Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,015: Line 1,015:
::::I emailed Admins my concerns. The rest is in their hands. My hope is that there will atleast be a topic ban on Alansohn for state of New Jersey. This could easily make local papers, but I am gonna let the admins deal with it. [[User:Wasickta|Wasickta]] ([[User talk:Wasickta|talk]]) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
::::I emailed Admins my concerns. The rest is in their hands. My hope is that there will atleast be a topic ban on Alansohn for state of New Jersey. This could easily make local papers, but I am gonna let the admins deal with it. [[User:Wasickta|Wasickta]] ([[User talk:Wasickta|talk]]) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
* Um, [[User|Magnolia677]] were you aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey/Introductions&oldid=27104893 this] (which is still very visible on the page) when you called OUTING? People call him by his full name here all the time. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
* Um, [[User|Magnolia677]] were you aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Jersey/Introductions&oldid=27104893 this] (which is still very visible on the page) when you called OUTING? People call him by his full name here all the time. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
**It's not just some old note that can only be found by lots of digging in page histories; it's still present at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Introductions]]. The [[WP:OUTING]] policy is clear: ''If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing''. This self-disclosed information has not been redacted: it's still existing. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 00:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
:[[User|Wasickta]] you are pretty new in Wikipedia. You have been asked to show examples of edits that concerned you with regard to a potential conflict of interest. Do you know how to show a diff? If you don't, then just say so. if you know how to show diffs, then please show some. Really. You don't have to give commentary; just provide diffs. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
:[[User|Wasickta]] you are pretty new in Wikipedia. You have been asked to show examples of edits that concerned you with regard to a potential conflict of interest. Do you know how to show a diff? If you don't, then just say so. if you know how to show diffs, then please show some. Really. You don't have to give commentary; just provide diffs. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Revision as of 00:47, 4 May 2016

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    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.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
    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:2025 Battle River—Crowfoot federal by-election
    Talk:Dan Abrams
    Talk:Academy of Achievement
    Talk:John Adair (author)
    Talk:Aftershock PC
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Priscilla Almodovar
    Talk:Amdocs
    Talk:American Enterprise Institute
    Talk:David A. Andelman
    Talk:Applied Intuition
    Talk:Arithmetic mean
    Talk:Armada Music
    Talk:Armedangels
    Talk:Army Public School, Ballygunge
    Talk:Arnold Ventures
    Talk:Aspen Dental
    Talk:Australian Institute for Machine Learning
    Talk:Avient Corporation
    Talk:Avride
    Talk:Ronni Baer
    Talk:Fatou Baldeh
    Talk:Our Rescue
    Talk:Greg Barker, Baron Barker of Battle
    Talk:Ida Benedetto (designer)
    Talk:Bet-at-home.com
    Talk:Bluehost
    Talk:Bobbie (company)
    Talk:Bodmin Jail
    Talk:Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health
    Talk:BowFlex, Inc.
    Talk:Kenneth Braithwaite
    Talk:Orlando Bravo
    Talk:Jean-Claude Brizard
    Talk:Brookfield Business Partners
    Talk:C3 Presents
    Talk:Camfed
    Talk:M. Patrick Carroll
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
    Talk:Cipriani S.A.
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:City College of New York
    Talk:CivicPlus
    Talk:Claremont McKenna College
    Talk:Cloudinary
    Talk:Eliad Cohen
    Talk:Cohere
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Consolidated Contractors Company
    Talk:Corrections Victoria
    Talk:Bill Corrigan
    Talk:Crutchfield Corporation
    Talk:Czech Philharmonic
    Talk:Dartmouth College
    Talk:Dell Digital Jukebox
    Talk:Dell Latitude
    Talk:Matt Dorsey
    Talk:Ducera Partners
    Talk:Enterprise resource planning
    Talk:Envestnet
    Talk:Epic Aircraft
    Talk:Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
    Talk:Ankit Fadia
    Talk:FICO
    Talk:Finery (company)
    Talk:Foley & Lardner
    Talk:Food Industry Centre
    Talk:Adele Fornarino
    Talk:Forrester Research
    Talk:Richard France (writer)
    Talk:Freudenberg Group
    Talk:GA Telesis
    Talk:Galaxy Gas
    Talk:Gardenista
    Talk:Gartner hype cycle
    Talk:Getronics
    Talk:Global Greens
    Talk:Jim Goetz
    Talk:Gordon's School
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Martin Green (musician)
    Talk:Lucy Guo
    Talk:Gene Hallman
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Stephen L. Hauser
    Talk:Heathers: The Musical
    Talk:Thomas Heatherwick
    Talk:Helix ALM
    Talk:Hewlett Foundation
    Talk:Hg (equity firm)
    Talk:HITRUST
    Talk:HongShan
    Talk:Ivo van Hove
    Talk:HSBC Insurance (Asia Pacific)
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Informa
    Talk:Informal learning
    Talk:International Fund for Animal Welfare
    Talk:International Institute for Strategic Studies
    Talk:Internationella Engelska Skolan
    Talk:Frederick Iseman
    Talk:Italian American Museum of Los Angeles
    Talk:Je-Chin Han
    Talk:Han Jin (businessman)
    Talk:Michael Jones (Virginia politician)
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Kate Spade New York
    Talk:Mark Kendall (filmmaker)
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:King James Version
    Talk:Michael David Kirchmann
    Talk:Klick (company)
    Talk:Laurette Koellner
    Talk:Ramendra Kumar (author)
    Talk:La Pausa
    Talk:Lazard
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Kiat Lim
    Talk:List of members of the Trilateral Commission
    Talk:Gordon Mar
    Talk:Craig McConnell
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Michael Medline
    Talk:Medvivo
    Talk:Meghna Group
    Talk:Mercury Technologies
    Talk:Metrea
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Matthew Miller (spokesperson)
    Talk:Howard Milstein
    Talk:Mitre Corporation
    Talk:Indraneel Mittra
    Talk:Farah Mohamed
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Fiona Scott Morton
    Talk:Matt Mullenweg
    Talk:Murkage Dave
    Talk:National Book Development Board (Philippines)
    Talk:Craig Newschaffer
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Ski Oakenfull
    Talk:Randy Olson
    Talk:Olympia Fields Country Club
    Talk:Joseph Otting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Ciprian Panait
    Talk:Parasol Unit Foundation for Contemporary Art
    Talk:Jared Paul
    Talk:List of peace prizes
    Talk:Perforce
    Talk:Philip Morris International
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Public Interest Research Group
    Talk:Rackspace Technology
    Talk:Erik Ramanathan
    Talk:Redis
    Talk:Samuel Refetoff
    Talk:Remodelista
    Talk:Robinhood Markets
    Talk:Kyle Roche
    Talk:Rocket Mortgage
    Talk:Rockstar (drink)
    Talk:Jason Rohr
    Talk:Daniel Rosenfeld (academic)
    Talk:Roz Shafran
    Talk:Shamir's secret sharing
    Talk:Sidley Austin
    Talk:Signals Research and Development Establishment
    Talk:Social robot
    Talk:Jonathan Sorrell
    Talk:Southbank Centre
    Talk:Dietrich Stephan
    Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko
    Talk:Strawberry Field
    Talk:Substack
    Talk:Jay Sures
    Talk:Orazio Svelto
    Talk:Talkspace
    Talk:Hock Tan
    Talk:Taylor Farms
    Talk:Deborah Taylor (judge)
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent Cloud
    Talk:The Research Board
    Talk:TheSoul Publishing
    Talk:Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools
    Talk:Trendyol
    Talk:Trócaire
    Talk:UK Government G-Cloud
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:David Ussery
    Talk:Vercel
    Talk:Verily
    Talk:Hans Vestberg
    Talk:Dale Vince
    Talk:Mariano Vivanco
    Talk:Petar Volgin
    Talk:Kathy Warden


    Benjamin Wey Article

    Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

    http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

    75.137.237.5 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually read the entire article carefully, you will see it is has been extensively edited by multiple editors since its original self-promotional creation in 2014 and in its current state is not remotely promotional, nor is it a fabrication. The conflict of interest editors and their sockpuppets have all been blocked for over a year. I also suggest that you carefully read the extensive discussions at Talk:Benjamin Wey. The Bloomberg article you list above and its allegations were added to Benjamin Wey on March 17th, 2016 nearly a month before you posted here [1]. The article's current references are all from reliable sources. The majority are highly critical of the subject beginning in 2002 when he was censured and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. They go on to detail his indictment by the United States Department of Justice on charges of securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, and wire fraud in 2015; the award against him by the Manhattan Federal District Court for defamation and sexual harassment in 2015; and the current lawsuit for defamation of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regulator and Georgetown University law professor in 2016. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Coupa

    Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The article looks rather like an ad now. I had to trim it back a bit. I also added a section on "Misappropriation of trade secrets", covering the admitted use of competitor Ariba's trade secrets and IP. There's also a redlink reference to "Spend management", which may be a newly coined term. "Accounts Payable" and "Financial Supply Chain Management" are closer to being standard terms. We need to either create a "spend management" article or use an existing term. John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, here! on the "awards". There are a gazillion of these "Top n" type articles, and I think those should be declared to not be "awards". They aren't any more authoritative than the various top ten lists that mainly function as click bait. Then there are the "send us your entry and we'll give you an award" sites, e.g. Stevie Awards, and local Emmy awards. I'd be willing to contribute to a list if one were begun. Even if we can't create a binary yes/no it would be helpful to add more information that would speak to potential notability. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A great starting point would be an award has to be issued by a notable organization, as established by an enduring Wikipedia article on the org. I think this came up before in the context of media industry (film etc.) awards. Probably for this business awards we'd need additional criteria, such as scope, i.e. non-local, and selectivity, i.e. not a "top 1000" type list. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your help, Nagle and Brianhe.

    As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.

    • For "Coupa has partnerships with international advisory firms. On April 10, 2013, the company announced a formal partnership with KPMG. It also has partnerships with Deloitte, Accenture and IBM Emptoris Commerce."—[1][2][3]
    • For the "Funding" text removed in this diff—Series G and $169 million total raised,[4] Series F,[5] and Series E.[6]

    I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.

    As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.

    And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.

    Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Fineberg, Seth (10 April 2013). "KPMG Forms Alliance to Drive Procurement Services". Accounting Today. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    2. ^ Busch, Jason (3 June 2015). "Coupa Inspire Dispatch: Musing on Partnerships, Accenture and More". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    3. ^ Kase, Thomas; Busch, Jason (14 May 2015). "Does IBM Emptoris, Coupa Announcement Raise More Partnership Questions Than Answers?". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    4. ^ Hesseldahl, Arik (1 June 2015). "Cloud Startup Coupa Lands $80 Million Round at $1 Billion-Plus Valuation". Re/code. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    5. ^ Gage, Deborah (20 March 2014). "Coupa Raises $40M For Cloud Procurement Software, Takes On SAP". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    6. ^ Nusca, Andrew (10 May 2012). "Coupa raises $22 million to manage your company's expenses". ZDNet. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    Hi, checking in again here before this gets archived into the abyss. Has anyone had a chance to take a look at my initial request, or the additional info provided above? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jpop73

    TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.

    It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.

    Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a quick check of some of these articles and share your concerns. I'm seeing unverifiable, promotional content about barely (or not) notable subjects which are hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Thanks for bringing it here - it needs a lot of clean up work. I'm tempted to block them now, but it would be good to hear explanation. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This group of articles/editors came up here before back in 2010. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Wikipedia pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have made clear that the uncredited info appears in the Levy article prior to the publication of the HuffPost piece. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaMona: I get what you are trying to imply. You might wish to see this [2] as well, where the user states "In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created". I'm afraid we cannot go any further without violating WP:OUTING. At the moment I think it would be better to ask the user for clarifications about the accounts. If all the accounts belong to the same person, then it needs to be noted. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.

    Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jpop73: Could you let us know if any of these accounts (Zootrainer/zooaction/Zookeeper4u) are/were operated by you or anyone known to you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help?Jpop73 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I found something additional which is most probably COI though perhaps not related to Jpop73. User:Eatyler did 4 edits in 2013 to Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. The list of staff mentions "...entered into a mentorship under our then Director of Sales and Marketing, Ethan Tyler". Mentioning it for record, although it seems the concerned person is no longer associated with the center. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about sending COI articles to AfD

    • I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kevin Gorman: I don't dispute that this was done in good faith but that doesn't change the fact that many of the subjects are not notable. It's true that our attention was drawn by the disclosure to look at their other articles but if they aren't notable it is only a matter of time before they are noticed as was the case back in 2010 when Zooaction (which Jpop73 has indirectly admitted was him e.g. [3]) made similar edits. What are we supposed to do, ignore problems we find because they made a disclosure? Surely the point of the disclosure is to allow us to scrutinise potentially problematic articles? SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More of the AFD'ed articles are notable than are not notable, it just takes searching sources thoroughly. Unless a comprehensive search of sources was done here (and I intend to do what I can as these AFD's run, and already have enough sources to significantly exceed notability requirements on at least several of them - and I have done far from a comprehensive search,) then AFDing pretty much all articles not created for pay without doing a thorough search of available sources, including newspaper archives and offline sources, because someone actually followed our TOS is actively promoting blackhat paid editing. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 02:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked onJpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal.Jpop73 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to meJpop73 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jpop73: First of all, let me thank you for cooperating and being transparent. We appreciate that a lot. It is of immense help to us when editors tell us about a conflict of interest. I would like to let you know that article are nominated for AfD not just because there is a COI. There have been multiple articles involving COI editing and yet the articles were not send to AfD, but they were just edited to remove any overtly promotional content. I had a look at some of the articles you have written and (as far as I saw), there was nothing overtly promotional in them. Once again, this is something I appreciate a lot.
    However, the problem with some of your articles is that the article subject may not satisfy the notability guidelines. For example, if you see Sandra Dee Robinson, you will notice that the article contains just 3 references, none of which could be counted as a third party reliable source. One way to find an article subject is notable is to see if they have multiple references in independent sources (which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). In this case, you might wish to evaluate yourself (see WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR) if the article subject is indeed notable. I would be happy to hear your feedback. Please rest assured that we are not sending these articles to AfD (or undoing your edits) as a form of vengeance or punishment. AfD is a mechanism to seek community input whether an article subject is notable or not. If by chance someone sends it to AfD and the subject is indeed notable, you will find that other editors will vote keep. I hope it clarifies your queries. In addition, nothing prevents you from contributing to Wikipedia even now. Apart from the articles with which you have a COI, you are welcome to contribute to other articles. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear (talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. SincerelyJpop73 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Here's the question that I have, which I will state as a hypothetical. Let's say that someone is a writer for a newspaper or magazine, or even a book. In the course of their writing they obviously run into interesting people and subjects, and they decide to create (or edit) Wikipedia articles for some of them, in part using research that they've done for their writing. That doesn't seem to be a problem. Now let's add to the hypothetical that as part of writing the article the writer creates (or edits) a Wikipedia page for the subject of the article, and links to that in the article. This case seems more fraught to me. Is the Wikipedia article being used to 1) validate the subject of the journal article? 2) promote the subject of the journal article? 3) make the subject of the journal article seem more important? or 4) is it none of these, and therefore is not considered promotional? The gist of this question is: if you are doing paid-for work and you create or edit Wikipedia articles related to that work coincident with the work, is that COI, and is it considered promotional? I realize that this reads like splitting hairs, but I think it is a real question. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Wikipedia article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Wikipedia entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Wikipedia article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questionsJpop73 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Jpop73. I don't think I mentioned "paid", but that's ok. I think that the question of COI is extremely complex, and that there probably are very few articles on WP that haven't benefited from a kind of interest that might show some conflict. Most of us have areas of our life that bleed over into WP in ways that we cannot easily define. In this case I'm convinced of Good Faith, and that we're seeing Interest that I couldn't confidently call Conflict of Interest. I also looked at the articles and some look like reasonable candidates for AfD. That said, most times when my attention is drawn to a group of articles, at least some portion turn out to need work or to be AfD-able. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks againJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have unearthed three more that I've listed above. I've noticed there is an in-common within; most of these are those their late-40s to mid-50s, its like if he is acquainted with them. I doubt highly that he would do articles about 20-year olds. Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    An unsourced portion of Jefery Levy I removed got reverted by 2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 (presumably a COI user hiding behind a private network), just saying because this user could be one of those, considering there have been no recent editors other than that concerned. Donnie Park (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to let you know, this user is trying to engage in a revert war over this article. Donnie Park (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

    As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, am I upset about your edits? No, the problem is why did you create a duplicate article when one already exists, just admit it some new editors make this mistake as well except you were a few years in. Did I say I treat you like a "malicious criminal", obviously not, you just bring this to yourself by repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Compared to what you edited, tell you what, in that years of editing as yours, I had 27 WP:DYK and counting, recently been listed in WP:DYKLIST, never had one article successfully deleted except one that was merged which was one of my first and why, because I follow guidelines and play by the rule. Plus unlike you, I have never been paid to do any of the edits. On a footnote, Unscintillating, LaMona and other are totally spot on about you, the problem with you is your attitude, you come off as some guy who is so arrogant that he is unwilling to learn from mistakes. Donnie Park (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cont. Dear Donnie, Again, thank you. Jef Levy and me and none of my friends, colleagues, organizations, etc. which are subjects of articles that are deemed a conflict of interest because of my misuse and understanding of policy are not trying to abuse or take advantage of Wikipedia. In fact, after personally apologizing to many of them for placing their pages in jeopardy, by accident, many of them are indifferent some are uninterested and some want to be removed altogether. You and some other editors have correctly identified that my articles (and probably all of them) contain a conflict of interest, for which I have apologized repeatedly. The only articles I write about are things or people that I know about. I clearly misunderstood how articles get written and by whom. I had no idea that it is a crime to write about subjects I know personally and I also didn't know that cross promomotion was prohibited. Furthermore, this wikipedia crisis all came about because I was honest about being paid for some articles that I created. I thought getting paid was the only issue that was relavant to a conflict of interest and I thought I handled it correctly. Instead, I have been publicly accused of intentionally violating policy, I have been humiliated in public discussions and treated like a malicious person, an outcast and labled a COI editor, as if I was operating under some contingent of underground evildoers. In addition, my own page, which I carefully worked on with an editor for two years following its acceptance has also been proposed for deletion. I don't know what else to say. Again, I have tried to be cooperative and helpful and you insist on trying to make defamatory remarks about me. I would ask you again to please stop the negative commentary.thank youJpop73 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What negative commentary, I'm just being blunt. To cut this short, I won't waste my time arguing with you but I'll leave you in the hands of other editors and your clients to sort this out. Also please refer to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia and Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia, now you could say you've done no worse. By an editor who've been branded a troll and after failing miserably to get Jimmy Wales to get me banned via Twitter, he had a change.org petition made to get me banned (in November) just because I've nominated his article for AfD. Donnie Park (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Donny, this is jpop73 responding from my phone that I'm not logged into. I'm sorry if I come off at all arogant. Im not arrogant. I have trouble following certain written and oral directions because I have Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It is not intentional that I dismiss things, it is part of continual battle with a neurodevelopmental condition. You are welcome to read my story about it it the Huffington Post. It is a disability, but it does not excuse all behavior, but it does lead to misunderstandings. I'm sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:B9E1:5466:643D:FAF7:916F (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's a wider question raised by this case about what to do when an editor is communicating and cooperatively working with a COI investigation. First, just my evaluation of this particular case, Jpop73 has been cooperative. Second, to the wider question, should we treat articles they created any differently than a concealed, uncooperative editor or even a non-COI editor? For myself I haven't sorted all this out in my mind, but I do know that any deletion debates must be policy-based and don't need to include the editor's history unless it supports a pattern of clear advocacy, in which case the advocacy content is a valid part of the deletion debate. In no case should deletion be punitive or reactionary. Maybe there's a case to be made in separating editors doing the investigation from those proposing follow-up action, just to avoid this kind of appearance of bias against the COI editor. – Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have to say that Jpop73 has been cooperative and has responded to all queries. Personally, I quite appreciate this and I would like Jpop73 to continue contributing productively to Wikipedia (except perhaps for the articles in which there is a possible COI). As for the question about deletion debates, I personally nominate articles for AfD only when I am convinced that it doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines, regardless of any COI editing on the article. I do mention in brief about the COI (particularly if paid), but this is just for the record. Other editors can then respond to the AfD and decide if it is worth keeping based on policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jpop73: Hi, I thought to respond to your queries again. Firstly, according to the COI policy, a conflict of interest need not be paid: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.. Additionally, it is also stated that Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
    Regarding the concerns about sending your articles for deletion, let me reassure you that the articles have been sent only because someone doubted the notability of the subject. The articles are not being sent to AfD because there was COI editing. (In many cases of COI editing, the article is just edited to return to a Neutral Point of View. However, this is only when the article subject itself is notable). I would also like to state that you are not being "targeted". Any article which doesn't satisfy notability is sent to AfD. Let me bring your attention to this comment [4] you made at the AfD of Jordan Schaul. You correctly identified the fact that the article subject was not notable. You will notice that other editors have already sent it to AfD. I hope you understand that you are not being specifically "targeted". Any article, not notable will be sent to AfD once it comes to the notice of editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lemongirl942 Thank you very much for repeating. I have Asperger's Syndrome/ High functioning autism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-schaul/i-cant-fake-it-till-i-make-it-im-autistic_b_8583670.html) and sometimes need things repeated. I also as mentioned above sometimes have difficulty following direction. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. As far as notability regarding my article, my only reference or basis for reference is from what some other editors have stated. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others marginally notable, others have said it is within the criteria of notability. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective on Wikipedia and I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions.thanksJpop73 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    John Currie, etc.

    Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

    As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not sure a COI is that hard to understand. Let's say I'm writing an article about my wife, who is reasonably well known within a certain circles. Now, I might think, as she's my wife, that she could benefit from a wikipedia page. I might, therefore, find it difficult to assess her notability independently (because I believe it is in her, and my, interest to have a wikipedia page) and I might get rather angry when others try to edit the page I've written about her or suggest that she's not notable. Clearly she is notable and important to me, but that doesn't mean she is really notable to the rest of the world who read wikipedia. In fact, in a purely objective world, I wouldn't write about my wife at all on wikipedia and would instead allow those who are uninvolved and/or knowledgeable about the field decide whether she deserves a page or not. I could say similar things about myself, my employer and so on. Generally speaking, humans find it pretty damn hard to be objective about things and people we are that close to, so WP:COI states clearly that COI edits are highly discouraged. Because it just ends up with silly emotional arguments and because in general it tends to make shitty pages.
    Paid edits are a type of COI which, to my mind, are hard to untangle. The main problem is as above: a financial relationship with the subject makes it hard - or near on impossible - to be objective. But there are degrees of financial involvement in a subject as shown by the fact that Wikipedian in residence exist. As far as I understand those guidelines, one can write about the content of (for example) a museum but there might be a problem with a page about the finances of that museum if one was actually the finance director of it,
    In terms of what you've said above, if your friend asked you to write a wikipedia page about him, the first COI question is whether you'd be able to write objectively about him. Would you be able to write about anyone who disagreed with something he said? Would you be able to write about any conflicts or crises he has been involved with if that could jeopardise your relationship with him? On a fundamental level, are you able to make a judgement about whether he honestly meets the WP:GNG in the borderline cases? Personally, I wouldn't ever write about a friend who asked me to write his wikipedia page. Because who cares what I think about him? JMWt (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies

    editors

    An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).

    • This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. [5] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.
    • Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [6]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)
    • FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [8])

    In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The combination of Positive writing on FP1's clients, negative writing on their client's opponents, as well as the specific timing involved (when FP1 took them on etc) quack loudly to me. This combination of pro/negative editing was pointed out in 2012 by an editor who subsequently was banned for socking. However it does show that the editing pattern is a long-term issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by LA. (shortening the user name); the documentation for the image says it is owned by F1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often. LA never directly edited the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud.
    • Here are the relevant edits at Kyle McCarter mentioned in the first bullet, which are very negative. Not mentioned, the edit-warring to retain them here then here then here; no talk page discussion.
    • this set of edits to the Pete Gallego article are not so blatantly POV, but see this immediately next edit by LA, removing information that LA had just added with edit note "On reflection this is not appropriate". The first edit didn't add strongly negative information (although depending on your politics it might be upsetting, e.g abortion bill) but did remove a bunch of unsourced positive content. Overall did make the person less attractive to people in the other party.
    A connection with FP1 seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this [9] does anyone know what timezone Twitter uses? Was that Twitter post made before or after this edit [10]? And what was the outside impetus for this--something that Paul Ryan said? Geogene (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also will add that I find this dialogue interesting: [11]. I'm seeing some overlapping personality traits that may be grounds for a SPI here. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, Jytdog, for looking into this. It's such a relief to finally get this into the open.
    I agree that IntermittentGardener sounds a lot like the enraged, policy-scolding tone I've gotten very familiar with from LA; I don't know if that means it's the same person, or just FP1's official policy to try to bully and shout down users who question their edits. Just at a glance I can see that IG and LA have edited several of the same obscure articles: Vocativ, Airlines for America, Robert S Rivkin, and Lenovo. IG and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot also overlap on both PJ Media and Terry Nelson. It would be extraordinary if this was coincidence. Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place? What are the next steps here? Thanks everybody. EllenMcGill (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Terry Nelson (political consultant) to case. Back to back favorable editing by eds Intermittentgardener [12] & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot [13]. Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".
    Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown opinions"). Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG). It seems increasingly likely given various similarities in apparent motive, argument style and writing habits, that the three accounts named here may be operated by a single person. - Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geogene: Re twitter times see this - the time displayed depends on your user settings, but that tweet was posted after the edit was made.
    @EllenMcGill: "Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place?" WP:SPI is the place to find that out but checkusers will only be able to compare User:Lesbianadvocate and User:Intermittentgardener because User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot hasn't edited in almost a year and there isn't a great deal of cross over between those two: [14]. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More correspondences noted. There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors if not outright socking.
    Correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.
    Correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (permlink) (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Wikipedia, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener. - Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    great. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @SmartSE: I may need to add to the SPI case, but I can't see deleted pages; could you or another admin check if User:Lesbianadvocate/sandbox is a recreation of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data whose original author appears to be Reills78? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: You're pinging the wrong me again ;) I've had a look and no, there's no similarity between them. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn it, I have to get out of the habit of c&p your signature. Anyway, thanks for checking. Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence from Commons

    I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.

    Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Further evidence at PJ Media

    I just noticed that Iliketoeatpotatoesalot and Intermittentgardener have both been editing the article PJ Media. I looked up online and found this link at the official website of PJ Media, which clearly states For Media Inquiries please contact:FP1 Strategies. I'm adding it to the list of pages above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    An IP address that's been rewriting the PJ Media article, User:219.77.82.45, also just attempted to disrupt the sock puppet investigation as well [15]. It seems extremely likely that this IP address is connected with this ring. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Results of SPI

    The SPI has concluded that the following editors are socks of User:Lesbianadvocate and at least some of their edits fit the modus operandi of PR:

    This is an earlier SPA Lenovo editor from 2011-2012 with hundreds of edits by they've been trying to own articles since 2008

    There are quite a few articles affected but the main ones to check are related to these:

    SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspected the Lenovo connection through Tt121673. It's curious to have a mix of commercial and purely political editing. I wonder if FP1 was outsourcing Wikipedia editing to another entity. - Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm thinking, a sockfarm for hire working on contract. Keaigougou8080's edits don't look politically compatible with Lesbianadvocate at all. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well I very much doubt we'll ever know, but that did cross my mind - writing laptops is hardly "winning messaging and professional execution for political and issue-based campaigns" and as you can see above the Lenovo history goes way back. As of Sep 2015 Vista Outdoor's agency was Backbone Media. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: are you sure it's backbonemedia.com not backbonemedia.net? – Brianhe (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. Thanks for pointing that out! SmartSE (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody help me connect the dots here? How do a Rocky Mountain sporting goods marketing company, a California new media oitfit, and a D.C. political PR firm and a Singaporean who also edits from a Hong Kong IP converge? I don't get it. And by the way, I think we all missed this: it looks like Singaporebobby once disclosed his affiliation with Alliant, but deleted it in December 2015. Brianhe (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am finding it hard to understand the connection as well. It is possible that jobs are being outsourced to another PR firm (possibly located in Hong Kong/Singapore). Considering that Lenovo is a Chinese company, it is plausible that the PR firm is Hong Kong/Singapore, cities which use Mandarin as an official language. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc

    User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see [[16]]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no conflict of interest- this matter was deemed accepted by other users that is accurate, further more it was objective and not promotional in any way. Furthermore I am not involved with organization its just information I have knowledge about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMCKINNON (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SMCKINNON. So your username is very, very close to that of Steve McKinnon, and you have written a great deal about Steve McKinnon. So one thing at a time, and that has to do with your relationship with Steve McKinnon. There are only two possibilities here. You are not him, but are impersonating him. This makes your account name a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE and we would need to block your account. The other option is that you have an unambiguous COI here and you need to acknowledge that and work with us to manage your COI. So please clarify which it is. There are other issues here, but that is the primary one, as it has to do with the existence of your account. So please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

    2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem.SMCKINNON (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying what is going on with the account, that is helpful. It would be really helpful if you stopped making declarations and just talked with us a bit and explained the relationships you and your company have; this whole thing is here at COIN so the community can look at what is going on and make determinations. OK, so you are CEO of Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc, and what your company does, is put on help others put on events, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do , is we help put on events that contract us to do it.SMCKINNON (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON[reply]

    As an FYI, Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc has been re-sent to AfC review with virtually no changes, and still contains statements like "one of the co-owners started to have personal life crisis" "one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else". Much of the article is still unreferenced. I will take a pass, but it's going to be serious work, and I am reluctant to do so if the COI issue isn't resolved. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I did a big edit, taking it down from 19K to 12K, removed lots of unref'd and a lot of redundancy. It still needs work. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    LAMONA I noticed a big edit, I appreciate it , some of the material such as Letter Patent and Change in ownership can only be validated by the Business License and the Articles of Incorporation. I did some work on the article and made it netural. Some of the references are there in respect to the various items have been done.SMCKINNON (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON[reply]

    SMCKINNON, the purpose of this COI noticeboard entry is not to facilitate the editing of the article in question. You have been asked to appropriately declare your conflict of interest, as per the COI policies here. Should this article be accepted at AfC, an editor with a conflict of interest is asked not to make any further direct edits to the article, but to describe requested edits on the talk page of the article. That way, other editors without a COI can make (or not make, depending on their judgment) edits with particular attention to neutral point of view. I do not believe that we have your agreement on following the policy on COI editing. I would appreciate if you would comply. The page Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest gives instructions about COI and how to make the necessary declarations. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SMCKINNON has declared COI here and made no further edits. Recommend closure of this case. - Brianhe (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Wager/ Eleesa Dadiani

    User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "I wrote the article, therefore I can edit it" [17], now graciously offering to allow it to be deleted because it doesn't present the subject to this editor's liking. Oy (channeling jytdog). Where did the idea get spread that Wikipedia is an open platform for client promotion? HappyValleyEditor, you're right. — Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "we're having Paul Wager's solo exhibition at my gallery, Dadiani Fine Art, on the 14th of April (in less than a week) and we really must have this information out there before the exhibition opens." [18] At least the COI aspect is clear from this. Putting aside the COI though, I have doubts if the article subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With some effort I was able to find only this and this, possibly not enough for notability. Unfortunately, his own web page here doesn't have much content, either biographical or links to reviews. Perhaps someone has better access to arts magazines? I'll list these sources on the talk page to make them available. LaMona (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the four huge public sculptures that have been on the Loughborough campus for a few decades, I figured he was notable. However there's next to nothing available in terms of references. I would tend to say notable and keep, despite the delte request, as the four sculptures are public, permanent and part of a public collection. I think he was probably very notable in the 70's, but things trailed off after that. Of course, notability is not temporary. Also, thanks for the support. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Arch77168 seems to have created a new article Nina Mae Fowler and Wikilinked it here [19]. I have a hunch that this is somehow linked to "Dadiani art allery" again. I would recommend keeping a watch on the content. Thankfully, Nina Mae Fowler seems to be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaun Gladwell et al

    And here we have a nice little garden of articles on Shaun Gladwell, his exhibition publication Patafunctions, his "masterpiece" video work Storm Sequence and Barbara Polla. By my count, the account User:Gladderz has logged 250 diligent edits on solely these three articles. Images of Gladwell's work added to the pages are mostly credited as "own work". It might be the artist in question editing the pages, or the gallery/dealer as suggested on the Gladwell talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gladderz may have (inadvertently?) outed himself by in this diff and per his contributions to commons. Mduvekot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice catch! Seems obvious that we are dealing with the artist. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mduvekot:: At least User:Gladderz is amusing. From his/her user page: "An escalation in my activity has aroused COI suspicions from very capable and astute wikipedians. Suspicion is called for due to my unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, including artistic output, hardware, correspondence (both personal and professional) and itinerary etc."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, HappyValleyEditor and Mduvekot Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically on Gladwell and associated work with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for advice on NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio and editing out puffery? Apologies for distraction. Should I just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?

    additionally: User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whiteley et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! Gladderz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gladderz, a couple of things. First, please do actually sign your posts with four tildas like this ~~~~. This isn't done for amusement nor aesethetics - we actually use the date stamps for stuff. If you don't sign, there is a bot that will come and auto-sign for you. Please don't delete that if it happens. Second, it is clear that you are here representing the artist. Would you please acknowledge that, and acknowledge that this creates a conflict of interest for you with regard to editing about him in Wikipedia? We can walk you through how to manage that but the first step is that we agree that the relationship creates a COI here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog, thanks for this response. and apologies for not previously signing. And yes, as Gladwell's biographer, employed independently but professionally engaged in this task, and with the access i have, there is COI and i have stopped editing the bio accordingly and will await feedback on COI management. Just read your own story WRT COI and the use of an oversighter etc. But I have stopped editing Gladwell and will hope the page can be neutralised. My impartial attempt was to add the 'criticisms' section. Thanks. (talkGladderz (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much! I will pick this up on your Talk page as it will get too long for this board.Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snehilsharma

    More articles in contribution history, the above are the recent ones.

    Has been a longstanding PR editing account, with a lot of such articles and deletions in 2011/2012 including blocks for disruptive editing in this PR venture. I've just warned about COI editing and disclosure, but a deep look is required and possibly more articles have to be nominated for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some kind of collaboration apparent at Saksham - everyone is capable & Snehil Sharma (director), re-created Snehil Sharma.
    Nominated Snehil Sharma (director) for speedy deletion per repost criteria (g4). — Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that connection, SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snehilsharma‎, the IPs in the two SPIs are in the same range so it's the same PR agent. —SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Socking by Snehilsharma/Tanishrao2015 confirmed by checkuser, no surprise there. Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI needs admin action, no blocks have been done yet. —SpacemanSpiff 16:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff: Snehilsharma was blocked at 19:06. - Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Abolitionism (bioethics)

    It looks like there are several newly created or newly active WP:SPA accounts posting to a recent series of deletion discussions, centered around the topic of effective altruism (though not on that article itself). Some searches on Facebook have provided evidence of canvassing by involved organizations, to try and get people to prevent deletion. As I'm also involved in the discussions, I'll declare upfront that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles. NeatGrey (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have been involved in the effective altruist community. I became aware of the abolitionism discussion through Facebook. However, I've been pushing for stricter standards of Wikipedia publishing and trying to prevent advocacy among effective altruists. I've been the one who wants many of these articles deleted, shortened, or made more neutral. 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)
    Huh. Did Brian Tomasik create any of these articles? Can you link the relevant diffs? NeatGrey (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He made many edits to wild animal suffering, which cited his self-published essays heavily. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, none of my edits involved my own writings. I also agree it could be good to remove the footnotes to my writings from the article. Brian Tomasik (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I became aware of the effective altruists on Facebook subsequent to becoming interested in this topic in the last few weeks, but have never met any of them in person. One member of Animal Charity Evaluators approached me on Facebook to talk about the views I expressed in the deletion discussions, subsequent to my voting. I am not personally connected to any of the individuals or ideas which these articles concern, and I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of effective altruism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a link to the Facebook discussions you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer not to. The discussion occurred about an hour ago in Facebook messenger. This was after all my comments, I believe. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some FB links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics). Some have called them canvassing. - Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, it looks like Animal Charity Evaluators is a non-profit whose article was deleted a few months ago (link). It seemed like there was some kind of off-wiki fight about Animal Charity Evaluators, which was bleeding over into the deletion discussions (link). Could someone explain what that was about? Thanks. NeatGrey (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if there is an off-wiki fight about it, but most of the people above are connected to Animal Charity Evaluators. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have been involved with Animal Charity Evaluators and the effective altruism movement, I have had no conflict of interest on these articles. I have never edited any of these articles. I am also not a "new account"; I have been on wikipedia since 2004. I have been active ONLY in the AfD discussion on these articles, and for good reason: because I am familiar with what the articles are talking about. This does not constitute a conflict of interest. I am merely an editor who knows about the topic and is explaining why the article should not be deleted on the related AfD page. I do not think it is appropriate to label me as having a conflict of interest here when the only edits I have made are to the AfD discussion page. — Eric Herboso 03:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the OP just indiscriminately listed everyone involved in the discussion. I wouldn't take it personally. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also involved with the effective altruism movement and feel I can contribute in a similar way as Eric. I am a new account, but I've been looking over Wikipedia's standards thoroughly to try to make sure they're applied fairly. I think this is important because there seems to be a fair bit of misinformation going around and at least one user who is trying to delete articles due to their ideological views rather than Wikipedia standards. (Not mentioning who it is because of WP:HA concerns.) Tempo mage (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    @Tempo mage: You're referring to me. And no, I'm not trying to delete articles based on my ideological views. What I wrote on Facebook was about my opinion of ACE and its "wild animal suffering" concept. It does not pertain to why I voted to delete those articles. The reasons for that were, respectively, the complete lack of independent sources for ACE, and the fact that "wild animal suffering" is not notable as a coherent subject in the academic literature and the article was a coatrack for a fringe idea about eradicating all suffering through either transhumanism or the destruction of nature; although some people are also concerned about "virtual animals" which exist in future computer simulations, extraterrestrial alien suffering, and the suffering of fundamental physics, a notion I will not bother to explain. It's true that also I think this is BS, and am of the opinion that it's bad for an animal rights charity evaluator to be involved in it. You can call that an "ideological view" if you like, but it wasn't the reason why I voted the way I did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard for me to believe that the alignment of your ideological views and your editing views that seem to clearly deviate from Wikipedia standards happens to be a coincidence, but I appreciate you sharing that. I hope you'll do your best to keep the two separate. Tempo mage (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    • It is unclear to me what apparent COI has been identified here; no conversations have been opened with any individual here, on their talk pages. Is the concern about actual COI (and if so, with what company or organization?), or this about advocacy? Neatguy, please do explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. To use an analogy which I think is a good fit for this situation, suppose politician Bob Jones has a Wikipedia article. Bob Jones wants to look good, so he writes to the volunteer group Friends of Bob Jones, and asks them to all come to the article and write nice things about Jones. In your view, would this count as a COI, since the writers have a conflict between their interest in helping Jones, and their interest in improving Wikipedia? Or would it be advocacy? Or both?
    Or, to use another analogy, suppose there's a website at www.instantcure.com which sells Dr. Quack's Snake Oil (the issue here isn't medical content, but I think some of it qualifies as WP:FRINGE; see discussion here). John Brown is not himself Dr. Quack, but he really likes Dr. Quack and thinks it cured his cancer, so Brown goes to Wikipedia and writes an article about how Dr. Quack's Snake Oil cures everything. Is this COI, since John Brown is a member of the group "Dr. Quack adherents", and is conflicted when editing articles about "Dr. Quack adherents"? Or is it advocacy, since Brown is not himself Dr. Quack? NeatGrey (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying! In your first example, these editors are part of an organization that supports Bob Jones so yes, they have COIs with regard to the organization and Bob Jones. They have an interest in a person or an organization. In the latter John Brown is an advocate - a "fan, a "believer." I run into that all the time when I ask people if they have some connection to B. Plenty - maybe 25%, say "no, but I love B". Then I pivot the conversation to advocacy, explain how it creates problems and giving examples of other kinds of advocacy (something simple like a vegetarian who thinks eating meat is evil and comes here writing about how great vegetarianism is and how bad factory farming is, etc). COI and advocacy are distinct issues in Wikipedia. COI is a subset of advocacy, but a pretty well-defined one. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, cool. So, there are probably several issues here, but I'll start with the most obvious one. As far as I can tell, the article Abolitionism (bioethics) is really about the theories of David Pearce, although there's some window dressing to make it look like it's not just Pearce. Pearce, who openly edits Wikipedia as the account User:Davidcpearce, also runs a public Facebook group called "The Hedonistic Imperative" (link), which he started in order to spread and organize support for his ideas. When Abolitionism (bioethics) was put up for deletion, Pearce posted it to this group (link), with a direct link to the deletion discussion. This link was then re-posted to similar groups on Facebook, such as "Abolitionist Transhumanism" and "Transpolitica". From your explanation, it seems that if a user came to the deletion discussion this way, they would have a COI with respect to David Pearce, since they are trying to keep a separate article on Pearce's ideas in Wikipedia while being a member of a group that advocates for Pearce's ideas. NeatGrey (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would point out, btw, that Davidcpearce, who is an active and experienced Wikipedian, has edited perfectly well around this topic, and IMO has done nothing even slightly wrong here. This is not so much a clear COI problem as a call-to-action problem. Many of the new/very-occasional contributors are contesting basic Wikipedia sourcing rules, for example - so they're entirely open and sincere, just approaching this in an unproductive way - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn this. Blatant meatpuppetry from Davidcpearce at Facebook here - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a distinction between having an interest in, and having a conflict of interest. Someone who writes extensively about, say, free-living animal suffering is clearly likely to be interested in the topic, but (s)he also has a conflict of interest only if (s)he has undisclosed shareholdings in a firm manufacturing veterinary anaesthetics (etc). I don't think this is the case here. Advocates of the status quo who believe that e.g. humans shouldn’t be tampering with the wisdom of Nature - or simply that humans have an unlimited capacity to screw things up even further - are unlikely to believe that wild animal suffering merits a Wikipedia entry in the first place. Critics will disagree. And so it goes on. In the case of (use whatever label your prefer) abolitionist bioethics, if I were writing or contributing to the entry, I’d give pride of place to the largely unknown Lewis Mancini (note the date of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2189064) for any discussion of scientific (or purportedly scientific) approaches. [I'd argue just as strongly in favour of a “Keep” if we were discussing the Flat-Earth Society. Cover the arguments of its proponents - Wikipedia would be poorer for their absence - but the Comments/Criticism section should make absolutely clear that their core tenet of belief is not consensus wisdom in the scientific community.] --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been a Wikipedia editor for well over 10 years. Other individuals listed here are also longtime contributors. I do have an interest in effective altruism (as I declare in my homepage), but I think it's clear that this by itself doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no canvassing for any of the articles listed above, though I'm happy to be corrected if presented with the relevant evidence. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The post by Davidcpearce is a violation of WP:MEAT and is in my view, a post that calls for an indefinite block or TBAN. Blatant violation. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Meatpuppetry and a personal attack! Lovely. (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh, sometimes I wonder... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a response that is helpful to you. This piece of this probably needs to be escalated to ANI. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can go through the procedure for this, I'd be most pleased to co-sign - David Gerard (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. It is here. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiously, the proposer under her normal Wikipedia editing handle seems to be a long-standing member of the FB group...Abolitionist Transhumanism. So I'm confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Purple WiFi

    A hyper-slick advertorial for a company called purple Wifi. Editor declares no COI-- yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is concerning that the very first link I checked [20] is about a regional industry award, issued by an industry publication, citing the same publication. This has been noted as a hallmark of WP:PROMO articles about businesses. - Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably worth widening this to TuneCore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Carnimsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has interests overlapping with User:Meyasal --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Domenick Nati / NatiCelebs.com

    I noticed this after I saw it at ANI. The user JellyfishFilms seemed to have created multiple sockpuppets to vote at AfDs and recreate articles multiple times (with variant spellings). I am reasonably sure that "Nati Celebrity Services" is the one behind this. The strongest evidence is this twitter account of the CEO Domenick Nati, which contains a link to the deleted Wikipedia article Domenick Nati. The profile pic is incidentally a screenshot of the Wikipedia page. Bobo Norco seems to be linked to NatiCelebs as well. It would be great if others could keep a look out for any more sockpuppets/promotional articles by this agency. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added Ryan Totka to the list above, which is another article that appears to be associated with JellyfishFilms+socks and which has been deleted several times. I've also fixed your link to ANI, @Lemongirl942: hope you don't mind. Also, yes indeed, Domenick Nati's twitter is pretty damning -- I've been using it for the past week or so to find the link to his newest salt-dodging article title, because it was always updated immediately in his Twitter bio. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was in a hurry and wasn't able to link it properly haha. Thanks for your help. Anyway, coming back to NatiCelebs, I have a hunch they are not going to stop so easily. So I recommend keeping a watch out for any similar articles. If you find anything, please update here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a edit filter is in order here? Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard S. Newcombe

    User Gabriellemh has stated on my userpage,

    Good afternoon,

    I am new on wikipedia but I have some important information to update on Richard S. Newcombe. I was working on the updates and it seems that half of my submission wasn't saved correctly due to Kasperbot's rejection to the first save. I was saving because I didn't want to loose the information we had typed in. I realize I could have avoided this however I am in this situation of trying to recover valuable information. Also I do have sources to back my information I just didn't get around to updating them as I am slow to because I am new. I would appreciate your kindness towards this matter.

    I am the marketing specialist for Creators Syndicate.

    I replied both there and on her page, "In response to your comment on my page, I suggest you immediately read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as your statement indicates you have a fundamental COI and should not be editing the Wikipedia pages in question."

    I note that one of the edits appears to downplay alleged child sexual abuse. Ogress 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ogress: Since the user has declared their COI, and you have advised them of COI guidelines, what's the problem here, or in other words, what exactly are you asking us to do at this noticeboard? - Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: I had two concerns:
    1. to note the COI (telling me, a random editor, they have a COI in passing without being aware of its import - hence my quote above - is definitely not the same as declaring a COI)
    2. I do not know the procedures around editing with a COI and the user does not appear to understand how to edit under the constraints of the COI and they are clearly doing it as their job, which means it's not likely they are going to go away
    Their reply to my comment was, "I understand your concern for COI however I am providing facts. I just didn't provide the links right away before I submitted the information. I am not editing to take a specific side or steer away from facts. I am uploading information regarding the company and will be providing references for that information." At this point, I'm hoping someone can give them some direction as I have never dealt with COI issues in my 10 years here and they definitely don't seem to understand it. Ogress 18:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Betsson

    User:Stephaniefiteni is a SPA of someone who by their own admission works for Betsson ("changes [...] by the Betsson Group's Communications Director" and "we will [add] more accurate official content") [21] The user have already been warned about having a COI issue (by someone other than me), the article talk-page have also already been tagged, yet the account have continued to repeatedly make changes that amount to nothing more than removing sourced text, adding wikipuffery and introducing new unreferenced material [22] [23] The edits have all been reversed by User:Doc James, but maybe it's time to ban this user? / Gavleson (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see if we can get her to talk with us. She may be able to make some good suggestions on the Talk page, if she is interested in working with the community. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Menon Holdings Group

    Menon Holdings Group was quite the work of masterful obfiuscation when I fist came across it. I can only assume that this is what the work of paid professional editor looks like. I removed some promotional copy, and was promptly thanked by the creator, who then added back the removed material with the opposite edit comment: "removing advertorial copy". I had a go at the article again and found a mass of bogus references (Histopedia,World Heritage Encyclopedia). Most of the activity seems to be centered around propping up causes of Shilpa Menon-- ie. her book, company and bio. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is pretty straight-forward COI editing. Ashleymillermu has created a page for Menon, for her company, and for her "acclaimed novel" and has added Menon to various pages, like List of Mauritian writers, Mauritian literature, List_of_alumni_of_the_University_of_Cape_Town, Index_of_Mauritius-related_articles. The "acclaimed novel" is self-published (Notion Press), and doesn't even have an ISBN, so even if the Menon business is retained, I would remove the page for the book as well as any of the pages referring to her as an author. This could be the work of a dear friend, but it is a good simulation of professional PR. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    With the greatest of respect for you User:HappyValleyEditor I think what you are indulging in is plain slander against me. And since this piece you posted here refers to me, I need to clear the air on all the issues you raised. I am only trying to help build more content about Mauritius and I am new to Wikipedia. I am not paid to do any of the contents featured there so your allegation of COI is not well founded. Yes, you flagged a few sections for advertorial language and I promptly tried to correct it. I repeat, I am new to Wikipedia and am open to suggestions on improving articles I post. However, I don't agree with you that the references I have cited are bogus. All are live links. AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As regards User:LaMona's views - there is an ISBN number featured for the book at if Amazon has featured an author with an ISBN number, I don't think that is bogus !AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I rest my case and request User:HappyValleyEditor to help make the articles I am submitting to have better content than to raise unfounded insinuation and indulge in disparaging work that has taken time to make. What you are doing borders on targeted harassment. AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have simply cleaned up your articles, which had a lot of unreliable sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your edits - yes. They were good. But removing some thousand words from the plot summary from Scars Do Heal how is that cleaning up ? I read the book and I know it is reliable. What do you have to say in your defence when you claim it is unreliable ? It will help me see from your perspective. Cheers AM (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. AM, Two things. First. This board is not for discussing article content. It is for determining if you have a COI or advocacy issues, and to try to work with you on that. I took that to your talk page, and we can come back here when we are done there, if you like. Second, in a conversation in Wikipedia discussing content (which is again not what this board is for) "I read the book and I know it is reliable" is kind of... nonsense, here in Wikipedia. Please just disengage for now, until you are better grounded. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick note on the COIN filing. "Shilpa Menon" is not an uncommon name. That user only did one thing here - created an article on Innomantra Consulting, which was deleted. if you google "Shilpa Menon Innomantra Consulting" you will see that a young person with that name from India interned there not long ago. The Shilpa Menon that AshelyMillermu wrote about, is a different "Shilpa Menon". So I am striking the user Shilpa Menon from this case. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long story short - I do not have any COI with the articles/issues featured above. And thank you Jytdog for all the learning. Cheers AM (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The story is not over. You have said that you believe you have no COI. Great. You and I can talk more, and we can come back here when we are done. You don't seem to understand the issues that led to this thread arising yet. As long as you don't, these issues are very likely to arise again. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Savage

    COI Editor SPA whitewashing well-sourced content SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor (Zendug) replied on the talk page. See [24].
    Zendug Let's continue the conversation here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zendug: Firstly, since you stated that you are "a friend of someone who works for Michael Savage" and "who asked you to try to edit the page", it is still a Conflict of Interest(COI). As a first step, please read our guidelines on COI. Since you have a conflict of interest, it is useful if you suggest edits, instead of editing the article directly. To answer your second query, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which merely collects information already reported. Sometimes, this includes information which may not be to the article subjects liking (for example information about controversies someone was involved in). However, we do not remove information simply because the article subject doesn't like it. If something has been reported widely in reliable sources (Newspapers, books etc), it may merit inclusion in the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, legal threats wouldn't work here since Wikipedia merely reports what has already been said in reliable sources (please also see our guidelines about "No Legal Threats"). If you have any concerns about the content on the article, it is best if you let us know (on the article talk page) and tell us about your concerns, rather than removing the information directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think i understand, I am trying to figure this out as I go along. The lawsuit question is one I have to ask since i am sure they will bring it up. so basically what I am understanding is there is nothing someone can do about heving their privacy protected once it is up on wikki, because it was in a new article? Zendug (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If by "having their privacy protected" you mean controlling what's in the article about them, then certainly they cannot! Can you imagine what fluff and horsefeathers would be left if the subjects of articles got to control what was written about them? Content of articles is expected to come from verifiable, reliable sources, and may be challenged on that basis on the talk page of an article. As to the lawsuits: we really don't tolerate even tacit threats of legal action against Wikipedia, so please don't mention such a thing again, as it could easily get you blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Zendug is it now clear to you have that you have a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia with regard to Savage? Please confirm. Once you do, we can discuss what you should do from here on out. It is fine for you to be here and participate, but we need to establish "ground rules" and if you are going to be productive, you need to understand how the policies that govern content, which we can talk about after we get done with this COI stuff. But please reply, acknowledging that you have COI for Savage. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael S. Smith II

    User's edits are mainly laudatory contributions to Michael Smith article and his company Kronos Advisory. User is responsible for most of content on both pages. COI and sockpuppet concerns previously raised. 91.217.91.54 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    New checked= variable

    A new |checked= variable has been added {{Connected contributor}} and {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Marek Glezerman

    Strightforward COI editing of autobiography, with reverts and deletion tag removals. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    yep, nice catched. i noted your PRODing above. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be closed now, I think. LaMona did a nice job bringing it up to snuff.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article is ok at this point, but I don't see evidence of complying with COI as the user has not responded. Should we continue to try to have a conversation? LaMona (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag of Syria

    User has indicated that he is working for the Syrian Interim Government,[25][26] is editing at the instruction or request of the Interim Government,[27] and is a politician.[28] User has made changes based on a clearly partisan view[29] and has refused to provide secondary sourcing. Can another user provide assistance to make sure that policies on verifiability and neutrality are followed in this article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes this is a problem. I have written to them at their talk page. We'll see how this goes but my sense now is that this is person is going to end up being blocked per WP:NOTHERE. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on his talk page. I doubt this will get anywhere, he will be blocked soon if he keeps this up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Savage (radio personality)

    Autobiography/COI/puffery centered around Mike Savage. Radioexpress is also likely username volation. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: kudos to Orangemike for noticing that the now blocked Msav123 had outed himself in edit comments as an artist management company with the same name as the article title! Sharp eyes. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse yet, his edit comments over nine years of editing make it quite clear that he was only here to make articles conform to his and his clients' preferences, rather than NPOV, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User Msav123 identified himself or herself as the manager of Meiko (American singer) with this. They have edited the article from 2007 until late last year. Same editor created Mike Savage (radio personality) about ten days ago. - Brianhe (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Mike Savage (insert role) week at COIN.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually got confused seeing the similar name and was wondering where did the legal threats go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    updated articles etc and have filed an SPI. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, Jytdog!.......HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleveland Clinic

    Articles
    Users

    There appears to be a years long promotional effort associated with these articles. Charles Parks Richardson is a doctor that is affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and Reliant Heart. The four accounts named above are essentially single purpose accounts adding promotional content to these articles. The username DRCRichardson matches "Dr C Richardson". This user claims not to be Dr Richardson himself, but is rather creating articles "on behalf of Dr. Charles Richardson" (diff). DRCRichardson created Charles Parks Richardson. The user Cleveland Heart, with an obvious username connection, started a second version of Charles Parks Richardson. The user ReliantHeart, again with an obvious username connection, has edited at ReliantHeart Inc. The user Jlambert1984 connects all the users and articles with promotional editing at each article. Deli nk (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jlambert1984, Cleveland Heart, DRCRichardson, and ReliantHeart: the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require editors who have been paid for their contributions to say who is paying them and who the client is. See WP:PAID for details. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of those accounts should be blocked per USERNAME; I have tagged them, and opened a discussion with JLambert on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, you wrote to him or her: "There is a place for paid editing here." There isn't really a place for paid PR editing, at least not direct editing, per WP:NOPAY. That some people get away with it doesn't mean the community wants it. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out that I wrote sloppily there. I just fixed it. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making the change, but it's still misleading. You wrote: "There is a place for paid editors in the community, but getting paid to edit absolutely must be disclosed per WP:PAID and you must follow the other policies and guidelines as well." The terms of use advise that local policies or guidelines may have stricter requirements, and they do, namely WP:NOPAY. Why not point that out to these SPAs? We do make exceptions for non-PR paid editing, but given that you're dealing here with paid advocacy, why not just advise them to stop editing articles directly? SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your issue seems to be that I didn't say the part about "not editing directly", at this point. With JLambert we do not have a disclosure of paid editing yet, nor a self-disclosure that JLambert has a COI. WP:APPARENTCOI is very clear, for sure. You will note that in what I have currently on their page, I did not actually say that they are editing for pay nor claim that they actually have a COI, because I don't know yet. I said it appears that that they do. The first step is to get a self-disclosure. Cramming everything into the first step of what I am hoping becomes a dialogue is not something that promotes actual dialogue or voluntary disclosure, which is what I am after. I left the door open so that in subsequent turns of the discussion I can bring up the no-directly-editing thing. But getting folks to disclose is the first step, and enables management that doesn't run afoul of OUTING. Bringing a heavy enforcement mentality before we have a self-disclosure is unwise and unproductive, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pointless to tip-toe around it when it's so obvious. Lots of other people read those messages too, so saying "there's a place for paid editing" without explaining what you mean risks misleading them too. Better to stick to what the policy (WP:PAID) and guideline (WP:COI) say. SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Reliant and Richardson articles contain(ed) a great deal of background information that is not directly related to the subject of the articles. I have removed that from the Reliant article - The Richardson article will take a greater effort, but in the end will be much briefer than it is today. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    LaMona, I had a little go at Charles_Parks_Richardson and was able to reduce the character count/obfuscation by 50%. I'm actually finding that rewriting promotionally-toned articles in very simplistic (aka bad) prose creates very objective Wiki articles. E.g. "He started company X. He was the director of X. In 2010, X was sold." HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Breakage of the Sunflower: pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq (Documentary_Literature)

    I just have a hunch that this is not the nost objective editing possible as there is astrong promotional tone to these articles. The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you HappyValleyeditor for pointing this out as it will promote me to revise the content carefully. In fact, all these articles were originally written in Arabic and translated to English. Indeed, I am interested in providing an idea about this writer and his work especially with all the wars going on in our area. However, that does not mean that it should be with promotional tone, rather it should be written and received objectively. I will spend time revising and I would be grateful if you can point out what is meant, for example, by "The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author".
    thanks again..
    --Katib-mo (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Katib-mo: Hi, thank you for replying here. What HappyValleyEditor means is that an article about a book should not contain "a list of books by the same author". An article about an author can have a list of books. I would also like to ask you a question. Are you by any chance related to Jamal Hussein Ali (for example, friend/family/employee/publisher etc). Please let us know here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another book, has same section with list of author's works. Under-referenced. LaMona (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you much Lemongirl942 not only for pointing out to me that lists of publications of an author shouldn't be included in a book page, but also fixing it. I actually didn't know that. I will go now to the Arabic pages and fix accordingly. As someone new here and despite intensive time in educating myself about Wikipedia rules, it seems there is always something new to know. so thanks for people like you who help in that regard. In terms of any relationship with the author, I don't know him in person and he is not a relative or a friend or a colleague. I wrote about him as someone who is interested in the situation in the middle east (wars and human tragedies), he is a known writer that I found his work and publications unique in terms of his approach to what is facing this area. thanks again for your help. I will actually go back to all the posts in few days time to look at them with a fresh eye. let me know if I can do anything to make them better please. Katib-mo (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi LaMona, do you mean the list of books published by the author, as it has been removed by another editor thankfully (please see my response to Lemongirl942 above)?. If there is are other remarks, kindly share with me. Thank you. Katib-mo (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Katib-mo - yes, that is what I mean. I saw in the Arabic WP that those lists of books were included and that seems to be ok there. English WP uses different article styles so those don't work here. It's good that others are doing edits - the style/content norms here are hard to explain in words, but are fairly obvious when we look at articles. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gianfranco Lotti

    First report. Please be gentle. Feedback appreciated.

    User seems to be heavily promoting in the Gianfranco Lotti article, and is injecting the business name into other articles. He has also redirected a long-standing redirect page GFL (reverted by me since) and created generic redirects (Florence Leather, Luxury handbags which would appear to be candidates for speedy deletion).

    A couple of users attempted to engage the user via talkpage in February, without obvious reciprocation (ping @Blythwood and Mabalu:)

    Username suggests involvement with the company. Would appreciate experienced CoIers taking a look. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for spotting this! Redirecting names for generic products to your company is blatant spamming and the kind of thing where you can't say that you just didn't realise that it isn't allowed. They've only added one genuine citation to the GFL article so constructive activity is basically non-existent. I think they should be given a final warning or blocked. I haven't tagged the redirects for SD yet so people can see them. Blythwood (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted a couple more of the user's edits at Italian design and History of Italian fashion where the edits were clearly misrepresentative and not supported by sources. Is the image inserted at Rick Yune acceptable? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo there is unrelated to the article, other than being a picture of Yune, but it doesn't support any content in the article. I see it as promotional and think it should be removed. Note that all of the photos are listed as "own work", which I somehow doubt. LaMona (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've temporarily removed the image at Rick Yune. I agree with LaMona that the license for the image files need to be verified. GFL Marketing has uploaded multiple files to Commons as "own work". For all we know, the photographer could still have the permissions. There doesn't seem to be any copies on the internet so hopefully it is not a blatant copyvio. I'm not particularly familiar with files so I don't know how to proceed (speedy deletion or nominate for deletion). Would appreciate if someone else can help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo is from Lotti's web site: here. The Lotti company may own the rights. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link! Tagged it for speedy deletion as I cannot find any evidence that Lotti has released it under a compatible licence. I've initiated a conversation here [30]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit at Via Monte Napoleone seems to me to be ok, other than that they added the street number to the photo. I have confirmed the facts and there are sources that can be used. There is also a factual edit to Quadrilatero della moda that should be allowed to stand, although it could use a reference. All of these "upscale shopping district" articles are intentionally promotional, but there are dozens of them so it's easier to just let this stand. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page recreated

    It appears the page was CSD'd and deleted yesterday. User has recreated the page this morning and has suggested on his talk page that it will be unbiased. Still looks a bit like an advert to me. Gricehead (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged the new one for speedy as an advert as well. "The most distinctive detail on every Gianfranco Lotti bag: the iconic key-lock shape, dipped several times in gold, as it is a precious jewel. A symbol of bold identity, taken from one of Florence’s historic city gates." Yeah, that's an advert. All but one of its facts (that a new store opened in a given location) are sourced to the subject itself. (There's another third-party source listed, a Who's Who, but it's for a field in the infobox tag that doesn't actually appear in the display.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Promise I'll get brave enough to do it myself. Soon. Maybe. Gricehead (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed promo from Gianfranco Lotti, added sources (mainly from Italian fashion magazines, although more may be needed). That it is one of the luxury stores along Montenapoleone is significant. If the GFL COIs cease direct editing, then at least that article may be salvable. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kikai Labs

    Company page created, editied and reverted by founder of company. Editor name identical to founder name, also acknowledged "Yes, I am the founder!" on his/her talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am merely posting the history of a company that IS relevant in the 3d printing scene of South America. I know its history well because as stated, I founded it. If this article were posted by a third party would it be acceptable? Also as I pointed out it is an entry similar to all the other entries under List_of_3D_printer_manufacturers, so if mine is not acceptable then all those other entries should be removed as well. If you google "Kikai Labs" you will see many many newspaper articles about the company. These can be listed as the Sources (just give me time) if that will make it more acceptable. The editor removed almost the whole article, in particular the history of Products and also the company's contributions to 3d printing (even if minor). The article is not self-promoting, it is not selling anything, it is just recording history (this could be relevant to anyone doing a news story, for instance). Thank you. Mruizcamauer (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mruizcamauer: Thanks for coming here and talking. It's great that you're doing that. You have correctly pointed out that some articles have content issues and need correction. However before we address that, it is important that you do one thing then we can continue the conversation. Since you have acknowledged your conflict of interest as the company founder, would you agree to abide by the community practices for editors with a conflict? There is a way for you to suggest changes for others to review in our model, but best practice involves you allowing other editors to consider those changes, and to apply them or not, in a dispassionate way. Details here. - Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Would this be what I need to put at the top of the page to disclose the "COI" properly? If so, can I add the missing content again? (sorry, I'm a newbie in this)

    Mruizcamauer (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes to question one. As for question 2, you should discuss the problems on the talk page with editors, and not directly edit the article. You should not add content without editor consensus, because you should not be editing the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pali Road

    Hello. I'm not sure if this applies, and I don't know exactly how to initiate conversation if it does, so please forgive me if I'm out of my lane. A large number of edits to this article, which is about a film, seem to be made by the film's director, who is registered but whose user page hasn't been created. If this user is the director, is this a conflict of interest (is a creative work a "company?"), and if it is a COI, should I create the user page and seek clarification? Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mitchell k dwyer: Thank you for posting this. This is surely a COI, assuming of course that the user account belongs to the director. The user in question has also been uploading images whose copyright status will need to be verified. I have tried to initiate a conversation on the talk page. Let's wait for a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks for your example in how to deal with this situation. I'm filing it away for reference and will keep an eye on the discussion. <3 Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cloudnine Hospitals

    Article is target of suspected advocacy editing ("[the founder's] resilience and perseverance saw his brain child grow and expand into a country famous, super-specialty chain of hospitals") with usual dubious awards section, etc. I did some cleanup in January, now it looks like an anonymous editor is back on it. Brianhe (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology

    The editor who created Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT) has admitted on the article talk page to be a PR employee of the organization. This person keeps adding promotional and problematic material, including, in some cases, copyrighted material. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Added the article and the user above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff admitting that they are from the KRICT PR team. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cleaned up the article and tagged for revision deletion. A certain section was blatantly copied from the official website. The user seems to have been warned previously and has not replied on the user talk page. Nevertheless, I have left another message. Let's see if the user replies this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Diannaa has indef'd the user for repeated copyright violations. --Drm310 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cavendish School, Camden

    article draftified; editor very reasonable, complying with PAID and COI Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User is creating a page whose name shares their username. Jodamaster (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that bad? I can change my username if that would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecavendishschool (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Thecavendishschool; your username violates our username policy. I will leave a note on your talk page about that, which will have a link to fix that. In addition, you need to follow the WP:PAID policy, and please also follow the WP:COI guideline. I leave you a note on your talk page about that too! (But short story is, especially after you change your account name, you need to disclose your connection to the school (I assume you are an employee?) and now that the article exists, you should offer changes on the Talk page for peer review, instead of making them directly; that way the integrity of Wikipedia is protected from the conflict of interest. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - they changed their username and consented to draftifying it, so of course they can work on it there. Almost done working through COI management with them... Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brian Watson (entrepreneur)

    This article was just created by a new account and has all signs of a paid job: the new account made a number of inconsequential edits to a bunch of random articles and then created this article in just 5 edits. It has a grand total of 24 (!) references, but a quick check shows that it's the usual: either very minor coverage, unreliable sources, or really absolutely trivial stuff ([http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/09/02/denver-business-journal-names-2014-power-book.html?page=all "In September 2014, Watson was included in the list of Denver Business Journal Power Book finalists"). I have currently no time to look into this in more detail, perhaps somebody here can have a look and see whether I am just being paranoid... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your paranoia seems justified. Note how they mention Shawn McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in their edit summaries of that draft - that was created by Happywriter101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a very similar editing pattern. Probably worth an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, this one needs an SPI. I get a feeling that there could be paid editing involved. The edit summaries are highly unusual. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to shave off 2100 bytes of puffery using my patented puffTrim™ human algorithm. COI aside, definitely notable.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I spotted this one on Upwork, and yes, it was a paid editing job, by an editor blocked some time ago for running a large paid-editing sock farm. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilby: Are you allowed to say which sockfarm? - Brianhe (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have said that. It is User:Mamadoutadioukone. I've blocked Iamhuman9925. The Happywriter101 account is also interesting - Shawn McNulty was in all likelihood a paid editing job as well, as it was advertised on Elance before it was taken over by Upwork. So it seems very likely that Happywriter101 is connected. - Bilby (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Has it been noted before that the master kept a "portfolio" in his sandbox [31]? Also de.wiki [32] and fr.wiki [33] with a different username. Neither appears to be blocked. The sandbox stuff leads me to IronFX and User:Andrew Condie who is blocked but there seems to be a team at work there. I'm sure there's more if we go looking. - Brianhe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More accounts likely involved in sockfarm, via interwiki connections:
    These all created/expanded IronFX on the es.wiki and interesting stuff on en.wiki. - I can't see deleted articles, but an admin might find more connections at Crossinvest (Asia). - Brianhe (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that - I'll follow it up. IronFX is an interesting case, as it was before he was identified as running a sock farm (but was a paid job through Elance). Since Elance was taken over by Upwork a lot of the old connections are hard to make. But hopefully we can do something. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More above. See global contribs for continuity. It's apparent we have a long-term sockfarm at play. - Brianhe (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Price

    User has specifically and only edited content for Dan Price and his company Gravity Payments. Most notably commending Dan Price on the company page and removing any negative (and well-cited) information from the person's page. A search of the IP address links it directly to Gravity Payments in Seattle. "GRAVITY PAYMENTS PAET-SEA-GRAVI-1 (NET-40-139-138-240-1) 40.139.138.240 - 40.139.138.247 Windstream Communications Inc WINDSTREAM (NET-40-128-0-0-1) 40.128.0.0 - 40.143.255.255" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InitiatedCall (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2016‎

    Olejjoerges

    This is really more of a request for comment at this point, than a request for action.

    Olejjoerges has admitted a COI, but doesn't seem to have disclosed anywhere what that COI is. To their credit, they are trying to do right by WP and are getting a bit spammy with edit requests on a shot gun blast of people who have been a part of the Red Bull Music Academy, rather than doing the edits themselves.

    Still, the overall effect seems to be more promotional than encyclopedic, pasting Red Bull and links to the RBMA in lot of articles for its own sake. Doesn't quite feel in line with the spirit of COI requests. Moreso, each edit request taken independently seems fine, but taken as a whole seems somewhat less so. TimothyJosephWood 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I counted seventeen (17!) edit comments on their contribs page that read "Requesting edit: Participation in the Red Bull Music Academy in Melbourne 2006". Pure advertising efforts. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this user yesterday when I was going through the requested edits list (on the top right). Although the user has implied a COI and thankfully just requested an edit, the edits still count as promotional. Personally, I would decline all these edit requests unless there are reliable secondary citations discussing the artist's participation in the RMBA. I'm curious to hear what others think about this though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've implemented a couple of these, before realising their somewhat spammy nature. I would be happier implementing them if the details of the COI was declared. That said, I don't think the edits are necessarily bad, as many of the articles they are on are somewhat stubbish in nature, so adding more content wouldn't go amiss. WP:N only applies to articles, not content therein, and I don't consider [34] to be an unreliable source. The question really is if it would be giving undue weight to Red Bull Music Academy, which I personally think it wouldn't. To clarify, my personal opinion is that these REs are mostly harmless, but I will stop implementing them until we have a clear consensus here. —  crh 23  (Talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ignore them on the basis that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Also from that page: Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. The requested edits are clearly using Wikipedia as a means of promotion for a product.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Sokoloski

    User has admitted on my talk page that they are an RA to this professor, representing an obvious COI issue. Jodamaster (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Natalia Toreeva

    I accepted this AfC submission but the article still needs in serious copyediting. I do not have an impression that the edits of the subject of the article improve the text, but of course I am not a native English speaker (neither is she).Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I would appreciate assistance in explaining to the user that she must stop editing the article. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try opening a dialogue on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a go at trimming this page down. It was a perfect example of why people should not edit their own Wikipedia pages. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A;lso, Ymblanter, you need to notify her on her talk page that there is a discussion here, with {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~..... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will notify her now.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both of you, let us see how the situation will develop.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    she was back on the page today adding invented references (ref title for exhibtion attached to general web site ref).HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Lemongirl942, I did not add anything, I deleted [ ] around O. Sidlin, and it was missing the Reference from the text, so I included this Ref to the text. But now you deleted it. Someone of you deleted almost all the text/pictures, sections/references and now I got the missing of Notability message, asking to add the References. How I can do it if you are laughing at me, and I'm not permitted to do any editing? I need help to fix the problem. I did not expect too much stress from how the editors handle it. Please help with the article problem. Should some material be restored/rephrased, etc? Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toreeva: Hi Toreeva. Sorry, I didn't have time to look at this before. I just read your response [35] on your talk page. Thank you for responding. First let me say that I empathise with your desire to tell the world about soviet non-conformist art. I understand that certain aspects of history have been documented less often than they should have and it is necessary to document it before it slips away. I appreciate that you are trying to tell the world about it.
    Now let me talk a bit about a very important concept of Wikipedia - verifiability. Any article in Wikipedia needs to include citations. You can think of Wikipedia like a peer-reviewed journal - anything added needs references. Now these references need to be reliable and independent. News reports, articles in scholarly journals, books etc. are considered reliable references. However personal websites/blogs are not considered reliable (as there may not be an editorial process). It is also preferable that these references are independent. Any information added to Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliable sources.
    I have seen that some of the content you have added has been removed. This is possible because of 3 reasons - 1. There are no references for the text 2. The reference may not exactly talk about the subject. 3. The reference is either not independent or not considered reliable. (References to blogs and personal websites, where anyone can submit content are not considered reliable).
    I would also like to add something. It is not necessary that references have to be in English. If you have references in Russian, it is OK as well. In this case (about Soviet art), I feel there might be more Russian references than English references.
    The last point is, Wikipedia discourages people from directly editing the article about themselves/any related people/organisations. This is something we try to follow. So I would appreciate if you do not edit it directly. However, you can always suggest edits to the article and someone else can edit it. This is done by going to the talk page Talk:Natalia_Toreeva, clicking on the link "request corrections or suggest content" (on the top) and telling us what you want to be added.
    Thank you! I hope I have answered some of your queries. Please post here if you need any more help. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Lemongirl942 and thanks for your response. You included Ref only for the exhibitions, but about Museums and Publishing was all deleted. I did not use any blogs, so all ref. were reliable and can be used as you feel more appropriate to use. But delete all? I did not have before question of Notability, only promotional tendency but since all material was deleted now I got notability. Someone from Teahouse told that since I was an artist and emigrated from USSR, it is automatically should be in Notability category. Now, it is problem since, I think, it was all deleted that I emigrated from USSR. I understand the text needed to be edited but delete everything I don't understand the goal. Please check all my references in Museums and Publishing, what you think it is appropriate, I would incl. back. But in the format of 1 line I don;t think it is enough for the article. Please help me with the article to be appropriate to be accepted. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toreeva: Ah, I'll explain that as well. Let me take this discussion to your talk page since I guess the COI thing has been sorted for the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello again, Lemongirl942, sorry I'm writing from our library since my computer does not work. I just want to add the following: When I started article I looked other's artists articles whom I know from St. Petersburg to follow the structure. I don't want to show the wrong things, I'm happy for them that they are included in wiki, but look at their articles, for example, Alek Rapoport, Anatoly Belkin, Alexander Ney, Vladimir Lisunov, etc. They have their Sections as Early life, Careers, Exhibitions, Museums, and almost no References. If the reference, it is only ref. to Museum itself, but no artist's name there. It is because, the Museums don't list the artists in their collections. So you should not delete the Museums where the artwork in their collection, since no reference is there. They put names of the Museums only. And if they put the books, it does not show their names there. I can included the ISBN in the books I mentioned if you want. I don't understand why someone deleted Museums and Publications sections with the reasonable list of References, but comparing with other artists Articles, these sections should not be deleted. As I see that for the Articles for the artists, probably who understand the art and specifically the Russian/Soviet art 1970s-1980s, would understand that you can't find any record/references of the artists of that time (before falling of Soviet Union), but it does not mean that those artists were not notable. So, it should not be deleted the sections of their activities at that time as the artists. Same with the Education. Only art schools are mentioned, so the Education section also should not be deleted. I asked to correct grammar, sentences structure, but delete all material? And now it is 'notability' problem, how I can prove notability if all participation in Museums, and publishing were deleted? Probably to the artist's article, it should be some specific approach. And why Filmography was deleted? Is it part of the Career in USSR? Does someone checked why the pictures were also deleted? The copyright numbers sent to the wiki review, should not have the problem. Then, why they were deleted? Hope you would look again to the article and correct it in the way it would not have a problem. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Lemongirl942, You can check: 1) www.artdialogues.narod.ru/1997 for "Dialogues: Biennial of Contemporary art. Central Exhibition Hall "Manege", 1997, where 3d Dialoques exh was presented. 2) artunion.ru/painters/e2-17-1.htm, where Natalia Toreeva is registered in the Register of Professional Artists of Russia Empire, Russian emigration, etc. 3) best.artunion.ru/be2-20.htm or best.artunion.ru/best_engl.htm, then click on 'T' or http://www.10000best.com/be2-20.htm 4) http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2182510/ The book "Twenty Thousand Faces of Pasternak" is there. 5) http://encspb.ru/object/2855704621?lc=ru "School of Sidlin" and its members of this art group included in St. Petersburg Encyclopedia (in Russian), but you can go to their web and click on "Translate this page". All these references could be valuable from wiki point of view. Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Toreeva: Thank you. I will verify the links you provided in a while. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Lemongirl942. Also, in the Ref #6 the word "smena" is in red. "Smena" is the Russian on-line newspaper. I did not see this article before, very good info. But Red color probably meaning that the word "smena" is in [ ], so please check it, and if indeed it is the problem, just delete [ ] around "smena". Thanks.Toreeva (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Humanity protecting party

    The user created an article, Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka, an article on a Sri Lankan political party, which I tagged for speedy. He went on and created Humanity protecting party, a recreation of the first article, and messaged me on my talk page at User_talk:Optakeover#speedy_deletion_of_humanity_protecting_party saying he is the general secretary of the party, and requesting that the article not be speedily deleted. I am making this report as this is the first time I'm dealing with what I see as a COI issue, with a user directly associated with an organisation creating and editing an article of his/her organisation. Request for comment and/or action, thank you. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Dumindu111222 has already been blocked for making legal threats (here [36]). I suggest everyone to keep a look out for page recreation/socking activity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Boy, that escalated quickly. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal

    There is probably some kind of COI editing (and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) going on with the intention to promote Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal. Today I found a redirect (titled "Rohit Sahgal") and tagged it for Speedy Deletion [37] as it seemed an unlikely typo for "Sehgal". This was originally created by Majulah1965. My speedy tag was removed [38] by Hendrick 99 with the edit summary (This is a useful redirect.<ref>[http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/2011/nov/08/awardwinning-rohit-sahgal-named-apac-regional-director/]</ref>). A couple of minutes later, the IP added this. I noticed that both the user accounts were previously heavily involved in discussions at an AfD about the company. I am reasonably certain that COI editing (along with sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) is taking place. Can someone else have a look and confirm? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lemongirl942: FYI. I don't think you were here when Ogilvy came up last time: Archive 89 and before that, Archive 87. – Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for the pointer Brianhe. This [39] is weird. Why are there two different groups both trying to edit the Ogilvy article? One from Washington DC and another from Singapore? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they (Ogilvy) have a Singapore office and a DC office. When this came up before it appeared that someone in Singa was acting kind of on their own, at least that was my conclusion and what an Ogilvy rep stated (see archive 87). Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jon Lindquist

    Something fishy going on with the above accounts. The two pages mentioned are connected, as, I believe, are the editors. Looking at the references used in one of the pages, I was able to establish that ahasalone probably has a strong conflict and is behind the engineering/creation of references that support the notability for these page. USer aliciadewi only leaves the edit comment "Improved article and references" or "improved article", regardless of what was done. Strange. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, a COI is probable in this case. I looked over the edit logs, the "Improved article" is suspicious. User:ahasalone definitely has a COI. User:aliciadewi might work in an advertising company, due to not just making COI edits on one page or related pages. I left a message on User:aliciadewi's page about her edit summaries. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty and Drmies:: an admin might want to take a close look at user ahasalone and the first reference on the The Honorifics for an apparent very active and deceptive COI.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All you have to look at is the band members. It's really easy when COI editors use their real names or some approximation of it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worse than that if you look closely! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    KLAV added to page list.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, company promotion, want to make money, bogus-looking products. I found it, User:HappyValleyEditor. I also don't think the accounts are related, but that article should be deleted as fast as possible. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Buhram

    Given the breadth of the topics and the persistent addition of advertorial content despite multipe AfC declines suggests paid COI that ought to be cleaned up. —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Added GraceSophie09 who is clearly trying to promote The Location Group and had tried to create Marc-Christian Riebe at AfC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    West Los Angeles VA Medical Center et al

    VA IP's:

    something else

    I noticed the very tidy and professional-sounding page for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in the new pages feed. Page created by Katomin, who interestingly has an edit on his/her user page for "PM&R Mnemonics" by 152.132.10.197. In whois, 152.132.10.197 and the similar Ip's above resolve to the "Department of Veterans Affairs" near Pasadena California. 152.132.10.197 has done 28 edits to the UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program since 2007. There are other potentially connected pages in the histories. Given the promotional edits to the pages of certain doctors and the rsidency program, I thought this was the work of bored medical students at first, but the network of edits to VA-related hospitals might be a more professional effort. I asked Katomin about potential conflicts but no answer as of yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    these SoCal med schools are really really self-promotional. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    added 2nd user above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Finasteride

    If you look at Doors22's contribs you will see they are a WP:SPA for articles related to this drug and its side effects; this has been going on a long time and there have been many content disputes, in which I have been involved. I actually brought a long-term POV pushing case at ANI here, exactly a year ago, that drifted off into the archive because the case I brought was tldr and it got derailed.

    On the Talk page of the article, Doors22 recently mentioned litigation against Merck and here mentioned being affected by the side effects and mentioned that they at least read PropeciaHelp (a support forum which has right in the middle of its menu, information on class action lawsuits) (The site is here: propeciahelp.com - I cannot link to it as it is blacklisted)

    Involvement in that litigation would constitute a COI, and when I asked Doors22 if they were involved in the litigation, they said they would not answer in this discussion on my Talk page.

    The COI is pretty clear; the advocacy is very clear. I am looking for the community to advise Doors22 that he has a COI and that he should declare that, and should stop directly editing the article. I am not looking to "win" by eliminating the competition through COI, what I want is that the disruption stops and I will agree to walk away from the article if Doors22 will follow the COI guideline.

    This has become personalized and tangled up in content disputes which is never good, so I will not write here further unless asked to reply to something. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I and many others have been the subject of Jytdog's WP:Harassment and Wikibullying over the years. The very fact that he refers to me as "competition" is strong evidence of such. He also references that this is a personal matter for him. His bad behavior has gone so far that he has been banned from editing GMO articles due to his battleground mentality and he came close to a full site-ban.
    In the past, he opened a NPOV case against me and threatened to take me to arbcom but it was initially closed. He proceeded to re-open it and it was ignored. Now he is trying to bring a conflict of interest case against me in this forum. His "proof" of a COI is that I mentioned litigation and admitted to visiting a website that briefly references the litigation. Ironically, he is now guilty of the same accusation. I did reference that there are 1,400 cases filed for a cosmetic drug causing permanent side effects in order to debunk Jytdog's claim that we are talking about a "sliver of a sliver" of people. I looked this information up in Merck's most recent annual report which you can find here: http://s21.q4cdn.com/755037021/files/doc_financials/annualReports/2015/MRK_2015_Form_10-K_FINAL_r879.pdf
    Jytdog has abandoned his duty to assume good faith about other editors. I believe he has taken this action against me in order to deflect from his own bad behavior - I believe I effectively demonstrated he misrepresented a medical source in order to make a claim that was not what the original article intended.Doors22 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe Jytdog's behaviour is problematic take it to WP:AIN. It is off-topic here. Now: could you please answer about your involvement in litigation around Finasteride? Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Alexbrn has been closely affiliated with Jytdog for quite some time and they both have tag teamed my edits. Here is a good example of it from the GMO arbcom case. [40] Doors22 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doors22: If you like, my editing does not intersect with jytdog's on medical topics, but it does intersect at COI. Please answer the question. This is the COI Noticeboard and the concerns are about you, not him. - Brianhe (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe:, I do appreciate your willingness to help moderate this dispute. As far as I can tell, Jytdog has not provided any proof of a COI and has no standing to bring this investigation. I disclosed a long time ago that unfortunately I got permanent sexual side effects from taking Propecia, a hair loss drug, and my goal is to keep the Propecia article up-to-date with the latest medical research about the drug's risks. For years, Jytdog has tried to intimidate me by bringing several failed cases against me. If he is able to show proof that I have a COI that is a different story, but I prefer not to legitimize his unsupported accusation with a response.Doors22 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is of course absurd to demand that "proof" be produced against an anonymous editor, as that is impossible without knowing your identity. You have not answered the question about your involvement with Finasteride litigation. I think at this point it is more than reasonable to assume you have a hidden COI, and are here to promote your interests. You must therefore abide by the requirements set out at WP:COI and if you don't it will be necessary to have you sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What's absurd is that your accusations are entirely unsupported by any evidence other than you "think its true". I have disclosed my medical history in good faith, which is much more personal than anybody should have to do, and disclosed my reason for editing wikipedia. Although I don't believe the same holds for you, I have made it a clear point to uphold NPOV in spite of my very clear personal experience with the drug. This is supported by the failure of Jytdog' relentless efforts to prove otherwise. I do recognize the medical literature can lag the general body of scientific knowledge by several years and Wikipedia is conservative in its approach. But your influence in the article seriously lags the medical literature by several years.Doors22 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your medical history constitutes a COI. You were harmed by a product and now you are here to tilt content related to that product. If a person had harmed you, it'd be more obvious that you shouldn't be writing about them. The fact that it is a pill that harmed you and not, say, another human being, does not change the nature of your COI towards it. You're still under that policy. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geogene:, thanks for your feedback. As a token of good faith, this was disclosed as soon as I started editing Wikipedia in 2011 and while I do agree with you that it could certainly affect someone's editing, I would call attention to WP:COINOTBIAS. Even though I have suffered terribly from the hidden risks of this drug, I still make an effort to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and uphold NPOV. I also am not interested in that I am not personally impacted by what is on Wikipedia, unfortunately I have already suffered losses. As a separate note, hypothetical plaintiffs don't really have a reason to influence wikipedia because jurors are expressly forbidden from researching cases outside of court.Doors22 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd

    A few of the accounts involved:

    This is only the tip of the iceberg, there are more accounts involved that I haven't touched yet. I filed this SPI -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy but the main account doesn't appear to be technically linked to the rest. However, from the draft article and stuff it looks like the main account is the boss of the company. There are also many other articles that I haven't yet come across (I've deleted a few G11) and the account linkage to other accounts needs investigation to get there. —SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Local Politician Shaping Views Using Wikipedia: Conflict Of Interest

    Resolved
     – ish. Original thread removed and oversighted as outing.

    Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Wikipedia. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some - any - evidence of problematic COI postings from the user would be handy, without which, there's really nothing to see here, Wasickta. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey User:Tagishsimon, it took me about two minutes to confirm this is true. "Outing" someone's identity is about as nasty as it gets. This can be dealt with by admin via email. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing we can really do now, since the OP was oversighted. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed Admins my concerns. The rest is in their hands. My hope is that there will atleast be a topic ban on Alansohn for state of New Jersey. This could easily make local papers, but I am gonna let the admins deal with it. Wasickta (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasickta you are pretty new in Wikipedia. You have been asked to show examples of edits that concerned you with regard to a potential conflict of interest. Do you know how to show a diff? If you don't, then just say so. if you know how to show diffs, then please show some. Really. You don't have to give commentary; just provide diffs. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitsubishi Electric & class action lawsuit

    this edit was made a few hours ago.

      • Mitsubishi settled a class-action lawsuit in 2016 brought by consumers who purchased the LaserVue line of HDTVs for models L65-A90, L75-A91, L75-A94, or L75-A96 purchased between between Jan. 1, 2008 and July 13, 2015. According to the class action lawsuit, the “Optical Engine” component in Mitsubishi LaserVue televisions contains a defect that causes video and color anomalies. Verde alleges that Mitsubishi is liable for breach of express and implied warranties as well as violations of California consumer protection laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Although Mitsubishi denied any wrongdoings of allegations, they agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit in order to avoid the further cost of litigation. [1]
      • Mitsubishi settled a consumer class action in 2011 alleging that defects in the company's televisions caused them to break down far earlier than expected. Under the agreement, Mitsubishi agreed to pay to fix certain WD series DLP televisions, reimburse the televisions' owners for repairs or parts, or allow the owner to buy a new Mitsubishi television. The televisions' resistors, diodes and DLP lamp assemblies failed prematurely, and the sets' cooling fans, filters and heat sinks were also defective, according to the complaint. As a result, the televisions lasted only 25 to 33 percent as long as they should have.[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Mitsubishi LaserVue TV Class Action Lawsuit". Hustler Money Blog. 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2016-05-03.
    2. ^ "Mitsubishi Unit Settles Class Action Over Faulty TVs - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved 2016-05-03.

    Thoughts on whether we have a conflicted editor here? Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=718521127"