Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81→Archive 85

Dany Bahar

Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft for Dany Bahar, a prominent player in the automotive industry. The current article has been tagged for neutrality, poor citations and may need to be rewritten entirely. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Dany Bahar is my client. Feel free to take a look and ping me or post on my talk page or the article talk page. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There's already an article on Dany Bahar. More at Talk:Dany Bahar John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the page bellow

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Electronic Recycling Association

(striking. holy cow part of huge mess. my apologies Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

Talk:Electronic_Recycling_Association#Restore_to_non_promotional_version - 180.149.0.249 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Had my eye on that article, and is now included above - see #Bert_Martinez) Widefox; talk 20:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest abusing on this subject may be present so I improved every edit from start. I have asked two editors on talkpage to find concerns in current revision but they want to revise to original poor condition revision which has blog reference and half detail. I invite neutral editors to tell concerns on talk page as I want to correct this notable subject which is under bad influence as I am neutral editor. Thank you Widefox for warning but this page is protected. It is unfair to delete everything and ask me to get consensus without any raising any concerns. So please review it first and see what sources are saying. Read my complete justification on talkpage of only few primary sources and all other secondary references. I am willing to revise my edit if concern is raised.

Rahat got this subject protected by admins now he is informing this noticeboard while logged out of his account to pretend to be two users [1] [2]. How to report this to admin? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sawtooth, two thing: 1) Please assume good faith; people sometimes just forget to log in. 2) About the worst thing you can do at this point is start pointing fingers at other editors. So just stand down and deal with the sock puppet investigation when that comes. Ctg4Rahat please confirm that you filed this COIN posting - the diffs shown by SawTooth make it clear that you did; it would be useful for you to acknowledge it. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I raised concern about IP address which is editing his account page. Nothing else. Is Widefox assuming good faith for me? People some times can be real people who are pro recycling and want to improve a subject. I have made my note on his topic above. Jytdog you were sensible in dealing of dispute on talk page before so I listened to you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's me. I just forgot to log in. I forget it at times. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of any COI. This is just a content dispute that needs to be worked out on talk page or through the regular content dispute procedures. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) clearly big problems as described by Widefox. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cortes Wesley Randell

The subject of the article appears to be editing the article. See these edits, where the editor refers to the subject of the article as "I".[3] Please check over the article for any factual errors per WP:BLP. There are lots of references available; a famous financial disaster is involved. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ghanashyam karumanthra editing Ghanashyamkarumanthra

Ghanashyam karumanthra has been editing Ghanashyamkarumanthra. Also has been removing CSD templates from the page. Looks like a autobiography. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 08:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

SavvyMedia

I've come to the conclusion that the marketing company SavvyMedia edits Wikipedia for their clients as a standard practice. For everyone of their clients and partners that has an article, there is a history of single-purpose accounts doing promotional editing. I first brought up this issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gracesavvymedia, but it's clear that this company is too savvy (pun intended) for a mere sockpuppet investigation to be effective. The list of clients and partners is from their own website. Summary of what I've found:

Company owner

Clients (those listed in the company testimonials)

No article

Partners

No article

Same editors as above I can't link these subjects to Savvymedia, but they have some of the same editors as above, italicized

All of these articles need careful review to remove advertising content, and at least some should probably be deleted. I would also suggest that several editors watchlist the redlink articles, as well as obvious spelling variations on those. If there are ways we could tell this company to stop, or report to their hosting company, that might also be warranted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed Honest Tea a bit; listing every flavor and when it was introduced was a bit much. Becky's Fund is barely an article, after some major deletions a few years ago. Dreams for Kids is missing its talk page. I'll look into that. Anything else? John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've watchlisted all the redlinks just in case. Also, once the sockpuppet investigation is closed, I'll probably nominate some of them for deletion. Most of the accounts are stale, so blocking won't help, so what can we do to stop this stuff in the future? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The most important thing we can do is great vigilance for articles on small and medium sized organizations, to catch then at NPP; and then stricter standards for the ones brought to AfD. The people participating at afd are often not aware of the significance of our problem with promotionalism, and every promotional article accepted at afd creates a bad example. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Salting them after AfD deletes would prevent the weeds growing again. Widefox; talk 10:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Davide Anselmi Drummer

User:DavideAnselmiDrummer created and is editing the page Davide Anselmi Drummer. I suspect that the user is the subject of the article himself. Tony Tan98 · talk 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for speedy deletion. The one citation given does not even mention his name. This looks like a pretty clear case of self-promotion. --Drm310 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Devdutt Pattanaik

User:Devdutt.pattanaik has been editting Devdutt Pattanaik. I suspect that the editor is the subject of the article himself. Tony Tan98 · talk 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Undid all those edits. Suggested that the editor involved discuss this on Talk. Nothing yet. John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Carmine Miranda

I have been engaged to do projects for the Cellist Carmine Miranda who has an existing page Carmine Miranda. The edits i would like to make are for adding new album information, adding pictures to infobox and article, awards received and edits as needed to de-orphan the page. Since i have COI, i am posting the suggested edits on the article's talk page and hope that you could help me improve and de-orphan it or approve me to make the edits myself. Thank you in advance Lilianarice (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did some cleanup there, addressed some of the requests. The subject of the article is marginally notable and just barely passes WP:MUSIC. Not much info is available from reliable sources, but there's lots of PR. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
What a mess. Carmine Miranda is now apparently instructing another account to remove unfavorable information from the article [4]. See also WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
We now have two new SPA accounts editing the article. The subject of the article entered a big musical competition, and they did OK, but not great. The COI editor would prefer more favorable spin on this. Please check and see if I was too negative. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I would ask both of you to do proper research on the competition in question. The musicians are judged individually on a scale of 1 to 10. The 7.00 that Carmine was awarded is not the lowest and because they are not competing against each other you cannot say he was last as John Nagle so erroneously noted. The prize is that participants get scholarships, perform their New York Carnegie Hall Debut and in the Winners Concert Tour or other prizes based on how they score. So there is no saying he was last like John Nagle wrote because the LAST position on a scale of 1 to 10 is 1. The IBLA Competition website even says "Please note that IBLA Competitors are not judged against each other but in reference to a standard of excellence" so please get your facts right.Lilianarice (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As for Logical Cowboy, you solicited money from me after putting a flag on the Khalilah Rose page which i ignored so your contributions as far as any pages i am involved with are self serving and not for the purpose of improving Wikipedia.
Problem dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Extortion of money for page i have COI on John Nagle (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Khalilah Rose

Hie, I created a page for Khalilah_rose who is an artist that i have COI with since i am managing multiple web projects for her. I am writing to request a neutral eye to look over the article i wrote so it does not come off as self-promotion. I tried to follow the Wikipedia rules on neutrality and factual citations however i would appreciate your help if you could. Another editor has it tagged as advertising and i really want to improve it so could anyone look at it and help me? Thanks in advance Lilianarice (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

i assume you mean Khalilah Rose. you should not have created that article - it is a violation of WP:COI. but it's good that you at least posted here. please do not actively edit the article further - just make suggestions on Talk. Also, per the terms of Use, you MUST disclose any paid edits you make, in specified places. Please see COI for instructions. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to request that the editor User talk:Logical Cowboy be banned from making edits to this page because it seems that he as well has a conflict of Interests. To support this i reference a conversation i had with him asking for his advice in how to improve the article. While he has been blocking the page, he also has been Asking me to split the money i have been paid with him. This is counterproductive to the efforts of building onto Wikipedia and is a form of harassment since i was earnestly asking for this user's advice. Picture attached
Conversation with Wikipedia Editor
This has been dragged to ANI in a fit of forum shopping, where Lilianarice has been informed that he is wrong, his claim is absurd almost to the point of being obscene, and he just needs to just get over it. I disagree that a COI edit CAN'T create an article, but it is discouraged. I give him credit for being honest about the COI, but not on anything else. Dennis - 2¢ 15:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that the edit summary actually says "j/k" [5]. I was just not excited that someone who runs a business on another website to "write a Wikipedia page" was asking me to help complete one of her jobs. It is not just that she is paid and I am unpaid. The problem is that she is actually creating extra work for the community--her business gets paid and the whole community takes on additional costs. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Well in all earnestness i would have preferred for you to tell me just that. I would have understood and respected your choice not to help because i am getting paid and creating work for the whole community rather than to have your "humor" which i had to look in the page edit summary to understand. What i got was the impression that you were being deliberately obstructive so as to get paid. Now that i understand that i have been stewing over nothing, i take back my accusation as my having mis-understood the situation.Lilianarice (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lauren Carter

Some time ago I was paid 50 dollars to do this article. It's the only paid edit I ever did, and I was not aware of the policy against it (though I suspected it). I ask the community to review the article to determine if it's notable and neutral enough for the encyclopedia (I doubt it), and delete it if necessary. Thanks and sorry! --Felipe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I put a Proposed Deletion on it. Per IMDB, all her film/TV roles are very minor. Her one named role is in a direct-to-video romance reviewed nowhere. It doesn't even have enough votes on IMDB to have a rating there. (This is what Not Making It In Hollywood looks like.) John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Stargate School

The user web stargate (talk · contribs) has similar names to Stargate School, and the user's only edits are to Stargate School. It seems like a single-purpose account, and the edits seem to be promotional. Tony Tan98 · talk 21:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am a parent of a student who attends the school. I made edits to reflect current admissions policies and to provide information about the school's expansion to include high school. All changes are consistent with the school's website and admissions policy pages. I removed a flag indicating that the page hadn't been updated since 2012. I am new to wikipedia and have not posted about any other topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Web stargate (talk • contribs)
(Note: User renamed to Lng mayes (talk · contribs))
@Lng mayes:Thanks for your reply. Welcome to Wikipedia! Please understand that due to copyright concerns, editors should not copy content from other websites without permission, even if it is out of good faith. Moreover, you may find this policy on keeping a neutral point of view helpful. I have also added more information for you on your talk page. Thanks, Tony Tan98 · talk 03:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Subject of notice acknowledged COI, connected contrib template placed; OP warned about WP:NPOV Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gary Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • {{This uncited falsehood, in particular, needs to be highlighted: "Fiedler has a history here of printing things which were not verified about Hart." Fiedler and his colleagues were sticklers for getting the facts right,.... If the anonymous writer of that claim failed to cite it due to sloppiness and poor reporting rather than with the intention of libel, now is his/her chance to correct the error. |Seanjsavage}}

Please be advised that seanjsavage, from his user page and user name, appears to be a close relative of Miami Herald gossip James Savage, who featured prominently in the Herald's reports about Gary Hart and Donna Rice in May 1987, and other controversial reports about the Hart campaign in 1988. This is violation of WP policy on conflicts of interest to edit about close family members. Furthermore, this person is making legal threats about libel on the talk page. Apparently, the family wants to bully WP with legal threats into repeating the Herald's new version of events, rather than address their 27 year old published account of events, recently confirmed by former editor Tom Fiedler in Matt Bai's book. Please address.Doctor Franklin (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice posted: Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Franklin (talk • contribs) 21:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made no legal threats against anyone. The edit Doctor Franklin refers to does not violate the COI policy, it's fully in the interest of Wikipedia and the attempts to remove it (along with the spate of other recent anonymous vandalism to the Hart page) each come with zero citations or valid arguments for removing them. Nowhere did I (or anyone else) bully, or come remotely close to making a legal threat against the anonymous users vandalizing the Gary Hart page without citations, against Doctor Franklin (whom I've never heard of until now), or Wikipedia. A look at the recent Histories of the Gary Hart page and its Talk page will invalidate Doctor Franklin's allegations and validate my response. That paragraph simply pointed out that the writer claimed Fiedler printed "things which were not verified about Hart" without pointing to any such things, and offered the writers the chance to add any such citations validating that claim, if any exist. Without such validation, this is heresay. By no stretch is that a legal threat; it wouldn't be within my power to sue successfully over that anyway, since I am not Tom Fiedler, so that claim is ludicrous. I am happy, however, to finally see someone support one of the recent acts of anonymous vandalism on the Hart page using a username, rather than anonymously. And I continue to encourage any productive contributions. Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
the purpose of the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, where we are, is COI. Not dealing with "legal threats" or not here - that is a matter for a different board, ANI. Seanjsavage, are you indeed related to Miami Herald gossip columnist James Savage? Please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I am the son of retired, former Miami Herald investigations editor James Savage. (Though he is not and never was a gossip columnist.) I have done nothing to misrepresent that fact, and have used my real name on every Gary Hart contribution I've made. Please closely review any or all my contributions to Wikipedia and I believe you will conclude they are neutrally worded statements of fact, backed by solid, exhaustively researched citations and that they advance the aims of Wikipedia and do not place my own interests over those of Wikipedia or of the truth. Please also feel free to contact SnowFire about this, a disinterested third party whom I don't know personally but who has also been working to preserve the quality of the Gary Hart entry recently amidst vandalism; I suspect SnowFire will attest that my contributions are in the interest of Wikipedia. Thanks. Seanjsavage (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for clarifying that. I am sorry for getting his job wrong. Per WP:COI you should not directly edit anything having to do with your father but rather you should make COI edit requests on the Talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Noting that Seanjsavage is continuing to edit the Gary Hart page after being warned here not to do so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&oldid=634143652
1) The edit referred to above clearly is allowed, as it is a Non-controversial edit. In particular, it is a not an addition to the text, but an added citation from a reliable source to back something that was already in the article (that is: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article that first reported on Donna Rice's claim that Dana Weems was the tipster). This is not even a controversial fact. and 2) I added the citation BEFORE I saw the warning. Seanjsavage (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There was no need to apologize about anything. In the rest of the civilized world people who print gossip about peoples personal lives, which all partied involved deny being true, are not called reporters or editors. The apple didn't fall far from the tree with regard to ethics.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As for the claims of gossip denied by all parties, this is a lie that lacks any citation or backing. The facts speak for themselves. If they were on your side, you would step up from anonymity and offer your proof, as I have done from the start. Please keep your overheated, hyperbolic and factually unsound personal attacks to yourself, this is not the place for them. Stick to the facts please. Seanjsavage (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
note that i don't find any particular COI issue with seanjsavage editing the gary hart article, as long as it is not his dad. I just word-searched the gary hart article and "savage" doesn't appear in the article. it is not clear to me what you are concerned about.Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
James Savage, my father, was the editor of the second, and most famous, Gary Hart scandal article in The Miami Herald. Seanjsavage (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
His father was part of the Miami Herald team that conducted an unprecedented stake out Gary Hart's Washington, D.C. townhouse in May 1987 and then wrote that Donna Rice had spent the night with him on two occasions, which Hart, Rice and two other witnesses have denied for 27 years. See the talk page here for his father's name discussed: Here In response to Matt Bai's book, All Of The Truth Is Out! the Savage family has now gone on the offensive to discredit Bai. See the talk page for more.Doctor Franklin (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Franklin you are doing a shit job of explaining yourself, and it would be helpful if you calmed down and left the invective and emotion out of this and indeed just discussed facts. So you are saying that Savage senior was part of the team at the "stakeout" that is described in the content that was being edit warred over? (like here) and {{u|seanjsavage]] is this accurate, that your dad was part of that team of reporters? Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear that Seanjsavage has claimed to be the son of James Savage, who was employed with the Miami Herald in 1987-88 as discussed on Gary Hart's page. Seanjsavage refuses to stop editing things related to his father and Hart.Doctor Franklin (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the answer to Jytdog's question is: Yes, well specifically he was an editor but he was part of the team. I don't refuse to stop editing things; I have not edited a single thing since reading the COI warning. I did add a citation to a previously-written (and noncontroversial) fact within moments of the warning, before I saw the warning, but that citation is allowed as per the COI rules. Seanjsavage (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for answering seanjsavage. yep you should not directly edit anything directly related to your dad, including that section. thanks for being calm and clear. i know that is frustrating and Doctor Franklin seems to very POV on these matters. If the page starts going out of whack you can get more eyeballs on the issue by starting an RfC or using other dispute resolution tools but please keep your own nose clean on the COI issues. That should put an end to this COIN matter. Thanks all. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Following the links from his user page, to his clients page, to his linkedin page:  :::http://www.linkedin.com/in/seansavage
He is a former Knight-Ridder (formerly the parent company of the Miami Herald) employee and was published in the Miami Herald.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't hold a lot of truck with the "zombie former employer" hypothesis. I don't see any COI for a former employee writing about his/her former employer per se. Writing about your dad, yep that is a problem. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record: I never worked for The Miami Herald, I did work for its former parent company but not since 1999.Seanjsavage (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Second count of conflict of interest: Seanjsavage also edited a page about Carl Hiaasen by deleting material. According to his user page, Seanjsavage, 'I'm the Web designer and developer and Internet social media representative for novelist Carl Hiaasen.' This is also a conflict of interest. His only edits appear to be on the pages for Carl Hiaasen and Gary Hart, both pages on which he appears to have a conflict of interest.Doctor Franklin (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Seanjsavage should not directly edit content about Carl Hiaasen, for sure. Instead he should use the "edit request" on Talk as described in WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the clarification of policy. I corrected "Plantation" to read "Fort Lauderdale," to correctly state what town Carl Hiaasen was raised in. This was at the direct request of Carl Hiaasen himself, and nobody before or since has disputed this improvement. For the record: In no way did I delete substantial material or whitewash anything. And before I made that single, tiny change to Hiaasen's page, I stated loud and clear on my user page my association with him. Seanjsavage (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record: I am about to gather and post several citations, in response to Jytdog's edit tags, backing a paragraph on the main Gary Hart page. I am not breaking the rules or doing anything unethical, conspiratorial or illegal here; adding source citations is legal even if you claim that I have a conflict of interest, as per COIADVICE. Seanjsavage (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I was pinged here by Seanjsavage. I take no particular position on the Gary Hart article, although it does sound like Seanjsavage has a COI - but he's disclosed it and talks on talk pages, and his edits to Gary Hart have seemed reasonable so far. My main reason for interest is that the anonymous editors (presumably including Doctor Franklin) have made statements that allow basically *any* Wikipedia editor to raise eyebrows - they claim that an author is promoting a fringe position that is being rejected by the mainstream media, and that Wikipedia should trust the author. In other words, they are fundamentally misunderstanding Wikipedia's role as the chronicler of the "received wisdom" mainstream position. However, this is quite independent of the COI interest, and perhaps more appropriate for the Fringe theories noticeboard. SnowFire (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please try to focus on the issue of this notice board, an editor who edits contrary to WP COI policy, and appears to edit only on issues upon which he has a COI. (Why I posted here.) Sceanjsavage's comments on pages on which he has a conflict of interest should be removed so as not to reward someone who has repeatedly violated WP COI policy. His long comments on the talk page should also be tagged as those of an interested party. (FYI, Mat Bai has stated his thesis [published by Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group founded 1915, a division of Random House LLC] that American media should generally stay out of politicians' personal lives. That is the position of most of the rest of the democratic world and is not a "fringe" theory, although not presently accepted in the United States. The U.S. is also unusual with it "actual malice" requirement for public figures to win libel case. So, please try to leave the American cultural chauvinism out of the conversation as well, as Wikipedia is international, and it lacks a NPOV. Not sure how "mainstream media" is defined presently in an Internet age, and appears to be subjective, but that conversation needs to go somewhere else.)80.90.61.2 (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You're the one wandering off-topic here. The proper way to deal with a COI is to disclose it, which Seanjsavage has done, and ideally stick to mostly suggestions on the talk page in the case of contentious matters. "Removing" his comments is quite far from what COI asks for. For your other comments, you do realize that Gary Hart was an American politician, yes? And we await reliable sources that back your claims... talk is cheap. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing to add that sceanjsavage appears to be a Single-purpose account devoted now solely to defending his father's role with the Miami Herald in Gary Hart's 1988 campaign. There was one original post about his client Carl Hiaasen, which had been followed now only with posts defending the role of his father and the Miami Herald's controversial actions in May 1987 and nothing else, promoting its official story and explanations, while attacking the credibility of author Matt Bai for his conflicting account of events, etc. In addition to being labeled as someone with a interest in the topic, this account should also be flagged as a SPA. Furthermore, the editor has also been disruptive, and is not here to build an encyclopedia.Doctor Franklin (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, in my view this matter is closed. The COI has been identified and seanjsavage has agreed to not directly edit content related to his dad per WP:COI. I've also given Doctor Franklin notice that he appears to be in danger of violating the policy WP:NPOV via his WP:ADVOCACY for a particular point of view on this matter. At this point in time, I don't see what more there is to do here. If folks cross lines again going forward with respect to behaviors, you should take it to ANI. If there are future content disputes, you should use the mechanisms described in WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You are advocating shooting the messenger rather than cleaning up the problem. That is bad form, i.e., trying to punish people who are following the rules for reporting an editor who clearly and unequivocally wasn't, and in this case, never was. The account and comments need to be flagged, as an SPA and interested party, etc. Doctor Franklin (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
nope, I acknowledged that you have a point. However, WP:BOOMERANG (please read that) happens a lot around here. If you continue as you have been you will likely face a topic ban. I am trying to get you to wake up and evaluate your own behavior; you will of course choose to do as you will. You've been warned. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Bert Martinez

Bert Martinez's company created an article on him which is based on self-published books, press releases and trivial mentions in press. Now they are offering a Wikipedia program for $750 to create articles on others - www.bertmartinez.com/wikipedia-program/ . 99.229.119.114 (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles Everybody's Goin Thru Something and Joe Vitale (author) also seem to be maintained by them! 99.229.119.114 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I worked through the articles checking them out. All SPAM, seems to be a editor tag-team. The paid writing advert linked above has been online since Sep 29, 2010.

Widefox; talk 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to prevent further disruption of this sort, I have given an indefinite block for promotional editing to User:Psychicconsultation, User:Amyxcell, User:Poshemo-2007, User:Bertjedi, User:Jvwikie , User:Richardjonas , User:Donaldmarkus , & the two ip addresses. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I will block the other 3 if they do any substantial editing. Anyone else, let me know. I also changed some of the prods to speedy G11s, but I alwasys let another admin confirm the deletions. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would someone else please take this to spi--the edits are recent enough to be worth the trouble, but I am not familiar with the procedures there. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell#24_October_2014 . There may be more, these are just the linked ones clustered around Bert Martinez. Widefox; talk 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
New one:
and I found another one

Widefox; talk 11:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Another one

Widefox; talk 08:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Previously unlinked, now they've edited the only undeleted article, (adding PR/primary sources) & removing maintenance templates to challenge the PROD on Money for Lunch, now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money for Lunch
See this edit [7] for two co-workers of Emilysantoss. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

These are those two accounts (I gave them the mandatory notification for being mentioned here)

Widefox; talk 23:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stuttering_Hexagon SPA !voting links the account Emilysantoss with

SPA Editors on Intaction Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caribbeanbio/Archive

SPA !voting in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sammy_Porter (where User:Klokus discloses paid editing)

Widefox; talk 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amyxcell

More linked by articles and User:Cristine nickol

Widefox; talk 19:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Recycling Association (locked due to edit war / promo editing): (see other editors concern #Please have a look at the page bellow (Electronic Recycling Association))

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hype_Magazine silly voting links User:Chastized with:

I do not have any relation to "The Hype Magazine", or any other article that I edit, I even avoid editing articles about my home-city of Hong Kong. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Widefox; talk 21:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know Ianjoy8311 and his coworkers. I do not even live in America or Canada to be related to them or ERA. I am a neutral user who improved a subject under bad influence from start and I am willing to correct promotional data it was my try at first. You can see how much I improved this subject. Editwar happened because all my improvement was deleted by users obsessed with Conflict of Interest without raising concern on my written work. Sorry for helping to improve if you guys will put my name in a laundry list like this. My work is my own opinion and I am not related to any company. Actually I will be happy if all fake accounts above are banned by admins. --TheSawTooth (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TheSawTooth Let's come back to that. Your edit history [29] shows you made 10 minor edits to start with, then created a new article in your sandbox and started editing Electronic Recycling Association . That good level of proficiency would be unusual for a new account, have you ever had another account or edited as an IP before? Can you explain that? I believe that matches the edit pattern of the banned User:Morning277. Please can you not remove the connected template on the article talk for now. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have used wikipedia before with IP address for some time and a user sent me welcome message to create account but proficiency in writing because maybe I am good in English? I am working on sandbox subject unrelated to ERA. I am also working on Operation Zarb-e-Azb a user thinks I am his enemy. Why is every one so obsessed with their own articles. People new to wikipedia are not clueless of reading wikipedia and using basic bold italic underline html. Please do not try to undermine my reputation with your template till you have a proof. I do not know any other user on wikipedia. --TheSawTooth (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheSawTooth Your contributions to the ERA piece have been promotional, while you're working hard to disrupt discussion on the edit page, demonstrating alternately an unconvincing unfamiliarity with Wiki basics such as not using press releases for sourcing, hyperlinks to compress information and avoiding promotional language, and a willingness to obfuscate through extreme detail. I've only ever come across this kind of behaviour in paid editors of one shape or form, disclosed or otherwise. You're now accusing editors who are making entirely natural comments such as "lose promotional garbage" of being sock puppets. Has an admin checked the IP address edits yet? AdventurousMe (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
My edits are new but I am not promotional user. I am working hard to reply to every answer of editor that was revising ERA before me. You are accusing me of extreme detail but have you even looked at talk page? User nikthestunned asked me in extreme detail. Each point but his comment is collapsed so it looks small. Open his full comment. I answered in shortest words so that it does not grow too much. My reply can not stay so small when one user is asking me so many things in one reply and then other user says you are giving too much detail. Please look how simplified points I gave in small lines. Divided in points so that you can all understand it. You should not undermine my hardwork because I want to make ERA topic neutral just like other topics. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the formatting here. But note that Carter Hargrave was edited by BiH, Emilysantoss, Lanaelle007 (blocked sock of NZ), and a few suspicious SPAs. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks, added...
  • Summary Some accounts overwhelmingly obvious Fiver paid editors, others appear so from editing articles at same time (including experienced editors), some socks. Unclear if all from Fiver. Widefox; talk 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Other COIN report

(I refactored this, as that is for another COIN report, not this one as detailed above.) Widefox; talk 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden controversy

Prasangika37 has a longstanding pattern of attempting to remove critical material about the above organizations/issues (all interconnected to Dorje Shugden and, at the same time, insert material critical of the 14th Dalai Lama into these articles that is cited to unreliable sources not suitable under WP:BLP. This individual behaves as an individual who have a COI as to the New Kadampa Tradition and related issues. The diffs number by now in the hundreds, though the edit history of the articles linked above should reveal a clear pattern. Although this user makes the occasional edit on other religion articles, the contribution history of @Prasangika37: shows a clear pattern of near-exclusive focus on these topics and edit-warring to promote his/her point of view. Several users (myself, @Joshua Jonathan:, @CFynn:(Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)), @VictoriaGrayson:, @Cullen328: have tried to explain NPOV to this editor but this editor is not changing their behavior. We had to put some of these articles under temporary full page protecction at one point. As this user's oldest edits] show, they have only been here since May - at least under this user name. (It is possible that this editor may also have edited as Audrey37 and Kjangdom (the latter blocked as a sockpuppet of the former), though that Username is not currently active.) I request that this editor be strongly admonished not to make edits to these articles, to cease advocating for a "whitewashing' of critical material, but rather place reasonable proposals for edits on the respective talk pages and let others make the changes when consensus exists on both sides. Montanabw(talk) 23:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That about sums it up. But wider than this individual case the same sort of POV editing by zealous adherents has been going on continuously on Shugden / NKT related articles since mid 2005. On other internet forums and Usenet similar POV pushing by members of this group goes back for a decade before that. Though they may fervently believe what they write, all of it is simply what they are told by their "root lama" {or guru) and his senior acolytes. If this individual WP editor can be persuaded to cease, several more will inevitably pop up. It matters little whether they are sock puppets or not since they all say the same thing and edit in the same manner. Elsewhere they have said they have said they have spent millions on their campaign for the "truth" - though most taking part probably receive no money and are only trying to demonstrate their devotion to their lama/diety and the truth they believe in. Does Wikipedia have a mechanism to deal with this? If an individual editor persists in trying to overcome their ceaseless propagandising and come up with an objective article they usually seem to end up becoming nearly as obsessive as the culprits themselves. Not healthy at all. I can only manage this for short stints and it always seems like a wasted effort because it will always be almost instantly re-written and argued about by this group. Such effort is probably far more productively put to articles not related to this topic. Until an effective solution is found maybe smarter to let them take complete possession of this group of articles and get on with other things. There are plenty of good academic sources available. Maybe get some some neutral, previously uninvolved editor or editors to go through that material and rewrite those articles from scratch and then more or less permanently lock them down. Can't think of anything else that would actually lead to objective and stable articles. Chris Fynn (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried, I'm starting to fry. That's why I'm here. This about like the Scientology mess. Montanabw(talk) 06:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried too, and I've removed those articles from my watchlist. I'd support a topic-ban. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd also support a topic-ban at ANI if Joshua Jonathan or Montanabw made a motion there. In terms of supportive diffs, just tell the community to look at the history of the Dorje Shugden controversy article going back to June, talk archive 6, the current talk page and the full protection incident. Before Montanabw and Joshua Jonathan became involved with these pages, Prasangika37 was trying to replace EVERY academic reference with a self-published book called "Heart Jewel".VictoriaGraysonTalk 08:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
1. I don't know of any whitewashing that I have been involved in. I'd love some proof. 2. I stick to Wikipedia's rules and am consistently civil even when I don't receive that attitude in return, while both VictoriaGrayson and Montanabw have acted in ways that are quite hostile and meanspirited to me 3. I wonder how much these users would be reporting me if they just didn't outright disagree with the edits? What about the recent editing is actually inappropriate? Montanabw was just trying to prevent from including obvious RS on the Dorje Shugden Controversy page. 4. I totally admit I have made mistakes as an editor--not being patient enough and not using the talk page enough, but I think I have improved. I have been involved since May on Wikipedia and don't have immense time to perfect the etiquette or to spend tons of time on all sorts of pages, so I spend time on the things I know about (Christianity and Buddhism, particularly). 5. Victoriagraysons accusation about the text Heart Jewel is basically just bizarre and I don't know where its coming from. Thanks!!
Pinging @Elnon, Ogress, John Carter, and HiLo48: for any alternative points of view, as they have all experienced the hostile editing, WP:OWN and witch-hunt sort of allegations regarding anyone who inserts anything that could be considered critical in regards to the Dalai Lama Prasangika37 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that there has been a significant enough display of grossly unacceptable conduct from multiple parties in this matter that it might not be unreasonable to take the matter to the Arbitration Committee. If it goes there, I very much doubt P37 would be the only person sanctioned, or possibly even the person getting the strongest sanction, for extremely dubious conduct regarding this matter. I also think that it might well be reasonable to request input from one of the few wikipedia administrators familiar with both the academic study of religion and Buddhism in particular, @Shii:, and am asking him whether he would be willing to review the material in question and offer opinions which might well be based on a better understanding of policies and guidelines, including content and conduct guidelines, than many of the others here. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
So, this is a very brief sketch based on looking at a handful of diffs, but it seems that there are two main problems with the type of editing that is occurring right now: (1) Big blocks of direct quotation from RS, which is not a very encyclopedic style, and (2) a lack of understanding as to what religious scholars do when describing modern conflicts. I am going to ignore (1) which is a WP:MOS problem and focus on (2), which I don't think is a specifically Buddhist issue so much as an increasing discovery on Wikipedia that it is hard to determine what "neutrality" is for controversial new religious movements (NRMs).
Looking at Prasangika37's edits, I don't think this is actually an issue of RS versus unreliable source. Prasangika37's edits remove newspaper sources and Buddhism news websites, and add academic sources and religion encyclopedias. So, he finds "superior" reliable sources. I have not gone through VictoriaGrayson's edits but I assume she argues that popular sources, while not being academic, can help Wikipedia reflect public opinion -- she would be right to do so; this is a tack I have taken up on the NRM articles Soka Gakkai and Providence (religious movement) in order to provide balance. Soka Gakkai in particular has very few solid academic sources from after 1980 that speak to the widespread misgivings about the group, despite ongoing controversy and distrust even within intellectual circles. To reflect this, Wikipedia must rely on investigative journalism books and even tabloids, a far from ideal situation.
Post-1980 NRM scholars often try to prove that they are scholarly agnostics not involved in theological disputes by simply describing the NRM claims and not judging them. When religious scholars are writing a peer-reviewed article they do not take into account Wikipedia concerns like WP:WEIGHT. In fact they might be describing a tiny, non-notable group of people or a totally frivolous line of argument, simply because they believe the worldview that the group expresses is important for some larger reason. It may in fact be impossible to determine from religious studies sources alone how marginal a group is in respect to a larger culture. After the fractious impact of the anti-cult movement on the academy, most academics started operating in a world where such questions are never asked. But Wikipedia is not that world -- it is the real world, where it makes a huge difference whether Dorje Shugden claims are real, meaningful social issues or Chinese-funded libels against the Dalai Lama.
Wikipedia is taking on a very serious scholarly load here that I am guessing print encyclopedias never even thought about, and for some reason we are not doing it to achieve new heights in religious harmony, but simply to create a free encyclopedia article. The lack of good sources for "Eastern" controversial NRMs on the articles I mention above have led to years of very contentious discussions with NRM adherents, and I have deep sympathy for the editors here who are feeling burnout with regards to the Dorje Shugden controversy. It might be beneficial to file an RFC discussing why you think these articles are at an impasse and what sort of policies need to be adopted to deal with NRMs. Shii (tock) 20:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
prasangika37 has tapped me here (presumably because I have had conflicts with VictoriaGrayson) but I cannot speak to the quality or tone of his edits. Ogress smash! 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid I have no longer the time nor the inclination to get involved in any of the editing conflicts about the DS articles.
To put it briefly, I tend to agree with John Carter's discerning views above. In situations like these, I doubt that only one of the parties involved is likely to have a COI and is to blame. And from what I have seen, P37 has shown restraint as well as a willingness to accommodate the demands of the other contributors. --Elnon (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Prasangika37 clearly has some connection with the subjects of the inter-related articles mentioned above. IMO he, and other NKT editors, should openly declare that COI and either avoid editing those articles where they have a COI (unlikely), or strictly abide by all the norms that apply in cases where editors have a COI, and be swiftly sanctioned whenever they don't. Prasangika37's patience, persistence and at least appearance of trying to be accommodating sometimes looks to me more like part of that old and effective tactic of wearing down the opposition. It works too - non-NKT editors who try to improve these articles and make them NPOV inevitably seem to get worn down or fried by the persistent zeal of such POV pushing NKT editors and walk away. Of course all these NKT editors sincerely believe they are only trying to make the articles reflect the "truth", so their intentions maybe good, and because of their strong religious devotion to the subject they actually believe they are doing good, telling the truth and fighting "lies". Elsewhere [[33]] Shugden advocates say they have "have spent millions of dollars and countless hours creating awareness through our varied articles,"... and indeed they have created many websites devoted to promoting their cause and are very media savy. Despite this huge expense of money and effort, the first site that usually pops up when you do a web search for "Dorje Shugden", "Dorje Shugden controversy", etc. are the relevant Wikipedia articles (it seems all the millions and countless hours they claim they have spent on this simply can't buy the search ranking the Wikipedia articles get) so I just think they naturally want to try and get their particular POV across to the public here as well and are willing to devote a lot of persistent effort to do so. BTW I've added a {{Connected contributor}} template for Prasangika37 to the talk page of these articles. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe your understanding of COI as per WP:COI might be in error. Also, it is worth noting that there are several essays such as WP:POV RAILROAD, which indicate that it can be a form of misconduct to misapply the COI term when in fact all that can be established is POV. I have yet to see any clear evidence that a COI as per the appropriate page is established, but if I've missed it please point it out. I would also hope that individuals refrain from making such aspersions on others until and unless they can establish that there is a COI specifically as per that page rather than simply the POV of any adherent of any ideological group. If the latter were to hold, then presumably anyone who has ideological/religious beliefs consistent with one side of an active controversy could reasonably be disqualified as having some form of COI by the broad definition of having ties to a related group. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The COI page is quite clear that "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes." It is difficult to do more than demonstrate a pattern of behavior without risking OUTING an individual, which I don't want to do. Here, we have a consistent pattern of using pseudo-scholarly sources, that, as @Shii: noted, are, if not bought and paid for, are at least creating a false "balance" or "neutrality" that flies in the face of reputable news reports (such as, for example, the BBC). I think that @CFynn:'s tagging is a good start, we shall see if the behavior of these users improves. It is a false equivalence to do the "I think everyone misbehaved" thing when there is a clear and ongoing pattern. That said, where you have hundreds of diffs across multiple articles, it becomes overwhelming to present a case here via diffs, particularly when it is the diffs in their totality, especially when combined with contribution histories, that demonstrate the troublesome behavioral pattern. My goal here is to get P37 to drop the stick and to discourage other followers from this constant onslaught. Wikipedia won this battle with the Scientology articles, so I guess I'm trying to determine how to get a similar truce and pattern of supervision here. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to harass Prasangika37, but to put this in context his original user page of May 2014 - acknowledges that he is a "Kadampa Buddhist" (a usual synonym for an NKT member and disciple of Geshe Kelsang) and that "My primary interest here is to make sure articles are balanced that deal with precious methods". By "articles ... that deal with precious methods" I take him primarily to mean articles that relate to the NKT and its teachings - particularly Dorje Shugden, and "balance" is always the argument NKT editors have used when inserting material from primary sources published by their group. I don't think Prasangika37 has ever denied this association nor his intent. There is no question of "outing" since I think no one has tried to reveal his actual identity.

The line between POV and COI is sometimes very thin. In this case it seems a POV edits are being made by a person who has more or less declared an association with a group and controversial practice which are the subjects of the articles concerned - whether that is normally regarded as COI or biased POV editing, I don't know - but there is a long history of NKT associated editors, several who have subsequently be banned, editing these articles to put their particular spin on them. There is now a fair amount of good academic material available on the NKT and the Dorje Shugden practice and controversy - and good WP articles, reflecting the balance of current academic opinion, could be written based solely on that material. However NKT editors always seem to disagree with much of what is said in objective academic studies and consistently re-edit these articles to reflect more their subjective "truth". I think most people would be satisfied if Prasangika37 (and other involved editors) truly try to reach a consensus - and allow sufficient time for this - before making edits to these articles, or, better yet, try to reach a consensus and, if and when that is achieved, get an editor with no association to the subject make the actual edit.

Newspaper accounts on this topic need to be taken with some caution - the mainstream press seems OK but smaller newspapers and TV stations sometimes have articles which are just recycled press releases from one party or another. Even agencies like Reuters have sometimes published articles on this subject which have come from such sources.

While the NKT/Shugden related articles seem particularly contentious - looking at numerous other Tibetan Buddhism related articles there seems to be a strong tendency for uncritical "hagiography" and articles which reflect only the insiders POV.

Chris Fynn (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had that in my about me in regards to full disclosure as to clearly state I am a Buddhist. I also pointed out very close to that time when being interrogated that what had originally interested me in Wikipedia was the poor work done on articles regarding Buddhism ('precious methods'), which is something I know quite a bit about. I also pointed out that I quickly developed interest in other matters, as I have been a contributor regarding RFC's for months and have been actively involved in the Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus buisness.
@John Carter: is right though that it seems like a very clear Railroad situation, also known as ad hominem. I find it particularly interesting because the user VictoriaGrayson generally engages in far more egregious and systematic editing always opting on a negative side against things to do with Dorje Shugden, particularly in regards to reverting anything that doesn't fit his or her interest and, particularly, consistently reverting qualified sources. At the same time, he never gets criticized by the relevant parties, claimed to be a sockpuppet, bothered, and reported.. All I can say is I am consistently civil, I make compromises, and if you just don't agree with me then I am sorry... but I can't really do anything about that! And CFynn, theres only one example of a user editing these articles that was sanctioned that I can tell. And to claim something about me using non reliable sources as opposed to other people using or not using them is stricly not based in fact. You can see the comments of @Shii: and others above as proof. Prasangika37 (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Prasangika, after observing the interactions on these articles for several weeks now, I have to say that you are a master of WP:BAITing Victoria Grayson, who does have a largely pro-mainstream-Tibetan Buddism POV (but not any apparent COI, which is the key distinction here) get a little terse at times. but with good reason; you just never let up, even when it is clear the weight of the evidence and sources are against you. Your behavior is very, very akin to that I have seen in other cult and cult-like discussions, such as Unification Church or EST. The fact that you have been around here long enough to develop a passing interest in a few other articles (and to realize that mixing it up makes you look like less of a COI with a POV) doesn't remove your COI. Montanabw(talk) 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tiring honestly.. drop the stick my friend. I responded there because it was an RFC that I was requested to comment at on my page. You can see there. John_Carter said it quite clearly..just disagreeing with me isn't a good reason to call me names or a 'cult editor' yadda yadda. The false accusations are a bit tiring too.. not using RS, pseudo scholarly sources, constant claims of being a sockpuppet. They're all false and unverifiable. Please move on. Prasangika37 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Erika Jensen-Jarolim

I posted at BLPN about this, but didn't get any responses.[34] COIN may be better suited for this. Basically Jensen-Jarolim created Erika Jensen-Jarolim referencing nothing but their own scientific publications, which whether the user is just affiliated or is the subject themselves, is a pretty clear violation of WP:COI. This user has also been going around to articles where the subject's publications are referenced and wikilinking the name. It looks like it was intended as a promotional article. I nominated it for deletion [35], but another user did improve the article with independent sources. Personally, it would seem better to delete the article and let someone else create a new article if this person really was notable, so it's hard to separate the origins in COI in the deletion discussion for me at least (i.e. the article wouldn't have ever existed in the first place without the editor's involvement). Whether it's for deletion or just handling the article in general, what do folks think is the best way to approach this article with COI in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject comfortably meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and the issues with the article seem to have been at least partially resolved by editing - which is the way we normally deal with promotional material on notable topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that was the other option I was split between. I was operating mostly under WP:YOURSELF: "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." above. I'm open to either approach, so no horse in the race with either option there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this one is managed. the account has not been active since Nov 7, and the BLP article has now been worked over, and i went through and took out the self-references she inserted in other articles, which were not appropriate. Her findings about antacids and acid-reducing drugs causing food allergy have not been picked up widely; it is not part of the labelling of any drug nor is it discussed in reviews of the drugs themselves. that work has been picked up by people who think about food allergy and mentioned as interesting research but nobody is citing it as accepted truth yet. But she went and added self-citations and content based on them, to the adverse effects sections of a bunch of articles on drugs... including articles about compounds that never reached the clinic. oy. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I could use a few more eyes over at the page again. There are two accounts that appear to be single purpose trying to promote this person. One has only edited the subject's page, and the other is engaging in the same behavior as the COI editor by wikilinking the person's name to references on other pages. Not sure if we're dealing with sockpuppets or just folks recruited by someone close to the subject again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

checked in. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Jerem43

Simple question: why are his activities tolerated? http://wikipedia-sucks-badly.blogspot.com/2014/11/operation-swill-and-tgi-fridays-or-dont.html

-- 76.191.202.31 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Added note on "Operation Swill" to franchisee article. See The_Briad_Group#"Operation_Swill" John Nagle (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? A franchise of the company committed fraud, was caught and punished, and as a result went out of business - what does that have to do with the operations of the TGI Fridays company? I neither work for that company, edit on their behalf, have anything to do with them other than eating there occasionally. Could you please provide some basis for your baseless accusation?
I am not a paid shill for anyone - those claims are a load of bull, I've worked in the industry for 30+ years and have a garnered a good deal of knowledge of the industry (Those restaurants that I worked for include Papa Ginos, Pizza Hut, Legal Sea Foods, Applebee's, a bakery and Burger King. I also worked at Filene's, Jordan Marsh, Lechmere, and Macy's as well as three IT companies). I took that out because TGI Fridays did not commit the violation, a franchise of the company did. There is a difference, and what you're doing is called a false equivalency. Unless there is some proof positive that the franchisee did what they did at the orders of TGI Fridays or its parent organization, the company is innocent of the accusations. As Nagel pointed out, it was the Briad Group that committed the fraud, not Fridays.
Do people who write about cars extensively work for the Automobile Manufactures of America? Do those who write about baseball a ton work for Major League Baseball?
And as for the baseless claims that I am some how doing this as a paid shill, that author is sorely mistaken. I work for my self, because I like writing about restaurants, food service and other subjects.
I personally believe the person who posted this wrote the blog that is being referred to, but I cannot confirm that. How ever, I will say that it is one of the best pieces of fiction I have read in a long time.
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And I'd still like to know if TGI Friday's is paying you to edit their articles, and if Burger King is paying you to edit their articles. Because this situation, whether you admit it or not, doesn't look good. 76.191.202.31 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This line from my response clearly states my position regarding editing for others:
And as for the baseless claims that I am some how doing this as a paid shill, that author is sorely mistaken. I work for my self, because I like writing about restaurants, food service and other subjects. You are barking up the wrong tree, I work for my self. Again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@76.191.202.31: If you care about these issues, Wikipedia is a wiki. Please join in, voice your concerns on the relevant talk pages and help address the issues. Attack the edits and arguments, not the person. Jerem43 is an experienced editor, but he has no more privileges on Wikipedia than you. -- intgr [talk] 10:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added my comments to Talk:T.G.I. Friday's#Removal of "Comments from TGI Fridays" in alcohol controversy section. -- intgr [talk] 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric Vanderburg

Single-purpose account; mostly in the last 1 month, they have single-handedly created the above 3 articles. The user frequently makes edits to other articles, almost always adding some reference to Eric Vanderburg's writing, along with a blurb that appears constructive on the surface: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Normally I wouldn't see this a problem, but the sheer number of these edits seems to be WP:REFSPAM and tendentious editing.

Eric Vanderburg serves as the director of JurInnov and also writes on the company's blog, which has been cited a few times.

The two IP addresses match Professornova's editing patterns and resolve to Westlake and Cleveland in Ohio using MaxMind GeoIP. Eric Vanderburg and the company are also located in Cleveland, Ohio.

The user gave an ambiguous answer to my query about affiliations with Eric Vanderburg and the company on their talk page. -- intgr [talk] 16:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have an interest in documenting information technology and information security biographies on wikipedia. I joined the biographies group but am still new at this. I am just starting out with Eric Vanderburg but then I plan to move on to other security professionals who are noteworthy and not on Wikipedia. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest but certainly want to maintain editorial objectiveness so I will cease editing these pages and work on others. Thank you for letting me know. -- professornova

"Sheriff of the Internet"? That's usually considered to be Microsoft.[47] This article needs a hard look. John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding problems with that article, and need more help. See Talk:Eric Vanderburg. He calls himself "Dr. Vanderberg", based on a claim of an honorary PhD from Vatterott College. That's a trade school: "Vatterott College is a for-profit career training institute in the fields of Business, Technical, Medical, Trades, Court Reporting, and Culinary." They don't issue anything above a associates degree. Everything in that article needs to be checked. John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Put a "Prod" on Eric Vanderburg bibliography. It's almost entirely self-published ebooks and articles. One article in ABA Journal is as good as it gets. John Nagle (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: Thanks for chiming in an discovering more dishonesty. Do you think it's fair to go and revert (some of?) those 11 edits I linked above, on the basis of refspam? -- intgr [talk] 13:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest taking out stuff that's based on self-published sources, after checking Google for an alternative source. Put "cite needed" on anything questionable. John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle Do you want me to go ahead and make those changes? By self-published, I assume you mean all the ebooks, whitepapers, and any blog references. I can check and see if the information is mentioned elsewhere. By the way, the MAC times reference for the forensics article and the MAC times article on wikipedia both reference a blog maintained by Vanderburg so those would be self published as well and should probably be treated the same. Professornova (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Even more dishonest stuff is turning up, this edit attributes authorship to Eric Vanderburg, but the article is actually written by someone else, he's just an interviewee. -- intgr [talk] 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. That is an error on my part but not intentional. Eric Vanderburg was the one who made the statements but the article was written by Teresa Dixon Murray. I believe the reference on the Vanderburg page lists it correctly. Professornova (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I did some more fact checking. He claims credit for two video games. One I can find no reference for. The other was announced in 2010 for delivery in 2011 on Facebook. It didn't ship. The site hasn't been updated since 2010, but there is a 2010 promo video. Using Google Image Search, I was able to match the art shown on the site and promo video as game concept art to art from other sites by other artists. See Talk:Eric Vanderburg#Game development career. Everything in this article needs to be fact-checked. Anyone want to help? John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
How about we just WP:STUBIFY it? After finding so much wrong with the article, I think that may be a better use of time. -- intgr [talk] 02:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an option. If we take out everything that comes from a Vanderberg-generated source, what's left? Also, looking at Professornova (talk · contribs), almost all edits to other articles involve putting links to Vanderberg's articles into other topics. John Nagle (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
All Vanderberg-related linkspam has been removed. We also need to look at JurInnov. John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
After looking at JurInnov, I marked it for proposed deletion. All the sources are minor mentions or PR-generated. John Nagle (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Emotiv_Systems

Talk:Emotiv Systems#Removal of URL and reference to illegal usage Not sure if this is the right place to request help on a neutrality issue. This article is in serious need of review for POV issues as I see several revisions adding and removing essentially the same content. Am I right in thinking that there's an appearance of edit warring or politically-motivated edits? I assume only an admin can investigate the identity of editors to verify relationships between editors and topic. 73.3.211.0 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

terrible Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That article was a walking violation of WP:PROMO and WP:VERIFY. I started reviewing it and ended up gutting it. There is a modest, respectable stub there now. Will keep an eye on it going forward... Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's frustrating. It's a reasonably notable device, and reliable sources say it does work for some applications. If its promoters didn't overhype it, it could have a better article. John Nagle (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cortes Wesley Randell, round 3

See previous COI entries at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Cortes Wesley Randell) and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 78#Cortes Wesley Randell.

A recent edit by Orlandosouth (talk · contribs) [48] replaced the entire article with their version. Reverted, and put warning on talk page. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for catching this. watchlisted and I placed a note on his Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A Johns Hopkins professor is socking and creating promo articles

A person who is likely a Johns Hopkins professor has been creating promo articles on Johns Hopkins literature and film professors under multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Critic11 for the current sockpuppet investigation and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Critic11 for the archive. At User talk:Critic11#The Emperor's New Clothes the user claims to be a professor. I suspect that Johns Hopkins is the kind of place that would not approve of this kind of behavior, so I'm wondering if we could complain to them so they can put a stop to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Giovanni Zelko

Resolved
 – editor explained that he is a fan and a new editor. Great work by Nagle cleaning it up!

Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at Giovanni Zelko? I'm suspecting paid editing here. A Prod tag was removed by the editor without comment, so use Articles for Deletion if you think this is appropriate. This page is User:Folasade.aremu only contribution. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It took a lot of work, but the article is in reasonably good shape now. The problem was content, not notability. The subject of the article is a minor figure in Hollywood, but he does have reasonable IMDB credits. However, the article exaggerated the importance of his achievements, and contained too much unverified personal stuff. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That was a blatant copyvio from the guy's website, and should probably have been blanked and listed as such. Thanks to the valiant efforts of Nagle and Oiyarbepsy, I think that problem is now fixed. But what about the BLP aspect? We have a biography with no reliable sources whatsoever (IMDB cannot be a reference, per WP:RS/IMDB, and should be removed). Most of the article is about the film, which appears to be notable. On conflict of interest, I note that Folasade.aremu is sufficiently acquainted with the subject to have taken this photograph of him on 18 May 2014. It is in any case very easy to confirm. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I spent way too much time on this. There's a lot of exaggeration in the article. For example, the "International Quarterly Film Festival" award was really from the "Independent Film Quarterly & Webisode Festival". I found an interview in Independent Film Quarterly, which is a weak source, but something. He claims all those awards, and it's a real movie; there ought to be more. John Nagle (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Found LA Times cite. His movie was the first mentioned, and got the article picture, although the article is about the film festival. I think we're marginally over the threshold for cited notability now. Marginally. Someone else please check all the "citation needed" points. There might be some better references. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The above editor is right about IMDB. I thought their data came from the Academy database. It doesn't. Giovanni Zelko isn't in the Academy database. If someone were to send this to AfD, I think I'd vote "Weak Keep". Comments? John Nagle (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It gets worse. The star of "The Algerian" gave an interview to a small newspaper.[49] Zelko isn't even mentioned. I can't find any indication that this movie ever played in a theater outside a film festival. The movie has a good trailer.[50] It's looking like the movie is notable but Zelko may not be. Maybe move some of the content to an article for the movie? John Nagle (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I received a message from a user concerning a conflict of interest with my creation of the Wikipedia page for Giovanni Zelko which I would like to clarify. I am not Giovanni Zelko nor am I associated with him professionally or personally. I've been to two screenings of his latest film, The Algerian while I was working for a film festival, DFFLA, where his film was featured during as our opening night piece, and the other occasion, while I was in NY this past summer. Since then I've become a fan of his, and I've been able to access a lot of his work from public content on YouTube and the director's personal website. Zelko has a really large body of work which I thought was worth recognizing, (especially after I read an article about him and his film in the Huff post), and regarding that he's published books, made films, and works with Harry Lennix. There was some buzz around him that I thought would grow, so I thought it would do the filmmaker justice to create a page for him. All of the info I found is available through his personal website and The Algerian movie website, primary, but between those two it was pretty in depth for me to make a good size article, but I see the issue since no one else contributed. But I'm also new to wiki, and zelko's article is my first so I wasn't too clear about the guidelines for single users. I thought if all the info is in the public domain then its usable, granted the sources are legitimate.

Folasade.aremu (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DOAJ

I'm a long-time contributor to Wikipedia. I'm considering volunteering as an associate editor for the DOAJ:

DOAJ wants to recruit unpaid volunteers, with language skills, that can help us maintain our levels of quality for the journals that we accept into the Directory, as well as reviewing those already in the Directory. We're especially interested in those of you who have an interest or experience in scholarly publishing, journals and, of course, open access.

For details, please see here and here. I understand that would obviously create a conflict of interest with regard to the DOAJ article itself. My question is: would it also prevent me from editing articles about open access journals, scholarly journals, and open access in general? If COI is viral like that, I'll decline the volunteer position with DOAJ. Thanks for your thoughts. @Randykitty: Fgnievinski (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it would be best to leave editing alone on DOAJ if you get the position (but you can still make suggested edits on the talk page). Everything else though doesn't seem like a problem to me though. If all that directory is in charge of is listing open access journals, that would be a pretty weak COI if any for the general topics you mentioned unless it somehow involved DOAJ. I could see the case being made that you could be considered an advocate for open access, etc. being in such a position, but that would be contingent on actual POV pushing edits occurring to actually be problematic. Overall, I think you should be fine with regards to your main question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree with Kingofaces43. --Randykitty (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Concur. I'd draw your attention to wp:CURATOR, which rather tangentially touches on the idea, and of course to wp:COIADVICE. Edits to articles in wp:WikiProject Journals are mostly of a noncontroversial nature, so long as they don't stray into a promotional character. Bare facts of the sort commonly seen in those articles' infoboxen are unlikely to be a problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyonbe for your opinions. I've also taken a look at WP:ADVOCACY and WP:EXPERT. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello, I comment on open access topics on Wikipedia. I also would love to see a partnership between DOAJ and Wikipedia, as I think DOAJ is a nonprofit organization and it certainly has mission alignment with Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals would especially benefit from a partnership like this. I see this partnership as being low-risk for causing any problems because of the long history that DOAJ has in sharing free information published mostly by others and doing this without an obvious bias. So far as I know, it is a well-liked noncontroversial organization which gets a lot of praise for sharing in the same way that Wikipedia shares. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

notification of COI thread on ANI

As many of the people who watch this noticeboard are interesting in commenting on potential COI. I wanted to notify everyone here of a thread on ANI about a potential COI: WP:ANI#COI editor edit warring page where they have received money

--Obsidi (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

University of the Cumberlands

Users keeps removing the Controversy section of a Baptist University, This section remained in the Article for over 4 years therefore I am assuming that consensus was reached to keep it there. By this edit [51] and the year date in the Username I assume he is either a former alumni or a employee of the University. Any help is appreciated. Avono (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that the Controversy section constitutes undue weight (as the controversy section takes almost half the article) making it more appropriate to have its separate article. However I do not know where the correct revenue to discuss this is as there is no activity in the article talk page.Avono (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks for posting. unclear if there is a COI or not, but definitely a WP:SPA. i watchlisted this and also gave an edit warring notice to the user. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree it's an SPA. More like a political issue edit warring problem than a COI issue. I made a comment on the article talk page. John Nagle (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Brookspowell629

Editor Brookspowell629 identifies here and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrive+ as Brooks Powell, who markets a hangover cure called Thrive+. A moment's searching turns up a LinkedIn page which states that Brooks Powell, CEO of Thrive+, is "running the summer marketing campaign of author Gary Thomas". This page, on the other hand, shows drstevewilke.com to be registered with "Registrant Name: Brooks Powell; Registrant Organization: Thrive+". I don't think there's any question about the conflict of interest here; I'm more concerned that there may be undisclosed paid editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This user disclosd his identity here. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
added Ampelopsin which is an ingredient in Thrive+. I placed a confirmed connected contributor tag on the Ampelopsin article and a connected contribitutor tag on the Gary Thomas article and a COI tag on the Gary Thomas and Steve Wilke articles. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Wilke - Brookspowell629 was the only user arguing to keep the article, but did not disclose their COI. Non-admin closure as 'no concensus'. --Lemnaminor (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitehawk F.C.

mentioned affiliation with this edit [52]. Could you guys please check if he was valid to remove sourced material about a price matching scandal involving two players of the following football club? WP:SYNTHESIS? Avono (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a clear violation of user name policy and an admitted COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Reverted his second deletion, put a warning on his talk page, and added a note about commenting on talk rather than editing directly. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Glencore: French & German pages

Hi there. I'm trying to make some improvements to the French and German Wikipedia pages for Glencore in order to make them more balanced and correct any factual inaccuracies. In the interest of transparency I am declaring that Glencore is my client. I have successfully worked with the editors of the English page and am now trying to engage the French and German editors on the relevant talk pages (French:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Glencore and German:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencore) but have had no response. Is there any French or German speakers I could work with to discuss these edits? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki6789 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I applaud you for following guidelines for altering Wikipedia, however I fear that (at least as regards your French requests) fall out of line with Wikipedia rules as regards White-washing. That said... the English page seems to cover the company differently, so you may be right, and in that case you may want to provide sources for your opinions rather than mere arguments. Even if they are logical, you need sources to back up your claims. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 04:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PR Agents on Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell

The article on Jill Kelley has been suffering from PR agents over the last two years. Primarily, these are IPs from Miami, Florida where Jill Kelley lives but a recent one was from a mobile-hotspot in Dallas, Texas. The effort from the PR agents has been to whitewash Jill Kelley's biography from what the reliable sources say to Jill Kelley's version of the events using blogs or obscure sources that generally quote her directly. A new user named Wordasaurus has been here for a few years and recently reverted to the PR version. I checked their contribs and I notice that not only are they whitewashing Jill Kelley's article, they've been trying to slant the Paula Broadwell article to Kelley's point of view as well. Request a block on the editor, and semi-protection on the article.--v/r - TP 17:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely an issue here, starting with attempts to stuff the subject's POV into the lead. Another new editor has shown up (Chewstokyo) but I'm not sure if it's enough for a SPI. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN:, no need to bother, they're  Confirmed (as is User:Yalebulldogs) and I've issued blocks as I saw necessary, and semi-protected Jill Kelley's article. Doesn't look like anyone has touched Paula Broadwell in a while, though... not sure there's a need to semi at the moment. Courcelles 22:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

An WP:SPA intended to add links of moz.com. When I told him to stop link addition of moz.com he then started adding links of searchenginejournal.com which again contains backlinks of moz.com in its every article. He says that updating this article is his homework project. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 04:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The additions seem to have been reverted. Adding an ad for a book on search engine optimization is a bit much. John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hnancy (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Hello that I am an informatics student at UW and it is really my class project to edit a wikipedia page. Previously I tried to make a new topic called "link popularity" but later I adopted teacher's advice to work on the link building page. Moz didn't pay me at all and I even never heard of this company before. I accidentally used the resource from searchenginejournal because I think it is authentical and it has the resources I needed(I didn't realize that it has backlinks to Moz.)i actually could't finish my homework right now because I couldn't add new contents to the page. I am now editing the conflicts section and I try to add a brief section called "link building tactics" (which is highly related to link building I think). I hope I can finish these edits today so I am able to turn in my homework.
I see what's happening. Apparently some clueless instructor told his students to go edit some articles. The instructor didn't set up a school project for this, as required by Wikipedia:Student assignments. So the student effort looks like a spam job, and the students are being hammered with warnings, threats of blocks, being sent here to WP:COIN, and there's even talk of sending this to WP:AN/I. I suggest that WP:BITE applies. If it looks spammy, revert, but explain why in detail, rather than escalating the threat level too much. I put a long explanatory message on User Talk:Hnancy for that reason. To the students involved: get your instructor to read and comply with Wikipedia:Student assignments. Aiming a class at Wikipedia without prearrangement leads to messes like this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the steps taken by John Nagle. But should I revert any reference link addition in Link building article which contains moz.com as back-link? The editor has added a new link as reference to the Link building article. I have gone through the new link and again found that contains an external to moz.com. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 07:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If the editor continues ignoring the issues, then we aren't bound just because it's a homework assignment. WP:BITE is useful when dealing with students in trying to help them out, but WP:NOTTA is very clear: "As always, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE apply, but student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated, without any special considerations that other editors do not receive." If the additions are indeed inappropriate, then continue as if they are a normal editor. There is no deadline, and if the editor cannot meet their course deadline, the professor will just need to be made aware of why. If it continues to a be a problem, WP:ENI would be the place to go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
True. They've been given explanations and warnings. Also, adding links to an article on "link building" is inherently a bit questionable. John Nagle (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
HusnainMeerzadeh (talk · contribs) may be in a similar situation. See their edits. If there are two, there may be more. I put a note on WP:ENI#Class on search engine optimization editing Wikipedia? asking if anyone can locate the instructor. John Nagle (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

sgs.com

The three accounts are of exact same behavior: pop up once a year plugging in a link to sgs.com and a couple of innocent wikilinks. Even user names are similar (a typical "random...Not" numeric combination, but this may be the case with any drive-by editors, I reckon).

I reverted their abuse, but I leave it to COI-experts for official dealing. -M.Altenmann >t 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This needs to go to SPI/Checkuser for further investigation (no time to file now). MER-C 13:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vicky4567. MER-C 07:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to need some help removing these links. If you find any more accounts, please add them to WT:WPSPAM so I can block them. MER-C 05:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if you got them all, MER-C. You could probably add VickyMa84 to the list above. Did the others also add links to .wwindea.org? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Silicon Valley Leadership Group

This seems to be mostly old history, some of it noted by Dandv in 2013; putting it here for the record. Persistent SPA editing and copyright violation (e.g., 1, 2) by several accounts, some of them very obviously related to the topic and to each other. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

They used to be the "Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group", and when the manufacturing moved out of Silicon Valley, they became irrelevant. Under their new name, the organization lives on, but the web-based companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) have their own lobbyists. Note that most of the press coverage is from the Manufacturing Group days. John Nagle (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Manulife

I’m an employee of Manulife and would like to help improve the accuracy of the Manulife entry. The article currently states that Manulife has 84,000 employees, which is inaccurate. Manulife currently has more than 29,000 employees and 53,000 agents under contract, which is an important distinction.

To improve the accuracy of the article, I posted to the talk page, suggesting that that an editor list employees and agents separately in both the infobox and the body text, but have not received a response.

For reference, I provided a link to the Company Overview on the Manulife website, which outlines the number of employees. Please let me know if you agree that this would be an appropriate update to the page. KABannister (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated article. Reference in article said 28,609 employees as of a few quarters back, so I put in 29,000. John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Heutagogy

Heutagogy is a concept invented by Dr. Stewart Hase of Australia. Editor Stewart Hase has recently made substantial changes to what was a tiny stub, including the addition of a number of citations of publications by Dr. Hase. Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that heutagogy is just his term for self-determined learning, which is a recognized field predating the COI editor. I deleted most of his additions and put a note on the article talk page with some references for self-determined learning. This may belong under self-directed learning. John Nagle (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have boldy redirected to Autodidacticism.--ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
self-determined learning in this sense isn't just autodidacticism (I reverted the edit redirecting it to the latter). Although I'm not an expert on this by any means, my understanding is that heutagogy is a sort of academic study of self learning from a pedagogical (an unfortunately loaded term in this context) or teaching and learning perspective (a study of how it works and how it can be used in, for example, education rather than a phenomenon of someone teaching themselves something). Only responding here because the redirect mentioned COIN -- we can continue this on the article talk page if you like. Note that I'm not arguing that the article is good and certainly not that we should keep any of the COI edits -- just that from the sources I looked at when it was AfDed some months ago it did seem a notable topic. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. See my note on the talk page for a way out of this. There seem to be two topics involved - self-teaching outside an educational environment, and student-directed formal education. Heutagogy is at best a form of the latter. Right now, both of those subjects are covered at Autodidacticism, and probably need to be separated. They were merged in 2010. John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading a number of articles on educational terminology, I referred the problem to the Wikipedia education project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education#Heutagogy, Andragogy, and all that. They have as one of their goals putting educational articles into some kind of rational taxonomy. John Nagle (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good move! No-one is wrong here (and thanks to all for the input). It seems to be the lack of an article about self-determined learning that's making the choices difficult, and I'd support creating one, either by demerger or ex novo. I regret that I just don't have the background to participate in that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

discussion at WikiProject Medicine about IMS intention to work within WP

Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#IMS_is_back, for those interested in paid editing, COI and their management. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Green Man Gaming

IP editor with no edits other than of the article in question. The editor added almost exclusively praise of the company, its catalogue, and features. I noticed the IP editor also added "VC Eden Ventures" including an external link to that company's website. 82.136.210.153 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I added this here because the contribs are almost a year old and other editors worked on the article since; but lots of stuff added in January remained. Not sure what action - if any - is required. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Francesco Aquilini

This article appears to have been targeted by several editors with a personal or professional connection to the subject. The first editor was already the subject of discussion at WP:ANI [53] but it was decided that there were good-faith intentions. The second user was banned for a username violation, and the third is a corporate IP editor belonging to a sports business owned by the subject.

Since only the first editor declared her interest [54] (somewhat hidden, in the edit summary), some past whitewashing and a complete lack of discussion on the article talk page, I'm asking for some monitoring for possible WP:BLP violations. Drm310 (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

NQ Mobile Inc.

This editor has edited ONLY on topics related to NQ Mobile Inc. and its CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD plus a few other edits around the same subject. I believe that this is a single-use account and the editor is closely related to NQ Mobile and/or its CEO. I don't think that it was a great article to begin with, and some of these edits are useful, but it does seem somewhat promotional in tone and omits some (possibly controversial) information that was in there before. Shritwod (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Shritwod,

I do not know the CEO Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD aside from what I found on the web while contributing to the NQ Mobile Inc. page and I have no affiliation with the company. I'd planned on researching 2013 and 2014 in order to bring the article/page up to date but if what I've done so far is not good/promotional then I'd prefer to fix it first. I've looked at the Microsoft page and was trying to get ideas from there but didn't know enough about the company's history so thought a good first article/page would be to just put significant events or milestones and fill in the awards and recognitions. Then perhaps later someone will help/contribute to make the information more cohesive.

Rgeurts (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There's an AFD underway for Dr. Henry Yu Lin, PhD, but it's probably going to end with "Keep"; he has verifiable notability. But the "Dr" and "PhD" have to go; that's being discussed at the AfD. I added a section to the NQ Mobile article about their stock crash and accusations of inflated revenue. John Nagle (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've done some investigation on this company, and one thing that is notable is that the stock has been on a rollercoaster ride recently, mostly downwards. Some of the financial indicators are looking weak. There's been a lot of negative comment on investor boards (although you could argue that is fairly normal). Now, I will admit that the article for NQ Mobile was in poor shape, and Rgeurts has certainly improved it, but it does seem to be a very polished and positive spin on NQ Mobile. Now this is where I get suspicious - the article and references are very good (although arguably it misses out negative comment) which indicates some experience in writing this sort of information, but the way that Rgeurts uses Wikipedia does not indicate an experienced editor. This makes me think that the article itself has been sponsored or paid for in some way, given the unusual fact that Rgeurts has only edited on this subject and nothing else. The pattern doesn't add up - most people do some tinkering first before doing a major overhaul of an article, but Rgeurts has leapt right on in there. Shritwod (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The article does look rather promotional. Rgeurts (talk · contribs) leaps in whenever something is done to make it less promotional, yet edits in no other areas, which tends to raise questions. As for the company, there's suspicion in the press that something funny is going on, and reports of an SEC investigation. Lots of acquisitions, but where's the revenue? [55] John Nagle (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
SeekingAlpha has a diverse set of articles on NQ Mobile [56] which a somewhat contradictory, but do indicate that there are a bunch of people who claim that there is something fishy going on and a bunch of people who claim that everything is above board and legitimate. I don't know which of those points of view is correct, but it does indicate that there is concern about this company and its operations. And of course if you Google them one of the first things that you'll see is that article. I'd hate to put off a potentially good editor like Rgeurts if I'm wrong about my suspicions. But the editing pattern plus the background information about NQ Mobile definitely makes me go "hmmmm". Shritwod (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Shritwod, I saw the SeekingAlpha blogs and a few of the headlines were real grabbers so I had to click on them but after reading a bit it felt like tabloid journalism and they all seemed biased one way or the other. Just my personal opinion. Rgeurts (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The SeekingAlpha articles are all opinions rather than news articles as such, but I think that they demonstrate the diversity of opinion on this company. Shritwod (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is my first time contributing and I wish I was being paid! Are you guys really this suspicious? I've worked hard to find information about this company and compile it here. I didn't find any SEC investigation but I did find the SEC papers/20f which I looked into and I see Nagle found it useful as well. Rgeurts (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Of interest, their CEO has resigned, that is on top of the allegations already discussed. I still cannot believe that the editing on this article at this time is not by an interested party. Shritwod (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Something big is happening over there, but it's not clear what. Here's Bloomberg's report: [57]. Meanwhile, I suggested merging the "History" and "Timeline" sections. John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jerry Yang

Hi all, I work for a communications agency representing Jerry Yang. I'm requesting a few factual corrections to the article about him, plus some NPOV restructuring (the article currently has a separate "Criticism" section). I've posted details and citations on the article's Talk page. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thanks so much for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the factual edits requested. The article has a "Criticism" section that Mary asked to be integrated into the article. Per Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies there is grounds to do that. I don't want to do that work; she asked if she could make a draft and post it and I said sure. I'll review and implement if good and will also post here when that happens so anybody not watching can also look in. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

EidosMedia

I believe Jan0345 may have a conflict of interest. The article has a history of being created and maintained by employees/contractors for the company. In this case, the editor has only edited this article, adding positive references and removing some negative ones. I asked the user whether he/she has a conflict on the user's talk page, but got no response. Muckrkr (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jan0345 seems to have narrow editing interests, but they're making more or less reasonable edits that make sense. The article has criticisms of the product, and it's not unduly long. Back in October, there were worse problems. The self-identified Eidos Media COI editor, Il Capitan Fracassa (talk · contribs), was so inept they were reverted by ClueBot for big deletions. John Nagle (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I don't have any relationship with EidosMedia. I am a user of the system and I am actually satisfied with it. I found the Wikipedia entry about EidosMedia and I thought it was extremely biased. This is why I wanted to correct it. Muckrkr thinks I have conflicts of interest because I inserted positive (real) comments and deleted others. I actually thinks that he might have conflicts of interest, since he posts only negative comments on the company and the product. Jan0345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan0345 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jan0345's statement that I post only "negative comments on the company and the product" is demonstrably untrue. I edited the sections on the background, customers and description of the company (which are neither negative nor positive). And I added the statement and source about News Corp. expanding its use of the program (which is positive). Unlike Jan0345, I also have also edited articles on different topics. But I agree with John Nagle that some past self-identified EdiosMedia COI editors made far worse edits.Muckrkr (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Dr Amal Roy

User:Dr Amal Roy has been editing medical-related articles and citing his blog "www.webhealthsolution.com" as a source. An article about the blog itself was speedied as being non-notable and promotional. I'm no medical expert, so it could be that this person's contributions are medically sound. However, looking at WP:RSMED and WP:SPS, his activity looks a little too self-serving. Drm310 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no what whatsoever that a link to a webpage on Natural abortion: Nine Safe Methods [58] should ever be linked on Wikipedia - the website should be blacklisted immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
just searched and there are no more links as of now, but see here for current status. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia search function often misses material added in recent edits - I've just removed material added by User:Dr Amal Roy from Septic arthritis and Psoriatic arthritis, on the basis that (a) it appears to be copied directly from the website, raising copyright concerns, and (b) I can see no evidence whatsoever that this website meets WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica

Persistent SPA messing about, copyright violation, edit-warring over the web address of the "university" (one faction trying to establish that it is in Poland). The university probably does not exist – see e.g., this discussion, obviously not a reliable source for our purposes but quite interesting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob Jones University

User:John Foxe has a COI with Bob Jones University as a professor there. (He disclosed this under his enwp username [no real name divulged] to a newspaper in Jan 2011.) Here is my complaint:

  1. Issues with article ownership. He has contributed 1105 of the 4077 total edits to the article, and has made 8X more edits than any other editor (per tool). He has been accused of exhibiting ownership by four different editors at three different points in time: in Feb 2007 by User:Emote (diff1 and diff2) and by User:Barang (diff3), in May 2014 by User:Abductive (diff4), and in Dec 2014 by me (diff5).
  2. Usage of misleading edit summaries. Recently, he has made several edits either removing controversial info about the university or changing its meaning under edit summaries that are misleading. For instance, in diff6 he used the edit summary "the "crest" is different from the logo" to make a minor wording change about the uni's logo but also to remove info about how the uni president disparaged two religions using the official uni website. In diff7 he used the edit summary "put the "cult" statement in a more logical place" to not only move the info of the the same event but also to completely change its meaning.
  3. Preventing change to POV statements. Two editors (diff8, diff9) have removed a POV statement from the lead ("Though the conservative religious, cultural, and political stances taken by the university have often generated controversy, they have also resulted in greater institutional influence than might have been anticipated from a college of its size."), which he has reverted each time stating that he "can provide a reference", which he has never done and probably still wouldn't validate NPOV anyway.

Based on his contributions to this uni article, both recent and past, I am unconfident in his ability to contribute without bias there and feel action should be considered. —Eustress 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. I'm unembarrassed to say that, with perhaps the possible exception of one other person, I know more about the history of BJU than anyone living. I've just finished a book manuscript about the early years.
  2. I admit to being a bit sloppy about edit summaries sometimes when I'm in a hurry.
  3. The alleged POV statement in the lead had a proper citation until User:Eustress removed it here. I restored it, then eliminated it for a substitute that User:Eustress suggested.--John Foxe (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
User:John Foxe admits to the COI. He edits against consensus to whitewash or downplay embarrassing material from the article about a place where he is employed. What more has to happen for him to be restricted? Abductive (reasoning) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough to say that I edit "against consensus to whitewash or downplay embarrassing material," Abductive. Prove it.--John Foxe (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

←Thank you. The COI is now documented, so I've gone ahead and tagged the university article accordingly and initiated an inquiry at ANI. I believe this thread can now be archived. —Eustress 21:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Neighbor Pharmacy

The user GoodNeighborPharmacy has reverted my removal of promotional content from the article of the same name (Good Neighbor Pharmacy). Username is in violation of WP:UN. I believe that this user previously added this promotional content under an IP identification.

Diffs below.

Diff today by GoodNeighborPharmacy

Extensive addition of promotional material by IP address, probably the same editor. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User was blocked by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). I have watched the page in question, but this looks like a one-off attempt at promotion and not a long-term problem at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare

Resolved
 – Not a matter for this board. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

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

Wikipedia Administrator GorillaWarfare is a fervent opponent of GamerGate, yet is now tasked with putting sanctions on allegedly pro-GamerGate sockpuppets, WP:SPAs, etc. She should recuse herself from this and any feminist and GamerGate related Abritrations. See also her talk page for more information. example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=643335038 09I500 (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a matter of WP:COI as we define that in WP. This would be a matter to discuss at WP:AN, and I doubt you will get far there. But that is the place. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, it's taken on the character of wikihounding now. This needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is also a matter for a different board - for that I would suggest WP:ANI or you can see if 09I500 posts at AN, in which case WP:BOOMERANG would likely come into play. There is nothing more to do on this here. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(outdent; multiple edit conflicts) An AN or ANI post about GorillaWarfare would also be the wrong venue. I suggest dropping the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

How is it not a matter of WP:COI? It perfectly is what is described in "actual conflict of interest". GorillaWarfare has a certain judgement. And he / she is now able to exercise that judgement on others. Rest of comments I don't understand, I have followed the Wikipedia policy and guidelines in all cases, but there was a case in which somebody removed a template, which was bad manner. I have not acted upon it. WP:BOOMERANG does not apply. I don't even have a dispute with this person since I have never been able to edit the GamerGate wikipedia page. I just think it's outrageous that something like this can happen. This is exactly a conflict of interest as described here and in the real world. 09I500 (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As you will see at the top of this page, this is a noticeboard for discussing COI editing of articles. It is not a place for reviewing involvements in arbitration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79&oldid=1211538697"