Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 107

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Avi Harel

Articles created

Avi Harel has confirmed a conflict of interest with the material material he's been adding related to Ergolight in the creation of his now-removed user page [1], as "President & CEO of ErgoLight". (A quick skim suggests there other areas where he has a conflict of interest).

I've identified some of the articles. I'll update the list and this discussion as I look further.

He was notified of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline 18:52, 29 July 2016, but did not respond. He returned to edit on 10 Sep, creating many of the articles identified above, continuing to promote his work. I left him a few comments on his talk, and he's responded at User_talk:Ronz#My_user_page_is_empty_now. He's now asking what should be done to eliminate any coi-violating edits. I thought it best to start a discussion here to respond.

Note on his editing in general, coi aside: I haven't looked closely at the sourcing, but there appears to be a great deal of original research and undue weight problems, beyond the promotion. I'm very concerned that there is little or no proper historical context and he's instead been just writing from his own experience. As a result, some of what he's done appears to be point of view (POV) forks. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

My point of view

I am the inventor of several methods and concepts related to usability assurance, and a new methodology for resilience assurance. I believe that it is the interest of the public, and therefore of Wikipedia, that people will know about these inventions. I do not know of anybody else who can publish them, and I feel obliged to do it myself.

I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for advertising original stuff. Therefore, I did not publish anything that was not documented elsewhere. Almost everything that I added to Wikipedia was previously published in conference articles or in book chapters. Of course, it would be nice if people know that I am the inventor, but I understand the COI issue, and I am looking for ways to publish the new concepts and methods with no mention of my own contribution.

I found it difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong in editing Wikipedia pages, so I tried several ways; and each time I received a discouraging feedback from the reviewers. Initially, I thought I may publish my company, which was active 15 years ago, but not any more. Consequently, I was warned about speedy deletion. I did not respond on time them, because I was on vacation. Later, I tried to apply Ergolight as he name of my methodology. I did not think I should be required to change the name of the methodology, to be different from that of the company. It seems that I was wrong on this as well.

I was afraid of being accused of self promotion, therefore I was careful not to mention the awards achieved for my methods, and the fame of the co-authors of my articles. Ironically, when I did not cite any reference, I was notified about publishing stuff which is not verifiable, and not notable. When I subsequently added the references, I was accused of spamming.

For example, I would like to present and discuss the WebTester method. This method was invented in 1999, when commercial analyzers of server log files were used to provide usage statistics, with no insight about the user experience (in these days, people still did not use the term UX). I presented WebTester, which was the first to elicit the user behavior from records of the users' activity, in the Comdex/Israel show, and got the Best Of Comdex/Israel award in the category of Internet applications. This achievement was advertised on the Israel version of the PC magazine. I did not mention this in my edits, in order to avoid being accused of advertising myself. Unfortunately, the reviewers concluded that this method is not notable.

Prof. Ron Kenett is a co-author of most of my articles about WebTester. He wrote 10 books on Statistics. I quote here part of his CV:

"He is an applied statistician who made recognized contributions to statistical methods and applications in a range of areas including industrial statistics, biostatistics, the design of experiments, statistical process control, customer surveys, performance appraisal systems and risk management. His latest book on information quality is used in data science programs worldwide and is currently editor of StatsRef, Wiley’s major online Statistics reference and StatisticsViews. He is the 2013 Greenfield Medalist of the Royal Statistical Society and Editor in Chief of the Wiley Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability, a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, Senior Member of the American Society for Quality, Past President of the Israeli Statistical Association and Past President of ENBIS, the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics. As a Professor of Management at the State University of New York, he was awarded the General Electric Quality Management Fellowship".

Prof. Ron Kenett would not ask me to be a co-author if WebTester was not verifiable and notable.

I would appreciate the reviewers' advice on how to publish my methods in Wikipedia without breaking the rules. Thanks Avi Harel (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

While we wait for others' responses, and while I'm still too busy to look further into this situation, you may want to look over Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, WP:Tutorial, WP:TMM, and User:WLU/Generic_sandbox as resources for learning more about being an editor for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Avi Harel: I'll second the advice above. The Missing Manual is very good and has a PDF version available for offline reading if that is more convenient for you. It might turn out after reading this that you decide Wikipedia is not the best venue to write about this research, in which case there's also a guide to alternative outlets. - Brianhe (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at some of these articles,
It may be appropriate to have some material from Mr. Harel in some of those articles, but adding entire articles that duplicate existing ones is inappropriate for Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there are problems in the articles that you merged, but merging is not the proper solution. They should be separated because they deal with different aspects of similar issues.
Now, after getting some experience with the guidelines, I can see that my articles were not written properly. I am ready to improve the original articles, but this will take some time, and I need to postpone it for a while. Avi Harel (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
These articles have been written from a systems engineering POV without explaining why they need to be written that way. The concepts explained are merely general ones that are applied in the area, not special ones that don't apply anywhere else, and a lot of them are explained incorrectly. In many instances, these articles are doing nothing more than promoting works of particular scholars (whom the author seems associated with) as opposed to imparting information. MSJapan (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand everything in your critiques, and I would appreciate clarification:
  • What is wrong with the systems engineering POV and why do I need to justify using it?
  • What is wrong in explaining general concepts in any area?
  • What are the concepts which are explained incorrectly? (examples may suffice).
May I clarify that primarily, my intention was to impart particular kind of information, concerning integrating human factors in systems engineering. I think I understand the spirit of your feedback, and I will do my best to reduce the antagonism to my articles. Avi Harel (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Some of the material you added might be appropriate for a paragraph in another article. But adding an entire article with a new slant on an old subject is what Wikipedia calls a "point of view fork". See WP:POVFORK. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a self-publishing platform. The general idea is to collect together material on a subject under one article.
It's also considered bad form on Wikipedia to write about your own work. That's why this is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. See WP:COI. You can comment on the talk pages of relevant articles and suggest inclusion of references to your own work, but mentioning your own work in an article is frowned upon. John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nepal film and business people

It looks like COI editing, including recreation of multiple bios. - Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Worldlink, the biggest ISP in Nepal, is probably notable. Maybe merge the CEO bio into that article. WorldLink should probably be renamed to "WorldLink (Nepal)"; there are at least five other major things called WorldLink. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Herb David

Deleted at AfD. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

This article was apparently written by its subject. He got a COI warning at the time but it doesn't look like anything else was done. Just reading it, it doesn't seem likely this was written by scratch from reliable sources. And there is an allegation on the talk page that the article was copied from the subject's sales brochure. This would be a copyvio, even if the subject wrote these words, unless he also conveyed a license to WP. It's not clear the subject is even notable. Not sure where to go from here, advice please. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector didn't get any hits [2]. That doesn't mean it's not a copyvio. Significant tracts of the article are nearly direct copy/pastes taken from this source, simply with the grammatical person changed from first to third.
  • As to notability, four of the six references so far provided point to the studio's (now archived) website. Of the remaining two, one is to a blog (not a reliable source), and the other is a broken link. There's nothing to sustain notability at this point. Simply repairing the instruments of famous musicians does not confer notability onto the repair person, anymore than a mechanic becomes notable simply because they have fixed cars for famous people. I don't mean to equate musical instruments with cars, but the analogy is otherwise apt I think. If the repair person is famous for doing such repairs, there should be suitable references to support that. So far, they are absent. The article has existed for seven years. I think it safe to say such sources are likely not going to be added.
  • My recommendation; while the article is potentially a candidate for speedy deletion under G12, there's some overlap in the article with copyrighted and donated content. Listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems is probably warranted if we were going to retain the article, but that is badly backlogged. Given the lack of notability assertions and sourcing support, it's probably most expedient to WP:PROD the article, and remove the sole inbound link at List of people from Ann Arbor, Michigan after it is deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
PRODed. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey @Kendal-K1: and @Hammersoft: I was thinking definitely a deletion candidate, for all the reasons listed by @Scipio Carthage: on the talk page. But a quick google and I was gobsmacked when I found a number of articles. There's article and article and [3] and [4] then [5] which includes “Newsweek did an article about me, and I was on the front page of a lot of newspapers across the country and other magazines,” he said. He says he has been written about in The Washington Post, and he’s made appearances on popular TV shows including “The Today Show.” After all that press, word quickly got around about David and his workshop — the then-central hub of the music revolution that once met in an Ann Arbor basement" although can't verify the last bit. Have a look, maybe reconsider! E ribbon toner (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @E ribbon toner: That's fine, and anyone can deny the PROD. Feel free to do so. But, the copyrighted text can not remain. A fundamental rewrite is in order. Use the sources you've found. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
None of those links work for me. This should probably be discussed on the article talk page. If he really is notable, we should keep the article and address the copyright issue. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- AfDed - I copyedited out a lot of the fluff, and what was left was still drawn from his website and other local news. The subject asserting that he has coverage is not the same as said coverage existing and showing that it was significant. I got a ton of local news hits on the store closing, and that was about it. The fact that he repaired famous people's instruments is meaningless as a NOTINHERITED item. The simple fact is, if he's nearby to a venue, he's going to get the repair - I know for a fact that chain stores that sold signature series instruments from artists would give them to the artists to use if needed due to late luggage, etc. This is neither rare nor out of the ordinary. MSJapan (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
And deleted. Closing. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
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.

Optisci and ADC Bioscientific

This company has been adding links to its own website for > 5 years through various accounts, with Plant Stress Doctor currently being active. I've removed some of the links, but more remain that need attention. I just wanted to post here to make it clear to record that this has been going on for so long and that it needs to stop. SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh and we've been here before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54#ADC_Bioscientific and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73#ADC_Bioscientific. I think it's time to blacklist their sites and remove a content, e.g. photos of their products that they've added. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
+1 - blacklist and remove the spam - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted. MER-C 08:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the blacklisted links from Plant stress measurement and Photosynthesis system. Recommend other editors add checkmarks to the list at the top of this section as the other articles are cleaned. - Brianhe (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sowell Management Services, Bill Sowell, Concert Wealth Management

There seems to be some edit warring over these articles. The two sides seem to represent critics of these organizations attempting to add negative information and supporters trying to remove it. All editors are single-purpose accounts which likely have a conflict of interest, one way or the other, here. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  •  Checkuser note: It's a sock/spam ring around this company and associated ones/people. Several articles deleted, several accounts blocked. Courcelles (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bradley Warren Jr.

Autobiography. Article's creator has placed an 'in progress' template, but it's thus far unsourced and tending toward the standard tone of COI articles. At best, the editor can use assistance; at worst, he may be urged not to write about himself here. I've issued a COI warning, to no avail. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD and SPI. I wouldn't normally bother, but that article was sitting in the user's sandbox for three years. The intent was there from the get-go. Timeline-wise, Brad bailed when the autobio tag went up on the talk page and came back as Ernie, so that's an SPI. MSJapan (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS)

Vanispamcruftiesement all deleted. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

I'm reporting the two users, who appear to be employees of 2 Leaf Press. I became aware of this after this request to have the page for 2 Leaf Press restored, which contained some comments that seemed borderline WP:UNCIVIL.

The long and short of why I deleted the publisher page was ultimately that it fell under G11 (unambiguous promotion) more so than A7, although notability was absolutely a concern. If it'd just been the notability issues I'd have likely just asked Reddogsix to send the article to AfD, but the page was so spammy that it was extremely promotional. Below are examples of the promotional content:

People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.
Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.
The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

As far as I can tell, both editors appear to be here in order to edit about things related to IAAS, their publications, and the people related to this organization. There's enough to suggest that one of the editors is strongly tied to the organization and one of the people whose article is up for deletion, given the similarity of their username and the article name. I'm not intending to out anyone, which is why I'm not mentioning the specific article, but the tie here seems to be very obvious and one that most editors would be able to make just looking at the username and the articles created.

Now what makes this an issue for the COI noticeboard is that neither editor has ever disclosed their COI, not even when requesting the article restoration. They've never been officially asked, but I will note that Gdavid01 has been editing since 2012. The edits for Gdavid01 and Rubyperl appear to center entirely on IAAS related topics, either adding the article to Wikipedia or making related edits. They appear to have made any edits that aren't potential COI. I also note that several of the articles were deleted at least once (The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS), Sean Frederick Forbes, 2Leaf Press), so at some level these editors had to know that there were problems with the articles but kept trying to re-add the content. Draftspace seems to really only be done as a way to keep a copy of the content in order to re-add it to the mainspace, honestly.

My concern here is that the articles are very promotional, some have notability concerns, and there has been no disclosure. I'm also concerned about the editors' ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It looks like there was at least one warning, on Rubyperl's talk page by Randykitty, about the creation and recreation of articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If any of these articles survive the AfDs going around (I know some are not up for AfD, but I'd encourage that those get a stringent look considering the puffery and vague claims of notability on some of the created articles) then I'd suggest that both of these editors get restricted from making any direct edits to the articles until an uninvolved and experienced editor believes that they can follow guidelines. The promotional edits here are just so over the top that I'm concerned about even any minor edits at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I share the concerns of User:Tokyogirl79. I became aware of this promotion within the past two days at Articles for Creation, when I saw several AFC articles in article space, which should not be the state of articles that were properly accepted via AFC. A walled garden of inadequately sourced articles had been moved from draft space into article space, and I nominated them for deletion. This does appear to be a systematic effort to use Wikipedia promotionally, including the repeated re-creation of 2Leaf Press, which has finally had to be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been going through the articles for AfD and none of them appear to pass notability guidelines. I'd actually recommend that we look at the articles that aren't currently up for AfD, since there's a strong chance that those would not pass GNG either and at the very least would require a complete re-write to meet NPOV guidelines. These have to be some of the more promotional articles I've seen on Wikipedia, especially as some of them went undetected for quite a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like all of the mainspace articles but Jesús Papoleto Meléndez has been nominated for AfD. I'll try to take a look at that later. If he is notable then I might endorse TNTing the article and replacing it with a clean, puffery free article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd also probably endorse a deletion of the drafts, given that this seems to be what they're pulling from for the mainspace and because they're so terribly promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I see two drafts, which both are also in article space where they have been nominated for deletion. I recommend that the drafts be left alone until the AFD's are closed as Delete, at which time the drafts can be MFD'd referring to the deletion of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Something else that crossed my mind is that Gdavid01 still hasn't been completely transparent here. She's disclosed a COI, but not exactly how she was in contact with these students. If she's the person I believe her to be, then I don't think she's a teacher. This means that if Rubyperl is a student then she's possibly an intern at IAAS or at the very least, she's a student of Forbes, who does teach at that university. However if Forbes is the teacher then that raises the question of how Gdavid01 was in contact with the student(s) - and that's another thing. Gdavid01 mentions multiple students, but so far I've only seen one other account. Something here just really doesn't feel right and feels especially off in a situation where one of the editors is supposedly a student. (Note that Rubyperl has never made this statement herself and that has been relatively mute except for disputing the deletions.) There's also the fact that GDavid said that she couldn't edit because of her COI, yet has done that several times this September, if we ignore the promotional article back in 2012. I'm also not entirely comfortable with how similarly written the 2012 article (Jesús Papoleto Meléndez ) is to the current articles written by Rubyperl. I just feel that Gdavid01 isn't being completely honest here and I can't help but get the impression that if this is a student, that they were given a specific article version to post (meaning that they did not write this themselves), possibly in a way to get around the COI guidelines. This whole thing just feels off moreso than the normal COI type of stuff I see on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - Where does Gdavid01 (whom we assume is Gabrielle David) disclose a COI, and where does she mention students? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • She mentioned it here, with the following phrase:
In as so far as disclosure, here it is: A number of students at University of Connecticut asked why 2Leaf Press and its entities were not on Wikipedia. I explained that I could not do it because of the conflict of interest, so they offered to do it (they took information from the website, and I answered a few questions), and I have since stayed out of it. It was only when Rubyperl, who was responsible for the actual submission, got hit with the notices that she came to me for help and I stepped in to help figure out these notices, including the issue about citations and references, and helped with formatting the info box. This is it. This is the disclosure.
I'm concerned that she only came forward with this once she was asked about her COI, despite her seeming to have a good enough awareness of the COI guidelines that she should not be editing the articles. For me this shows that she should be savvy enough to understand that whatever relationship lies between her and the students, it's one that would clearly qualify as a COI given that she is in direct contact with several students that have apparently asked her repeatedly about IAAS/2Leaf related pages. That she doesn't state this relationship gives off the strong impression that she's trying to manipulate the system and hide what is going on here. There is a very small possibility that this wasn't what it appears to be: that David handed pre-written, promotional articles to an intern and told them to upload the content, but her being able to pull up various policies suggests that she knows well enough to be aware of the various issues. I'm just going to be honest and voice my concerns here, which I've been tapdancing around. If the impressions here are correct then I'm extremely concerned that if there is a student/intern, that they may be getting exploited or receiving a lot of pressure to post the content. This last part might not be true, but it's not a completely unfounded concern in situations like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a basic summary of events, which includes what I'm about to write:
Summary

This is a bit long, so I figured I'd add a basic overview here of the events.

In 2012 the editor Gdavid01 signed up for an account and created an article for Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. This article was extremely promotional, but wasn't found and deleted as a G11 issue. It's believed that Gdavid01 is Gabrielle David, who runs IAAS and by extension, their publishing arm 2Leaf Press and their magazine Phati'tude Literary Magazine. She has not specifically disclosed herself and I was trying to avoid naming her, but another person has done that already and at this point it seems very obvious, given the username and the IAAS focus.

She did not make any more edits until September 2016, when a new editor by the name of Rubyperl began creating IAAS related entries, with an emphasis on people related to 2Leaf Press. All of the articles were written in a similar promotional style as the article for Meléndez and when Rubyperl contested the speedy deletions, they were written in a similar style as oppositions written by Gdavid01. Several of the articles had been deleted multiple times, typically through A7 or G11, but were quickly recreated by Rubyperl, apparently from drafts they had created at AfC.

I came into this because I had speedied 2Leaf Press and Gdavid01 had contested its deletion at the editor helpboard (linked here). To summarize this, she didn't seem to understand why the article was deleted, why it was promotional, and why A7 was a factor. I had deleted it more for G11 than A7, although the lack of notability seemed clear enough to where I also thought it unlikely that it would survive an AfD to where I left the A7 tag in the deletion history.

It wasn't until I pushed for a disclosure that Gdavid01 said that she had a COI and even then, she was not completely forthcoming about the ties she or Rubyperl had to IAAS. All she said was that she had a COI and that students had been asking her about 2Leaf Press articles. She didn't explain the context of how she knew these students, although she did say that they were students at the University of Connecticut. This is the university where one of the IAAS's employees, Sean Frederick Forbes, works as a professor. Assuming that Gdavid01 is David, there was nothing in the article to suggest that she worked at UoC and as such it makes it somewhat less likely that she would be in contact with multiple students unless they were part of Forbes's classes and/or they were interns with IAAS in some form or fashion (online, in-person, etc).

This looks to be a clear attempt to evade COI guidelines by enlisting a student to do the work for them. The similarity in the arguments and the articles gives off the strong impression that Rubyperl was either given pre-written articles to publish or they were given very specific instructions on what should be in the article, such as particular buzzwords and marketing PR. I note that in the discussion with Gdavid01, she was very keen on including specific phrases and sentences out of the ones that I had highlighted as examples of promotional prose. Overall I'm concerned that if Rubyperl is a student and my suspicions are correct that she's either a student of Forbes, an intern, or both, about how ethical it would be to put them in this position. Gdavid was blocked for one week for meatpuppetry.

Since then I've noticed a new account, A. Robert Lee, made minor edits to his article here and here. Both are minor edits, but one was specifically for 2Leaf Press related titles. The timing is quite bad, considering that he signed up for an account on 21 September 2016, after all of the 2Leaf Press related matters. It's possible that he was watching his article and only became active after the article was PRODed by David Gerard, but it's also possible that he was alerted to this by Gdavid01.

Another thing to note is that a look at the editors who have created the the other two pages related to 2Leaf Press have been blocked for various offenses. Pohick2 created A. Robert Lee and was blocked in 2010 for repeated COPYVIO despite warnings. Another article, Tony Medina (poet), was created by Duckduckstop, a sockpuppet of Slowking4, who was blocked in 2013. His block was altered temporarily because of the DC conference last year (they needed to change autoblock settings), so I'm going to be nominating that article for block evasion. This is somewhat of an aside since I'm not sure if either was a COI editor (one of my first concerns with 2Leaf Press articles at this moment), but it's something that just sort of adds on to how off everything feels here as a whole.

I recently noticed that a new editor, A. Robert Lee, signed up and made edits to the article for A. Robert Lee here and here. Both are minor, but one concerned 2Leaf Press and it's a bit coincidental that his account was created and started editing right now. It's possible that he only started editing after noticing his article was PRODed, but at this point in time it makes me a little uneasy. I also note that there are two other articles about 2Leaf Press authors and both editors that created the page were blocked, one of which as a sockpuppet of Slowking4, but there's more about that in the collapsed section above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Update - The two AFDs, Gabrielle David and Phatitude Literary Magazine (or however you spell it) were closed as Delete and deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
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.

Cynefin

No current COI issue to deal with. Issues may be discussed on Talk:Cynefin Framework. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Around a year ago I tried to improve this article and quickly ran into user JYTDOG that used the argument that I have an COI on Cynefin. I found that a bit weird but still it all ended with both a COI declaration by user Snowded and myself.

I have refrained from editing since. I've noticed that user Snowded still occasionally edits the Cynefin article while he claims he is the inventor of Cynefin. This seems wrong to me.

I'm refraining on further comments about these claims as I agree that independent people should bring that article into ordered shape. These people will be hard to find as most that can will have a COI (unless someone decides otherwise). So I wonder how in such circumstances proper changes (or deletion?) must take place.Hvgard (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You could try suggestions on the talk page marked with {{request edit}}. You may or may not find that a neutral editor responds. You're familiar with that page and, I anticipate, by the process. If Snowded is editing the article, then he is doing so against wikipedia policy. If no-one shows interest in the article, then we can perhaps infer something about the lack of significance/moment associated with the article's subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Last years experience makes me hesitate. So I suggest to solve the COI policy breach first. What can we do to invoke such action?Hvgard (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, following a discussion the article was moved from Cynefin to Cynefin Framework by a third party editor. I made one edit in consequence - to remove a reference to a german word which has been linked to a reliable source for the welsh word but not for the framework. I also removed one insertion of a semi-commercial link and (today) provided a reference requested by another editor. That is background monitoring not active editing and if either had been disputed I would have deferred to the talk page. That is not against wikipedia policy and I have not inserted new references or use, or updated some of the latest material. The article is stable at the moment and a reference point for use by a wide community. The illustration which I put in the public domain for the article (which I did not create) is extensively used.
The framework and two articles have reviewed multiple academic and other citations - the first Cynefin Article on Knowledge Management has recently been independently certified as one of the top ten of all time in terms of citations. The HBR 2007 cover article has received two Academy of Management awards. It is in the public domain, taught on military command courses in the USA and elsewhere and no royalty or other payments are required for its use. The only commercial interest is that I teach the framework on various MBA programmes and run 4/5 courses a year in which Cynefin is a component. I should say here that others make more money out of using the model in their own training (again no royalty or other payment is required) than I do or the commercial company of which I am a Director. As the original creator of the framework and author, prime author or corresponding author of the various articles and book chapters which define it I also have subject matter expertise - something which is as yet not a fully resolved COI issue.
In contrast Hvgard is running an active social media campaign to promote a model he created which to-date has no third part citations or use that I can see. He actively trolls any mention of Cynefin on twitter with links to his commercial web site. He is (as he knows but does not declare here) involved in two IP disputes, one with both me (over a software issue not Cynefin) and one with the creator of another framework (KIF) over the use/abuse of that model (sources available if anyone wants them). He has previously being given an 'only warning' for attempting to use the Cynefin Framework article as part of a commercial campaign. His comment above is clearly just another part in an attempt to renew that campaign. I didn't respond to this petty change but it illustrates the nature of Hvgard abuse of wikipedia.
In the interests of full declaration I have just established a not for profit research centre at Bangor University in Wales. That is called "The Cynefin Centre for the application of complexity theory" It is part of a facility linked to the Welsh Centre for Behavioural Change and also the main centre for design thinking. The Centre is running active programmes on citizen engagement and health issues on an international basis. ----Snowded TALK 10:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
See what happens? A very verbose response targeting me personally, distorting historical facts and ignoring contributions, spreading false information, selective quotes, accusations that are nonsense, boosting the non-profic character of activities and open source status of the Cynefin model (it's in no way a framework). And so on and so on and so on and so ........ Please count the # of edits over the years. Of course the article is stable after years of honing and behind the scenes "activity". And some before the curtains. For example, check recent tweets. I leave it up to Wikipedia COIN to take action on this one. I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I see a certain amount of mud being flung around. I see no detailed criticism of the text of the article. Are there factual errors arising out of COI? Is criticism of the framework being hidden as a result of COI? Is there some real controvery about any of the phrases used in the article arising from COI? What, exactly, is the harm we are being asked to remedy? Snowded's recent interventions do not seem excessively troubling to me. The article reads as a well-organised factual description of the framework, without obvious hyperbole. There are a lot of needful things we could be getting on with on wikipedia. I'm unconvinced that this subject, of very minor relative importance, and which has had 700 or so edits to date (!), needs more of our attention right now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, what are factual errors? Some questions after 700 edits: why does the article start with an explanation of a Welsh word while there is a para on that further below. I would expect a description of the nature and purpose of the framework (it is a sensemaking tool). Why does the 2nd sentence mention who choose the name of who "invented it" instead of mentioning and expanding on the applications or use of the framework. See f.e. the differences with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_architecture_framework.
Furthermore one would expect after 700 edits that there is some form of history / development of the framework. F.e. one that mentions it started as a 2x2 matrix as shown here: https://storyconnect.nl/two-cents-cynefin/?lang=en. And it would be good if the application area didn't repeat a persons name but instead concentrated on actual applications and results. So IMHO besides some style questions, the main Q is not about what is there, but about what ain't there (anymore). Who else contributed to the development, who was in this IBM group (there is enough on that in a book). Why isn't there a list of comparable models (there are some 10-20 in ancient medicine, Chinese literature and enterprise architecture). Why was the apparent link between the German word Heimat (The German version of "the place of your birth and of your upbringing, the environment in which you live and to which you are naturally acclimatised") removed somewhere in those 700 edits? No reference? True, but who cares about that? That reference will be found or created over time. This is a young model. It needs time to be referenced. Instead lack of references seem to be used in those 700 edits as a excuse to remove information.Hvgard (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
They all sound like they have the potential to be excellent changes and additions to the page. I suggest that as this is, in essence, a content dispute, albeit one with the involvment of COI editors, you make suggestions for additions or changes on the talk page, as described above, which can then be implemented by a neutral editor, or implemented after consensus is reached. Given the history of disagreement, I would anticipate that only well-argued changes, and well-sourced new additions will fly. Please bear in mind, per my last note, that there are other things we could be doing and so would wish to avoid being umpires at a bun-fight. But if there is _serious_ improvement to be had, then we're all up for it. If you want to suggest rewrites, please post the suggested rewrite ... don't expect that others will work out new wordings based on instructions. There being no specific COI issue, I'm going to close this thread and watch the talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

Cyprianio

edited
created and edited

There is compelling off-wiki evidence that this is a paid editor related to a Cyprus brand communications firm, backed up by evidence of long-term promotional editing. Taking a look at the user's talkpage shows a litany of attempted insertion of copyvio to articles like:

Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

OBTW, Cyprianio never responded to this "final" request for disclosure a year ago [6] but has continued editing, including today objecting to speedy deletions of several of their commercial creations listed above. As well as removing evidence of the real-world COI on their talkpage that this case was opened with [7]. - Brianhe (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
He's been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Euclidthalis, ditto Bremain007. - Brianhe (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Doug McMillon

First off, I am not accusing this user of doing anything wrong. As far as I can tell he has followed all the proper COI procedures.

Having said that, the article reads to me like it was written by Walmart's PR department, and in fact most of the current content came from a Walmart employee. We've got an entire article on Criticism of Walmart yet there is nothing in this article but good things to say about Mr. McMillon, who is the CEO.

There has already been a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (which I did not initiate) and I hope I'm not guilty of forum shopping here, I just think this article could use some outside attention. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kendall-K1. You're very slightly forum-shopping, but it's always okay to raise COI-related concerns on this board. I've not looked at the articles in responding to your post, but I'm aware of JLD at Walmart, and have looked at their edits in the past. iirc, I came to much the conclusion that you did, which is that the declared Walmart employees editing Wikipedia are trying to do the right thing by way of COI, at least by being very public about their affiliation. Should they, for instance, remove reliably sourced criticism or otherwise negative content from articles on things they have an affiliation to, that would be problematic; but they're not. I tend to think that any problems of the slants of Walmart related articles has very much to do with an insufficiency of neutral editors, and little to do with the Walmart editors. Sure, they may be responsible for writing only of sunlight and happy unicorns w.r.t. their employer, but even there their contributions probably outweigh the COI concern. What we're left with is a content problem, and not a COI problem; and one which is best fixed by finding more neutrals than by seeking to punish the Walmartians (and I accept that in large part this - getting more neutrals - is what your message here seeks to achieve). But because it is a content issue there's not much that this board will be interested in doing - we deflect content problems to their proper placs - article talk pages, dispute resolution, &c. Individuals here may or may not reprioritise their interest in Walmart articles as a result of your post, but that's the best you can expect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a lot of "Walmart did great with this guy in charge" puffery in the resume that needs to come put. But I'm not finding any important derogatory info (like a conviction) that was missed or removed. We have Criticism of Wal-Mart for the company, so that's covered. John Nagle (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree - I don't believe there's any COI issues. Just that there's a lot of puffery in the article. It is already being discussed on the article Talk page (disclaimer: I've been involved in the discussion) in any case. -- HighKing++ 18:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Teamsanborn2016 on Andy Sanborn

Teamsanborn2016 started editing Andy Sanborn almost as soon as the account was created. Most of the user's edits were minor rewordings and rephrasings, but some of them included removal of properly-cited information, especailly of those critical of the article subject, such as 1 and 2, and unproperly-sourced BLP information like 3.

In addition, the name of the user directly suggests a conflict of interest, and the word "Team" in the name also suggests a likelihood of shared use. As such, I feel this user is extremely concerning, especially with the scope of the single-purpose account, being the POV-pushing through removal of content et. al. on an article of a United States politician. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Edgar181: I was about to withdraw this report after I noticed you had acted on my UAA report and blocked the account for shared use; as the blocking admin I wonder if you could comment on this COI case because I believe that it was paid. Mainly my questions are: if the block reason should also include reason to believe the editor is paid by the article subject (WP:PAID), and if there is reason to protect the page from further COI or POV-pushing activity. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I blocked the account for the username issue. However, the POV and potential COI are clear. This may or may not be paid editing - it certainly wouldn't be anything unusual for a supporter who is unaffiliated with the politician or his staff to behave this way. The editor stopped when given a final warning, and at this point since the editor was then blocked and hasn't returned with a new account, I think it is probably best to keep an eye on the article and see what happens. Despite this user's inappropriate behavior (edit warring without discussion), this editor may have a valid point to make. Briefly looking at the article, I think there is a BLP issue with the politician's political career being essentially defined by a single email he wrote - a bit of WP:UNDUE in my opinion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency

articles
editors

All the articles named above have been badly polluted by promotional editors and need a checkup. Sourcing to random forex websites is questionable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis for further information. - Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Added AnnaPaw who dePRODded Anyoption [9]; is sock involved in Banc de Binary shenanigans according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reuvengrish/Archive. edited to add Not implying that these editors are connected any more than has already been identified (though they may in fact be). Just saying these articles could use more cleanup and more eyes long-term, including the first couple that I did a little cleanup on. - Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Uh oh. This may be the beginning of a new big mess. The Times of Israel ran a 16-part expose of the binary options industry in Israel as a massive scam [10]. This got enough attention politically that the binary option industry in Israel now expects to be shut down, and been looking for new areas in which to operate. This often means foreign exchange speculation, or FOREX. There's a lot of overlap; the FOREX people and the binary option people have a common trade show, IFX. See the 2016 attendee list.[11] John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Notes:
  • "Spotware" is "Spotware Systems" in Cyprus. (There was a US "Spotware Technology" company, which had something to do with Picture in picture technology and whose patents were acquired by Google. Unrelated.) The name is suspiciously like "SpotOption", but I can't find a connection. They both have offices in Limassol, Cyprus, but the addresses aren't close. Spotware seems to be a back end service provider, not a brokerage. In the absence of other evidence, Spotware looks legit, although it may not be notable. John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "XM" is a subsidiary of Trading Point, which is a holding company which only seems to own XM. They are not permitted to operate in the United States. John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nagle for your comments. I fear you may be right about this being a new mess; my suspicion is that I've just uncovered the first layer of a nasty onion here. One thing I noticed across the multiple articles is a heavy tendency to cite how well regulated the various companies and exchanges are, e.g. this and this deleted bits. With parallel construction of articles and bios apparently in an attempt to give the regulators some legitimacy especially in the case of International Financial Services Commission (Belize) which is a virtual orphan other than the link from Justforex. This might have something to do with your observation.
Concerning Spotware specifically my issue there is the extensive editing by Cyprianio. That was definitely an operator for a Cyprus PR firm, evidence for which is solid but I can't get into here. His editing was my entry point for this stuff which, again, may or may not be coordinated with the other editors. Basically anything he did on enwp is undisclosed paid editing. - Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the best we can do for now is to insist that these companies pass WP:CORP and have good, reliable sources. We need to see articles about them in the WSJ, Fortune, and Business Week; the Finance Magnates web site and similar FOREX sites are not enough. The binary option/FOREX industry has a large network of interlinked sites promoting each other and various other stuff, as a form of search engine optimization. Many of these articles need to be deleted simply because there's no hard info about them. John Nagle (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Have just added Hellenic Bank to the list as it was visited by several of the promotional editors. Also was wondering if anybody knows why this which looks like an ad for the bank is hosted at the US Embassy Cyprus website? - Brianhe (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is part of the websites Business Service Provider registry:

The BSP directory is intended to provide an additional resource to U.S. exporters doing business in this geographic area. The BSP directory is not comprehensive. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service. We have performed limited due diligence research; but we strongly recommend that you perform your own due diligence investigation and background research on any company. We assume no responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the providers listed. We reserve the right not to list any particular company.

If you would like to list your company here (the company must be registered with the Republic of Cyprus Registrar of Companies), please call us at 22-393520 or 22-393362, email us at [email protected] or fill out our online registration form here:</nowiki>

So, apparently being listed there only means the Embassy is pretty sure your company exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They did a good job with those articles. It looks like there's a tight network of news sites covering FOREX and binary options that are themselves almost completely non-notable, but give the appearance of reliable independent sourcing. In at least the articles I've looked at, the only references are primary sources, trivial mentions in actual reliable sources, and this type of FOREX fansite. Many of these should go to AFD, but it may be worthwhile to first list the sources being used and discuss whether any of these can be used as indicators of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I would ask you to please make your thoughts on RS known at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites while it is fresh. - Brianhe (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Just figured out Spotware is probably a recreation of Spotware Systems and created by by the same editor, Kayakner or another SPA Wavetasks or yet another Omahacrab, if they are really different. Have prodded it based on the weak sourcing, thanks to recent replies at RSN, and tried db-repost on top of that. - Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal Tech in Russian Wikipedia

I declare I'm going to create an article called "Legal Tech" in Russian Wikipedia on paid editing for benefit of www.freshdoc.ru. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Дмитрий Кошелев, but your declaration really should go somewhere on the Russian wikipedia, rather than here on the English - presuming I understand correctly that you intend to create an article on the Russian wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks fo your comment. But rules of Russian Wikipedia demand (among others) to declare my intention here. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Дмитрий Кошелев: Really? This is the first time I've ever heard of another language version of Wikipedia demanding that a user post COI declarations on English Wikipedia. Can you please post a link to the page on Russian Wikipedia with that rule? Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, this is unusual. I would like to see the page as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
ru:Википедия:Оплачиваемое редактирование#Политика Strongly speaking, it as an essay, but the rule does not describe necessary actions. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Дмитрий Кошелев: This seems like a translation error. The page has been tagged with ru:Шаблон:Плохой перевод. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Rajasekharan Parameswaran

Clearly here only to promote themselves- before I cleaned up the article, it looked like this. I have templated him but he has not complied with disclosure as required.jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

and requests still ignored. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

DrankJetter sockfarm

created
just edited

This sockfarm has created a number of likely undisclosed paid articles that need some scrutiny. The spamming of healthwhoop.com has already been taken care of. MER-C 00:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Nontrivial and not yet reverted changes from Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 listed above. Brianhe (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Investigations ongoing at WP: Sockpuppet investigations/DrankJetter. A new account WriterNeetin, creator of spamicle Delhi School of Internet Marketing, is judged "possible" mbr of sockfarm. Brianhe (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I have a suspicion that DrankJetter may prove to be Alechkoist. I'll do some digging and see if I can tie them together. I've seen couple of the articles listed above turn up on Upwork. - Bilby (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

John Zogby

All quiet on the Western Front. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

There has been a flurry of highly promotional editing happening on this page today by the three users above (or the one user, it would seem). I reverted the edits, which are all unsourced and fly in the face of WP:NOTADVERT several times, but the content keeps getting re-inserted. Not sure what the appropriate next step is (an SPI maybe?) but wanted to get this page on other editors' radars so we can address the promotional issues. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the other editors who've stepped in and made edits to this page. This doesn't seem to be a "live" issue anymore, so I'm not sure further action is needed. I'm watching the page and if these types of edits get made in the future, I will take action then. If someone wants to close this thread, feel free, and thanks again to everyone who helped out. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

User Dalfood

User blocked for username vio. Brianhe (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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:Dalfood editing the Dal Food article seems both having COI and inappropriate username. --CiaPan (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional and role account contrary to username policy. User has already been blocked. - Brianhe (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

Kathleen Zellner and related subjects

I've COI-templated SPA Wikeditt and they're still editing the article without declaring their COI status. Meanwhile, likely sock ComTruise has appeared. Not sure what happens next. Also, I'm not sure if we really want that article to be a trophy hall for legal victories. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree at first glance the article seems problematic. The references are mostly about certain crimes and the CNN source doesn't even mention Zellner. The source that talks about her most is a Bar Association press release (archived here). It happens to be the local association of which she is a member. - Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The article would certainly survive an AfD, subject has a long a history of high-profile cases. I've since trimmed out all the promotionalism. The SPAs have both continued attempting to edit without addressing the COI disclosure request, so it seems like they should be blocked? I expect continuing COI/edit warring/BLP issues there in the future but it's likely that page protection will take care of it on an as-needed basis. Geogene (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparent brigading on Effective altruism

s an SPA attempting to push his Effective Altruism for Animals organisation in Effective altruism. I note a call to action on Facebook (archive). See Talk:Effective_altruism#Outside_brigading_of_this_article_from_Facebook. More eyes welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Article development in user sandbox also indicates possible to likely off-wiki organization. Also, this sounds familiar: see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 101#Abolitionism (bioethics). See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce. - Brianhe (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
For my part, I did hear about this on Facebook, but would note that David Gerard is shifting this to a COI discussion instead of actually engaging with my concerns about his large deletions of page content. Utsill (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I stated my concerns both in edit summary and talk; I fear I must point out that your apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is also characteristic of SPAs and off-wiki brigading - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
You have not once mentioned a reason for your deletion of the Animal Welfare section. I strongly invite you to quote where you provided such a reason, if anywhere, because I must have missed it. (But we should have this discussion elsewhere.) Utsill (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Reasons: [12], [13] --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 18:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The only statements there are about one sentence in the introduction and whether or not a list of links should be included. They do not support the deletion of the animal welfare section which he packaged into the same edit. K.Bog 15:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Those reasons were given for different edits. Utsill (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, user Brianhe, I'm scratching my head after your notification arrived in my mailbox: "Conflict of interest"? How exactly? Alas I haven't had time to do any Wikipedia editing since August; I wasn't aware of this spat. Please assume good faith.--Davidcpearce (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was obliged to notify you, per noticeboard rules, once mentioning the prior SPI with your name attached. Good faith is assumed. - Brianhe (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the previous incident referred to above was when you called on Facebook for brigading Wikipedia and attacking me personally, I suggest that the behavioural evidence removes Bayesian presumption of your good faith in these matters by default, unfortunate as that is - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Eltima Software

Articles
Users
Websites

All of these editors are single-purpose accounts which have created articles for products sold by a company called Eltima Software, or they have been adding links to Eltima.com and flexihub.com (an Eltima website). The articles are fairly promotional in content and are of marginal notability (a couple have survived AFD). To me this appears to be an organized effort by this company to promote itself and its products on Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed Typeeto down to the facts. (It's an app which allows connecting Bluetooth keyboards to various devices.) Someone else already trimmed Folx (a download manager). Airy (software), if kept, needs to be mentioned on Airy, which is a disambiguation page. CloudMinder and Commander One are not too bloated. All of these are of marginal notability. Prod? AfD? Comments? John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Grey Gardens discussion on Help Desk

There is a discussion at the Help Desk of interest to this board

Discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Grey Gardens conflict of interest? DuncanHill (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Should I call this "Grey Walled Garden?" --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
On a serious note though, the article are definitely notable and existed long before Greygardensbrand inserted those links. I checked a couple of them and I now see that promotional information has been removed. I will check the rest soon and post here once done. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

Like all good COIs, I think this'll be merely the close of round 1. user:Gkable has been indeffed for legal threats. The article pared down. A review of it requested on the Wikiproject Law talk page. It'll be well worth keeping the article on watchlists in anticipation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

This is an important Australian constitutional case. However, over several years the subject of the case, Gregory Kable, has been editing this article, including edit warring and inserting spurious claims, such as saying that he has copyright over his own name. He has been open about his identity, and the conflict of interest issue has been pointed out several times.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

~~ Yes but I have been totaly missrepresented.There are allot of negative and wrong things said about my case on this page however l have not interfeared with that. At some stage I have added more facts and corrected some too as a wiki member. A fact is a fact not bias. The Kable Doctrine is visited by every law student in Australia I chose to stop vandalism and keep references and links working and updated thats all.

Subsequently I happened to find this page on 16/10/ 2016 links disrupted by a user called Find Bruce. All I did was atempt to make the links work again. When clicking a link the link would refer to possible corrupt file and ask the user to secure link. Please see edit by Find bruce. Or talk to me about my attempt to mearely correct the links. Drm310 please talk?

Typically vandals who dont like the truth attack the page often now 17/10/2016 Smartse removed the external links that have been there for over 5 years? How do those external links overshadow wikipedia?

And then why do I get attacked by two admins now that I talked? Why did an admin remove the vandalised links I talked about. What kind of bulliing is that? Admins should also be accountable and could appreciate help in tackling vandalism? Why isnt that important smartse and dm310? How come niether of them addressed the real problem I came there to fix, a link bug put there by find bruce? They have just gone along with the vandalism. So why didnt they look at what that person did to cause the edit? Or did they send in the clown first?

What did they remove? External link Getting Justice Wrong. The Law according to Gregory Kable opening speech he gave at the First National Conference of Community Based Criminal Justice Activists. The Conference was hosted by Justice Action.

Anyone can look it up but why not from here? This is a civil rights issue why not wiki?

The edits I made are not in conflict of interest of the article. But in conflict of interest of numerous attacks of vandalism and updating broken links and bugs not fixed by admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

To take just one of your edits, how exactly is Gregory Kable adding a link to a blog hosting a Gregory Kable speech - this edit not a conflict of interest? Do you not have a clue what conflict of interest is? Right now, at best, the Aftermath section is a complete and utter fricking disaster area and I'm sorely tempted to delete much of the section. The bottom line is that you, above all people, Gkable have a conflict on interest with respect to that article. You SHOULD NOT be editing it. You should confine yourself to the talk page. It is not your article. You are disrespecting our norms. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. Fair warning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

~~Do you know what liable is? Defamatory and wrong and untrue information spread by people that give no reply to the article by the person they defame. Only the CIA would be so low as to undermine the truth. What about balance? I didnt remove lies just gave a balanced view. What is wrong with correcting vandalism? Bugs put there by anyone! Youd rather Id take Wikpedia to court? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

~~Now Tagishsimon the third bully removes Kable 2 an article posted by somone else in respect of hiding the civil and democratic right of reply to a well balanced article. Why not take the lot off? What right do you have to print defamation on line. See you in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkable (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat & other nonsense. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
And that series of legal threats has earned you a block for making legal threats. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

J. Johnson and Earthquake prediction

Looks like a snowball close. It's unanimous, this is not a COI issue.

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.

I have been having extended debates with J. Johnson (aka JJ) at the EQ prediction talk page. I believe JJ is some sort of earth science professional, and he consistently represents what he considers to be mainstream seismologist viewpoints.

Now, the last thing I want is to discourage JJ's participation at the encyclopedia, or at the article. His expertise is tremendously valuable. Wikipedia is often viewed as a hostile environment for real experts and professionals, and I don't want to contribute to that.

But there seems to be a sort of inter-disciplinary rivalry going on in this field, with some physicists having views that are orthogonal to the seismologists. It would not be appropriate to give undue weight to the physicists. But I believe JJ is going to the opposite extreme, trying to dismiss the physicists as pseudoscience, and give them zero positive weight. JJ will only allow disparaging comments regarding views that he considers 'fringe'.

I don't doubt JJ's good will, or his dedication to his sincerely held beliefs. But perhaps his closeness to the subject has led to ownership behavior, and uncivil and disparaging relations with other editors.

There is another editor involved in the ongoing discussions, an unregistered editor who identifies himself as "IP202". This editor also has a clear COI as an advocate of VAN, a Greek research group. However, none of us question that IP202 is a single purpose advocate account, and IP202 does not deny it. So in my view his COI is less of a problem. However, in JJ's view, I am taking IP202's side too often.

I recently found this statement from JJ which I consider a sort of confession of his COI:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#VAN_.22natural_time.22: If some of you folks with knowledge of, or at least some kind of familiarity with, this topic don't join in there is a strong chance of EP becoming a fluff piece for the very dubious "VAN method". Anyone that works in the field should consider how much professional embarrassment will be incurred if we let this key article devolve. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My view, on the contrary, is that adherence to wiki NPOV policy is more important than any possible embarrassment to seismologists.

user:Jytdog recently looked at the article and said that its condition is [14] the product of squabbles among editors who have completely lost sight of the article and the mission of WP. And I'm certainly not saying that I or the other editors involved are not partly to blame. But is there anything that can be said about JJ's possible COI and his role in the problems? Should his votes in RfC's and other discussions be tagged as potential COI?

I'm hoping it will help just to get some more editors' thoughts about this situation. JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally consider academics to have a COI in their own field, unless they are discussing their own work. I'm not sure if this is backed by policy, but my reaction is to give a great deal of weight to a professional opinion that a certain theory is fringe. - Brianhe (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I want to clarify that no one questions that VAN and some other physicists advocating a similar position, are 'fringe' with respect to mainstream seismology. The question is whether, within the spectrum of fringe, are they 'pseudoscience' or 'questionable science', or even 'alternative theoretical formulations'? And, if they are respectable minority viewpoints, what is the appropriate weight within the article?
But for the purposes of this discussion: if a professional editor in his own field is consistently editing contrary to NPOV, and is disparaging other editors, this is not a forum where that can be addressed? Does it have to go to AN/I, where it is not a COI issue, but something else? JerryRussell (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not COI a issue. It's the inability to distance oneself from the article subject, and an unwillingness to compromise. Both sides need to accept that the consensus version will not be entirely what either wanted. All involved parties should all seek some mentoring on describing points of view. Each side should find somebody they will actually listen to.

A good first step would be to follow the advice at various synonyms for said and banish the loaded terms 'accused', 'touted', 'claimed', 'disputed', 'challenged', 'complained', etc. Replace all those with "said". Both sides rely heavily on passive voice: "It was suggested[by whom?] that..." " have been criticized[by whom?] on various grounds...", "some critics[who?] say... ", " has been criticized[by whom?] on several occasions...". Replace all that weasly passive voice with plain, boring old "X said Y". Never characterize the statement. Don't be coy about who said it. And no breathless "raised a wave of generalized skepticism" or any of that.

Earthquake prediction is controversial; we've verified that fact. Any assertion in a controversial field is going to draw criticism. Just write: VAN said this, Professor A said that, VAN said something else, Professor B said something more. If a Professor C said "The VAN method is pseudoscience", then, write, "Professor C said the VAN method is pseudoscience". If professor C didn't say that, then don't write it.

The wordyness and excessive detail of the VAN sections exists more to placate warring editors than to help the reader understand the topic. A lot of that can be moved to the VAN method article. The advice avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies should be given serious consideration.

Integrate it, only write "said", and identify the who said it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason these editors can't distance themselves from the article subject, is because they're academically or professionally involved. Maybe they can take Dennis' advice, I hope so. But this idea that professionals have no COI in their work area, seems really surprising to me. So does this mean the rest of us have no choice but to either put up with the endless backbiting and soapboxing, or else take it to AN/I and try to get one side blocked, or the other, or both? That seems like a perverse result to me, we don't want to lose any of our academics and professionals. It also seems to me that it's a strange interpretation of the COI policy. As a relative newbie, maybe I see things old-timers don't?JerryRussell (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Expert editors can be a pain in the ass. But then so can Randy in Boise. Academics write everything in passive voice and are proud of it, and they rely too heavily on primary sources. Wikipedia is not the place for meta-analysis of journal articles. But yes, if any editor isn't staying within basic editing guidelines, then you have to try AN/I. But try some other solutions first, like mentoring, or other dispute resolution. I've had mixed results with AN/I and dispute resolution, so I'd favor recruiting your own mentor, and JJ recruiting his own. Might work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's fair. Could I recruit you for a few minutes, Dennis? I arrived at EQ prediction in late June 2016, coming from a notice at NPOV noticeboard. We had an RfC and ongoing discussions since then. How have I been doing at the talk page, and with my edits? Any suggestions? You can move to my talk page, or send email if you want. JerryRussell (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, no. I'm no mentor on this. You need somebody who has had a lot more success than me finding compromises and resolving content disputes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
LOL :) I see from your user page that you've been around for awhile. If such DR wizards exist, you would be the one to know how to find them. Any suggestions? Or shall I take it that we're all bozos on the bus? JerryRussell (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Be careful lest you desecrate a holy script. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO this is not COI problem. The language like "But that doesn't give Staszek (or anyone else) a warrant to whack away freely without any further discussion," is a prime indication of WP:OWN problem. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Michael Gastauer and WB21

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Michael Gastauer

Topics affected:

Users involved (so far):

Highly promotional and poorly sourced claims (e.g. claiming to be one of the 50 richest people in Germany, claiming to have sold a company for $480m with no sources except quotes from Michael Gastauer). Repeated deletions of critical news reports (Financial Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc.). Michael Gastauer is currently attempting to raise €200m investment in his company, the ability of potential investors to do due diligence should not be hampered.Fin3999 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

it may just be me, but there seems to be a fair amount of quacking going on. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked Subineditor 123, ChiefEdit88 and Editor254 for meatpuppetry / sockpuppetry, very likely meat and may not even be in the same country. For ganging up on the article and editing in a COI fashion. Not sure about Sajithvs88 who has only used the talk page. Wouldn't hurt for a CU to peek in here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Veri854

I was going to bring this up here last week when one of the article had been except the David SK Lee article had been WP:PROD without much issues except for a once off removal of PROD notice. Shortly after, Veri854 recreated the article. At that time, I noticed that he only created two articles that he may have connection with. Donnie Park (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why Veri854 doesn't want to respond. Anyway, I have gone ahead and added a COI tag to the other article now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Socketpuppets detected in Germany

This is only to inform you that in de:WP a recent CheckUser detected at least three Accounts managed by one person (see here). All three Users are also present in en:WP. Best regards --KarlV 10:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Key element to the above report is So weit technisch nachweisbar ist damit ziemlich sicher, dass die beiden Konten vom gleichen Benutzer betrieben wurden., essentially meaning that as technically demonstrable, the two (sic) accounts were operated by the same user. A later comment mentions the third account -- samtar talk or stalk 10:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've dropped {{subst:coin-notice|thread=Socketpuppets detected in Germany}} on all three users. WeserStrom has been soft blocked here for a username policy issue for a long time. I'm not opening a WP:SPI case at this point, as we have not yet determined that the two remaining accounts have been used abusively on EN-WP, and they have no previous blocks logged. Murph9000 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

JoannaPaulaC

JoannaPaulaC is a undeclared shill. All editing is promotional. Took over two jobs previously done by paid advocate User:Renzoy16 [15].
Just like other paid promoters. Posting Rocky Williform at Rocky D. Williform to separate it from previous deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I added ChrisBergman to the above. Seems like an SPA/Paid editor as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The Geek Group

I think the above information is enough to show a conflict of interest for the above editors. I haven't had time to dig through the entire page's history but I have a hunch more would be found if done so. Zlassiter (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The Looking

Appears to be written for hire about a band with dubious notability. - Brianhe (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Nation

Carrying on from the spamming done by User:Jpoindex (see COIN Archive). These accounts are all dedicated to the promotion of Creative Nation, Carnival and their artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Third World; Country or People?

I came across this via the AfD for The Third World; Country or People?. While I was looking for sources I quickly found evidence that Arash Titan is a pen name for the book's author, which is openly stated on various different author pages for Nejad and Titan like on Lulu. This was never disclosed anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find.

Looking at both accounts' actions, both editors seem to have made a lot of edits concerning Alireza Salehi Nejad. Bmajlesara made this edit to remove problem tags from the article for the book and also tried to link to a WikiData page for Salehi Nejad on two pages. A look at the page history on WikiData shows that both editors have heavily edited that page, which makes me concerned that this might be their way of trying to get around WP:NBIO on Wikipedia.

Arashtitan has the most edits of the two and a look at their history shows that they have frequently tried to Wikipedia. Here's a link of some the other ways he's tried to add him work to Wikipedia, including what I linked to above:

  1. Longitudinal study
  2. 1970 British Cohort Study
  3. Third World
  4. National Child Development Study
  5. Poverty trap
  6. European migrant crisis
  7. Cycle of poverty
  8. International development
  9. Social exclusion
  10. Poverty

There appears to be more and I'll add it as I find and clean it out. I'm leaning very heavily to just blocking at least Areshtitan for spamming himself on Wikipedia, given that this has been fairly constant and makes up a large portion of his edits - plus he's been doing this since fairly early on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • An SPI has also been opened. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This looks to be it for his attempts to add himself, but that's still a lot of attempts to add himself. It also doesn't help that a lot of those were for his book, which he published through his own company, which poses issues of it being a WP:SPS. His activity in this end seems to have ramped up in the last year or so, which makes me concerned that there will likely be more attempts to add his work to Wikipedia. By large it looks like Bmajlesara was someone that Arashtitan enlisted to come and edit Wikipedia, making it a case of WP:MEAT. If not for his AfD participation (where his answers are typically very brief) I'd have blocked him outright. That, paired with the lack of any other, earlier attempts to add himself, is the only reason I'm not blocking him - but I'm still tempted, given that there does seem to be an agenda aimed at adding him to Wikipedia in some form or fashion. As far as I can tell, the only people interested in adding his work to Wikipedia is the author himself and someone he asked to edit with him, neither of whom have disclosed any sort of COI. At the very least I'd recommend a short block for both for not disclosing their COI and for what looks to be a clear attempt to promote the author on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also worth noting is that Bmajlesara also tried to create SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society, which listed Salehi-Nejad as one of its editors. That article was deleted as copyvio, but that does add on to the overall issue here. When posting about this on the deleting admin's page, they did not disclose their ties to Alireza Salehi Nejad. Given that they were brought on to make edits, this just makes me a little leery that this might be a way to try to avoid COI guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I went through so much of the current edits that I didn't check Arashtitan's deleted edits and it looks like he did try to make a page for himself at Arash Salehi back in 2011. He also tried making a page for his company Titan Inc that same year, so it looks like he's been at this since 2011, but has been more active during this last year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like the SPI closed with both accounts being technically indistinguishable from one another, so both are blocked and tagged as sockpuppet/sockmaster. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Umais Bin Sajjad

films (sample)
actors (sample)
film companies
drafts

For background on this case, refer to

This editor, who was blocked for copyright vio by Doc James, has just been confirmed as part of a large sockring. The wake of promotional film articles is extensive. I have provided links to a sampling above, but a fuller investigation is needed. Note that the editor was taking paid editing jobs as indicated in the COIN archive link. It was never disclosed on his userpage or on any of the film, film company or actor articles that I'm aware of. This disclosure lists exactly one article.

There is another editor listed at SPI but not yet confirmed. CorrectionLab 3000 also edited many of the same film related articles. - Brianhe (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this Brianhe. This will need significant cleanup. Btw, I have noticed that socks increasingly try to infiltrate NPP and mark articles as reviewed. This needs to be stopped or at least looked into. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes this person was selling services on fiverr. And continues to sell Wikipedia editing in other venues :-( At this point not sure much more we can do other than play whack a mole.
The other sock investigation is here
They nicely list all their articles hereDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious AfD close

See this post at ANI about a suspicious AfD Close. It seems there might be editors who are paid to close AfDs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

J Barry Grenga

[USER:JBH] is DELETING comments in SUPPORT of an article in clear VIOLATION of policy. The users comments must be REMOVED from the discussion and his "edit of positive comments in support of the aritcle" undone. This user should be removed from admin access and is clearly an unsavory person using their admin privilages to andvance their own peronal bias. The article on J Barry Grenga should be kept and support of his article from members of the Academy Of Motion Picuture should be - put back into the discussion - as their comments were UNETHICALLY removed by [USER:JBH] . Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • [USER:JBH] This user is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies. He has objected to article titled J Barry Grenga and deletes comments in favor of the article. He deleted the below comments from a user in support of the article.
Unformatted samples

Keep The main person objecting to this article USER:JBH is violating wikipedia regulations and will be reported to the site. He keeps deleting comments in favor of the article. He deleted the following comments ... Keep SEVEN members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are huddled around a desk as I comment. Our membership in the Academy ranges from 3 years to 27 years. In terms of notability of J Barry Grenga and his contributions to the reputation of FSU Film School, his participation in launching that film school into the "internal los angeles discussions" are incalculable in our collective opinions. We are the authority on the matter not you. Mr. Grenga's film was as mentioned the first of it's kind at FSU receiving an Oscar & Emmy & in Cannes. The article should absolutely remain and if it doesn't members of the "retired" Hollywood community will repost the article. The notion that some person sitting behind their computer would question the absolute honor of winning those awards is preposterous. His article was brought to our attention this last week. To comment on the references the point was made of these awards dating to the founding of google so yes there was an article in Variety the La Times and so forth however google was not in existence to record said article. Someone at the Emmy's has also noticed the lack of his Emmy noted on IMDB and that was taken care of this past week & should be listed on IMDB shortly. In our opinions FSU film school was also as mentioned just barely noticeable. After Mr. Grenga received his Emmy and a few months later Mr. Jackson his Oscar, the "notability" as you folks harp on of FSU Film School went through the roof ! End of story. SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep Though you've never heard of Mr. Grenga I can assure you his name is know in hollywood circles though he's not worked there in many years. I think the lot of you have no real understanding of what it means to be accepted in an MFA Film School. From a statistical point of view it's easier to get into Harvard Medical School than it is any graduate film school. MFA film programs are coveted by students around the globe and tens of thousands of people apply and very few get accepted. Of the few accepted many quit from the pressure and workload and of those left still fewer are , selected , by the faculty to play key roles in the MFA thesis film process. Of say 50,000 applicants from around the globe Mr. J Barry Grenga was selected for as we understand several MFA programs of which he has his choice. So on the notion of what is "notable" lets really explore that. What is notable ? Someone like Kim Kardashian becomes notable from a sex tape and step father Bruce Jenner for gold metals initially. Notability is not just a general public issue as in these cases but also it's category specific. Right now all around the world young men and woman probably to the tune of more than 100,000 are hurriedly filling out applications to MFA film shcools (NYU, USC, AFI). Twenty years ago that was the list of MFA film programs of note, of notability. The list now reads (NYU, USC, AFI, FSU). Mr. Grenga is no small part responsible for the catapulting of FSU's reputation. Not being from the world of film you folks seem not to understand the gravity of the EMMY and OSCAR, and it's relevancy and affect on a film schools reputation ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-ONE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-TWO SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-THREE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FOUR SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-FIVE SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SIX SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences-participant-SEVEN SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep More to the point it can be said the Mr. J Barry Grenga is single handedly responsible for the erudite & exalted reputation of FSU Film School. His MFA thesis film won the EMMY and OSCAR and CANNES triple combination of awards because he convinced Kodak to supply a voluminous amount of film stock. His procurement of extra film stock allowed Slow Dancing to be filmed in the same way a professional production would be shot. What that means is you just keep shooting the scene until you get the performances needed from the actor VS having to stop short of a quality performance to make sure you have enough film left for the film shoot. Mr. Grenga made sure his film had MORE film stock than any other MFA thesis film in FSU history. The winning of the EMMY the OSCAR the screening at CANNES was due to extra film stock which allowed the director good performances from the actors. Let's suppose Mr Grenga hadn't gone to fsu and went to another film school. His film there at say NYU would probably have also won the awards. In that case FSU film school might to this day still not have won both the EMMY and OSCAR. In that case the reputation of FSU film school would be much less and the list would still be (NYU, USC, AFI). SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep There is a reason HE was selected Valedictorian and not the films Director Tom Jackson ! At the MFA screening the audience loved the film ! The faculty knew they had a winner on their hands ! The faculty knew who was responsible for what ! SENIOR-MEMBER-of-academy-of-motion-picture-arts-and-sciences (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I will try to contact wikiepedia and report his obvious bios and unethical behavior, as well as redact his edit. Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Mrcitizenx (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the user you're complaining about appears not to be JBH, who hasn't edited in a decade, but Jbhunley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
And the edits you're complaining about looks appropriate. It was one user repeatedly placing "keep" votes. Jbhunley didn't delete those comments, just "hat" it.
And even if they were wrong, that doesn't show he has a conflict of interest.
Are there people acting wrong? Well, yes. There's either one user pretending to be several people, or several people using the same account, and in either case, there's a violation.
And then there's the editor who deleted the AFD notice from the article, very much against policy. (Don't worry, I'll restore it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just noting I have seen this thread. No, I do not have a COI here. I am not an admin. Please ping me if needed. JbhTalk 13:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Martin Chávez

Hi there: this article about Martin Chávez, a former mayor of Albuquerque has been heavily edited by a user named MartyChavez. Also, MartyChavez has never edited any other wikipedia article. I will flag the page. Incidentally, a similar situation exists on the article for the current major, Richard J. Berry, although there someone has already flagged the page (but not, as far as I can tell, opened a post here. I can confirm that the IP address is being reported by whois; there is something on the talk page about one of the user names being very close to a city employee's, but that part I have not confirmed. Elinruby (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears that an organization he runs has also had some heavy promotion on WP. See the revision just prior to the merge especially. - Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
So... user DelaneyWoodward, who has edited the Richard J Berry page in the past, would seem to be a city employee, indeed, see LinkedIn. I came back to get the notification template, will leave one on her talk as well. I guess there is no question of outing? They are essentially using their real names. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, this is tricky territory. Best to be a bit careful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Trying, @Lemongirl942:, trying. I don't usually swim much in these waters. All input here or on my talk page will be pondered :P I have notified the IP and the DelaneyWoodward pages, off to notify MartyChavez Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
seems @Brianhe already did that notification. I think that is everything I am supposed to do? Oh, and I should mention that the DelaneyWoodward account has only ever edited the Richard J. Berry page. Elinruby (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Eric LeCompte (non-profit)

 – The concern expressed here seems to be primarily WP:COI, rather than any specific WP:BLP content. Murph9000 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The article has been going back and forth for a while, been trying to clean up some of the language and use some better sources. Been working on it with User:LoveSometimesLoses but it seems like this editor has a personal relationship w the subject of some kind: the user description is "Hi Eric!" and the user has made claims to know the subject's educational background that's outside of public knowledge as far as I can tell. The name also seems to be a dig at somebody who previously edited the page (LoveAlwaysWins). I sent him a message suggesting that he not edit the page if he has a personal relationship with the subject and he sent back an accusatory message at me. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm the subject of this complaint. I have very little doubt that most if not all of the following users are sock puppets or meat puppets of one another:
It is worth noting that of these nine users, seven of them were already indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. All of the users follow the exact same pattern of edits: they are all recently registered and, apart from editing Eric LeCompte (non-profit), make only superficial edits on articles that seem to be chosen with the random article button (the only substantive edit to a page other than Eric LeCompte (non-profit) that Citizenlandi has made, for example, is to List of fictional rabbits and hares). All of the pertinent edits of these users seem to stress the importance of Eric LeCompte, the subject of the article, and the majority of them actually fraudulently weighed in on a discussion to merge the article, all advocating against it, which is why so many of them ended up permanently blocked.
I also am of the belief that it's fairly clear that the person who is behind these accounts is Eric LeCompte himself. I understand that this is a serious charge, but consider the following:
1. The only one of the blocked users above who offered any real defense was Rob205162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who claimed on his user talk page that he was not the same person as the other users, but was instead merely posting at the same time and from the same IP address as they were because one of his colleagues at work asked him to do so. Before he changed his user name, Rob205162 used the name Rmswingley. Robin Swingley was Eric LeCompte's intern at Jubilee USA. It is not hard to imagine that it was Eric LeCompte who was directing Rmswingley at work to serve as a meat puppet.
2. Some of the above accounts have pretty relentlessly edited out of the article the fact that Eric LeCompte spent most of his professional career at School of the Americas Watch, a noteworthy organisation that one would think is perfectly suitable for inclusion in the article. Interestingly, Eric LeCompte himself chooses to exclude his former employer from his own biography, as he does on LinkedIn, and even failed to mention it on a CV he submitted along with a sworn disclosure form to the United States House of Representatives. I do not believe it to be mere coincidence that both LeCompte and the users I list above are so keen on deleting reference LeCompte's previous employer.
3. Although the webpage for School of the Americas Watch makes it clear that LeCompte's title was 'events coordinator', in multiple articles that LeCompte has either written about himself online or has provided the information for, when he has to mention his former employer, he claims that his title was 'national coordinator'. This is a strange discrepancy that M224k58 seems to be interested in obfuscating by deleting the events coordinator title from the article, as he does here. Citizenlandi does the same thing, deleting the same cited material here. This has happened multiple times.
In sum, I think that this complaint about me, pure speculation that I have some sort of relationship with LeCompte, is an attempt to cover the fact that there are nine different users, seven of whom who have already received blocks for sock puppetry, who are making incredibly similar edits at around the same time on an article about a guy who, with all due respect to Mr. LeCompte, isn't exactly the most famous person in the world. I further think that these users are likely LeCompte himself, another reason for the desperate claim that I must be related to LeCompte. I'm not sure if I should open up a case elsewhere with this information or if simply posting it here is good enough, but I think it would be worth considering checkuser in this case. Note that LeCompte travels quite a bit, and was at the IMF/World Bank meetings in DC just recently, for example, and so could have easily switched IPs, but I hope the administrators see that I'm really not the problem on this page. --LoveSometimesLoses (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


1. I'm not a sockpuppet. I don't believe that LoveSometimesLoses is acting in good faith by accusing me of being one. I'm not the subject, Eric LeCompte. I've been editing pages before LoveSometimesLoses set up an account. I came across this page because I've heard of the organization (Jubilee) and LeCompte and then came across this person editing the page and writing notes like "Hi Eric" on the wikipage and found it weird. I'm not a frequent wiki editor but you can see in my contribs I don't edit random articles - I edit things I'm interested in.

2. On the other hand, this is the ONLY page that LoveSometimesLoses has ever edited.

3. The account LovesSometimesLoses seems as if it was set up to mock an account that previously edited this page, LoveAlwaysWins. It also seems that LoveSometimesLoses regularly misrepresents sources and primary citations about the subject. LovesSometimesLoses seems to have a personal relationship or bias towards the subject.

4. I don't think School of the Americas Watch should be removed from the article. I just think it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I've noted that before and cited wiki guidelines for why. Nor have I ever tried to remove it from where it's referenced lower in the article.

5. It's strange to me that this person seems to feel that LeCompte isn't worthy of having a wiki page but spends a lot of time editing and commenting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenlandi (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My response to the numbered points you make in the same order in which you make them:
1. Yes, we can see in your contribs that of the 37 edits you've made, the only ones of any substance were on the article about Eric LeCompte with the exception of List of fictional rabbits and hares, in which you inserted a fragment of one sentence. You've also made a small handful of non-substantive edits to articles about American football and the guy who used to sing for Jane's Addiction such as this one. There's nothing wrong with being really interested in Eric LeCompte, a man who was in a 1980s band, American Football, and fictional rabbits and hares, and if those are your main interests, more power to you. My charge here isn't that this is illegitimate, it's that it fits into the pattern of the sock puppet and meat puppet accounts that I have already mentioned, which made minor edits on a series of pages that had nothing to do with one another before jumping into the Eric LeCompte article with gusto.
2. That's true, but I am both technically and behaviourally distinguishable from the long series of banned sock puppets and meat puppets on this page, so I'm not sure what your point here is.
3. Once again, zero diffs are provided to back up this baseless accusation of misrepresentation of sources. I don't say that with any malice, I just don't know how else to describe it.
4. Yes, and I've discussed on the talk page why I think you are wrong about this. It certainly seems pretty important to both you and to Eric LeCompte that the information about his title be obfuscated. This strikes me as more than just a coincidence.
5. See, here you are mistaking me for someone who participated in the merge proposal discussion in which the banned sock puppets weighed in. I'm not one. So the idea that I'm against the very existence of the Eric LeCompte article is once again baseless. Interestingly, if you're not a sock puppet or meat puppet of the other banned accounts, then you didn't participate in that discussion either, so it'd be strange that you are thinking about it.
By the way, two hours before you edited this I got a message from M224k58 about this discussion. Interesting that after days of it going stale, both of you chimed in at about the same time. I believe that this once again evidence of behavioural indistinguishability. --LoveSometimesLoses (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am reluctant to weigh in here because I do not want to get drawn into this. But as I've had my name mentioned here multiple times, I'll reply. I'm annoyed at being dragged into a conversation that has nothing to do with me. From teh very first moment I edited this page, I got a message from LoveSometimesLoses saying "Hi Eric. How are you doing?" I replied by asking him if he was accusing me of being Eric LeCompte. he then changed something on his talk page to "Yes, It's you." or something similar.
I am not Eric LeCompte. Is there some way to file a complaint on bad faith violations?‎
LoveSometimesLoses writes above about things LeCompte told people about his role with the School of the Americas and it not being right. It seems LoveSometimesLoses lacks neutrality in editing this page.
If somebody disagrees with the substance of my edits I hope they are working in a community spirit to create well reserched work. Above LoveSometimesLoses makes a lot of accusations. It's not right that LoveSometimesLoses writes odd things or makes accusations towards me on my talk page. M224k58 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Capital Teas

Notice withdrawn by 331dot. Other party is talking. -- Brianhe (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

I noticed edits to the Capital Teas article made by PalomaCapTeas. They were first rolled back by Kleuske citing NOTPROMO. After the user repeated them I rolled them back again and posted notices on their user talk page, but they were not replied to. They made the same edits and I reverted them again, along with those of KnitItAndQuitIt. I'm not sure if they are the same person or not- but whether they are or not, they both may be paid representatives of the company; at least "PalomaCapTeas" which I interpret to mean "Paloma of Capital Teas". 331dot (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made contact with PalomaCapTeas; attempting to get them to comment. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
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.

Change detection

User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts without taking it to the talk page. Your edit summaries have misapplied policies - citing yourself is not automatically spam (see WP:SELFCITE), and notability is required for the topic of an article, not for the contents and references. That doesn't mean that the inclusion is due, but I suggest you and @PhilOt: discuss this first on the article's Talk page, before dragging it elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: I have tried talking to him on User talk:PhilOt, including:
> you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s)
he does not appear to have interest in talking about this, or reaching a consensus. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you templated him.
Perhaps one of the ways you might encourage him to have a discussion is to start an actual discussion, on the talk page of the article, where other editors of that article could see. That seems a better way of working toward consensus.
Also, if you are seeking page protection, this is not the best place to come. We have a separate page specifically for such requests. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The templates are well-written text, with relevant policies (for new users!) and invitations to discuss. By placing them on the user talk page rather than the page talk, it is usually considered to be less offensive rather than publicly saying "your work is not important enough to be added here" publicly on the talk page immediately. But yes, if he re-adds the publication yet again without discussion, I will go the page protection requests next. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: Thank you for the explanation of the Wikipedia Policies and recommending to use the Talk page. I was really wondering, why @HelpUsStopSpam: undid important revisions of the article for the reason of WP:SELFCITE or WP:COI. Now, I added a section on the Talk page in order to explain why revisions of the article are needed. My proposals are additionally added in this section. Moreover, I would like to point out that it is important to distinguish between WP:CITESPAM, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:COI. Not always, an uncited reference is not important for an article/section. The importance of sources must be evaluated in the context of the specific contribution (that means with regards to contents of the source), but not by a single view on the number of cites. PhilOt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Change detection

User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts without taking it to the talk page. Your edit summaries have misapplied policies - citing yourself is not automatically spam (see WP:SELFCITE), and notability is required for the topic of an article, not for the contents and references. That doesn't mean that the inclusion is due, but I suggest you and @PhilOt: discuss this first on the article's Talk page, before dragging it elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: I have tried talking to him on User talk:PhilOt, including:
> you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s)
he does not appear to have interest in talking about this, or reaching a consensus. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you templated him.
Perhaps one of the ways you might encourage him to have a discussion is to start an actual discussion, on the talk page of the article, where other editors of that article could see. That seems a better way of working toward consensus.
Also, if you are seeking page protection, this is not the best place to come. We have a separate page specifically for such requests. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The templates are well-written text, with relevant policies (for new users!) and invitations to discuss. By placing them on the user talk page rather than the page talk, it is usually considered to be less offensive rather than publicly saying "your work is not important enough to be added here" publicly on the talk page immediately. But yes, if he re-adds the publication yet again without discussion, I will go the page protection requests next. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: Thank you for the explanation of the Wikipedia Policies and recommending to use the Talk page. I was really wondering, why @HelpUsStopSpam: undid important revisions of the article for the reason of WP:SELFCITE or WP:COI. Now, I added a section on the Talk page in order to explain why revisions of the article are needed. My proposals are additionally added in this section. Moreover, I would like to point out that it is important to distinguish between WP:CITESPAM, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:COI. Not always, an uncited reference is not important for an article/section. The importance of sources must be evaluated in the context of the specific contribution (that means with regards to contents of the source), but not by a single view on the number of cites. PhilOt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_107&oldid=1143883585"