in the article's history. The evidence is, to repeat, firstly that there was an improper account named FullerSmithandTurner, now rightly blocked for exactly this reason; and secondly, that an SPA named OrangeMe, also as stated above, has repeatedly edited this and other Fuller's accounts, this current year. This is more than sufficient evidence to be certain that a conflict of interest exists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The only impropriety I can see, is the name of the account. As I stated above that is not a prima facie evidence of criminal intent; it might as well be an overenthusiastic beer aficionado. When it comes to repeated editing, why should that be construed as a conflict of interest. I am currently repeatedly editing an article about the Dutch navy; does that make me a member of the Koninklijke Marine's communications department? Luke (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, and nor do Wikipedia's administrators. Single-purpose accounts which do nothing except add promotional content favouring a single company's products, with no citations except links to the company's website, are in unambiguous conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. A beer afficionado (and there are many here) would add links to reliable, neutral sources which would impartially evaluate beers from many rival breweries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)