Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 81

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85

St John Ambulance (England and the Islands)

We have a problem at the article St John Ambulance (England and the Islands) where there have been massive numbers of edits over recent days by User:Benjaminbrill. This editor has made several references in edit summaries to "being paid" by St John Ambulance (the subject of the article) to re-write it for them. Today the same editor has removed whole sections and their references. Some of these references are deadlinks, but I have notified the editor that he/she should be tagging these as deadlinks, rather than mass section blanking. The editor's own user page quite blatantly states that he is a single-issue editor with a clear COI. Indeed, he states that he is a paid editor. The current wording of his user page is: "I am a writer who has been employed by St John Ambulance (England) to update its Wikipedia pages." I would request Administrator intervention, and reversion of this editor's recent edits. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum yes. So this organization is directly paying to have the article rewritten and that editor is directly rewriting it. They have disclosed and discussed on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
i have tagged the article and its Talk page and left the user warning on the editor's talk page. Article itself needs reviewing still.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not bite the newby. He has done the first thing needed correctly - he has reported that he is a paid editor per the Terms of Use and identified his employer. I'd say the next thing to do is to ask him to make any proposed corrections on the talk page, and let other editors make the actual edits. Finally some advice: Ben - please don't make any edits (even on the talk page) that look like adverts. This can be hard when somebody is paying you, but it can be done. This is why we prefer to have an independent editor make the actual edits to the article. At that point, all we have to do is say "Thanks for the cooperation!" My thanks in advance to all, Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire)

John Foxe repeatedly deleted reliably sourced (major newspapers) material from this article concerning the association of his personal and professional friend Reverend Chuck Phelps and Phelps involvement in the rape cover up of teenage Tina Anderson who attended Phelps church at the time. [REDACTED CONTENT - DONT RESTORE] Clearly "John" has drank to much BJU Kool Aide and cannot refrain from editing that seriously violates COI especially when it concerns Bob Jones University related articles. "John" has been banned from editing many articles and for sock puppetry as well over many years and has denied wrongdoing until the evidence overwhelms the deception he was attempting. He also has demonstrated ownership of many articles related to fundamentalist causes. 172.56.9.207 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I last edited that article in December 2011, this COI is clearly harassment by a sock.--John Foxe (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree Vertrag (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • John Foxe you are the confirmed user of sock puppets (and blocked for doing so, see USER:Hi540) so it is no surprise that you resort to false accusations in an attempt to deflect blame from your long history of COI and edit warring. Your shotgun accusation is meant to do nothing more than cast aspersions so you will not face examination.[REDACTED] you continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Your continuous engage in edit warring, sock puppetry, agenda pushing for all things fundamental and Bob Jones University, and low regard for Wikipedia standards. Vertrag I am sorry John has sucked you in as you recently reported John's many fouls and gaming the system. I understand you are using a sock to protect yourself from John Foxe as you stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ruckman I assure you Vertrag I am no sock but my IP changes randomly and sometimes frequently due the nature of my cellular connection. I am the one you agreed with in the BLP noticeboard and it was because of your posting there that I investigated USER:John Foxe and easily figured out who he is and then posted here as a result. Thanks for the help 172.56.15.85 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned with WP:OUTING issues in the posts above. Does anybody share my concern? Should we bring this to ANI for review and revdel if needed? This is not a comment about the editing concerns being raised about Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire), which may or may not be valid. I'll look into that separately. It is a question about OUTING. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern. Someone should also make a judgment call about coatracking in that article. I'm not sure the church is notable without the Tina Anderson case, and the case is perhaps important enough to stand on its own.--John Foxe (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • John your long running defense of fundamental Christian issues related to Bob Jones [REDACTED] has clouded your judgment as demonstrated by your careful editing of the article to make the best light possible out of major national news story at the time. It repeatedly made national news because of the way the Pastor Chuck Phelps treated a young student from a troubled family who was raped by a wealthy parishioner who was allowed to stay in the church for years after Chuck Phelps knew he had impregnated the teenage girl. Phelps then subjected the girl to ridiculous questioning and embarrassment and then sent her off thousands of miles away where the police where unable to contact her. It is about the church but one could argue more so about Chuck Phelps. The story received the attention only because Phelps handled it very improperly from a moral standpoint that shocked even the secular world. [REDACTED] That blatant and egregious COI is why I brought this up here. I have a question, why do you believe COI does not apply to you concerning this article? John your long history of abusive editing is very troubling. Again this all started because you repeatedly added libelous material to the Peter Ruckman which has since been thoroughly cleansed as a result of the BLP investigation I started at your challenge to report you. There are so many COI's concerning articles you have worked on that I have discovered that it appears your account is largely used to promote a fundamental Bob Jones agenda. One thing Wikipedia is not for is religious warring. [REDACTED] John, I believe you have been given some remarkable gifts but you must apply them with compassion, reason and integrity and remember who you claim to represent. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The Trinity Church article is a clear and unambiguous coatrack article, self-evidently created to cover the rape - a subject which would otherwise not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since it is obvious that the church doesn't meet our notability guidelines either, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Trinity Baptist Church was created due the enormous amount of press attention (very notable) the church received due the emotional and verbal abuse of a rape victim by her pastor and other church officials. The article could be renamed the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) Scandal but that may not please John Foxe and some others in the fundamental circles who would like to see the scandalous behavior suppressed. Another option would be the Chuck Phelps scandal but most of the news reports seemed to focus on the church so that does not work. Bottom line the atrocious handling of a rape of vulnerable girl is what brought it to 20/20 and most major news outlets. It is definitely notable so it is clearly not a coatrack. The title could be improved by renaming it Trinity Baptist Church (rape scandal) as it is really about the rape scandal at Trinity Baptist church. The information about the church's current attendance/status is irrelevant.172.56.15.75 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the unambiguous acknowledgement that the article is a coatrack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Take the article to WP:AFD and WP:BLP/N for action. The crime seems potentially notable enough to have an article, but probably the Church is non-notable and its article is merely a coat rack for discussing the crime. The content appears to be well-sourced. As for outing concerns, IP editor, please stop discussion who John Foxe is in real life. It is entirely immaterial to Wikipedia. If his editing is biased, it can be dealt with as biased, regardless of the reason for the bias. If as he claims, he hasn't touched the article since 2011, nothing needs to be done about him now. (If he's lying, which I will check, I would block him straight away.) I'm going to strip some bits from your comments about to protect his privacy, though he may not deserve it, because Wikipedia is very cautious about outing its editors. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

* I'd like to turn this discussion back to COI issues. As far as I am concerned, there is no "statute of limitations" in WP. John Foxe made three big batches of edits back in 2011. (there are IP edits too but who knows who did those):

    • dif 1 where Foxe:
      • added (for example) "Anderson's mother has consistently supported Phelps, crediting him with the "purest of motives." with support from the very not-independent source: http://www.drchuckphelps.com/mothers-statement.html Chuck Phelps website
      • removed, for example: "Other former church members accuse Trinity Baptist as being harmful. Matt Barnhart, a church member for 15 years, said he and his family left the church in 2010 because he had “misgivings about church teachings, including about "worldly" practices, as well as the "discipline" of the alleged victim (Tina Anderson), which he witnessed years earlier. Another former member, Jocelyn Zicterman, said the church covered up incidents of physical and sexual abuse by her own family members" sourced to here
    • dif 2... these changes updated the article with the results of the trial. Mostly neutral.
    • dif 3 I think mostly neutral. Updated sentencing. Add Phelps (the supposed focus of his COI) resignation, under pressure from public campaign. Added appeal.

In my view the edits in diff 1 are terribly bad judgement - especially the content putting Phelps in a positive light sourced to Phelps' website. That is really crap sourcing by WP's basic editing standards, and even uglier doing it in favor of the guy in power while all this went down, and beyond ugly in the context of it happening in a church.

Background: There was a prior discussion of Foxe's COI with regard to Bob Jones, see here which was converted to a case at ANI which was closed with no consensus for action.

Folks here, I recommend that we ask John Foxe to agree to avoid making any edits to this topic going forward and to avoid making any potentially controversial edits to other content related to Bob Jones University again - and instead to follow the WP:COI guideline going forward. And if he won't agree to self-limit, we should consider trying to get such a limit established via ANI (topic ban probably will not fly after the recent long ANI). Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits to this article since 2011, and I gladly agree not to make any in the future. Fair enough?--John Foxe (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
whew. i am catching my breath from the flippancy of that response. John, based on that, and on your apparent lack of self-insight into whatever it was that led you to make what has got to be one of the most conflicted edits I have ever seen in WP, hell no. Some acknowledgement and I (speaking just for me) might have said OK. But with that response, hell no. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we really asking for sanctions for a 4 year old edit the person who made it has not repeated and has indicated they won't make again? --Jayron32 02:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't you hate rhetorical questions? Actually "the person" showed zero insight into the conflicted edit - what we got was "oh I don't care about that topic, no skin off my back not to touch it again" and no engagement with the topic at hand - namely COI. No promise whatsoever to be more careful with regard to COI. For anybody scholarly that flippancy with regard to COI is a big flag saying "Don't trust me". At this point, I favor seeking enforcement of the COI guideline via ANI. I will wait for other input. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me make it a statement. The edit in question was 4 years ago, and the user in question has unambiguously promised not to make it again. If you take this up at ANI, it will be laughed off the page and you'll be made a fool of for being so petty as to dig through 4 years of history and demand action for such a singular, non-repeated violation. That's not a rhetorical question, that's a fact, Jack.--Jayron32 06:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You made your point clear, thanks. What you present as a fact is your prediction, which may or may not be realized, should I go ahead with an ANI. The edit is egregious and the editor shows no sign that he is aware of that; the response was dismissive. What he actually promised was to not edit that article again; he didn't promise to mind his COI better. As I said, the editor has a clear COI and if he cannot manage that himself, in my view the community will have to do that for him. The reason I looked at the edits is also clear - this COIN posting. There is no witch-hunting, petty digging - that is a mischaracterization of what has happened. I'll see what other folks have to say before acting. And what I would propose at ANI is that John Foxe be obligated to follow the WP:COI guideline with respect to the topic, Bob Jones University for which he is a clear advocate. Not a topic ban. I think that is reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Jayron32, the problem is that it is not an isolated event. Foxe regularly (though not always - he has made good and significant contributions to Wikipedia) makes edits that reflect a COI and takes a defiant stance when they are challenged. The text he inserted into the Peter Ruckman article (see this diff for the removal of text he had inserted over time after a recent BLP report) also shows a lack of respect for Wikipedia policies and a conflict of interest. He regularly edits articles with which he has a personal view (Peter Ruckman, mormonism related for example) to "oust" or "expose the truth" which I believe rises to the level of a conflict of interest since he is a religious professor of a different faith. Like I said, Foxe makes many useful edits, but he has no recognition of why certain edits are inappropriate. He'll apologize and agree to topic bans or other remedies, but a few months, and in some cases, a few years later, he is right back at his former ways. I personally don't know how to address his consistent success at gaming the system Vertrag (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Compile a list of violations with the resulting agreements not to do it again. If the list shows substantial recidivism, you can say, "We need a formal topic ban because prior voluntary agreements haven't prevented further problems." I predict that such a request, if based on solid evidence, would be passed at AN/I, thereby resolving the problem. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Per Jehochman, WP:RFCU is thataway. Also, what you JUST said was in no way said before I made my statement above. Based on Jytdog's statement, we had a diff to a problematic edit 4 years ago and a demand for action. No f'n way based on that. You can't then say "No Jayron, you're wrong because he's done X, Y, and Z more recently". No, I wasn't wrong because no one told anyone about X, Y, and Z. If there's a problem to be dealt with, gather your evidence, start a WP:RFCU or something similar, and present the evidence of a long term problem. I'm not saying there isn't a long term problem (and by saying that, I am also not saying there IS a long term problem. I am not committing one way or another on the existence or non-existence of such a problem). My objection is to ask the community for a sanction based on the evidence of a single 4-year-old edit. I'm saying that is not evidence of a problem. That's different from saying that it's evidence there is no problem. There may or may not be. But don't say I was wrong in my initial assessment based on evidence you didn't provide for me to make that assessment. AND, most importantly, this is not the venue for such a discussion. If it should be had, ANI (or better yet, RFCU) would be the place to present it, so long as the evidence is clear and not based on a single statement from 4 years ago. A pattern of behavior and recidivism (and "I didn't like the quality of his apology just now" is not recidivism) is a good start. --Jayron32 22:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jayron, RFCU was discontinued in December - "thataway" is a dead end. Also, there is a short section above called "background" that lays out prior history - it was right there to look at. you are making really strong statements based on partial and wrong information and i don't understand why. your comments here are not adding light nor useful guidance and i don't know how this popped up on your radar. anyway....Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Samsung C&T Corporation, Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, and Lakhta Center

User appears to be affiliated with Russian gas company Gazprom, adding semi-promotional and unencyclopedic material on more than one instance. Procellam (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

USC Eye Institute

Article was created by ResearchOnCommand - very promotional; was almost immediately deleted per PROD by Jimfbleak after Cwmhiraeth moved it through AfC. Cwmhiraeth took responsibility and re-created the article (non-promotionally!) and I added more stuff. Today a new account Mdraper91101 has started coming through and dumping more promotional crap into the article. I note that the USC Eye Institute was associated with a nonprofit called the Dehaney Eye Institute since the mid-1970s and together they built an authentically rocking program. The two just went through a divorce, with Dehaney allying with USC's rival, UCLA, and it is really obvious that the newly naked USC EYe Institue is trying to re-establish itself. Blatant promo/COI editing going on. I've tagged for COI and notified the editors. Mdraper is also edit warring. Please watch and help. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

this edit is really telling. Removed reference to Doheny and dumped in an already-prepared (and unsourced) listing of All The Great Things That Have Been Done There. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected for three months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, I'm watching the page too now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
ResearchOnCommand (talk · contribs) also created Frank P. Paniagua, Jr., who was involved with something called "Green Plug" (a power supply device) which got some press back in 2010-2011 and hasn't been heard of since. I put a "prod" on that. John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451 and High-frequency trading

This person has been excessively editing the High-frequency trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article without giving other editors an opportunity to review his edits for encyclopedic quality.

I followed his contributions list and found that there is a repeat pattern of either inserting content excessively critical to algorithmic traders, or tidying up the pages describing vocal critics of algorithmic traders.

The person identifies himself as a "professional trader", which seems to provide modus operandi for the biased position against this specific group of traders?

I think this level of overzealousness in such a narrow scope of articles cannot be the work of a neutral editor.

Quickly looking at the edits by Kristina451 to High Frequency Trading [1], the insertions are well-cited and don't look bad, but some of the deletions may be a concern. It's not promotion or link-stuffing. I'd suggest looking through that set of edits linked above and seeing what needs to be re-inserted. There may be a POV here, but I'm not seeing a COI. The editor involved seems to be willing to discuss this on article talk pages.John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, it's good to have your reassurance. I will do that and work things out with the editor. We can close this issue for now. MelissaHebert (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OfficeoftheSpeaker

Account that appears to be official government department adding advertorial content to the Speaker of Queensland parliament's page. Have warned. Also on WP:UAA#User-reported -- Aronzak (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Goodgame Studios

User:Goodgame is the self-admitted "official account of the press office of Goodgame Studios" and "the account of the GGS corporate communications". In the past, this account has added company info to Goodgame Studios as well as adding theirgame tovarious lists. I have previously templated the user, to which they responded that they intend to follow our policies. However, they continue to edit their own article and do PR work with fans/customers, not to mention their use of CORPNAME. Woodroar (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely a user name issue. But their edits at Goodgame Studios have been factual additions to their company infobox. If they stop now, there's no big problem. John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this potential issue here again. As discussed on User_talk:Goodgame before, with Goodgame Studios we want to contribute to the correct and up-to-date description of Goodgame Studios. We have done our outmost to respect the rules of Wikipedia, especially the guidelines and recommendation under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, if the direct factual contribution of a company to the articles dealing with it or its products is entirely forbidden in the English Wikipedia project we will of course abstain from doing so again. We will suggest changes on the Talk Page instead. Goodgame (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for writing here! It is great that you want to improve your article. A couple things. First, you'll need to change the username on the account - I just left a template on your Talk page that points out the problem, and tells you how to fix it. Please apply for a new name, and reply there saying that you have done so, so that your account is not deleted while the request is processed. Then, with regard to the article itself. In the new account, please add something to the userpage making it clear that you work for Goodgame, so you comply with the requirement to disclose in the Terms of Use. Now finally, on the article itself... If there are any simple, uncontroversial facts that need updating you can do that yourself. Simple, uncontroversial. Anything more than that, you should request edits to be made on the article's Talk page, as described in WP:COI. good luck, and thanks again for wanting to follow our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope this is okay, but I moved your comment from Talk:Goodgame Studios to User talk:Goodgame, where I believe you intended it to be. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Brian Morris (biologist)‎

Yesterday, an IP editor started altering the Brian Morris article and adding a lot of information to it. The IP also included a substantial amount of peacock terms and general aggrandizing of Brian Morris' accomplishments, leading me to suspect an association with him. After reverting the edits, the IP (presumably) created an account with the name "Professor emeritus brian morris" (spaces added), making it almost certain that this user is, indeed, Brian Morris editing his own page. I reverted his changes once more this morning and they have been re-reverted, though with a fair bit of toning down of the puffery. I'm nevertheless concerned about the potential bias being introduced into the article. Brian Morris is a relatively controversial circumcision advocate and the article now contains statements like "...[others and] Morris demonstrated that RACP policies on infant male circumcision were not evidence-based" which were not there previously. I'm concerned that, even after toning down, there may now be a substantial bias to the article based on Brian Morris' own interpretation of events. – Robin Hood  (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting! I re-did your deletion. re-added COI tag. added connected contributor tag. watching the article. asked PBM to disclose whether he has has a conflict or not on his Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to keep the COI after reverting, so thanks for doing that. I've learned my new thing for today. :) – Robin Hood  (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Marc Bell (entrepreneur)

  • There was previously COI editing by the subject of this article, see here.
  • There was previously an article on this subject, which was deleted by Jimfbleak
  • this article sprang into existence perfectly formed by an editor with no prior edits. Looks like paid editing to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

99designs

Eponymous account working on article. Have given them a username warning, have tagged article and talk page and notified account of this posting. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

System Development Integration

Creator account is a SPA, appears to be a throwaway used for this purpose. article is very promotional. COI-usernamed account was recently created and made edits; they are currently applying for new username. i have tagged the article and talk page, and warned both users. article needs review for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Niall Mellon

edits by IP listed above have removed negative sourced content and added unsourced positive POV content. Likely COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Heritage Documentation Programs

This user has been editing the article to include links to a photographer's website. The username transparently suggests that the user is the photographer, Stephen Schafer. I initially removed the link added by an IP editor because it didn't seem to meet WP:EL, and the person then added a short quote with the website as a reference. It seems to be the editor's intent to work their website into the article in any way that'll stick, rather than improving the article. (The website may be in principal useful as a B-quality source until the article is improved.) Knight of Truth (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Knight of Truth you need to leave notice when you cite someone here. i did that, and am watching the page. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I thought users got automatically pinged when linked to nowadays? I'm not really familiar with use of the noticeboards. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's ok lots of people forget. but it is an obligation that is described in the header of all noticeboards --see the top of this page, the text in red, in the red box... in bold... :) Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Rabies vaccine

COI declared on their Talk page. Actively editing the article. Tagged it and its talk page. Article needs review for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. A few other accounts also appear to be from the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Hand

Crawaaron is a paid editor of Robert Hand, and has been editing the article. In Talk:Robert Hand, they have attempted to claim complete ownership of the article, saying that all edits to the article must go through them/his company, which I believe violates WP:OWN and WP:BULLY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

oy. you need to give him notice of this posting. I did that, and will do some other stuff. Thanks for brining this here! Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, thank you for doing it on my behalf. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

national practitioner data bank

The National Practitioner Data Bank is a division of HRSA, which is a division of the federal department of Health and Human Services of the U.S. government. The National Practitioner Data Bank wikipedia page has been edited multiple times by employees of HRSA. For example, on 13 May 2013 there was a significant edit by an editor named "Joni A. HRSA"; and on 20 March 2012 there was a significant edit by an editor named "HRSAgov". One can only imagine that material unfavorable to the HRSA has been removed from the National Practitioner Data Bank wikipedia page. Employees of controversial organizations should not be editing their own organization's wikipedia page. This is particularly true for "Big Brother"-type organizations such as the National Practitioner Data Bank.

You need to provide notification when you cite someone here. I have done that, and tagged the article and its talk page. I also nominated it for speedy deletion. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Article on Carol M. Swain

Resolved
 – no evident COI Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

my username: Minnie Katz

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Minnie Katz (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe one or more editors of the page for Carol M. Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University, is seeking to promote Swain's views on Islam by linking to them under a dubious "Controversy" category.

It appears that the major purpose of the insertion of this text is to draw attention to a recent opinion piece by Swain published in the Nashville newspaper. I have deleted this text twice as irrelevant to Swain's career history. Each time, another editor has reinserted it.

The opinion piece referenced in the new section wasn't notable, and neither was the reaction to it. Other aspects of Swain's career, such as books she has published, are more notable. The incident someone is trying to insert into her biography is not appropriate material for a reference service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnie Katz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

i looked at this. i see no evidence of COI. New user making a (sadly typical) mistake of personalizing a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Health Resources and Services Administration

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is a division of the federal department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the U.S. government. Employees of HRSA appear to be editing the page and maintaining the page. For example:

  • On 5 August 2007, an edit was made by editor HHSman2007.
  • On 11 January 2010, the last time a major edit was made to this page, it was made from IP address 162.99.227.22 This IP address is located in Silver Spring, MD, right next door to HRSA's headquarters in Rockville, MD.
  • On 20 March 2012, editor "HRSAgov" edited the wikipedia page 3 times.

216.254.82.45 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed the edits (there are about 10) most seem benign (updating html links to current locations (all but one of HRSAgov's edits -see below), changing division to agency (HHSman2007's only edit), etc.). Only edits I found that could be problematic are:
  • the creation of the National Data Bank article - but that article has changed substantial and is tagged for cleanup - current status doesn't seem that bad to me. (by HRSAgov)
  • substantial text changes - these are still in the article but doesn't seem that biased to me and regular contributors have edited the article since then. (by IP)
Vertrag (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Enbridge

IP is registered to the subject of the article. User has been warned previously, and there is a previous COIN discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Enbridge_editing_Enbridge. Recent edit to the article: [2]. The edit may or may not be appropriate, but this user should request the edit on the article talk page rather than editing directly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This user appears to have registered an account now: Enbridge Bus. Comms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Company offering paid editing

They call themselves "Wikipedia Writers" [3] Not sure if they are disclosed editors or not. Mentioned here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

From godaddy/whois:

  • Domain Name: WIKIPEDIAWRITERS.COM
  • Registry Domain ID: 1669802475_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
  • Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
  • Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
  • Update Date: 2014-07-01T11:32:14Z
  • Creation Date: 2011-08-01T01:39:28Z
  • Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-08-01T01:39:28Z
  • Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
  • Registrar IANA ID: 146
  • Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
  • Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.480-624-2505
  • Registrant Name: Abid Karmali
  • Registrant Organization:
  • Registrant Street: Garden East Karachi
  • Registrant City: karachi
  • Registrant State/Province:
  • Registrant Postal Code: 0000
  • Registrant Country: Pakistan
  • Registrant Phone: +92.3082825979
  • Registrant Email: [email protected]

hm. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are lots of paid editors from both India and Pakistan. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Have proposed a clarification to the OUTing policy that pertains to COI

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Mary Wakefield

Resolved

Mary Wakefield is the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the federal department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the U.S. government. Employees of HRSA and HHS appear to have created and are maintaining and editing Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page. Since Dr. Wakefield's actions as an HHS administrator are regarded by some as highly controversial, it seems inappropriate that HRSA employees should be creating the wikipedia site of their boss, Dr. Wakefield. Examples:

  • On 19 March 2009, this wikipedia page was created by editor "Mulysse"."Mulysse" made an additional edit on 16 July 2009. "Mulysse" is almost certainly [redacted per WP:outing], who [is likely an employee] Department of Health and Human Services.
  • On 11 January 2010, editor Salexander1 made 2 edits to Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page. Salexander1 is almost certainly [redacted] who works [at] HRSA.
  • Also on 11 January 2010, an edit to Dr. Wakefield's wikipedia page was made from IP address 162.99.227.22 This IP address is located in Silver Spring, Maryland, right next door to HRSA's headquarters at Fishers Lane in Rockville, MD.
  • On 26 March 2009 and 27 March 2009, user Tniem edited Dr. Wakefield's page. Tniem appears to work for HRSA, perhaps for the Office of Rural Health Policy. According to [redacted] editor page User:Tniem: "I am a mid-20s Washingtonian, originally from Western Michigan. I work in the health policy world and have done a lot of work on rural health specific policy issues."

216.254.82.45 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Redacted personal information and details - my edits are in [] Vertrag (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
was mostly a big copyright violation. working it over and will add connected contributors tag to it, and mark this as resolved, when done. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert W. McChesney

The Mack Attack admits that he is editing his own page. He is in fact the major contributor to his own page, and has been for years. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently he is also editing pages of co-workers without identifying his COI.

Capitalismojo (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

holy shit. thanks. you forgot to notify him - I did it we need to start adding the conflicted articles above. whole shitload of work for us. ah well never boring. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

user CosmoWenman

Hello, whilst gnoming one particular article I noticed that this users contributions solely consist of adding external links to 3D scans that he has created. I don't know if this is intentionally promotional (probably not) or even problematic in itself. NB I haven't notified Cosmo myself, as would prefer experienced editor to assess first. regards 94.192.37.1 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Hi all, I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning and we're hoping to expand the article to include more detail (cf. Dow Chemical). As an initial step, I've drafted up some additional information and citations for the "History" section of the article and shared them on its Talk page. If someone could take a moment to review my suggestions and provide feedback, I'd be extremely grateful. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Premia Spine Limited and many others

Resolved

Editor has declared a COI for those two articles, [here] and here but without disclosing employer, client, and affiliation. Looking a bit at the history of those articles led me to the user's sandboxes (11 of them) where a whole slew of promotional-looking articles were or are being drafted. I just left a message for the user here, and will notify the user as soon as I save this.

List of other articles that concern me. This is not exhaustive.

Draft articles as of today:

The editor seems to do so much other great work here. This is really unfortunate. Perhaps I am incorrect that these are paid edits but it looks a lot like it is that way, and we have semi-declarations for two. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we need disclosure. Without clear disclosure a block should be implemented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree oh Administrator-with-the-power-to-block-people-who-is-actually-here.  :) Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
We will give the user in question some time to disclose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
With that I agree. I was ready to go to ANI if you elected not to act after a reasonable time. Good to know we are on the same page. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

. Update, after a few days of not editing, Ctg4Rahat came back today -- see contribs. Added a bunch of connected contributor tags to Talk pages, removed the COI tag from articles. Has not disclosed employer/client/affiliation for each edit, per Terms of Use. I left a note on his/her Talk page telling Ctg4Rahat not to remove the tags (conflicted articles need independent review for NPOV) and to disclose employer/client/affiliation for each edit. This is really bad behavior. If he or she does not do that today, I will seek to have Ctg4Rahat site banned unless someone else indefs them first. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I am disclosing everything. Don't want to violate Wikipedia policies and also don't want to get blocked. I love to edit Wikipedia articles of my interest. I was hired by various clients from Elance, created the disclosed pages and some of the drafts (not all). But some days ago, my elance account was suspended by Elance authority due to taking payment from clients outside of Elance. You can see I have some drafts which are not edited or moved to mainspace for many days as I will not get paid for them and I have also increased frequency of editing articles of my own interest. Thanks. - Rahat (Message) 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for finally taking this seriously.
  • Again, you need to disclose employer/client/affiliation for each paid edit. You can list them all on your user page, or you can do it on the Talk page of each of the relevant articles. On the article Talk page, something like: "I was paid by X through Elance to edit this article"; or on your user page: "I was paid by X through Elance to edit article." That would do it. If you were paid directly, not through Elance, say that. Just make the disclosures, please. And please do this for all your paid edits.
  • please do not remove COI tags for articles where you have a conflict of interest. Somebody else needs to review your work; and
  • please do not directly edit the articles in mainspace where you have a COI going forward, but instead use the "edit request" function on the Talk page, as described in WP:COI.
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I will disclose all the COI articles that I wrote or will write in future. Give me some time. - Rahat (Message) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ctg4Rahat made some ToU declarations today

No ToU disclosure of employer/client/affiliation from Ctg4Rahat on the following

  • DigitalChalk - no comment from Ctg4Rahat on this (Not paid)
  • GuitarTricks.com - no comment from Ctg4Rahat on this (paid by their marketing executive)
  • Pamela J Tomlinson - Ctg4Rahat added CC tag to article and put up for AfD, but no declaration per ToU (paid by Pamela J Tomlinson)
  • Paradiso LMS - no comment from Ctg4Rahat on this (paid and disclosed)
  • PSSC Labs no comment from Ctg4Rahat on this (not paid, just copy edited the article when I saw a coi tag on the article tried to bring neutrality, it was not created by me. may be created by another paid editor.)
  • Purohit-Blaivas Staging System no comment from Ctg4Rahat on this (not paid)

And I don't know if there are others that I missed. Ctg4Rahat it would be great if you would clarify the above, and if there are any others. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

commented beside the article names. - Rahat (Message) 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, Ctg4Rahat! OK, three more things and I reckon I will be able to close this matter:
  • you have not disclosed employer/client/affiliation for the article that started all this, Premia Spine Limited. Would you please do so?
  • would you please confirm that the articles listed above, are all the articles in mainspace, for which you have made paid edits?
  • finally, going forward, if you decide to keep doing paid editing, please make the disclosures that you wrote it for pay, and who the employer and client were. You agree? Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that these are the articles for which I received or expect to receive payment. And I will disclose whenever I write any paid article for sure. There is nothing wrong in disclosing. Thanks for your guidelines. I was just afraid that disclosure can result in ban or block, but I have understood undisclosed editing is harmful for Wikipedia. - Rahat (Message) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i really appreciate your cooperation and am very happy that we didn't have to take action against you. As far as I am concerned, this is done. I note that I am not god-king of wikipedia so others may have un-addressed concerns, but it will for them to articulate. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

There is an RfC related to paid editing, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Ombudsman/Andre Marin/David Paciocco

Resolved
 – done what can be done here. thanks to all for talking. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin pages are edited and maintained by two of the subject's employees, his communications director Eljadubya and his digital/social media person Abursey. Both use the same username on other social media and links directly to their profiles that name them, place of work and positions at Ontario Ombudsman. According to the protocol as I understood it, I first informed them of my COI concerns with as it pertains to paid communications and to political relationships. I will also inform each, according to protocol, that I have placed this here.

I am new to Wiki and had not planned on spending all my time on these two sites, so if any help is available, that would be greatly appreciated. Thissilladia (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I had a very quick look at this. There is a posting about this at WP:BLPN (here) as well:
  • Abursey declared his COI here.
  • I do not see where Eljaydubya declared his relationship with the Ombudsman's office within Wikipedia. Thissilladia where is that? Please do not discuss anything outside of Wikipedia - see WP:OUTING.
ALSO, I looked at the history of both articles, and Thissilladia, both you and CheckersBoard have a clear, and angry focus on these articles. Please read WP:SPA and since this is the board about COI, please declare if you have any personal interest in the matters being discussed in the articles. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
For now I am adding Thissilladia and CheckersBoard and FriendlyBillingsgate to the list of possibly conflicted editors. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
same cast of characters at David Paciocco. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, I don't have a COI relationship with the subjects of these articles. My only connection is following these stories in the media, but I did see that none of the information (controversies) I thought were extremely importanton these pages whatsoever. I had originally signed on to contribute to other articles. Originally, it was heated between Abursey and I: compensating/over-compensating, however, I think my subsequent revisions of have been much more neutral. Thissilladia (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why (User talk:Thissilladia) is being attacked here. That editor has consistently posted citations that backed up their edits. The current Obudsman is a controversial character, and the articles that were associated with him were sanitized press releases or resumes. I even tagged his article a few years ago as a resume. A balanced article not only tells of someone's accomplishments, it also shows their faults, which Mr. Marin has many (like most human beings do). It is obvious that Eljaydubya is in a clear COI and outed themselves, and the Outing policy doesn't apply. I now have a full file on them, based on her Internet effluent.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That editor has consistently posted citations with the edits, but they usually don't back up the content. It's like he bases his opinion on the article, and then relays that opinion instead of what the actual words say. All things must be directly verifiable, there's no cite one claim, get one free deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for answering, Thissilladia. COI is not just about money or employment; there is a very thin line between WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY when it comes to messing up Wikipedia. What is "extremely important" to you is not what is important to WP. From the point of view of an experienced Wikipedia editor those articles are in many worse now, than before you started. Really - we are an encyclopedia - we think about "importance" in terms of the big picture, not what is Hot News Right Now. Believe me, i get it that the guy appears to be an ugly character - i get it. But please read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE. All three of them. And then have a look at the articles again, with the big picture in mind. Please. I think you will see what I mean. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Abebenjoe, thanks for your note; please see my note to Thissilladia above - i agree that warts have to be in articles too, for sure! NPOV does not mean "all nice" nor even "fair and balanced" - it means give weight according to reliable sources, aiming for the big picture. And for sure, the guys folks from Marin's office have COI issues. I had an exchange with Abursey on his her Talk page, and I believe he she "gets it" and will not directly edit the articles going forward. Waiting to hear from Eljaydubya. I asked Thissilladia and I'll ask you - can you provide a dif where Eljaydubya outed himself? Please provide that, it will be very helpful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC) (correct gender, with apologies Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
Not that it really matters, but Abursey is a woman. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So is the other guy. I won't out her, but Google easily does. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey look, I'm famous. If any of you three are this guy, with his ridiculously blatant conflict of interest, this would probably be the place to admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for notifying me of this discussion, and to the editors who have addressed the troublesome content. I have confirmed my identity and role on my talk page and disclosed my job title on my user page - as noted above, my username was always transparent and easily searchable online, but I'm happy to make it as clear as possible, and to address any concerns about conflict. Please let me know if you have any further advice for me or my colleague in dealing with this situation. Eljaydubya (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This thread is almost done. I am still not clear what interests CheckersBoard and FriendlyBillingsgate have in this topic. If any of them are former employees or relatives, or are involved in politics, or have any other substantial interest in this matter, they have a definite COI and need to declare it. It is very clear that Thissilladia was acting as an WP:ADVOCATE and I think is starting to understand that this is not OK here. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Hello (User talk:Jytdog) et al. I have been watching all this unfold from the sidelines. And have to say it’s been fascinating. In full disclosure, I should say that like my wife, (User talk:Thissilladia), I have don’t have any connection to these pages other than my own interest. But unlike my wife (which will make (User talk:InedibleHulk) happy), I will not be continuing as an editor on WP—which brings me to what I have observed with respect to IndelibleHulk’s behaviour through all this.
First-I have noticed the very different tone he takes with wife as compared to (User talk:Abursey), which is at very lest curious. In general, he is snappy, rude and has already made-up his mind. When my wife politely said she did not know who was posting the un-cited gossip and personal attack snippets aimed at Abursey, he spat back at her and changed the subject to other content:

"That's just the first section. Many more examples of POV and poor grammar there. I suggest you stick with your plan and not spend much time on this subject. Let editors who are interested in neutrality fix the balance problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, March 1, 2015 (UTC)"

I don’t know all the WP policies, but I guess this is probably not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be setting an example for new editors. Second, he throws around a lot of accusations as he accuses people of—throwing around accusations (the irony of all this being said about Andre Marin’s pages is wonderful). On this noticeboard, he posts:

"Hey look, I'm famous. If any of you three are this guy, with his ridiculously blatant conflict of interest, this would probably be the place to admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, March 1, 2015 (UTC)"

He also calls states that several new users are (not "may be," "look like," "could be" or "appear to be") single user purpose accounts. The fact is, new users have to start somewhere
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyBillingsgate (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides appearing to be from an angry 17-year old rather than a “senior” WP editor, I would imagine that this breaks some policies. It comes close to mudslinging, it is definitely accusatory and a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the editors he does not like, in favour of those whom he favours. I have seen Jytdog refer to “outing” and “within WP” a few times, how this fits with that is unclear.
"Third-in the long conversation with Abursey on his talk page, InedibleHulk claims he has edited the pages in question to “just say what the sources say:”

I think I did a fair job cleaning up the "allegations" section there to just say what the sources do. Not nearly what it was cracked up to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)"

Reading his edits, this is only a partial truth. He often cherrypicks from the sources and weights in favour of the subject. In some cases completely mangling what the sources are actually talking about or conflating events. In one of his edits to the Ontario Ombudsman site, his note says:

"21:18, 28 February 2015‎ InedibleHulk (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,183 bytes) (-8,572)‎ . . (Reverted whole thing to before the single-purpose accounts showed up. There may have been some good, but the bad outweighs it. Too much to comb through.) (undo)"

Basically, a senior editor is too lazy to read the entire thing, so he deletes it all so he doesn’t have to read it. His edits appear to be rushed and are sloppy.

Fourth-He has set different standards for different users and fro himself. An editor is well within ethics to use generic value words like “widely” and “serious” based on the number of sources, the weight/status of the opinion holders and/or when these are accepted views long established in coverage of the subject in question. He certainly does not apply this same standard to the Andre Marin’s editing team and he does the same thing he has accused my wife of doing.

So far, I have observed Jytdog, Thissilladia, Abursey and (User talk:Eljaydubya) act respectfully, professionally and cooperatively, hopefully leading to an eventual acceptable, if not completely desireable, detente. On the other hand, even if he is correct in his concerns, InedibleHulk continues to rev-up this mini editor-spat to a more personal and leading to a more confrontational one. He is has not been constructive. Jytdog, you seem genuinely invested in the veracity of WP and in taking in new editors. I would hope InedibleHulk would choose to voluntarily remove himself from involvement these pages, for the simple fact that he cannot participate without inflaming the situation. If that’s not an option, I’d ask that at very least he be placed on the same COI lists for these pages as the rest of us have been.

FriendlyBillingsgate (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the comment above under WP:NPA and it was just restored by InedibleHulk. I do not think it is good to let inappropriate comments like this stand, but I will not edit war over it. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
He put a lot of time into it, and these are probably his honest opinions. Only fair to let him have his say. None of the attacks are particularly strong, and it gives valuable context. Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there.
It should be obvious by looking at my talk page/history, but I'll say it anyway. Abursey didn't ask me to do anything specific (yet), and I knew very little about the Ombudsman before yesterday. Certainly never met him. The article was just in a sorry state, POV-wise, and I tend to dislike that sort of thing. Abursey brought the article to my attention, and that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why this account I've never dealt with should think I'd be happy to hear the guy behind it is quitting Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
fwiw I don't think you should respond or consider it much; it was inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?
"Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there."
This kind of conspiracy mud-slinging doesn't violate a policy? There are 1000s of twitter users and wiki users. According to InedibleHulk's logic, birds can fly, bees can fly, so all birds are bees and all bees are birds! You guys are amazing! As FriendlyBillingsgate said, IndelibleHulk would ONLY inflame the situation. Time to take this up a level Thissilladia (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing at all wrong with having a Twitter and Wikipedia account. But when both are solely dedicated to a very specific cause, that's a huge red flag. Note that this tweet suggests CheckersBoard is involved. If the tweet was in Eastern Standard Time, anyway.
And I'm not "indelible". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If you meant CheckersBoard, then you should not have said: "Husband and wife team, with some relation to this sole-purpose Twitter account. Same quote here and there." After CheckersBoard, you seem to make the next most accusations based on conjecture. 174.116.244.215 (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you said "husband and wife team," now you are saying CheckersBoard? Seriously, you should step out of this. Thissilladia (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean it suggests CheckersBoard is also involved. In the space where the Twitter account can advertise a website, this is what it chose. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but that's a fair clue that Thissilladia is involved. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
InedibleHulk if you are seriously concerned about the twitter thing (and you have every right to be - that tweet was a completely wrong action for a Wikipedia editor. That is not at all ambiguous) I suggest you take that directly to ANI. Talking about it here will just fan the flames of dramah. In my view we have three new editors with axes to grind (one of whom is leaving, it seems) who did some stupid shit and seem to be starting to try to figure things out. The post above was in my view an ugly parting "fuck you" from "FriendlyBillingsgate". You seem to be letting it eat you, which I think is a bad idea. But if you really want to pursue it, ANI is thataway. You can probably bring them all down for meat. If you want the drama. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not eating me. It implied I had a conflict of interest, so I said I don't. The bit about me being glad this apparent stranger was leaving tingled my Spidey senses, in a COI way. Seemed relevant here. I didn't rebut everything he said, which I tend to do when I'm pissed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
And Thissilladia, and Checkers, and Friendly - You came with some good intentions which you executed badly and with the tweeting you all really stepped into it. Period. The more stupid things you write here the deeper you dig a hole for yourselves. I suggest you apologize, promise not to do it again, (even if you didn't do it - just end the drama and then go learn how to work on articles. This is all unproductive. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That is my too-blunt opinion. You all will do exactly as you like. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lorna Taylor

Resolved

Major additions from Playbookpr send up a lot of red flags for me. Pretty sure it's these guys. Both article subject and PR firm are in Tampa. - Richfife (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! You must provide notice on the user's Talk page, per the text in red, in the red box, at the top of this page. I did that. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
same account edited Yann Weymouth a lot. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I blasted over Weymouth one (Tina's sister is a rock star architect! i had no idea) Lorna Taylor needs review; i left it COI-tagged. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Editor of concern has changed user name, declared COI on Lorna Taylor (friend, not for pay) and declared no COI on Yann Weymouth - just met the guy at a party and went and fixed the article after. Both articles need development but so do many in WP. Closing this. 23:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hany.alsamman / AOSB Project

Article previously showed a "Hany alsamman" as being the main developer and project founder. Editor has previously removed the PROD tag I placed on their article, has emailed me saying: 

Why you delete the page ? even if I'm the developer! 

i have the right like anyone to join the Wikipedia and write about my work or projects , 

android open source bam (AOSB) was installed by 2 million users and not need to make advertisement on anywhere

It is already notable, according to media advertising and users.

and posted a similar message on my talk page.

Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for posting here. the dif on your Talk page is useful. Have added connected contributor tag to the article Talk page (which includes the dif) and given alan a COI notice. He should not be directly editing the article. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nineveh Plain Protection Units

User: Npuints appears to have some connection to this group, due to the use of the acronym "NPU" in the username and the single-purpose editing. There appears to be a slow-motion edit war going on between Npuints and another editor, as well. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave notice for the username issue, the potential COI, and this discussion at the user's Talk page, and tagged the article as well. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Izaak Walton League

Resolved
 – being handled below as part of larger discussion Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Contributor RodNReel48 added incomplete and incorrect information to the page as part of a larger effort to discredit the organization. For more information, please see: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/05/3627572/richard-bermans-incredible-public-relations-machine/ Content added by Dawnmerritt to the page was based on current information on the organization's web site. User is an employee of the Izaak Walton League. Dawnmerritt (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When you report someone here, you MUST inform them on their user talk. I have done it on your behalf. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian National University

IP address at ANU, per this and has been making promotional edits, doing all the usual things described Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Am seeking page protection to end this, also wanted to start a case here to see if we can get them to talk to us and stop this behavior. Have tagged the article and is Talk page and notified the IP editor. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Note, Coffee blocked the IP for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bell Pottinger: proposed edits

Resolved
 – being addressed on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi – I’ve just posted here on the talk page of Bell Pottinger. As I’ve made clear on that page and my user page, my name is James Thomlinson and I work at Bell Pottinger. I have suggested some minor additions on recent developments in the business as well as additions to the list of notable clients. If someone could take a look and get back to me on the article talk page or my talk page that would be great. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter Mintun

Wholesale rewrite of the article, with poorly sourced content of promotional tone. 32.216.128.131 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

yes indeed. worked it over. its ok now; have watchlisted it. also put a COI notice on the page of user. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is 32 IP, returning home from work on a train--thank you for meritorious service, Jytdog. I was set to just eviscerate the article tonight or tomorrow. Consider this an informal barnstar. Cheers, 107.77.70.79 (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks! whoever that was, provided some good sources at least. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we haven't heard the end of it: [5] 32.216.128.131 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Heartmath Institute

Resolved
 – per note below Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I work for the Heartmath Institute. I don’t feel our Wikipedia article is fair to us. For example, it says that our tests are “no more than fiction”, but what the source actually says is that there has not been any systematic scientific review. The article relies heavily on what appears to be a group blog for critical claims about us, without balancing this with other perspectives. It doesn’t include mundane information like foundation date, activities, etc.

I spoke to a Wikipedian about how to approach getting a more regular and balanced page and they said we didn’t qualify for a page at all. I provided some press clippings in PDF files about our methods, but they said none of the press provided were sufficient for medical claims and that the current sources weren’t either. Is there something I can do to verify if Wikipedia feels the page should exist? Or something we can do to improve the article if it’s decided to keep it? Person5000g (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person5000g (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked this and see no COI issues. It is just a content issue. Person5000g thanks for being clear about your COI here. I suggest that you start engaging on the article Talk page, and asking questions about the policies that guide content here at Wikipedia. Please pay special attention to WP:PSCI. Good luck. I'll add a connected contributor tag to the article Talk page, but you should disclose yourself there too, when you start to engage. Please don't edit the article directly, per WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index

I've made a proposal to update citations of The Merck Index, formerly printed, and which is now published online. This will involve adding web links. The Merck Index is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. Please comment on the proposal's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of switching them all over to cite web. Special templates for different subjects makes translation much more difficult. We need to go with a solution that does not inhibit translation IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Steelcase history section

I've been working on behalf of furniture maker Steelcase to find some ways to improve the article about the company, staying strictly hands-off and not editing the article directly. Last month, I proposed a new History section on the Talk page to replace the bulleted list that currently appears in the article. I've posted on several other WikiProjects seeking help, but haven't had much luck in finding interested editors. Although one editor responded, they were a bit hesitant and I don't think they were able to review the draft closely. I'd appreciate it if someone here could take a look at the draft. You can find it here along with some explanation of what I changed and why. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

JSerra Catholic High School

This editor has admitted that (s)he is an employee of the high school in question, moreover that (s)he's part of the marketing department. I have issued two censorship warnings and one COI notice, but no disclosure was made and the editor continued to attempt to censor the page to remove criticism. -Kharkiv07Talk 18:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've invited the user to discuss the issue on the talk page. I see where removing the material could be warranted under policy; I also see how removing it with an edit summary of "Edited out innaproprite content. I am a marketing employee of JSerra Catholic High School" just screams conflict of interest. I've also tried to model the right behaviour by starting talk page discussions on the issue. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@C.Fred:Thanks for your input, and not for the sake of making attacks I'm genuinely interested, this wouldn't be considered a promotional username, right? -Kharkiv07Talk 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07: No, IMHO. It's more that they're stating an affiliation, which is allowed per the username. (It also announces their COI.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct, it is acceptable under what is commonly referred to as the "Bob at Microsoft" exception.--ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Monitise plc

Hi there - my name is Hannah Nakano Stewart and I work for Monitise plc (as Group Communications Manager) and have recently posted to the Talk page for Monitise plc's page in order to suggest some topline edits to improve its accuracy, as a great deal of the information is related to company financials and has therefore become out-of-date. I'd very much appreciate if someone would be able to have a look and get back to me. Thank you for your attention.

HannahNStewart (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a note on the talk page. Better sources are needed. The article is heavy on financial data because there are reliable sources for such data. John Nagle (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have moved the article to Monitise per the naming conventions for companies.--ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Keegan

User Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Jdilts1, Since people are objecting even though it appears this user is using his real name I have redone this to remove Jdilts identity, has either under his own user name or using a stream of changing IPs been making POV edits removing sourced content from the article. [6][7][8] He appears to take issue with the use of term "new religion" even though this is the term used in the Vice article that is his preferred source. He also removes any mention of healing crystals and the like even though there are multiple references present which he keeps removing. After playing a game of whack-a-mole trying to warn his various usernames and IPs, one of the IPs finnally spoke up on the talk page signing the comment as J. [9] This morning after leaving several long notes for J on the talk page I discovered the entire conversation had been removed by another IP which has been making POV edits to the article. [10] There have been other attempts made by this group of IPs to bolster Mr Keegans public profile. A section that has poor or little sourcing concerning Mr. Keegans activism has been added by JDilts [11]. His profession has grown from simply actor to "[actor]], producer, and community activist."[12] Some of these changes are minor, some are more troubling. All of the edits occur in the same blocks of time from the same IPs all connected to other edits made by the Jdilts1 account, since one of the IPs has signed using "J" I think we can safetly invoke WP:DUCK and assume they are all JDilts or someone close to JDilts. With the exception noted above none of the IPs or accounts have engaged in any discussion, and have never discussed any changes before making them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. You need to provide notice to people when you post here about them - I did that. And also asked the user to declare if they have any relationship. You may want to cross post at WP:BLPN. Am watching the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I did give notice, just wrong page I forgot to mention he has both Jdilts and Jdilts1. I know I posted notice on one of them. It's become impossable to keep up with the various account and IPs editing the article. Ridernyc (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Multisystemic therapy

User has been editing subject article for pay for Lori Cohen the Chief Marketting Officer at MST services, per this. article needs review for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and fixed it for NPOV. no explicit disclosure from user yet. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
new party has joined, per this Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Madura Kulatunga

Resolved
 – article was deleted via AfD Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

The creator and substantive editor of the article on Madura Kulatunga is User:Madura Kulatunga. When the issue has been raised with the editor he has not responded as whether there is a WP:COI - given that the only article that this editor has ever worked on is Madura Kulatunga then it appears highly suspicious that he is actually writing about himself. In the current AfD discussion the editor has also edited while logged out to avoid deceive others into believing that there is more support for your position than actually exists. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. went through article, tagged Talk page, provided COI notice on his page... looks like the article is going down. If user continues to violate COI we will be able to get a block. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic

Recently had a couple of their heads of marketing editing Wikipedia. They however appear to have been busy elsewhere.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

diffs for their roles at medtronic? Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
These two are not the prior heads of marketing. Those were on a different page. Evidence is not post-able of course. Concerns that these two are likely paid editors and there marketing department is obviously interested in us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Medtronic CoreValve System was created as the first edit of Sbaltjes (talk · contribs), and reads like a brochure. But all the cites are to medical journals and such. Looking for non-promotional references, I did find this paper [13] which has some reservations about the valve. Not finding anything serious, like a recall or litigation. John Nagle (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This page Medtronic CoreValve System uses a bunch of primary sources. And well not horrible left out the conclusions of this review "However, in patients who are surgically amenable, current publications suggest that TAVI using presently available devices is not competitive to SAVR, with regards to procedural safety and outcome." [14]

I just have a hard time believing that this is a new editor and that this is there first and only edit [15] Expecially with the little TM symbol.

Maybe I am wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

behaviorwise looks mighty paid-editing-y. I will notify and inquire tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
tagged, notified, etc. have not done cleanup yet. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Listed articles created or worked on lots by those two users and re-arranged a bit.. worked them over too and did some redirecting as they were piles of PRIMARY sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Shout Out UK

Resolved
 – Others managing this at Talk page. SPI is on it. Article has been listed at AfD. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MatteoBergamini has been editing the page, removing all content and replacing it with their own unsourced information, see differences in revisions. They claim to be the owner of Shout Out UK-the username is consistent with this claim- however it is clear that they are here to take ownership of the article, and I don't see their edits as beneficial. I wasn't sure how to proceed, hence me posting here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn User:MatteoBergamini has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

note - this posting made me go look at the article, and there were a bunch of socks adding negative content, with some clear COI/Advocacy issue. Also, when I looked at it closely, it became clear to me that Helloskiable, who created the article, has some relationship with the subject of the article. It was ridiculously WP:PROMO. I have added a connected contributor tag and left a notice on that user's page of this discussion. This is one to keep an eye on.Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
just checked, all the socks have been blocked by Jac16888 except IsrealADL. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
add what appears to be the latest sock, MarshaThompsonUK Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dawoodi Bohra

Resolved
 – Not an issue for COI Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As per the various discussions in his initial wikipedia pages he had posted all his personal details which were removed later after the succession controversy.

This shows him in customary attire unique to dawoodi bohra clergy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rukn950&oldid=602231414#My_Links

I had earlier complained on COIN, and he himself accepted it:

And here he claims to be strongly dawood bohra: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the archives and found this Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dawoodi_Bohra where an editing dispute was brought here, with no clear signs of any COI. I don't see any evidence presented here that there is a COI, either. Summichum what is your actual evidence that there is COI? Please keep it short. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog, -->> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_72#Reply_of_Summichum_allegations please see this link , the user ruqn clearly says he belongs to Dawoodi Bohra , infact he says he is "truly"a dawoodi bohra, which clearly establishes a close connection with the subject. Also see the various talk pages etc, he very strongly biased to support one of the claimant in the succession dispute article , also in DB page he is clearly behaving in a partisan manner.Summichum (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
that would be WP:ADVOCACY, not COI. and i think the same is probably true of you. This is not a matter for COI now, as it was not before. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It would have been civil if summichum would have given me notice of this WP:COIN.Rukn950 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been an editor for more than eight years. I had to remove my personal details in line with wikipedia policy to the right to my privacy. and I am upset that summichum has been displaying my old archived files at all the discussion and noticeboard. Is it appropriate? Rukn950 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
the history is the history. if you want something permanently deleted you can request an ovesighter to do that for you. please bring your content dispute elsewhere. I am sorry you guys are so stuck, Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I too am sorry for that.What do you suggest is the course of action and how can this issue be resolved? I have been watching the edits of summichum. which seems consistently to have emphasis on criticism to dawoodi-bohra related articles and its spiritual leaders, on whom these articles are based, simultaneously claiming to be un-involved and yet anyone who doesn't agree with him is dragged either to sock puppet or COI notice boards.Rukn950 (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
everybody should stay calm and use the processes described in WP:Dispute resolution to resolve the content issues. There is no deadline here, just take it slow and work through issues one at a time. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Environmental organization articles

Resolved
 – issues have abated - still watching the articles. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Unknown editor repeatedly changed content of pages to perpetuate a smear campaign against the nonprofit organization, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and its executive director, Land Tawney. The smear campaign is being levied by a sham public interest group, and the edits to the page cite (among other questionable sources) the sham group's contrived studies as sources cited.

The sham group has a documented history of attempting to undermine the nonprofit and executive director. His/her activities undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. I am the communications director of the nonprofit and monitor online activity associated with the group, social media, and our group's presence on sites such as Wikipedia.

Other nonprofit organizations targeted by this same sham group also have had their Wikipedia pages altered by the same editor, on consecutive days, and with similar edits. I repeatedly removed the editor's changes only to have him restore them, quickly and multiple times over the course of today.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me directly to discuss further. Bhamt (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bhamt, what user do you have a concern about and can you provide a diff showing that they have a conflict of interest? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Tawney biography looks questionable to me - I've raised it on WP:BLPN [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That was a next move for me. Wanted to get the information I requested from Bhamt before taking the obvious next steps.... Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Good morning. The user I have concerns about is RodNReel48. He/she edited the pages I flagged (along with pages of other nonprofit organizations) to perpetrate a smear campaign being waged against my employer. Please let me know what other information you need. Here are two resources on the front group behind this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_Policy_Alliance and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/environmental-policy-alliance-berman_n_4913303.html. Thank you for your assistance in resolving this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhamt (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So it sounds like you have no evidence from within Wikipedia that RodNReel48 is actually associated with that group. We will need to look into their edits and see what we can do. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There is another issue, Bhamt you have disclosed there, that you have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles. You are also a paid editor, and you need to disclose that on the Talk pages of any articles you work on, related to your COI. I am going to tag the articles and provide notice of this, on your Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, guys. I apologize for not following protocol. As you might have guessed, I am not familiar with Wikipedia's editing rules/regs; I only got involved in this because my organization is being targeted. As far as evidence of RodNReel48's affiliation with the front group, I will cite that he/she also made similar edits to the pages of two other organizations, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Izaak Walton League, that have been singled out by the front group and the target of a well-funded smear campaign against all our groups: https://www.greendecoys.com/. On a separate but related issue, I wanted to flag Land Tawney's Wikipedia page. This page appears to have been created with the express purpose of casting doubt onto my boss's bona fides. Land was not aware that he even had a Wikipedia page before this week. Can he be given oversight or have special control over this page? Again, forgive me for not being familiar with SOP here. Appreciate your wise counsel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.80.179 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Bhamt or 63.153.80.179... we have a policy for articles about living people, called and linked at WP:Biographies of living people (we call that policy "BLP" for short). There is an associated notice board for problems with BLP articles, here: WP:BLPN. you can see above, that grumpy andy opened a thread there already. If you post in that thread, you can get people there to help you with issues on Tawney's article. Good luck! I'll be looking at that article from a COI perspective, too. 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks for replying Dawnmerritt. I am watching that article, and if you post proposed changes on the article's Talk page, I will have a look. (it would be most helpful if you wrote something there like "replace this content and source (copy-paste it) with this content and source". Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog Problem content by RodNReel48 was eliminated and page reverted back to original content and locked. The question is: What happens on March 15 when it is unlocked again? Dawnmerritt
Hi Dawnmerritt, thanks for letting me know that you are OK with the article as it stands. Still waiting for RodnReel to come and talk here with regard to possible paid editing/COI on their part. With regard to the article, if they edit disruptively, content or behavior-wise, there are other policies and guidelines that will be brought to bear. As I said I am watching the article (and others are too) and we will make sure that our policies and guidelines are upheld there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I would note though that Wikipedia user "Dawnmerritt" also has a conflict-of-interest in this topic area. Obviously we should not and will not allow these fringe criticisms from user "RodNReel48" to stand in any project article, but at the same time we have to be careful that said articles do not swing too far in the other direction and become sanitized puff pieces. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tarc yes agreed - both Dawnmerrit and Bhamt have disclosed their COIs and are listed as declared connected contributors on the relevant articles, and my sense is that they will abide by COI. Just waiting to hear from RodnReel. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - I went through the Roosevelt article which no one had done yet; removed POV-adversial ick (really bad sourcing to make "they are federal government loving bastards" kinds of claims. RodNReel has not resurfaced. Was probabaly just a SPA [{WP:SOCK]] created just for this. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Scott Schneider

The edit summary of this edit says "I am editing some personal information and updating my legislative record." So this user is claiming to be Scott Schneider, and they have removed all sourced content. I was unsure how to proceed, as people are allowed to request removal of content on biographies about themselves, however the article is now unreferenced (and so I felt obliged to put it up for WP:BLPPROD). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That article needs work. There's good press coverage of the subject. It's now down to a stub, and needs to be built up again from reliable sources, which are available. John Nagle (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

The user is claiming ownership of the article, with edit summary here, and semi-protection request WP:RPP#Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. Their username also clearly suggests affiliation with MDMR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice and information. I am a member of the office of Public Affairs with the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources. This page was created in Nov. of 2010 and has not been developed. I have been, without bias, simply doing that. If this is a conflict-of-interest, help me understand then who is supposed to develop, monitor, update and maintain this wiki page? And what if it is vandalized? We are a state agency and wish to ensure there will not be a lack of information or misinformation about us. Pab.mdmr (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My issue was that it appears to me like you are trying to claim sole ownership of the article, which is against the Wikipedia policy of everyone being allowed to contribute. This edit summary implies that the Department should be allowed to do what it wants, and your request for protection (text was " This page was generated by a wiki user in 2010 and is now being claimed and developed by the Public Affairs Bureau of the topic state agency. If possible, the MS Dept. of Marine Resources would like to retain the ability to edit the page, but protect information contained therein from well meaning editors and vandals alike.") also implies that the Department wants to take complete ownership of the article. Wikipedia says that no individual or organisation can claim sole ownership to an article, see WP:OWN, and everyone should be able to contribute.
The updates themselves seem okay to me right now, but my concern was the possible ownership of the article issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I brought up Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing issues with the editor and was replying to them when the RFPP and COIN discussions started. The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) WP page, especially recent additions were a close paraphrase of pages on the MDMR ‎website. The editor, who admits to being new to WP, does not yet understand the what WP is about. 220 of Borg 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Added section about director of agency being convicted of corruption in 2014 and sent to prison for five years. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf education

Hi! I stumbled upon the Waldorf Education article a few weeks ago, and began making edits recently to bring it to a NPOV. Previously, the article read almost entirely as a promotion for Waldorf-style education, and had been cited many times previously for NPOV. I started to add references to criticisms from WP:RS[1][2][3][4][5], but ran into a dispute with a semi-single purpose editor there, User:Hgilbert, and I'm looking for more third party input. Basically, the dispute revolves around the article's possible lack of NPOV, ADVERT like statements, and above all, excessive detail and puffery, in my opinion. User:Hgilbert, before I showed up, was the only substantial contributor to the article, and has been cited previously as having a COI in relation to the page, as he's a Waldorf educator and has written extensively about Waldorf in academic settings and on other websites. Please just drop by the article's talk page, or check out the article itself, and lend a hand!--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant diff. He reverted a number of edits I had made over several days to fix NPOV, etc., all the way back to a revision before I had ever done anything to the article. I reverted his TW rollback, but I'm basically asking you guys, is this a violation of Hgilbert's COI? Is there anything else I can do about it, besides keep bold editing? Am I wrong in reverting this? --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/26/nyregion/different-teaching-method-attracts-parents.html
  2. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/may/18/schools.uk2
  3. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/is-this-grade-school-a-cult-and-do-parents-care/265620/
  4. ^ http://www.salon.com/2004/05/27/waldorf/
  5. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/40700572

Shibbolethink's contribution history shows that over 90% of his recent edits, and something like 3/4 of all his (something over 500) edits have been exclusively on Waldorf education. My own editing is much broader. If there's a single-purpose editor here, it is the complainant above, who has made something like 375 edits on this one article in four days, and is a likely sockpuppet for the banned User:Pete K, who has repeatedly returned under various guises (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pete_K/Archive and linked investigations). HGilbert (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the ArbCom decision, sources published by anthroposophists are considered self-published and thus unreliable as independent, objective descriptions of Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools. They may only be used with attribution, in order to render the anthroposophical POV as POV, not as neutral descriptions of objective reality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
We have held to this standard for the last 10 years. This has nothing to do with the current conflict. HGilbert (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I created this account to start recording edits I had made for years on various other IPs belonging to the University of Chicago, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and at home. Several months ago, someone else called me a single purpose account here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cool_Freaks'_Wikipedia_Club. The article creators there also called me a sock puppet for other users, and said I was biased against the group because I thought it wasn't notable. I've also been called a deletionist!
Are you noticing a pattern? It's not possible for a user to be a single purpose account with more than one purpose! I simply go from project to project, finding one that piques my interest, and then delve in. I am not a sock puppet. I'm an autoconfirmed user, and I'm even willing to reveal my identity to admins or even other users privately, to PROVE that I'm not Pete K. Pete K revealed his name elsewhere on other websites, and if you google around my username, the stuff I've said I've done on my user page, etc. you'll see it's completely different, and Pete K and I have zero relation.
We probably even both have incredibly bacon numbers from separate links! All of Hgilbert's supposed evidence is based on the fact that both Pete K and I think there are problems with the Waldorf article, and "appeal to [Hgilbert's] COI." Well, there is third party admin verification of Hgilbert's COI, which is probably why I also referred to it! I have edited MANY other articles. This is my second of two projects, and so I'm focusing much of my editing in this article. I have many purposes. AGH. To me, this entire sockpuppet accusation seems like an effort to protect the Waldorf education page, so that Hgilbert may continue to reinforce an Anthroposophist POV.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Perfection Cosmetics and others - possible undisclosed paid editing

Editor appears to be editing for pay without disclosing it, per Logical Cowboy's comments here and here. I have notfied the editor. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Balaji E.M please state whether or not you have engaged in paid editing. Please note that paid editing is allowed in Wikipedia, but you must disclose the employer, client, and affiliation,and you must follow the WP:COI guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Balaji E.M posted a note on my Talk page, saying "Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation?" The answer to that question, is that you should disclose the the employer, client, and affiliation on your User page - here for each article on which you have done paid edits. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence David Gaz

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Per this note, Logical Cowboy pointed out that the article was listed on a paid-editing website. Katiebade created the article that is now deleted.

Katiebade please state whether or not you have engaged in paid editing. Please note that paid editing is allowed in Wikipedia, but you must disclose the employer, client, and affiliation,and you must follow the WP:COI guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why was the article deleted? It is not the same article as copy right infringement said before. This is new article. If some one can undelete the article then it is use for me discussing it. What is the point other wise. --Katiebade (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The point is that undisclosed paid editing violates the Terms of Use of Wikipedia and is a serious issue. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please also note the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 20. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC).
The other issues is that User:Katiebade is not a new user which is obvious per there edits
They have submitted a deletion review here [18]
SPI posted here [19]
Interesting that they know that the article on David Gaz was deleted for copyright infringement before.
The new version is still closely paraphrased from [20] and the refs are the same aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Logical cowboy told me on talkpage that old version was copy right infringement. Stop accusing just like that [21]. --Katiebade (talk) 05:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nathanjames

Resolved
 – per below Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The article's subject (a singer) is stated in the article to be signed to "QEDG Management". Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

account is blocked and article is deleted. that was short-lived. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Table-lookup synthesis

Resolved
 – not a matter for COI Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

A tag for WP:SPEEDY deletion was placed on this article that is clearly an invention of User:Clusternote and is, at best, a WP:CONTENTFORK. The user has immediately removed the deletion tag as if his judgment is all that is needed to end the discussion. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Now I'm consulting to administrator for this banned user's continuous stalking for over two years. --Clusternote (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

65.183.156.110 you haven't presented anything showing a COI. when you say Clusternote "invented" the article, you mean that he/she created it? That is true, but that is not a COI. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The article represents only Clusternote's spin of the terminology and meaning of terms in the field. The COI is evident that he removes the speedy delete tag from the article, rather than submit it to discussion. Clusternote does not get to solely determine whether or not his POV can be canonized into Wikipedia by content forking. He doesn't like the content in Sample-based synthesis or Wavetable synthesis (and there has been some controversy, about 2 decades ago, regarding the usage and conflation of the two terms), so he creates his own WP:content fork. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is WP:OR and WP:neologism. He is trying to create his own terminology and prop it up in an invented Wikipedia article.
Please google "table-lookup synthesis" and see what Google finds for you. And please refer to the talk page of the article nominated for deletion (but with the deletion tag removed, unilaterally, by the editor with a conflict of interest). That's what this is about. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 65.183.156.110 listen carefully - please read WP:COI - it is a serious thing, and not something you throw around in a content dispute. You have brought no evidence of a conflict of interest. Please go solve your content dispute using normal means, per WP:DR. If you continue to make charges of COI without actual evidence of a COI, you yourself can be sanctioned. So knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Jt, I have read it. This is about an "incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor", particularly User:Clusternote. I would not have posted here if it was not that Clusternote has summarily dismissed the discussion about the worthiness of the article he invented and the POV regarding terminology he is trying to establish as common use rather than merely his own OR. It is a conflict of interest. I am not hassling him. I put the tag on the article and properly notified his talk page, just as the guidelines require. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
65.183.156.110, I will ask you one more time - what evidence do you have from within Wikipedia that Clusternote has an off-wiki interest that conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia? I believe your answer is "none". Please let me know. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Finn

Resolved
 – user indeffed Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User Pmesiti (single purpose account with edits to only a single page) has declared on User talk:Dsprc that "Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further" User also appears to be making legal threats. -- Aronzak (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Diff mentioned above is here. I have tagged the article, and added the connected connected contributor tag to its Talk page, and have also watchlisted it. We'll see if we can get that user to declare COI as they should and to follow WP:COI. Thanks for posting. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue I have is that given that it's an WP:SPA, failure to disclose a close connection, and a refusal to discuss changes to the page or make their edits in line with Wikipedia policies or discuss on the talk page and repeated blanking after multiple warnings in my opinion, should be grounds for an indef block. There are plenty of accounts that make contributions to areas where they don't have a conflict, then declare the conflict and cease editing certain areas. Topic blocking a single purpose account is no different to an indef block. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Further the user's comment about deletion would meet WP:NOTHERE, no? -- Aronzak (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :There is an ongoing discussion about sourcing at BLPN here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bernie_Finn which grew from an ANI posting here Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I hear you. This board is for dealing with COI issues. Now that they have been notified of the ToU and of the COI guideline, if they disclose and refrain from editing the articles dealing with Finn directly going forward, the purpose of this board will have been served. If they fail to do either we can seek a topic ban, yes.Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A bit odd they singled out my talk (I'm honored, really. ;-)) but, they've been asked to clarify "taking it further"; will see how/if they respond. Does feel like a legal threat. -- dsprc [talk] 14:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
i don't take it necessarily as a legal threat either (as there are things like BLPN etc here) but it was certainly an aggressive stance to take. unwise newbie. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I had left them a final warning; they went ahead and edited-warred again anyway without discussing or disclosing, so I filed an ANI, as a result of which they were just indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_81&oldid=1048071690"