Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 130

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132→Archive 135

User:Bambikha

Self-evident. Death pool (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I was asked by TVGuestpert to help them to create this page. I am an independent person and do not work for them as a regular employee on payroll. I do other work for them like website development. I would like for it to get rewritten to maintain Wikipedia standards, if possible. Bambikha (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Replied at Bambikha's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Potatornado

Just indeffed this user for spamming and undisclosed paid advocacy editing. [1][2][3] and [4] are choice picks. Was sockpuppeting in the past, at least once, and has had several articles deleted as spam. MER-C 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Two more spammers busted with the same technique. MER-C 11:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ProfAntonioRaggi

This is (apparently) an SPA, dedicated to publish the results of a paper by Simone Marino in various articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I have pointed out this lends WP:UNDUE weight to a fresh (and more importantly) uncited article, but that did not leave a lasting impression. An invitation to discuss this has gone unanswered. While I suspected a WP:COI from the getgo, this message on my talk page clinched it. It also makes me suspect the account is in fact used by multiple persons to promote the research of an (unnamed) "research centre". Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Gotta love the "Worm regards" signoff. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

2000+ accounts blocked

Still getting my facts straight, but this appears to be a sockfarm with 2,000+ accounts blocked on French Wikipedia and investigation still under way on enwp. Berean Hunter seems to be most involved here, so maybe we can find out from them whether there is likely a COI. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Unknown. Someone was trying to do some industrial-size sock farming so there is a good chance.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Bri it might be worth setting up a subpage to go through and check the contribs of the accounts systematically. COIN doesn't have the room for that many accounts, IMO. Maybe Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Meleshoui could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I did a spot check and a rough translation of the fr.wiki investigator notes, it appears only one account actually edited a userpage on meta and Commons. But yeah a systematic check would be good. Maybe there's a more automated way to go about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
holy cow. this is large scale, important work. I really, really appreciate the people who do that work. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know that between these accounts, not a single one has edited the main namespace. MER-C 19:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Merrimack College

Much of the article is in first-person ("our logo," "our colors," etc.), and is glowingly positive. Been mentioned in the talk page since 2005.67.141.87.150 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if theres anything there that isnt copyvio from the school website? Curdle (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
fixed the posting... Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
and scrubbed the article. bunch of COPYVIO. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:420CapeTown

Self-evident. Only edits to company and its CEO. Death pool (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

yep - tried to open a discussion at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:M.Yaghoubi

I think it is pretty self-evident from the edits and the username of the user. Special:Contributions/M.Yaghoubi   Varsha|talk   13:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

50.74.190.142

Addition of unsourced promotional crap ("Award-winning explorer and underwater robotics expert Tim Taylor, President and CEO of Tiburon Subsea..."), almost certainly a COI. I removed the crap but got reverted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I see the IP has been addressed and their edits reverted. I am watching as are others I am sure. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

59 Club

Pretty self explanatory, user The 59 Club is clear working for the subject of the topic, the 59 Club and using topic to promote its own future events in 2019, as per WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:FUTURE etc. 148.252.129.118 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That ipv6 editor has added a ton of non sourced content, which is now being removed. scope_creep (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you can tell he's part of "the ageing Ton-Up/Rocker scene." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Possibly the same user as "The 59 Club" not logged in? Does not get WP:CRYSTALBALL and is using page as advertising. Does not play by the rules. --148.252.129.112 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

drewmonda

Further information has come in, the more we have dug into this. The oldest account is actually drewmonda and there are lots of socks, and lots of articles. The title and listing have changed as of today. It was formerly titled "Greg J Marchand" and was focused on GuinnessFreak, so some of the discussion will be odd unless you keep that in mind. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

master
socks
pages

Person GuinnessFreak claims that they are just a Guinness World Record fan who has no connection to the article subject, Greg Marchand. Article is horribly promotional and completely aligns with subject's own PR. Image used is obviously downloaded from subject's website. Very likely UPE or direct COI. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? I'm interested in Guinness World Records so I google some people that have world records that I think WP:Notability, and decide to write articles. This Jytdog guy has been all over me. First a speedy deletion nomination, then when that fails, articles of deletion, now that the consensus is that the article has some merit, he goes down this COI road. I am NOT in any way connected to my subjects. Can you please block this guy from messing with me. I don't know what I've done to upset him, all I've done is ask for help editing the article and for suggestions on how to improve it from the start. With all the energy he's put into flagging for deletions and fake COI, he coulda just re-written the article. Also as you can see, all my pages include big sections on controversies and negative details about my subjects as well. I work for nobody.  :) GuinnessFreak (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fleshing this out more. User:Serial Number 54129 asked GuinnessFreak here about paid editing/COI and prior accounts, and GuinnessFreak replied here saying no, none. Serial Number 54129followed up, GuinessFreakagain said no with some freaking out about the word "shit" appearing in Serial Number 54128's customized signature, which was resolved, and at the end of which GuinessFreak again denied any connection or any editing for pay.
User:TonyBallioni then followed up about past accounts and GuinessFreak again said no.
I then came across the horrifically promotional page about a doctor, and wrote this and GuinessFreak again said no.
The more I dug into the article itself and the more vehemently GuinessFreak defended it the more clear it became to me that the denials are not credible.
At the AfD we have also had:
* an IP come !vote
*An account whose last edit was in 2009 (contribs) came and vote... someone who is casually familiar with me per their edit note: just another jytdog COI fight at the old wikipedia corral.
So there is some more of the background here.
The main evidence is the terrible page, of course. Content is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
except almost no one else sees it that way. admins and users have edited and reviewed the page, the consensus is that is balanced and not overly promotional. you have offered zero edits to improve it, and no edits from anyone have been undone by anyone. I am a world records enthusiast making pages in good faith. I worked hard on putting it together and want to see it improved. I dont see why we can't fix the page together. lots of other good edits have been made by other users. why not rewrite the page together? this subject is interesting and notorious. maybe stop fighting and start writing? GuinnessFreak (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
no. No admin has edited the article or commented at the AfD. You have interacted with precisely one admin - TonyBallioni. You exaggerate even when you just talk about things, for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly as you said, the admin saw the page and did not flag it as remove for promotional. Instead he/she was only concerned about a possible COI, of which there is none. Do you think they would have done that if it was a promotional commercial?? Many people have read and edited the work. Only you maintain the idea that it is completely unsalvageable. The page was also reviewed by one initial user, and other users have made considerable contributions. I originally thought that anyone who has special privileges in WP was an admin, but I see hat is not the case. I can honestly say that you are not the first person to tell me that my writing style is exaggerated. I have tried to work on that to make better encyclopedia articles, but I may still need some work. I have spent a lot of time putting the research together on this page, and I chose the subject from a lot of guinness recipients who did not have pages. This is a great subject, certainly meeting all the noteablities, and also notorious to some (literally spreading cancer and killing people!) and academically revered by others (med schools literally teaching his surgeries.) I'll accept that I'm a crappy writer or that I exaggerate too much, but I'm not going to accept that through all of the changes and edits that have been made by so many editors at this point (none of which were undone) that this article has no value at all. I strongly recommend you conclude your AFD and together we write the article that wikipedia deserves. GuinnessFreak (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
You continue to exaggerate. 9 people have edited and most of those were quick touches removing garbage or fixing small errors.
and "revered"? What??
Your editing is not only promotional as hell on the surface, the sources you used were terrible and you did WP:SYN things all over the place. I took up the gauntlet you have been throwing down. here is the result of searching for high quality sources and looking at what Marchand has done to generate press to better help identify churnalism. I worked over the article and was left with this, which makes his lack of notability very clear (then self reverted). You used so many bad sources and padded it like crazy. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is promotional, I think it is intended as an attack page to highlight concerns about the subject's surgical procedures. That criticism has been in there since the first draft. Something purely promotional would probably not include that potentially serious accusation. Add to that the negative comments from GuinnessFreak about the subject in discussions, and I am inclined to think that the promotional copypasta is merely there to flesh out an article that is actually a case of WP:COATRACK. Shritwod (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No the morcellation stuff is just a headfake. Most people read only the lead and that is high octane PROMO. The two "sources" used in the lead about the morcellation are driven by his PR and both include the exact same quote: This doctor believes he has all but eliminated the risk.. Both of those "sources" are Nextar.com affiliates. That media company promises on their website: "Nexstar Media Group offers superior audience engagement across all media devices and local broadcast television’s unrivalled influence on consumers’ purchasing and political decisions.". This is absolutely raw sewage dumped in WP to promote this guy.Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I requested a CC0 image for my article from several sources. (every email I could find.) I did not offer anything in return. I was emailed and given instructions on how I could get it. I noticed the account name was clarabell89. I assume that is someone related to my subject. I have no knowledge of any other accounts. I can provide the email exchange if needed. I have done nothing in exchange and have no coi.GuinnessFreak (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

whoa sorry I didnt know what SPA stood for. I am not a single purpose account and I will release 3 more very high quality articles about Guinness recipients in the next 2 weeks if you can guarantee jytdog won't do "this" to them. GuinnessFreak (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If they are this bad they will also be deleted. You don't seem to have an interest in learning what is acceptable editing here. That is too bad. A waste of everybody's time. You should put future edits through WP:AFC which will save some drama. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the apparent sockpuppetry and pretty obvious COI here, a review of Dmonda's edit history shows just two other entries, both in the same field as Greg J. Marchand, i.e. Vincenzo Sabella and Liselotte Mettler. I would suggest the former certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, not so certain about the latter. Thoughts, anyone? Shritwod (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • so more socks, and listed more articles. I also changed the title to the sockmaster as this is a bigger deal than just the Marchand page. It is pretty obvious that somebody has a business doing PR for surgeons. It appears that Demir and Marchand started the "Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons" to market themselves. The society has no functioning website but it has a youtube channel here, which has a marketing "welcome" video by Demir. The website is registered to the address of a place that offers co-working and virtual space in Seattle. This is sordid. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sbelknap

escalated to AN Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Closed with a TBAN here. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (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.

As stated in the previous notice by Jytdog, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 113, Sbelknap has confirmed his identity, and advocates for raising awareness of sexual side effects of 5α-reductase inhibitors and has authored several studies on adverse effects of the drug and persistent side effects, which he has cited before in his edits. The majority of these edits emphasize these effects and are buried within multiple edits at once. Here is a recent example to the lead section here. And in the side effects section here, here, and here. It appears based on the talk archives this has been a consistent problem. This appears to be a clear COI, especially given past behavior as detailed in the previous noticeboard post and the continuation of placing undue weight on side effects, leading to disruptive editing that often has to be reverted by admins. Jojomuju (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The self-cite stuff in the archive link is a concern. But having an opinion on a topic, even a strongly held opinion, is not in itself a COI. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris pushing a pet theory is discussed WP:MEDCOI. It is a problem. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that, but we sometimes have people who claim that an academic who edits consistent with the mainstream of their field has a COI. (I think this is less of a problem than it was a few years ago.) We need to be careful not to give those folks ammunition. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
I hear that; the actual behavior here - the single focus on their own publications and then on 5α-reductase inhibitors, makes this easy to distinguish. It is a damn shame as somebody like this could be so valuable if they focused on the mission of the editing community instead of self-promotion and this single issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The COI seems fairly apparent here. The editor has fought fiercly about the superiority of one study PMID 26296373 that cites his work, suggesting it can fix weight issues in the article, attempting to overhaul the article without reaching consensus, even after multiple reverts, suggesting this editor would be better served by posting suggestions on the talk page instead of editing directly. Jojomuju (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems the editor has tried to supercede discussion on the topic also by filing a request for mediation without discussion on the talk page here, which was denied, also placing a factual accuracy template on the article here which was removed shortly thereafter. It seems clear, aside from the COI, this editor isn't willing to collaborate with other editors and if disagreed with will try to "go over their heads" to achieve his goals. Jojomuju (talk)
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.

Soubhik Das

NAC: Blocked as a sockpuppet - See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritualbanda. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2018 (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.

The article is being disruptively moved between article space, draft space, and back to article space to avoid Articles for Deletion. This sort of ownership behavior typically indicates a real proprietary interest such as a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2018 (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.

Malao Film

The author appears to be a single-purpose account trying to get this draft accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

user:Malao Film requested and was denied a username change to EdwardGross. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ssgajimouli

tasty dinosaur snack has been dispatched. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (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.

articles created
articles edited, adding links to the above

Seems pretty clear what is going on here. I tried to open a discussion at their Talk page, which they removed, then yelled at me a lot on my talk page diff, diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been watching your Jytdog's agenda driven vandalism, and dictator ship, and manipulations on this articles.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism on CRO articles. This is not spam. These are notable 25 yr old companies. I will report your agenda driven vandalism to administrators, you are deliberately creating a conflict of interest, when there exist none. I think you have connection with these articles, and you Jytdog are obstructing creating articles on competitor companies.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that. I missed it in all the shouting. Yep. This is a WP:PAID violation. Not to mention the unpleasantness. This person is heading for an indef - WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather here to promote their employer. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not related to tpg capital. I will create the Novotech-CRO article.Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


When one is walking on eggshells, one should refrain from hopping
''''''I HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT COMPANY. you tell me what kind of promotional content I HAVE USED IN MY ARTICLE. YOU ARE HERE TO TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON EDITORS POV OR CONTENT OF ARTICLE. I WILL RECREATE THE NOVOTECH-CRO ARTICLE. WHICH IS A 20 YR OLD COMPANY'''''Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
While googling for key phrases from the Novotech (Australia) Pty Limited article this editor created, I found substantial overlap with the WP article and the company's website, but also the company's website with a different company. So many me-too corps, so little worth being created, so much wasted time they cause on WP. DMacks (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2018 (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.

Draft:Neha Chowdhury

Draft:Neha Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Saurabhdhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ysduleri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See the following comment on my talk page, which states that a “professional” editor is being used, but the proper declaration has not been made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=840654518&oldid=840323315 

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pose

The user keeps attempting to add unsourced information into the page for Pose. Based off of their username they seem to work for the person whom they keep trying to add to the page. Seems like a conflict of interest. – BoogerD (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD, I was unaware that I was breaking any rules. I realized that there was a mistake in the page, as Sherry Marsh was not mentioned in the list with the other EPs. I was simply trying to make sure that the page was updated with the correct information. She was the original EP of Pose and as such should be listed alongside her other producers. So I made a page to update. Once I was informed that it was against a "Conflict of Interest" rule only 10 minutes ago, I stopped editing. However, all of the information is absolutely sourced. Sherry Marsh is mentioned as an Executive Producer throughout the Pose Press releases.- Marsh Assistant

Strange Angel

Noticed this user's edits on the Strange Angel page. Took a look at their user page and noticed that they mentioned that they work for CBS Interactive which owns CBS All Access which streams Strange Angel and other shows that this editor is editing the pages of. Seems like a conflict of interest. – BoogerD (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I added the official site to the new show Strange Angel because it was missing. It is common for all Television show pages to have their official site listed. The link is consistent with all of the other links listed for CBS shows and is easy for anyone to confirm. I think it might be a conflict of interest if I was publishing content about the show, but I do not see how it's a conflict of interest to make sure Wikipedia is linking to the correct and official site, which is of interest to readers and common practice. – Jonhenshaw —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic:, Any thoughts on this? – BoogerD (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think Jonhenshaw keeping official urls up-to-date seems uncontroversial and actually very helpful. Adding metacritic links is very borderline, as adding it for highly-rated shows but not for lower-rated shows could be seen as a strong conflict of interest - so be consistent, all or none - and don't add it if there is already a Metacritic mention in the "Reception" section on the page (as done a few times like here). I don't think a paid contributor should remove fan site links (this edit). This is the sort of thing that should have instead been requested on the talk page. Just my two cents. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Netoholic:, thanks for the guidance. Also, thank you for what you wrote on my talk profile page. I'll update my profile accordingly, and will also make sure to mainly stick to updating official URLs as needed for keeping them up-to-date. – Jonhenshaw

Just an update. Jonhenshaw has updated his user page with the {{paid}} template and I've found him to be very receptive to feedback. We certainly have a shared interest in keeping official website links up-to-date, so I don't see that activity as controversial going forward (especially since external links are set to m:Nofollow anyway, and so don't contribute to link spam). Its just helpful to readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Griffin Guess

There appears to be at least one person with a conflict of interest editing the page in a promotional way, over a long timespan, after having received information regarding unwanted promotion in 14 April 2017. Some edits have even been undone by Cluebot for appearing to be disruptive. I have added a COI-welcome message now, but I'm afraid that:

  • article cleanup is strongly needed, and
  • Kelseykukui might need to avoid further direct editing of the article.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted via AfD in 2007. I have nominated it again. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

2Joules

editor
pages


Editing is generally low quality. First three topics are listed are common paid editing subjects (crypto company, theme park, tourism site) and fourth is also a tourist attraction and included adding content in this diff series that appears directly translated from this personal blog; google translate.

Hard to tell if their editing is just bad or if it is actually commercial.

There is an open SPI.

I asked about any connections, and their initial response was unhelpful as was their second and third. So I have brought this here. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User Jytdog has been disingenuous in creating this report. Three of the four articles exist in other wikis, spanish and french. They are not just merely tourist attractions. Only the theme park can be said as such. The Coca castle is an important historical landmark, while Graoully is a Legend. Legends are not tourist attractions, they are fables and tales. The Hashcash article is a multinational corporation that works with some of the biggest banks around. My original response to Jytdog was that if someone from a multinational corporation, or an ancient dragon was paying me, I'd be rich. He should have understood that I found it laughable that a simple wikipedia editor would be on the payroll of large corporations and governments. I agree with Jytdog that the translation is a copyright issue, when I created the article, I was not aware of this. I will create an appropriate citation in a couple of days, and that will be resolved. As the edits have been reverted, I see no issue there, adding that to the Conflict of interest is something I do not understand. To summarize, I am not paid to edit, Jytdog is mistaken. 2Joules (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two issues with what you wrote there about the dragon, one about copyright and other about the source that was plagiarized. First -- citing doesn't solve a copyright issue. You cannot copy/paste from another source, nor directly translate it into WP. Nor can you extensively quote. The second issue is about the source - that website is also not a particularly reliable source in any case. It is somebody's self-published webpage; see WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The clear instruction on the top is that this page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. You have engaged in no discussion, you removed reliable sourcing, and you are now trying to pick a fight. Just give your evidence and let the sysops decide the issue. You removed the copyvio from the dragon and I did not revert, so there is no issue with that. I will add that material with proper citations as I was not aware of the translation guidelines. The school is based on castle grounds and is therefore part of the history of the castle. So stop trying to pick a fight and let the admins decide. 2Joules (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hychiang

These four articles are promotional in nature and the product of multiple confirmed socks. It looks like COI and/or UPE to me. I prodded the Taipei Base Design Center article, but I don't have time at the moment to look close at the other three or to look into other articles beyond these four which were created and/or edited by all the socks, but I will do so soon. (I'm not bothering to notify the accounts because they are blocked socks.) Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Added one article to the list and prodded another. Deli nk (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Added several more articles to the list. Deli nk (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sony Crackle

I have noticed that one user User:FerenComm might have a conflict of interest in regards to the edits they have made on the Sony Crackle page. The edits they have made to the page have seen it rewritten in a manner that appears to be more promotional rather than encyclopedic, as it was before. A Google search of that username has turned up Feren Communications, a television publicity company (see their website: [6]). The user was notified on April 26th on their talk page by User:Netoholic that their edits may pose a possible conflict of interest. They did not respond to the message and today they continued to edit the page. BoogerD (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A quick bit of Googling finds some press releases such as this that show FerenComm handles at least some of the media relations for Crackle, so this does look like a COI. Shritwod (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
FerenComm was blocked as an obvious WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The recent contributions of this IP seems to be connected as well. Geolocate shows it as a ~nyc.biz~ connection, where Feren Communications is based. I think this edit in particular displays the promotional tone BoogerD has mentioned. -- Netoholic @ 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Behavioral Signals

This draft is the work of two single-purpose accounts. First SPA has been asked about conflict of interest and has not replied. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The first account replied on my talk page and denied a conflict of interest. They also indicated that they live in Turkey, which currently blocks access to Wikipedia, so their ability to edit is severely limited. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mining Industry Human Resources Council

Editor admits that he works for and is editing on behalf of the Mining Industry Human Resources Council. He was given a COI warning on 30 April, but has failed to make the mandatory notification on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lakeview Centennial High School

Le sigh. Misguided enthusiasm is a wonderful thing, but defiantly denying a COI "because school" really doesn't fly. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 15 May 2018 (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.

Oshwah, Plandu and me have tried to peacefully resolve this conflict, but the editor appears to be using a shared account ("we"), implies representing the school without properly disclosing employer, client, and affiliation. They're asking me to "stop undoing", which I only did exactly once. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I work at the high school and am only tying to update it with current information. If thats a conflict of interest then please explain to me who would know more about our school than someone who works there. Please review the edits and specifically tell me what is in violation. All we wanted to do was update it. The community obviously hasn't CflemLCHS (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What takes COI completely out of the picture is that we are a HIGH SCHOOL - completely not for profit... (this is directly from your own COI guide) we aren't even a business. CflemLCHS (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

CflemLCHS, have you been tasked to update the school's Wikipedia article as part of your job duties? John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. I am just doing what needs to be done. Thats it. CflemLCHS (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(Note: This has unexpectedly moved to my talk page, where Javert2113 and me have then written detailled explanations of the problem. The COIN notice has been very helpful; SamHolt6 and John from Idegon have taken the time to restore a neutral point of view.) Thank you all very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor who is subject of this post has stated on TBF's talk essentially that if they have to edit like a Wikipedian, they're not interested in editing. This can probably be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2018 (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:JDCM2017DPI

Appears to be a WP:SPA related to IMSA Sports car racing team JDC-Miller Motorsports. All edits are related to JDC-Miller driver Mikhail Goikhberg GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Shlomo Rechnitz

Seeking guidance on this; created by sockfarm operators recently IDed as Fiveblocks (crisis management PR) by Doc James. It appears to have been built out subsequently by enemies of the subject with terms like "alleged criminal activity" & "reported on rumors" (refs #8 through #12). Then there's a "Philanthropy and community work" and "Personal life" sections that's about half the content of the whole article, and over half its references (#14 through #30). Maybe an AfD is the right thing to do? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

TicketSource

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.

Liam at TicketSource describes himself as a "Wikipedia contact for any issues or questions for TicketSource Ltd.", but does not seem to feel obliged to make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure. As a result, we have what appears to be a paid advertisement for his employer, and promotional pages on two events sponsored by that employer. At Cardiff Fringe the editor today removed the {{undisclosed paid}} tag I'd placed there. It looks to me as if this is a promotion-only account. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it. Cardiff Fringe is a brochure article, with no encyclopaedic content. TicketSource is also suspect. scope_creep (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The editor isn't an undisclosed paid editor. There is no requirement to use the {{paid}} tag, as long as the disclosure exists in some form, which it does: in the username and on the userpage. There is no question of conflict of interest because it is clearly disclosed, so there is no need to create an entry here on this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (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.

Draft:Ray Carr

The anger and shouting at User talk:Legacypac over the decline of Draft:Ray Carr is characteristic of paid editors who aren't getting their page accepted, not of volunteer editors who are being declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, according to his/her post here, it's an unfortunate employee who's been told by the subject to get the job done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Well. They have been trying for three-and-a-half years to get an article on a non-notable person. Well. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

SOHO China, again

The previous COIN report ended with a successful SPI that blocked the sockmaster and socks. However, apparent paid editing returned to the articles with more meat puppet (rather than sock puppet), mixed with newly registered users that just "suddenly" interested in editing in that very niche area of interest. Matthew_hk tc 01:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

add more name. Matthew_hk tc 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

HiWorldOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be taking instruction from an external entity, adding news piece citation as requested scope_creep (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

either paid editing from external agent or requesting whole department to edit, the case seem more likely to be the case of meat puppetry which now suddenly 8 new users plus 1 returning user who declared he/she is an employee. Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
For HiWorldOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), @Scope creep:, it seem the user was more likely to refer to the {{fact}} tag. (See Special:Diff/841344458). Matthew_hk tc 13:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the 9th "new" user. Matthew_hk tc 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Brand new SPA came and reverted: WikiNewbieTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk about rank abuse. They really dont give a ff for Wikipedia. I've requested page protection.scope_creep (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
The yelling in User talk:Yuese123 either refer to the revert in Zhang Xin (businesswoman), or he think my action to fix his reply that intersect with the templated message, was a revert. Matthew_hk tc 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Faarshadaj

James R. Johnsen

Left a note to this effect on the article's talk page last week after noticing it in article space while patrolling new pages. I'll state upfront that I've long expressed concern with AFC dumping content and running and leaving messes just like this for others to clean up. There's also the matter of a lack of common sense and walled garden attitude revealed in the robo-messages from AFC, where this guy is the president of a statewide university system and they're attemping to define notability solely in terms of a snapshot of sources present in the text at a given time? Little wonder that I lack the time to really help out around here anymore. Anyway, the editor who submitted this created a user page which revealed her COI, yet it appears that any number of other steps were overlooked along the way. My specific issue is that this person works directly under Johnsen in a public affairs position, and I see an article heavy on promoting Johnsen's agenda in his current position. That SHOULD have been a red flag. I assume that this makes her a paid connected contributor, yet I'm not 100 percent certain of that or of what other steps were supposed to have been taken and weren't. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user who accepted this article is not on the AfC participants' list; they just manually moved the draft into mainspace. I chopped out a few fluffy sentences from this article but it needs more work. /wiae /tlk 11:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Kyckr

This editor has a clear COI as an undisclosed paid editor - a Google search clearly shows his link with the company, and his user page indicates a link too, but he has not engaged with any of the warnings on his talk page and continues to edit the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, he has (vaguely) disclosed his employment at Kyckr on his userpage. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The comments on his user page were actually abusive, not factual, and borderline defamation. The author is very respectful of wikipedia, and does not entertain trolling, he was surprised and disappointed by some comments. Well intended Wikipedia edits which improve the neutrality and objectivity of content are always positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardadoyle (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there some reason you're speaking of yourself in the third person? I would agree that "edits which improve the neutrality and objectivity of content are" (nearly) always positive. The trouble is there's dispute over whether your edits actually do that. I haven't looked in detail at your edits, but considering you have a COI and you appear to have little experience with editing wikipedia, your judgement on whether your edits "improve the neutrality and objectivity of content" may not be the most reliable. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Philip Cross

Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (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.

With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His most recent involvement was today, when he removed 1,347 bytes. That edit violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

For the past six years, Philip Cross has engaged in a running dispute on Twitter with the subject of this BLP. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a Talk page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, George Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he today called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP.

Also in the past, Philip Cross has frequently edited Wikipedia's page for each of the other "goons" with whom he is at war—@mwgbanks, @CraigMurrayOrg, @NafeezAhmed, @Tim_Hayward_, @PiersRobinson1, and @medialens.

Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and on May 16, 2018, Sputnik followed up with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye. KalHolmann (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2018 (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 Marder

Yet another academic abusing Wikipedia to promote himself.

Obvious self promotion is obvious. See past discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Michael_Marder. This is so disheartening; even philosophers abuse WP for self-promotion. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Michael Marder notable? scope_creep (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Full professor at a major university, I suppose he is. scope_creep (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit history is a real eye-opener. Several SPAs, but the very earliest revision of the article is not what you might expect. Shritwod (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
So I see. I've not seen before. A complete disregard for the Style guide. I've watched the page. There will be more attempts to expand it out, no doubt. 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

See article history and talk page. Advocate editor (paid editor on his other account) repeatedly removing tags on the article, on the primary sourcing and on the failures to verify, redlinking extremely unlikely article subjects. Perhaps I have completely misconstrued things, but this appears difficult to distinguish functionally from straight-up promotional whitewashing. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

First, I do not have a conflict of interest on this article. I'm a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence for NIOSH, a U.S. federal government laboratory that performs research on workplace health and safety, and I have a declared alternate account for this. Promoting nanotechnology is not part of that job, and in fact one my goals has been to add reliable information about the hazards of nanotechnology (for example, Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials). I have no relationship whatsoever with the Foresight Institute. All edits to the Feynman Prize article have been in my volunteer capacity.
Second, David Gerard raised a legitimate issue about the article lacking secondary sources, and as I have been dealing with those concerns through improving the article I have been removing the tags, as is proper. In some cases I've disagreed with David Gerard's interpretation of policy (mainly WP:SELFPUB), but I thought we were discussing this constructively on the talk page. I thoroughly justified each tag removal in the edit comments in order to make my reasoning known so David Gerard and others can respond to them. Other editors such as C-randles, StrayBolt, and Arxiloxos have been involved in discussions and edits to rescue the article as well. I'm happy to have more people involved in the discussion and will accept the outcome of the consensus. I feel that continued discussion on the talk page will resolve these issues and formal conflict resolution is not yet needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

May also belong at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (paid advocacy in fringe field) - cc @Jytdog: @JzG: - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with fringe theories?? I am genuinely confused. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. This is a board about conflict of interest; advocacy issues are similar but handled differently. I don't see that anybody has asked the question, so I'll do that.
User:Antony-22 above you wrote that you have no conflict of interest on this article, but sometimes people make wrong conclusions when they judge things on their own. What we ask folks to do is to disclose any connections they have, and the community determines if there is a COI or not. So - would you please disclose any real world connections you have with the Foresight Institute or this prize? If you have none, please say so. Thanks for your patience working through this. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I have no connection at all with the Foresight Institute as an institution, and I have no direct connection with the prize itself (haven't won it, wouldn't be eligible for it at this stage of my career). Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear answer. I find that credible and it is what i expected.
In my view there is however some advocacy going on, per WP:ADVOCACY. I don't understand why the prize article exists. It basically just replicates stuff on the Foresight website, and per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a proxy for anybody's website. The lack of secondary sources on this stuff is... glaring. You've been around a long time, and that you are pushing so hard on this is kind of a sign that you are maybe too passionate about nano. Maybe. I plan to nominate it for deletion and my guess is that it will be merged to Foresight page. But we'll see. But please stop using primary/self-sourced references around nano -- the higher you aim with respect to sourcing nano things - giving WEIGHT as reliable, secondary sources give things, the more solid the ground you will be on. Experts are super valuable here, because a) they can generally see where we have holes or UNDUE weight on topics in the field; b) knowing the literature they can put their hands on high quality secondary sources where experts in the field have summarized "accepted knowledge" in the field, at the time, for people in the field. So valuable. I hope that all makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Thanks for your consideration. I will of course accept the outcome of the AfD. Given that all the article prose is now supported by secondary sources, I think the article could possibly survive AfD, but if it is merged with the information intact, I would not consider that a bad outcome. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Not a COI issue. Could the article in question use more independent sources, sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Arielsaldana1

This user came to my attention when they added unsourced additions with Edward Downe Jr. as seen here. I good faith reverted and left them a message about adding reliable sources. Then however they began removing controversial (but sourced) information. This user admits here that Downe requested that his information stay private, meaning they have direct contact with this BLP, however, it is sourced and written pretty neutrally (can probably be tweaked) in my opinion. I am sure I can find more sources to add to it. I had previously left them a welcome message explaining Wikipedia guidelines and I will drop them a COI message as well, although I explained a bit in my edit summary. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

They are continuing to censor information despite being informed about COI editing and given a link to this discussion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Susan Dorothea White

I removed a section on the "7 Ps of Drawing" from Drawing, which was added by this editor. They appear to be a single-purpose account focused on promoting this artist (since 2009 [7]), adding references to her in WP:UNDUE situations. As a result, I believe they may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Jasmine Directory

This article was created by the site owner. To be clear, they followed COI requirements perfectly, but seem to have been given poor advice at AFC in that the website is very far from meeting WP:NWEB as it has zero coverage in RS. I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory but 3 editors reappeared from fairly long hiatuses (6 month +) to !vote keep and it was duly non-admin closed. It seems fairly obvious that WP:MEAT occurred, even if it was done in good faith. It should probably be sent back to AFD, but obviously it needs more independent eyes on it and I would prefer not to nominate it myself again. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello everybody! First of all, as an editor I am very well aware of WP's standard procedures. I think I was respectful of Wikipedia's policies, never trolled and if I had any doubts I seeked for help in the designated sections. All my edits on various articles I've been improving or the ones I created can backup this belief (please correct me if I'm wrong). My account is open for any sort or verification (please check my edit history as well as WP:SOCK if any administrator with CheckUser rights is willing to - and please place an indef. ban if I have broken any possible policy). As I already stated, (and Smartse highlighted) I followed COI requirements perfectly by disclosing it on all possible pages; the article in question was not created by me, it was draftified, than I have followed the rules e.g.: given here, than it was approved via the AfC process (link). Ever since, I haven't touched the article's content other than the edits permitted by WP:PSCOI. I haven't added any word and anyone can check the diffs. I have never, under any circumstances, pinpointed to any of the existing Wikipedia articles about web directories, even if I do have a vast knowledge in the field. WP:NPOV of the article was also checked a few times. The entry was AfD-ed and the result of the debate was to keep it. As for coverage in RS, I'll name a few sources that I consider quite reliable industry specific publications which can only backup the already published statements in the live article: Search Engine Watch - ([8]), Daily News Egypt - ([9]), The London Economic, TNT (magazine) - ([10]), CifNews, a pupular news portal in China - ([11]), The Good Men Project - ([12]), a self-regulatory association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada [13] conducted a comparison which was published in Internet Information Resource Book - Guide to Search Engines, Directories, Online Archives avalilable here, p. 39. The directory was reviewed several times between 2013-2014, here are some archives: Feb 3013 Review, Jun 2013 Review, Sep 2013 Review, Nov 2013, Review, Mar 2014, Review, Jun 2014, Review, Dec 2014, Review, Sep 2014, Review. A few more: [14], [15], [16] and there are more. Obviously, there is no web directory (that I am aware of) that received full coverage by NyTimes, Forbes nor books dedicated solely to them because they're just a part of how the Internet "came to life" (Web directory) and what it is today. Given the concern that has arisen, I want to stay as neutral as I can, however, I have absolutely nothing against deleting the article without any consensus at all, although an attempt to improve the article is currently underway and I do believe that a few articles about some web directories should be kept. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smartse:--AFD close vacated and relisted.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

GISMA Business School

No incident to report ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (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.

Hi all.

I have just made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page regarding the text for an image of the school. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA.

Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

All help is appreciated - MrAttempt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (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.

60.234.42.253

The current version of Vista Outdoor contains extensive content created by an unregistered editor (60.234.42.253). Most of this content was added on 2018-05-09 and 2018-05-09. On 2018-03-02 and 2018-02-27 60.234.42.253 changed, mostly by deleting, information regarding boycott efforts against Vista Outdoor's various brands. Some of this information had been added just minutes prior. Edits on 2018-02-27 devolved into a bit of an edit war with Legacypac.

60.234.42.253 has been active only since 2018-02-27, with almost all edits being on Vista Outdoor or the associated talk page. Exceptions include three edits to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, relating to the section on "Vista Outdoor and recent mass shooting" section 60.234.42.253 created, two edits to "American Eagle (ammunition brand)" and "Bell Sports," both Vista Outdoor brands. The other two edits by 60.234.42.253 consist of deleting from it's own talk page polite warnings by Slatersteven and Legacypac.

In 2016 Vista Outdoor required extensive cleanup following a sockpuppet operation by user Lesbianadvocate. Said operation resulted in a SPI which banned Lesbianadvocate and associated accounts. Based on the history of Conflicts of Interest on the Vista Outdoor page, and the focused, one-sided edits by 60.234.42.253 I believe some issue requiring attention above my authority is required, but am unsure as to exactly how to alert administrators of the issue. Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I did notice this was a single purpose account, which is what my warning was about. I also asked if they had a COI, which they did not answer. I think this is a COI editor.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The pro-NRA lobby is very active on Wikipedia. Blocks should be handed out liberally. Anything I added to bring the article toward a neutral rather than purely positive state was well sourced and due weight. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Vista Outdoor and parent company have a promotional history; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 101. I wouldn't rush to lay it at the feet of any other organization. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lyrebird (film)

The user continues to add information to the article that is unsourced and improperly formatted. After explaining this to them after I reverted their edits, the mentioned in their latest edit summary, "Please note, if Imperative Entertainment is paying a publicist to misrepresent the basis of this film, Imperative Entertainment is in gross breach of contract. Do not revert these changes." This would appear to be a gross conflict of interest as this user is clearly a paid contributor. – BoogerD (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The first step is to seek a block at UAA for promotional/shared user-name in violation of UPOL:) Anyways, watch-listed.... ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I gave them a SPAMUBLOCK, hard block based on the problem recounted here..-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Any templates need to be added to these 2 talk pages?

I'm not suggesting User:DarrenGarrettDavis has done anything wrong, but should the connected contributor template be added to the Darren G. Davis and TidalWave Productions talk pages? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

He's edited articles about himself and his company. It is appropriate and therefore I have added them, as well as notified him of this discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

New general discretionary sanctions on blockchain and crypto

Thought people here would be interested that this passed, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Thanks to MER-C for getting the ball rolling and proposing it. Also, just a note that anyone is able to make people aware by placing the alert template on an editor's user talk, and that when this is done, the diff should be logged at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#2018_notices. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

UPE sockfarm at work. Something to do with a spam link report which they have clumsily attempted to quash. More later. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If I see the link again, I will blacklist it. MER-C 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hemp and pharma articles

I'm pretty active on this topic and don't want to come across as both a content-owner and COI-warrior. Could somebody else have a look, especially this and this and this and this? With the uptick in US interest in the field I'm worried that we'll see (more) promotional editing in this area. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. lots of money to be made and LOTS of sketchy people and companies. I had worked over Medical Marijuana, Inc. in August 2017; quite a history there. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Removed lots of WP:PUFF, metaphorically and physically from Canopy Growth Corporation. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I get it :) ☆ Bri (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Professionals

I think some of this is behind closed doors to me, but it appears that there's reason to believe WP:PAIDLIST entity Wiki Professionals has been active on the articles listed above. You can see from the Firefly Music Festival edit a possible connection between the editor and Delaware. You can see from PAIDLIST/WHOIS a connection between the company and Delaware. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Good article in The Fashion Law

See Advertorial Tones and Paid-For Posts: How Are Brands Trying to Game Wikipedia? Fashion industry mag reviews some specific abuses, deletion discussions, and notability requirements in an intelligent manner. Nobody gets all the details or wording correct all the time, but I didn't see any egregious mistakes. Some input from WMF - maybe this is the start of something. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm taking that for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Fight Network

Editor's only edits have been to articles related to parent company Anthem Sports & Entertainment. Editor claims "This has been edited by existing staff to remove outdated references, expired deals or channel information, removal of any material written like an advertisement or press release. Updated to reflect up-to-date programming listings, channel information, recent international expansion initiatives.", but also includes edits made to reflect PR (particularly stylization of Impact Wrestling) and removal of pertinent historical information that may be seen as negative from a corporate perspective. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ontario_Craft_Brewers

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC) User:Katemasdon12 works for the marketing department of this brewery, and has introduced lots of puffery to the article. I was going to remove the puffery later when I finally decided to make this noticeboard report, so I only applied the COI tag and neutrality disputed tab, which they promptly removed. I warned them on their talk page about business promotion, and linked them to the WP:COI policy, but that has not stopped their editing. I have freshly reverted their edits given their introduction to puffery and non-sense business phrases, but some helping hands/eyes to ensure they do not re-introduce it would be helpful. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A newly-registered editor COSMO1994 jumped in and reverted the article back to its WP:PUFF state. Possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet behaviour at work here now. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked Katemasdon12 as WP:NOTHERE (see the first entry on the list and her first edit summary).
I'm probably gonna block COSMO1994 pretty soon, too. Adding the article to my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Note the change of username from Katemasdon12 to Kathy from Paddington School. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Policy question/AfC

As accurately discussed by Jytdog here, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:BC1278, there have been a few instances where I asked someone in a Wikipedia project to review a draft for a new article in my user space. For example, in a proposed new article about a VC, as discussed above, I asked active members of of Wikipedia Finance Task Force to do a review, as I had a COI. I have only been making requests to related subject matter task force members, although perhaps in the past I also asked editors in closely related articles. I looked over the WP: PAID EDITING and it seems clear cut now that new articles should go through AfC. I assume I can still ask subject matter experts to at least give me input, but not move the article to live space? Or could they move the article to live space?BC1278 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

  • Comment I am concerned about your choice of editors to review your articles. You recently asked a relatively inexperienced editor (a little over 1400 edits over half of which are from 2012 and 89 in the last 365 days) and no experience in AFC and no experience in Afd and no experience in pending changes to review a corporate page Alivecor and move it for you into mainspace. I presume you chose him because this person is part of the Wikiproject medicine and has an impressive bio on his user page. I think this shopping for experts to move related pages is not how it should happen especially when they have no reviewing experience. This could be seen as gaming the system. I would very very strongly advise against it as did Jytdog and as a new pages patroller I shall be extra vigilant myself if I come across one of these articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
This comments was deleted, perhaps inadvertently?::OK, that makes sense. Yes, I did look at that person's impressive subject matter expertise and the fact that they volunteered themselves to collaborate on articles on a very specific, relevant medical subject. I did look to User Contribs to try to screen out novice editors, but didn't look closely enough here. That's a good rationale to just use AfC.BC1278 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
Hi BC1278. Thanks for taking time to review PAID again. Yes we do look for paid articles to go through AfC. I think it is great to ping people you trust to review things. I do that all the time. But yes new pages should be moved to mainspace (or not) through AfC, with disclosure as you do normally. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BC1278

I hope I'm in the right place for this kind of request. Would someone have a look at this user page as I think that there are parts that are clearly promotional and the user disagrees here. He has not provided links to his account where he advertises his services as per WP:PAID where it states Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. he has simply indicated on which site he advertises. I don't know if this is really a problem or not I am not an expert hence my posting here. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Really don't think that's a problem - it clearly states that WhiteHatWiki is run by Ed Sussman/BC1278, so asking for a particular account doesn't seem meaningful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell the COI guidelines aren't being violated. It's primarily non-COI issues related to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and, today, WP:ASPERSIONS. BC1278 is turning Talk:Nextdoor into a dumpster fire that is reminiscent of the kind of flamewars, paranoia, and hyperbole you find at, well, nextdoor.com. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dennis Bratland: Look, I'm very sorry in retrospect that I followed the guidance of an admin who suggested I handle a redraft request, already submitted, by breaking it into sections that each could be discussed individually. It's way too chaotic now, with too many separate discussions going on at the same time. If I had it to over again, I would make one section proposal at a time, let it resolve, then move on. That is how I handled the RfC about the CEO section there and the discussion was orderly. I asked for admin guidance yesterday as to how handle the most contentious section, Racial Profiling, by placing a one sentence request for more eyes on the NPOV noticeboard. BC1278 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
In general BC1278 is mostly a "good citizen" paid editor - there is lots that is good citizen (which I very much appreciate!) but there are three suboptimal patterns of behavior:
  • On their userpage:
  • i agree that the promotional stuff about himself should be trimmed out.
  • also on their userpage, there is a list of articles there, but it is not clear if that is volunteer work or paid work. Optimally, there should be a list of the pages worked on for clients, clearly labelled as such.
  • Yes, there should be a link to where ever he advertises editing services. That would be optimal good citizen behavior.
  • New pages should go through AfC. Instead BC1278 sometimes (not always) creates new pages in their userspace and then asks individuals to review and move them. (e.g recently here and here to one person, here to another person, here to yet another person and here to another, all for the page that became Mo Koyfman (I reviewed it and moved it). Another set of requests to individuals was this and this and this and this and this about a major revision in their sandbox to How (philosophy). That is less problematic but along the same lines...(how to get people's attention to page revisions proposed by conflicted editors, remains a challenge)
  • The disclosures are always made at talk pages (which is great) but never (that i have seen) with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) template. It would be optimal to use that.
-- Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It was more the promotional tone as per WP:UPNOT about his company Buzzr that I was concerned about. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I removed the description of Buzzr, as it was only intended to let Wikipedia editors know subjects I was familiar with, such as open source technologies. But since an editor perceived it as promotional, I removed it. Jytdog has given me more to work through, so I'll make address that comment later. ThanksBC1278 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
@BC1278: Why does your userpage contain your curriculum vitea? Edward Mordake (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
To clarify what I meant by "the promotional stuff on your Userpage", what I meant is the autobiography that you have there, which is like a mini WP article. This is not OK per WP:Userpage. Pretty much everything after your name and up to and including "I co-founded Buzzr.com.", really should go.
So it would just read "My name is Ed Sussman. I also do paid Wikipedia consulting editing. (See full disclosure below.)"
This has always bugged me as a userpage violation, but I am loathe to bother people about their userpages. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@BC1278: You seem to have forgotten to make the same changes to the userpage of your other account, Edsussman. Edward Mordake (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
That alt. account has been dormant since November 2015, but it still has all the COI disclosures since I used it for some paid editing in the past. I abbreviated the bio. It links to BC1278, which I set up for paid editing, so I could separate volunteer work if it ever seems prudent to do so.BC1278 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@Jytdog:

  • Trimmed user page
  • Identified articles as paid
  • Added COI template to three articles where I saw it was missing (they already had full COI disclosures in Talk)
  • There was and still is a link to the only website where I advertise my services.BC1278 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
You have left the "I co-founded buzzr.com" despite the recommendations of Jytdog. This is still promoting your off wiki activity and should go IMHO as it is contrary to WP:UP#PROMO which reads Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). (My bolding) Dom from Paris (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It's really typical for people to say where they currently work on their user pages, don't you think? It's more transparent for a COI editor, especially. There's no description or link to the company. I see people give their educational background, their degrees, and where they work all the time -- it can be very useful for other editors to know if someone has subject matter expertise. That's why it's there. I think I should add back my degrees and academic credentials for the same reason, but none of this is worth more to me than a friendly discussion. BC1278 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
Thanks for trimming your userpage and doing the other stuff. I am not going to fuss over a few words. Much better now. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are quite a few pages where people talk about their extra wiki activities but declared paid editors come under extra scrutiny and as you so rightly say on your web site advertising your services that is why you charge more than black hat editors. We expect that paid editors respect scrupulously the policy as you say in the FAQ section of your web site that you do. It says clearly that there should be no commercial links. I would suggest you remove the name of your company and replace it with a simple description. Eg. A PR company based in xxx. Or something of the sort. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Giuseppe Conte

Serial reverts (with spurious allegations of COI). 109.145.7.183 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Starglide.bcn:, please stop edit war and paid/COI editing, and use talk page Talk:Giuseppe Conte. Matthew_hk tc 23:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Based on what assumptions you affirm I am paid? COI editing? I am not receiving direct benefits from M5S. I am a volunteer and as per guidelines, affiliation with a topic does not consitute COI. Plus, I am not labelling anyone. Read the talk page please. Starglide.bcn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@Starglide.bcn: Yes, it's true, I recieved a barnstar for editing the article about Renzi (as well as Gentiloni), but I would do the same with Conte. Moreover I'm almost the only user to have improved the articles of Luigi Di Maio, Matteo Salvini, Roberto Fico and so on. So if you tried to discredit me for that barnstar, you're on the wrong way.--Nick.mon (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing at Kavita Shah

Yesterday an IP added some extraordinarily non-neutral text to this article containing gems such as:

  • Drawing upon her cosmopolitan heritage, multilingualism, and extensive research on diverse musical traditions, Shah works in deep engagement with the jazz idiom while also addressing and advancing its global sensibilities.
  • She traces her commitment to jazz to the childhood influence of uptown saxophonist Patience Higgins, a former neighbor whose band she would later join at hallowed Harlem spots like Minton’s and the Lenox Lounge.
  • Shah credits tradition, as embodied in its elders, for grounding her own personal and artistic identity and her vision of music as not just pursuit of virtuosity, but cultural work.

I reverted these changes accordingly and the editor re-edited the page in a less over-the-top manner, though still containing phrases such as She has been hailed by NPR for possessing an “amazing dexterity with musical languages”.

Between these two sets of edits the IP posted to their own talk page Why have you undone my edits? This is a member of Kavita Shah's team and my edits to her page have her approval. As they claim to work for the subject of the article I notified them, using a personal message and templates, about WP:PAID and WP:COI, and re-reverted the article changes on the basis of non-disclosed paid edits.

After this, Amoamorna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created and three minutes later they re-posted the exact same text back into the article, making it clear they are the same editor.

As my messages about undisclosed paid editing were ignored, could an admin take a look and reinforce them? Dorsetonian (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.....Despatched to AfD:)~ Winged BladesGodric 06:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

University Canada West

Hi all.

I have just made an Edit Request on the University of Canada West (UCW) page regarding an addition to the page's 'Academics' section. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns UCW.

Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

All help is appreciated - MrAttempt —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

George Soros

Two users appear to be spin doctors for George Soros funding into Ireland. A look at the Amnesty International Ireland pages shows both User:Bastun and User:Ebelular consistently removing any mention to "George Soros" the foreign donor and generally writing the article with as much down-playing and obfuscation as possible. A | look at the edit history of the article involved. On just the 1st page. You'll see many other editors attempting to write the article neutrally, to reflect and summarize the level of WP:NOTABLITY. With User:Barumba's edits getting reverted User:Ruy costa's were reverted User:Claíomh Solais's were reverted, I edited and like it has been for years...it was reverted.

Before the news broke in Dec 2017 about George Soros/foreign donors attempting to influence domestic elections. Before I even knew who "Soros" was. The 2 editors involved with the campaign of banning other editors. Literally joked about being paid editors. From "Soros". "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up".

Boundarylayer (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Editors should be aware of Boundarylayer's indefinite topic ban from the subjects of Savita Halappanavar, pregnancy, miscarriage and abortion, broadly construed. This topic ban has recently been violated, including on the Amnesty International Ireland article. He received a warning on this from me, here and admin JzG, here. He is currently attempting to have this lifted. His characterisation of both edits to the Amnesty page and the definition of "neutral" is... original... and there appears to be no functioning sarcasm detector. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
+1 ____Ebelular (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Privacy by design

There have been ongoing content disputes on this article for a while, including editors who I believe may have a conflict of interest in regards to the subject, and themselves are cited in their specific revisions (self-promoting their specific views, and asserting ownership on the article if disputed). Unfortunately, I am forbidden from making specific, certain claims on the matter due to Wikipedia policies. Please inspect the situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Fight Network

Fight Network programming and content has changed since this was last updated years ago. An attempted refresh to the programming sections of this article keeps reverting back to old versions. Any programming amendments can be cross-referenced on the official website - www.fightnetwork.com - these changes were made with the intention of removing any promotional blurbs resembling a press release, and replaced with more generic descriptions. Not every program requires a list of fighters/wrestlers featured on the series. This section was trimmed for both accuracy and ease of layout. If there are particular sections that are being disputed, I can certainly provide additional insight or color, along with references. Reverting this entire change is counter-productive, as the page is being flagged for appearing like an advertisement, nor is the programming overview and carrier information up-to-date. For example, Fight Network is no longer available on D-Smart in Turkey or Telenet in Belgium. These were removed and replaced with updates where applicable -- for example, the channel is available on Turk Telecom. I can go through the updated version and add as many references as possible to corroborate the updates. Thank you. 208.69.13.173 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:username seems to be redirected to User:Example. I have not see that before? scope_creep (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Henry Patterson (entrepreneur)

This is an obvious case of self-promotion. The article is essentially just puffery and it is entirely written by a long series of single-purpose accounts. I've only listed the ones with an obvious username connection above. Is the subject of this biography notable? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he is possibly notable; I found WP:RS coverage here and here. I found others but I wasn't confident that they were reliable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
He might be, but this article was spam, with a legion of obvious sockpuppets going right back to the original creator. WP:TNT applies i think. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: Is there enough evidence for WP:SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Not worth it - obvious WP:DUCK job. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Various articles

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I have added connected contributor templates regarding myself to the talk page of these articles:

I am not a PR representative, journalist or anyone like that, but won't say too much for my own privacy.

How can I avoid a major conflict of interest without getting into too much trouble, other than just not editing the articles? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Chelston-temp-1, Dont edit the articles in question, directly. Instead, use the WP:EDITREQ Edit Request process, to request updates to the specific articles talk page. EDITREQ is an established process, and works fine. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Can we give Gigi Hadid full protection temporarily, to prevent edit-warring over the subject? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

GISMA Business School

No incident to report. Using correct WP processes. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2018 (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.

Hi all.

I have just made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page regarding an addition to the page's 'Acquisition by Global University Systems' section. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA.

Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Generally you put the COI information at the top of your talk page, and if your paid WP:PAID. And you seem to be using the edit request process as per, which is the correct way.
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.

Elliott-Marc Jones

This morning Zhanglispain created Elliott-Marc Jones in mainspace via a series of several page swaps, all within his first 25 edits. This article has been repeatedly created by socks/SPAs/UPE editors as Elliott Marc Jones. It seems worth mentioning they knew exactly how to avoid the WP:SALT. There is also significant overlap with past socks at IndieGameStand and elsewhere and I've filed an SPI however the socks appear to be continuing their disruption. Following placement of a G4, a 2 hour old account shows up and removes it, telling me to take it to AfD again. I reverted, they reverted and it was subsequently tagged with maintenance tags, including {{UPE}}. Followed immediately by Taiwanwikiguy removing it. Obvious meat/sock puppetry aside (you can see a very knowledgeable two hour old account discussing this on the talk page of the article in question.) Also worth noting that the second account, created today, is an SPA only editing related articles. This seems like clear COI/UPE editing to me. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

And now Taiwanwikiguy is removing completely legitimate factual past AFD tags. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Cogewea

Trentprof has conducted extensive original research on Cogewea, her livelihood as a professor is in part dependent on public understanding of Cogewea. Trentprof declares that she has written this page on her Twitter page, which is publically available. [1] If Trentprof should delete this Tweet, I have a screenshot of it. Part of Trentprof's work on this subject is available online as the Cogewea project. [2] Trentprof did not declare her bias in previous discussions about whether her edits included original research. Relevant Talk page has been used to raise this issue, but the only other editor involved has suggested I raise the issue here, as the user Cordless Larry believes he has a stake in the outcome given his previous disagreements with Trentprof over this page. TrentStudent20 (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/smhumphreys/status/997832288812523523
  2. ^ http://www.philome.la/smhumphreys/the-cogewea-project/play
Yes, just to expand on the above, I believe that there is an issue with Trentprof trying to use Wikipedia to publish their own original research and hadn't realised until alerted by TrentStudent20 that there were possible COI issues with this, but I would prefer not to get too involved as I've already had a robust debate with Trentprof on the article talk page about the nature of original research, which had WP:NOTGETTINGIT aspects to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any COI with Cogewea. I do not profit from this project in any way. I am a rhetoric and composition professor, and I have an interest in Mourning Dove's work, but like all academics, I don't profit and am under strict COI rules by the university. Trentprof (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of transparency, and because comments have been left on my blog outside of Wikipedia (comments are fine, but not charging me with COI - that's a truly heinous public accusation that should have stayed on Wikipedia talk pages and not my blog), I have submitted a report to the arbitration committee. This has all gone too far, and if I am ruled against, I'll happily shut down my account, and not contribute again. Trentprof (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

TrentProf is taking my words personally, so I just want to note that the following is not meant for her, not meant as an attack on her, and is directed at the Arbitration Committee only. I am not a "sockpuppet" or alternate account of the honourable CordlessLarry, as may have been suggested. I'm new to Wikipedia but would be willing to do anything necessary to prove such. I would hate to see his reputation tarnished. I am unsure how to get into contact with the Arbitration Committee outside of this area of Wikipedia. Thanks. TrentStudent20 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Animal husbandry anon COI

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, I am fairly new here. I intend to register an account today. I have received a notice that I am the subject of a conflict of interest discussion on this page, but I am having a great deal of trouble finding it to respond in defense of myself. I would like to contend that I have no such conflict of interest, and that in fact the person attacking me over this actually has clear conflict of interest themselves. I will refrain from naming the editor in question, as per the guidelines described above, but their conflict of interest stems from the fact that I edited their poorly referenced contributions. I think an independent third party needs to oversee resolution of this because the person who has had their content edited can't possibly provide impartial assessment of said edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk • contribs)

Dmytro Kremin

Svetlana Ischenko is apparently Dmytro Kremin's translator, which is an obvious conflict of interest, but I also wonder if it might also qualify her as a paid editor? In any case, this article could do with some attention, if anyone is willing to take a look. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I can take a look, but as no sources are present regarding his work history, it will takes weeks to sort, with some searching. Emails dont work with the Russian/Ukrainian university folk, as they dont reply. I have added a ref, which disambs on the prize awarded to him, in the lede. He was one of 10 or 20 or so, who were awarded the prize, so WP:PUFF that was presented before, when it said he won a major state prize, has lessened somewhat. It could be full of puff, but Worldcat has multiple book listings written by him, so he is notable. scope_creep (talk)
Thank you, Scope creep. I don't have any concerns about notability here, just promotionalism. Anything that is unsourced could just be removed until such a time as sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments! I will review my input there. Svetlana Ischenko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Narciso Contreras

Not sure if I’m doing this right but this is a new area for me. I created a stub for this award-winning photojournalist a while back, and now it has been greatly expanded by the above user. I believe the subject is notable but as virtually the whole article has been written by someone who is apparently Contreras himself, I thought it warranted some attention. However I am unsure of the next step. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have left the editor a COI notice on their talk page, as well as added the autobiography tag to the article and removed some completely unsourced content. Pawnkingthree you should note the guidelines on using this page which clearly state that you are required to notify the editor of this discussion here (in red at the top of this page), which has not yet been done. Melcous (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Was doing so when my phone died. Now done. Thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear editors, I'm new on editing on this site, sorry for the mistakes. I noticed the stub Narciso Contreras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by Pawnkingthree was uncompleted, for what I did a research online and expanded a bit more, relaying on other sources too. The article was written by different journalists and researchers. I just did put all together. Some of the texts removed are fully sourced as well, but I didn't have enough time for fulfilling the requirements in one time. I do apologise for this. Thanks (talk)

Kendra Lust

I became aware of this issue from a thread here about two weeks ago. The user identified above claims to be her attorney. He states she wants her given name out of the article where it has been, sourced to a weblink to a document he created. He since has changed the primary source, but the reference was replaced with an archive link to the original. Subsequently, another editor added two journalistic links to further verify it. Editor named above, despite repeated warnings to use talk page, continues to edit war, removing reference to her birth name. Latest claim is original source is not valid, because that document no longer exists, and the journalistic sources are not reliable. He has been pointed to the talk page, RSN and OTRS multiple times, but still continues to edit war. IMO, it's time to block him for TOU violation, and down the road, we can semi the article when he starts using IPs to block evade. This is getting really tiresome. John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But if it's getting tiresome, so should be the insertion by editors of sources that do not support the claim (of the three sources that were there until I edited a few minutes ago, only one made a claim that could be interpreted as stating her "birth name", which was the field being sourced (it referred to her "given name", which can have that interpretation.) The other two may be seen as stating her "real" name, but real/legal name and birth name often differ, particularly for women (i.e., my wife did not have Gertler as part of her name at birth, but she does now.) As such, they were not appropriate sources for such a claim. Additionally, using a databased trademark filing is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, as that is a public document. Do not brush aside legitimate concerns because he has a COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That article is a perfect example of all that is wrong with porn bios on Wikipedia. It has superficial referenciness, but the sources are:
  • IAFD, which presents wholly in-universe data and also has user submitted data
  • Enfluenz, no evidence it's an RS
  • Creative Loafing Tampa, no evidence it's an RS
  • KenAndAriel.com, fails RS
  • Arch Angel Blog, fails RS
  • NightMoves, no evidence of RS
  • And then: XRentDVD, Mens Mag Daily, Adult DVD Talk, XCritic, AVN, XBIZ, Xtreme, all of which are porn-specific.
In wrestling, a lot of sources won't break the kayfabe. It's worse in porn. It's a walled garden with little or not intrusion of reality. Films are made on a budget that would not buy you product placement in a mainstream movie, and treated as high art by the industry. I really think we should not have a bio on any adult actor unless there are at least two mainstream sources, because the porn industry actually doesn't care whether a claim is true or not. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree. Wikipedia is used by the "actors" and their fans as a means of getting mainstream visibility for a niche market that if it weren't for the army of fans/editors would not have a snowballs hope in hell of surviving a serious Afd. Wrestling is a similar situation. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
And why, when we routinely purge virtually all other articles of non-notable industry awards, are we padding out these "biographies" of poeple whose real names ca't be reliably established, with "fan awards" for "best MILF"? This is ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The changes keep being made after repeated attempts to explain that the sources being used did not contain the information. After this was provide many times in the Talk area with no reply, another removal was done then two new provided sources (finally admitting the prior source was not valid) appeared that were both from unreliable sources such as “thesun” and TMZ (used via the Kansas City Star, for which does not provide said information) for neither source provides how they gained the information. As is the case non-verifiable information is not allowed, the sources are not original nor supported, it would appear the very information being provided by Wikipedia is being used to verify the sources provided. This is the typical circle verification that one runs into with non-verifiable information is placed on Wikipedia that is then used by third parties as verification. If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans.. Attorney for Kendra Lust [Jhafke]

Are you sure you are really her attorney...an attorney at law? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"thesun" is the the UK's biggest newspaper and, let's be honest, this information is clearly verifiable. However WP:BLPNAME is also an important policy and the fact that the subject clearly doesn't want her name widely published should be enough for us to exclude it. – Joe (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the request "If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans," we should just delete the article. Cleaning up standards for porn bios would be a good idea also, but that will take some time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The information is private WP:BLPNAME, is not verifiable, is speculation, and yes.. the full page can be deleted as desired. Attorney at law for Kendra Lust {[Jhafke]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhafke (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would maybe suggest that the above editor go through an WP:OTRS request instead of asking to remove information. I may be wrong but I believe that claims of being the attorney for a subject of a BLP should be verified and not taken as read. Some of what has been written by the above editor gives cause to request verification that they really are the attorney for the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dom from Paris This is a great thought, the ability to verified can be found on all the work my firm has done for Kendra Lust that do not include the Wikipedia issue at hand. Further, understand that if a lawyer such as my self took action for a party whom was not a client, we would lose our ability to practice law. The need to edit this Wikipedia is not worth no longer being able to make a living. Please let me know what needs to be done to verify my status of attorney for Kendra Lust. As of yesterday Kendra confirm ZERO desire to have a page on Wikipedia. Jhafke —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jhafke: having your identity confirmed via OTRS is the first step. Once that is done, you can then confidently requests that changes to the article in question be made at Talk:Kendra Lust. Given some of the comments above, you will likely find common ground with other editors and be able to form some sort of consensus as to what information should be on your client's article. I will, however, note that Wikipedia is not censored (per WP:CENSOR) and your client has no public expectation of informational privacy, so the veracity of your proposals and your ability to form a consensus is key. Alternatively, as an editor you may start a discussion (known as WP:AFD) as to whether or not the article should be deleted outright by the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Toastmasters International

Toastmasters International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This keeps popping up on my watchlist due to the never-ending procession of promotional edits. I just reviewed the article and removed all self-sourced material, apart from the basic statement of who they are. There were no indpeendnt sources, and there still aren't. I suspect that the majority of edits are by members or their PR. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously a notable org but just how much can you say about? Its a loose collecion of local speaking clubs. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_130&oldid=869106065"