Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 83

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Latin Mass Society of England and Wales

User:Dr_Joseph_Shaw has been editing this article in recent days. Going by this editor's user name this would seem to be someone who is very closely associated with the Latin Mass Society. Despite leaving a message on his talk page about the WP:COI policies this editor is still continuing to edit the article. Afterwriting (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to out myself as the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society. I have updated some factual aspects of the page, added some historical material, and added citations. Please note I am unpaid and most of the material relates to a time before I was born. There should be nothing controversial about my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty. I suggest that you should not make any further edits to the article at present and instead wait for responses and discussion by other editors on whether or not your editing of it is a clear violation of COI principles. Afterwriting (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice job everybody involved. New editors with a COI often don't understand that they are harming Wikipedia, and Afterwriting, you did a nice job escalating to the point where Dr Joseph Shaw realized there was a problem. Thanks Dr Joseph Shaw for disclosing your COI.
  • Dr Joseph Shaw's first edit added loads of unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY, and it is kind of promotional. The second edit did the same, but a source was used, which is better. The last two (this and this), however, added sources, which the article is very much in need of.
  • Afterwriting, I'd suggest you review those content changes and take out any promotional content, and anything unsourced, and keep what is good (the sources, if they are useable). Once you have reviewed Dr. Shaw's contributions for NPOV and VERIFY, please remove the COI tag and make a note on the article Talk page that you have reviewed the article.
  • Dr Joseph Shaw, it is great to have you here, and again, great that you disclosed your COI. Three things:
    • first, please do not edit the article directly going forward, but instead, offer suggestions on the article Talk page, for others to implement. That is how we manage COI in Wikipedia, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope you can see the sense of that. I have added a box, to the bottom of the yellow/brown box at the article's Talk page - the text in the box says "Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content,". If you click where it says "click here" it will set up an "edit request" where you can offer suggestions for article content. You are new here, and there is a lot to learn about our editing policies and guidelines. If you are just asking questions on the article Talk page and not proposing content for the article, you don't have to use the "edit request" - please don't use it for that, as it will clutter up the Talk page.
    • Second, editing Wikipedia is pretty complex -Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and we have lots of policies and guidelines that govern what we do. It is going to take some time and effort to on your part to learn them. I hope you put that time in. But be patient with yourself and with those talking with you.
    • finally, i have added a disclosure of your COI to the article Talk page, so that is covered, but you would do well to disclose your COI on your User page) here: User:Dr Joseph Shaw, so that you disclose your COI to the community. If you choose to edit other articles (and I hope you do), if you edit other articles related to Catholicism, please limit yourself to their talk pages, and introduce yourself. If you edit articles related to other things (say football) there is no need to make a disclosure when you start editing. I hope that all makes sense.
everybody good with that? (note, I am not an admin, but i work here a lot) Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Poerner Engineering

Poerner Engineering and a page about one of the company's products, Biturox process‎, are the subject of heavily promotional editing by single-purpose editors. ChemNerd (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

David Laventhol

Resolved
 – Taken care of/nothing left to do. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am closely related to the subject, a newspaper publisher (LA Times, Newsday) and editor, who has just died. He is clearly notable, and there were existing red links, so I created the article from the many recent obituaries, asked for some criticism on the help chat, and created the page. Declarations of closeness are on the article talk page and my own user page, so it's fully transparent. Adding it here per WP:COIDEC. Not intending to do much further with the article; trusting the many wiki editors. Regards all. Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nature's Harmony Farm

User:99.196.157.76 is a WP:SPA making repeated edits to article without consensus. User's conduct suggests WP:COI. Specifically, the User is trying to remove mentions of the names of the founders of the business in question. The names of the founders are supported by a NY Times article and no valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Experienced third-party editor assistance would be appreciated. Slugfilm (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I documented my reasons for making that change. I have no conflict of interest, but found the assertion regarding founders to be an assumption rather than fact. As stated, I have searched Georgia Corporate Records and the business website to no avail. - 99.196.157.76 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
User:99.196.157.76 has only made edits to a single page (Nature's Harmony Farm), many supported by WP:OR, which repeatedly seek to remove relevant details contrary to valid sources which support their inclusion. This article has previously been a victim of sock-puppet and meat-puppet activity by the owner of the farm, who was then blocked and subsequently hired a paid editor (see Talk:Nature's Harmony Farm). I have serious concerns about the neutrality of User:99.196.157.76. Requesting third party editor review. - Slugfilm (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy

Resolved

Editor has disclosed a COI - she works at the college, but is ignoring efforts to get her to stop directly editing the article. Copyvio too. Article has been tagged; is currently partially blanked with a copyvio notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Jytdog. It seems that user Lauralibal, after very properly and clearly declaring her COI, has nevertheless painted herself into a corner for now; I don't regard that as a success on my part. The problems are not limited to the pharmacy college but extend to the article on the university as well; there are at least two other connected editors, which I've added above. Between them they've done us a service, however - as a result of their antics a particularly egregious copyvio from 2010 has come to light, which has led to the discovery of several more by the same user. Every cloud ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Viresh Pratap Chaudhry

A recent editor who shares a name with the subject has turned this article into a memorial. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds has reverted. I have dropped a note on the editor's page. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC).

Lajosgents

User history and overly promotional tone of his/her creations (example) strongly suggest COI editing. Asked user Lajosgents directly if they were working for hire. Several suspicious abuse log triggers might be relevant. — Brianhe (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Starting to think there's a sockfarm at work here on related jewelry and diamond business articles. Added above. - Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

this was archived - i just pulled it back out after Brianhe called my attention to that on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this need anything else from me? — Brianhe (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with minor spam

Any opinions on how minor spam/promotions should be handled? For example, Special:Contributions/108.6.8.18 and Special:Contributions/206.71.226.12 show a handful of edits, each of which is to add information about a publisher and their current or forthcoming books. The result is junk like "to be published in September 2015 by Seven Stories Press" at the end of the lead at Danny Schechter, and the link spam at Lee Stringer#External links. Should we even bother trying to combat such promotions any more? Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any spam. Just addition of unsourced info. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That might be pushing WP:AGF a little far because every edit is to publicize a particular publisher. I gave two examples of inappropriate edits, and it would be very time consuming to engage users like this in a discussion about the merits of using Wikipedia to promote a company's products. Quite a lot of this kind of product-placement editing occurs, and it's hard to know how to handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Well. What I'm saying is that I would make those edits myself if I had reliable sources for them. (In fact if I had that kind of time I would go and either find those sources or revert those edits as unsourced.) BUT. The second IP especially seems to be on a mission to make sure this publisher is mentioned in several articles, I think that kind of behavior qualifies as WP:SPAM ("Spam is the inappropriate addition of ... information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization..."). I can't think of a user warning template that would be appropriate to use on these IPs so I guess we're just going to have to type up an original warning just for them (including info about spamming/COI editing and adding unsourced content). After they've been warned we can see a bit better what the situation is.
So, to answer your first question, I think that's how this kind of editors should be handled: warn them and see what happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's definitely bookspam as the main purpose is to promote the books, especially when the edits are in the lead. Ssintern (talk · contribs) and Intern7stories (talk · contribs) give the appearance that interns at the publisher are encouraged to edit WP, which may explain these edits. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dare to eat a peach (talk · contribs), EBGraber (talk · contribs), Topknot2 (talk · contribs), SevenStoried (talk · contribs) and Sevenstoryist (talk · contribs) also look suspicious. Whether they're aware of COI or doing this in good faith, this is a concerted effort to add mentions of their books to articles over many years. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the edits I've seen, they typically add info like "this author will publish book Y via publisher Z", in an article about an author this is very relevant information. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the primary purpose is to promote their books, rather than improve articles, hence why it is a COI/spam issue. Some edits are ok, but the vast majority are not. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
there are several problems with the work they are doing:
1/it is not always clear that the author is in fact notable. For the representative of a publisher to start a page on one of their authors in mainspace is improper COI
2/it is not always clear the the book is important enough to be covered in text, rather than just listed in the author's Bibliography section
3/the book should be sourced to WorldCat or LC or a similar site, not the publisher's site, which is as bad as sourcing the information to Amazon.
4/the material is often overlinked, the name of the publisher should be linked, but only once an article.
5/some edits from various places have added a link to the publisher's site as an EL, often to a sample chapter. This is a violation of EL policy.
6/this rarely happens with fiction, but in other subject for the publisher to add a the book to the article on the subject the book covers is improper--they must suggest it on the talk page.
7/Of course, adding a page about the book is wrong; adding simultaneously a page for a new author and their first book is imo always promotional.
8/forthcoming books are like forthcoming films--they need to be actually written and the book under production, and there needs to be a good source. Of course, for a famous author there may be 3rd party RS even beforehand, but the publisher or the author is not a RS that they are in the process of writing a book. A great many people are in the process of writing their next book,; not all of them will get published, or even finished. I normally remove all unsourced mentions of forthcoming books from articles on authors--after first checking in WorldCat that the book is not by some chance actually published.
But it is never wrong to explain to the user why what they are doing is wrong--it's not all that time consumer because the same message can be used repeatedly, and we owe every user even those who do not understand WP the courtesy. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biotecnika Magazine

Resolved
 – blocked Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen

As the user has not edited any page except their own user page, there is no COI, and thus nothing for this board. I have flagged the user name concerns to the proper location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address (film)

Resolved
 – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the edits at the page are being done by a username that matches that of a director of the film. He is adding unsourced information, including on tie-in products. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

yep. removed all the unsourced junk. went looking for sources and didn't find much. i put it up for speedy delete promo. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
and it was speedy deleted -- see here. That was actually the 2nd time it had been created and then speedied. The COI problem has not really been addressed as the creator never talked to us, but problem solved for now. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was trying to be gentle with him, but things had gone on for long enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for bringing this, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Resolved
 – article cleaned; additional eyes on it if the hoards return. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi is a gentleman of many accomplishments. The descriptions of these have over the years been contributed, at considerable length, by near-SPAs Kitabparast and Sarfniazi; and by SPAs Andrewbourgoin, Jachurd, Jachurd2 and Skniazi.

The OTRS notice on the talk page is evidence of the biographee's hand in his article. (I'm not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no idea of what was communicated.)

It's splendid that those in the know can offer readers so much; but I think that much of the material in this article is prolix, hagiographic and unsuitable. However, removals of such material are reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's an impressive resume, but a rubbish encyclopedia article. I'll get my hedge-trimmer out and see what happens next. More eyes would probably not go amiss. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It turned out that a great deal of the content was copied from his personal website. I've removed the worst content, but more unsourced content remains. Given the multiple SPAs that have edited it recently, I'll start an SPI as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts and after some googling, it seems much more likely to be meatpuppetry rather than socking and it is so obvious that SPI is unneccesary. Blocks will be needed if they persist though. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your good work. ¶ Yes, there's one obvious meatperson. As for the others, it wouldn't surprise me if they were all socks of each other. But if they were, so what? As long as they don't support each other in arguments, evade blocks, or similar, they'd be doing nothing wrong. It's not obvious to me that an SPI is called for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I worked this over this morning. interesting guy. sorry if i stepped on your toes there, Smartse - we started going at it at the same time. all clean and sourced now. no puffery or unsourced left, i think. but yeah we should watch out for the pufferiers to come back. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the help Jytdog! SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Good work, chaps -- but please see the talk page, and comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Chu

Recent expansion of biographical article, into a format that looks a bit like a campaign brochure--not every accomplishment here merits encyclopedic mention, nor do we need this many photo ops. Beyond that, now requires removal of a lot of external links. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the excessive images on the page. You are right–the page read like a brochure just by the overwhelming amount of pictures alone. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted their edits as they were clearly promotional and unsourced - the previous version was much better. If they visit this thread, they're strongly advised to follow WP:BESTCOI. SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Castle Rock, Colorado

An editor is continuously removing an article section critical of the town of Castle Rock, Colorado. The editor has claimed to represent the town, but has failed to disclose any paid editing or COI despite being warned to. Attempts to address the editors concerns with a lack of neutrality in the article have been met with violations of WP:3RR and removal of the information citing "inaccuracy" despite the information being based upon reliable news reports. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything User:Winner 42 said above. To me, it seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, removing content simply because it makes the place look bad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so this is not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please understand this has nothing to do with making the place look bad. My concern is singling out one specific event. There are various stories about Castle Rock that can be sited from news sources. I have no problem including this event if other news stories are also included. Listing only one event makes this article biased by nature. My hope is that we can come to a mutual agreement. talk to me! 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CastleRockChick - this implies you do have a connection with the topic. I can see no disclosure from you. Do you have a WP:COI? If so, you must follow the guidance there. Widefox; talk 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
User:MelanieN is right - the talk page is the right venue to discuss and reach consensus once any COI has or has not been declared. Widefox; talk 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

John Basedow

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Warnings given [12] [13] etc but no attempt from editor to engage in dialogue, continues to WP:OWN article and talk page. Widefox; talk 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I've looked at the article, and put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow- couldn't find many more reliable sources about this person, most sources I could found were self-published or selling websites (e.g. Amazon). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Smartse Laddypat has removed tags and AfD [14] after final warning given. Widefox; talk 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm involved now, so I've asked at ANI for someone else to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. I should have used ANI, I filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29. Widefox; talk 13:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Can close. Widefox; talk 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was a puzzling amount of forum shopping. It is much easier to discuss an article at one noticeboard at a time. As Laddypat (talk · contribs) is now blocked, we can add the article to our watchlists, and continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See WP:FORUMSHOP. I raised editor / COI here, another editor raised article deletion at AfD. The AfD will be closed as delete and the article and talk deleted. Widefox; talk 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Owned article for 7 years?

Of general COI note...how we can have such a poor indef semi-protected (BLP) article, WP:OWNed by an WP:SPA with minor edits since 2008? Seven years! Several editors have remarked about the state of the article at Talk:John Basedow but for years their comments were just removed. Widefox; talk 09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This happens quite easily I think: a low traffic article has few people watching it. I am a little disappointed the recent changes patrol didn't notice the edit wars were part of a pattern, nor the talk page vandalism. It leads to a bad experience all round. What can we do to improve that? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the talk page vandalism (and marking edits as minor). A BLP too. Seems noteworthy. Widefox; talk 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There are probably thousands of articles like this unfortunately. Even articles that are tagged with {{coi}} or {{autobiography}} can go years before they are cleaned up. Look at Marjan Šetinc for example, tagged as an autobiography for 7 years with no substantial changes! SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Marjan Šetinc is a former MP, so IIRC inherently notable. Another example? I was thinking more with an aggressive owner removing talk. All the red lights flashing but nobody batting an eyelid. Widefox; talk 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Nossiter

The user has claimed to be Jonathan Nossiter's assistant here. Despite discussion on their talkpage, they continue to make edits which break WP:MOS, and add in POV content. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I've tagged the talk page of the article accordingly and left some explanation there, including the Terms of Use requirement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I love the username. must not be a nice person to work for. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear All,

I'm appalled by the snide, gratuitous and uncivil comment from jytdog (above). (in fact the production company is called Goatworks films and I am an assistant!) Surely this sort of sophmoric commentary is unwelcome on your board. 

Wikipedia is taken seriously and that's why the innacuracies and lacunae on the Jonathan Nossiter page needed adressing.

Never having done this before I understood that I made several errors of judgement, but I corrected them swiftly. If there are others, thank you, those who wish to help in a constructive way, for your comments. However, would you kindly restore the factual emendations (including that Nossiter is a Brazilian and American citizen inter alia)? And while I fully understand and respect that flattering comments about a given work are as unwelcome as spurious criticism, how can you justify leaving the only comment about a book that has been published in 8 countries and has won two awards as that posted by a partisan wine writer close to Robert Parker, one of the targets of the book's attacks with a vile, anti-semitic slur (Parker, not Jewish, accused Nossiter, who is Jewish, of Gestapo techniques...and all of this in a blog comment!)?. There are significant reviews from many of the world's major newspapers. Why include a wholly unrepresentative and specious blog attack as the only opinion about this book? And you say you wish for balance? Surely this is anything but neutral and encyclopedia-like. At any rate, thank you for restoring what is factual and neutrally descriptive so that you have a more complete and accurate page rather than an incomplete and misleading one. Your sincerely Alberto Rigno Assistant at Goatworks Films (!!!) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatassistant (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

my apologies, i agree that was snarky and i should not have written that. struck - my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
that said, the article as it stands has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. please do not edit it going forward, per WP:COI, but instead use the "edit request" function on the Talk page going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk)
@Goatassistant: If you can provide corrections in the format below, then ping me on my Talk page, I will review them.

In the ___ paragraph of the ____ section it says "_______________" [http://www.example.com The source] does not actually support this and/or is not an authoritative source for this information. In [example.com this] credible, independent source from an authoritative news publication, book, academic, etc. (not his website) you can find the correct information about ____-way down the article

I'm afraid this is time-consuming and we shouldn't make it so difficult to correct errors, but inevitably editors that work on behalf of the article-subject tend to attempt to correct errors, and in the process add promotion, then get their edits reverted and the whole process is very frustrating, so it is better to explain the errors clearly and make it easy for us to correct them.
CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju

Came across this article, which contains unusually flowery prose ("pre-eminent computer scientist" etc.). Did some digging, and it reeks strongly of COI (self-promotion).

The primary user Suo motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA created just for editing this article. The other user who edited the article, Esobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of the department to which this person belongs: see here. This is not an "outing", just obvious information from the Internet.

If the IP addresses of the users are analyzed, you will most likely see that they belong to the University of Buffalo (IP address range: 128.205.*.* ; see the 128.205.0.0 line here). In short, it appears that persons affiliated with the subject of this article and/or the University of Buffalo are editing this article, which is a violation of the TOS of Wikipedia.

ADrakken (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Had multiple discussion with editors, especially @NeilN: about how they must be right because their edits are "what Kent wants" or "Kent says this correct", although they don't seem to have given a proper explanation of their COI. Multiple edit wars on that page too. Tagged the article as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What Kent wants and discussion on my talk page --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better dealt with at WP:BLPN if the subject has concerns about the article. The use of primary court-related sources suggests that they might at least have some point (not that I've spent an hour listening to that video). SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of the primary sources are backed by secondary sources, no? --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Hi all, I've suggested a few additions to Dow Corning on the article's talk page, here. I have a COI - I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning - so I would tremendously appreciate any feedback or assistance anyone here can offer. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Nature

User:Onjohn is a declared COI of this page (on their userpage), but continues to edit.
User:Jghassell is a new account that has been removing maintenance templates from the article, despite the fact they still apply. The edit summary here says "Issues we address: references provided, information verified, meets Wikipedia criteria of impartial content"- implying that they have a COI too. Now declared here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I've also tagged the article talkpage as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gračanica, Kosovo

not a matter for COIN Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Zoupan 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for move Zoupan. Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Republic of Kosovo and include their official websites with Albanian and Serbian See. And there is also other cities Ferizaj, Orahovac, Pristina. The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Maurice Flesier (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this actually a COI issue? What is their conflict of interest, other than "They're Turkish"? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is extremely redundant — a Turkish community does not exist in Gračanica, and furthermore, the Turkish spelling is only a transliteration of the actual name (the toponym did not originate in Turkish — also in this respect, redundant). The definition of "reference point" is "a fact forming the basis of an evaluation or assessment" — no connection to this case. Turkish should without a doubt be used in the introduction of Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see your connection with Armenian place names (though your comment again shows your Turkish POV).--Zoupan 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Maurice has a point, Turkish is a recognized minority language in Kosovo so there is no obstacle to add Turkish name of these cities. If Turkish wasn't offiially recognized, then i would be supporting you Zoupan. kazekagetr 06:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a COI case. It appears that Maurice Flesier is an advocate with regard to things Turkish (see the political userboxes on his User page) but I see no COI as that is defined in WP, in this issue. This is not a matter for COIN, but rather for WP:NPOVN or WP:ANI Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with the user boxes, my personal opinion or Turkish origin!! Well, lets we judging for the contributions of User:Zoupan to be related to Serbia? I don't even think that this is a controversial case for ANI. Nevertheless, no obstacle for moving the case. Thanks for your thoughts, Jytdog. Maurice Flesier (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawrence L. Langer

User:Britnbecca created Lawrence L. Langer. Now they are blanking the page and here there are requesting deletion as "Lawrence L. Langer emailed us and wants to make his own change before putting the page back up", same message in the talkpage here. They have a clear, undisclosed COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • While Britnbecca may or may not receive pay from a party involved with the article, there has been clear promotion in the article, such as the awards list and the "extensive teaching background" phrase that sounds like a resume or a faculty CV. Also this part makes no sense: "he realized that there was no literature written at the time about concentration camp experiences" (yet he began to study such literature.) I suggest that the original text be blanked (apart from the bibliography) and the article restarted by less involved editors. Hopefully Britnbecca has now read the COI guideline, and will propose changes in the talk page, apart from deleting defamation and correcting serious errors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ketel One

Hi, I wondered if anyone could help.

I'm a communications professional working with Ketel One Vodka, which is a COI, and I'd like to suggest some changes to our Wikipedia page to add more insight and information.

Following the feedback and recommendations I received above, which was much appreciated, I'd like to suggest some revised changes to our Wikipedia page, which are now sourced. The following changes I wish to be made are:

Timeline

I hope are suggested amends are suffice. Please do let me know if you require anything else. Thank you! AdamF Grayling (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Karim Abouelnaga

Both users are adding very similar promotional content to Karim Abouelnaga. User:Karmisassistant's name implies COI, as confirmed here, and almost straight after I removed the promotional text they had added, User:KarlaP.Uassist starts adding similar material. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've put the article up for deletion, as non-notable person, and adding COI tag to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, here, User:KarlaP.Uassist says they aren't working on behalf of Karim Abouelnaga. I've struck their name from the list. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I believe that. I count four different accounts that appear to exist soleley to edit this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I'm not sure either, but for now I'm going to assume good faith that they aren't lying. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ty Cox

Paid editor to create the page, declared here. Article is probably getting deleted, but might get recreated multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Menhaden

Tzjones works for Saving Seafood (see the editor's user page), a fishing industry trade organization, and recently joined WP and has been directly editing the articles listed above. I've handled some of them, and tagged the rest for COI on the article page, and listed connected contributor on the talk page of all, and placed the COI edit notice on the talk page of all. I gave the user the COI user warning and asked them not to directly edit going forward. Some cleanup to do. I think this is the first trade organization rep I have seen on Wikipedia. I think the determination of COI/paid editing is pretty clear (especially after reviewing edits). Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Senpion

This has to do with all of this user's edits, mainly on Google Glass, but one on Asperger's Syndrome as well. Given the focus of the edits on one researcher, and an uploaded photo credited that researcher, coupled with no other edit focus whatsoever, I think it's a pretty good assumption that the editor is the researcher publicizing himself and his company. I have notified the editor, but the edits are stale, and I don't expect the editor to return. I'd like someone simply to police the edits, because no one else seems to consider his work notable. MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There are a range of technologies being used in autism, and Google Glass is simply one of them. Please feel free to check all my references. They include Autism Speaks, the worlds most prominent autism charity, and TechCrunch, one of the most prominent technology reporting websites. Also, I would have liked to have been messaged directly about your concerns, as recommended by Wiki guidelines. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note - i just dearchived this. i noticed that it MSJapan went to ANI (here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresolved_COI) when we took no action here. Sorry about that to both you and Senpion. I'll comment there and leaving this open here for now. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No COI in Draft space?

I was surprised at the advice given in response to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links? Is there some sort of unwritten agreement that our guidelines do not apply there? And what happens to those COI pages when they hit mainspace? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

COI is COI, but part of meeting our guidelines is to go through draft for review. If and when they hit article space then any edits should conceivably be done via edit requests, not directly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know how things away back at AfC. Joseph2302 works a lot there and picks up COI there - I don't know how he handles thing. For my part, my wish would be that if it seems pretty clear that the person creating has a COI, that folks working with them, would:
a) call their attention to WP:COI and the Terms of Use, nicely, and ask them to disclose any relationship they have with the subject of the article.
b) put the connected contributor tag on the Talk page and a COI tag on the article itself, with a section on the talk page noting the COI and tagging.
(pause) it is pretty clear to me that the part of WP:COI that says you should not create or edit if you have a COI gets blown off at AfC - as far as I know, nobody just stops conflicted editors cold and tells them they can only work via the talk page. right? so we should probably change that part of WP:COI since it is ignored in practice. But it would be very good if folks working at AfC would:
c) inform the conflicted creator (that could be a useful term if we do amend) needs to be ready to step away from the article once it goes live
d) move the article to mainspace only after it has been carefully reviewed for NPOV and decent sourcing (per the COI tag). the tag should be taken off and a note put on the Talk page in the COI section, that the article was reviewed by whoever took the tag off and moved it to mainspace.
that seems workable - it manages the COI but allows new article creation.... what do you all think?
i wonder if we should somehow have a chat with the folks who work at AfC and see what we can agree on. (i have no idea how much of a community those folks have) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not an expert, I've only been doing AfC 2 days, and so far, I've seen 1 or 2 COI articles only, and they were way short of being accepted- massive POV/advert issues (so won't get accepted until NPOV). If there's a clear COI, then I've left the COI notice on their user talk, and tagged the draft talkpage. Suggestions c) and d) seems sensible though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, giving my own personal view, Draft space is exactly the way a COI editor should proceed. It is the advice I have always given, and the advice I have always seen given by volunteers at OTRS. As long as the COI is clearly declared accourding to our Terms of Use, there will no confusion about the nature of the edits. Draft space is not indexed in the googles. It does not work for publicity purposes until it is moved to mainspace.
Obviously, the reviewers moving it to mainspace have the responsibility for ensuring the article complies with the basic requirements. Many of them have not done so in the past, but that's another problem. These reviews do not I think bypass NPP (at least, they certainly should not), and all articles actually submitted get scrutiny by the same standards. When a page is moved, it should carry the possible COI tag, and I think it should continue to carry it, whether or not it is judged that the article is currently actually npov. I have no hesitation listing a page moved from draft space for speedy or prod or afd as appropriate.
As I personally understand it, there is no policy that people with COI in general are forbidden to contribute to the encyclopedia, and there is no policy that paid editors or those with a financial conflict of interest are forbidden to contribute. Whether or not there should be is another question, but proposals to that effect have never attained consensus.
I think the only practical solution at this time is to actively follow individual articles and to actively participate in afd discussions , to prevent items brought there being closed as no-consensus or even keep because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No part of WP:COI says "you should not create or edit if you have a COI". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing - please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work, the very first sentence of which says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends.". Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I find {{Connected contributor}} to be very helpful in flagging COI on a draft's talk page. I am also usually easily able to suggest that the COI editor self identifies and deploys it themselves.
What I would like to see is a formal policy statement that sets out the difference between Draft: and main namespaces and the different ways COI editors may/should behave in each.
I should state that I am in favour of good quality paid and COI editing, via the WP:AFC route, and am wholly opposed to bad editing from whatever source. I most assuredly feel that COI editors must disclose. It annoys me to discover one masquerading as a bona fide unpaid/non COI editor. IN this I do not include those who genuinely do not know we deprecate main name space COI edits. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to paid COI editing, partly because the 2013 BP controversy shows that it can turn out bad for the subject, and bad for PR professionals, even if it takes place, disclosed, away from main article space (that is in Talk and Draft pages.) Yet, there is no overwhelming clamour to ban it, so I think it says for now.
  • Our current possible COI tag for articles is intended to be removed when editors agree that the article is neutral again.
  • Since we won't ban COI contributions making their way into articles, I think we need to disclose where this text from in the article itself. Most readers don't read talk pages. I think we need a new banner, topnote or form of words that remains for the life of the article, so the reader knows where (part of) the article came from. I think the form of words can be similar to the talk page {{Connected contributor}} template.
  • I suggest

Someone personally or professionally connected to the subject has contributed to this article.

I don't know if I have that wording quite right, as I wouldn't want the text to be shown if a physician or an acupuncturist ever edited the Acupuncture article. That would devalue the idea.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • note - I provided a notice of this at the AfC project and asked folks there to comment here (see here) Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is the least worse option considering the alternatives (AfC, draft, userspace, or articlespace)? Personally AfC. Currently, the wording of the COI guideline uses "should not" (and I'm assuming that technically that applies mainly to articlespace). Clearly if the common practice is to advise AfC (or draft) per DGG, then the guideline should reflect that - so why not be explicit about it in COI? The two need squaring one way or another. A draft is similar to a requested edit, so a minor change. As DGG points out, COI editors are not forbidden, so there must be a clear explicit simple way to contribute for what is often a new WP:SPA. That minor change will be very useful! The question of under what circumstances any COI tag must be removed from such an article is important. No 'badge of shame'/'tags are for maintenance only' specifies removal as soon as the issue is resolved. Surely when AfC moves to articlespace the guideline should state the {{Connected contributor}} is placed and must remain, but the COI tag should go when the issue is resolved. That moment may be more subjective. Widefox; talk 11:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Widefox, COI should be allowed to use AfC, since it's much better than them using userspace or articlespace. If I notice a COI at AfC, I usually add the generic Twinkle COI notice to their userpage, but apart from that, there doesn't seem to be anything else to do. Wikipedia allows COI editors, and the best place for them to write articles is AfC. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree about userpage notification. Also, if appropriate at AfC, placing the {{Connected contributor}} on the talk as soon as possible would be most desirable. Widefox; talk 18:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Americord Registry

Resolved
 – cleaned Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bunch of IP addresses have been editing this. page has been protected; I have tagged it for COI; needs to be reviewed for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to cleanup the page and removed a promotional claim pulled from a self-publsihed press release. Other than that, the page looks neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
great. i did some cleanup too. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whigfield

Resolved
 – blocked for making a legal threat. pages have been cleaned. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The user is claiming to be Sannie Carlson's management is removing sourced content, trying to remove all links between Carlson and Ann Lee. Disclosure here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

articles have been cleaned up and COI editor blocked for making a legal threat. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nest of COI editing






Other solely MSKCC editors


  • brought to my Talk page by Formerly 98. Thanks for that. We have some cleanup work to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Adding


Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearanne of MSK was trying to recruit editors to write articles back in 2013 here. so this was intentional. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I worked over all the articles. roughly clean. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock

Resolved
 – user blocked; I tagged and cleaned up the two articles Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

Resolved
 – done for now. will probably continue to be issues like other internet-based businesses. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here. I listed connected contributors on the talk page and placed a COI edit notice, reviewed the article, and have watchlisted it. Seems OK now. It will probably continue to be subject to COI editing as many of these internet-based companies are. Done for now. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lorenza Colzato

Editor started by revising subject article, then per his/her contribs added a bunch of content about work by Colzato to several articles. Have reverted additions to other articles per WP:MEDRS, and Alexbrn caught another in the course of regular page-watching, apparently. I don't have time to review the subject article now, so I tagged it and its talk page. Needs a review. Have notified the editor. No disclosure at this point, that i have seen. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know about the subject, but this looks like it should be reverted- replacing sourced content with unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain Farm

Resolved
 – as much as we can here. both editors have COI. article has been cleaned and admins are watching and working there. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pubwvj is the self-declared owner/operator of the business described by this article. After apparently authoring and editing the article for a period of years he did declare his ownership of the business a few days ago. Has ignored efforts to get him to stop directly editing the article. Has disruptively and repeatedly asked/demanded that only editors he approves edit the article. Bruceki (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bruceki:, when you report someone here, you must inform them that you've done so. I've informed them now, but if you report people here again, you must notify them ASAP- the easiest way is to add {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I've came to Sugar Mountain Farm via WP:3O and suggested these two users come here. Bruceki did notify Pubwvj (Albeit not on their talk page) when he posted the notice on the article talk page and pinged Pubwvj [15]. As to the case I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of it but I do believe both of these editors are way to close to the subject to be neutral. Although I do believe they are both have good intentions. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I looked on the user talkpage and couldn't find it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm gives good examples of the issues here. These two users seem not to get along at all and know each other in real life. Pubwvj has been using edit requests since I told him about them but wants Bruceki to be required to do the same. There are also a lot of accusations going back and forth loaded with a lot of off-wiki baggage that I have no real clue about. Jbh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that neither Pubwvj or Bruceki should be editing the article. They appear to have been involved in a real-world dispute for years (see for example this 2009 blog post by Bruceki who outs themselves on their userpage). Pubwvj is right to be agrieved by Bruceki's harrassment here and it needs to stop now. Hopefully now that there are more eyes on the article, they can both sit back and let us edit it instead. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that talkpage, I strongly agree that neither should edit- one has a massive positive COI towards the company, and one a massive negative COI towards the company. I've added @Bruceki: to the COI editors list above because of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
aren't you supposed to put something on my user talk page @Joseph2302:? Per this discussion I will restrict my input on that article to the talk page. Thank you all for your time. Bruceki (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite clear from the start of who I am and my relationship to my farm. Bruceki on the other hand has hidden that he has a massive negative COI which he fails to mention which stems from his years of attacking me. Examples of his behavior are widely available on the web should references be necessary. Contrary to what Bruceki misstates above, I have been working with JBH and OhNoItsJamie on the talk page and they have been making the edits to the article. Bruceki has a history of being warned against doing WP:SYNTH and of attacking other farms. Additionally, Bruceki lacks knowledge about the topic and has been repeatedly written false statements in to the discussion and page be it that these falsities arrive from his purposeful choices or simply he doesn't know what he is talking about is moot. Bruceki should stick to talk at most and not be making edits. The page in question is long supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I have received guidance from people over the years to improve the page and I look forward to the help that people can give to further improve it to make it be a better part of Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have never disclosed your connection to the farm on the sugar mountain farm wiki entry. I did that. You did not change your user page entry to disclose your connection to the farm until april 19th 2015.[1], 6 days ago. When you created your account in 2008 you were explicitly warned about COI issues[2] but chose to ignore that and edited the entry for the next 7 years. During that time you were repeatedly warned about adding links to your blog and various content issues but continued to edit it despite a fairly clear COI; which has been supported by the comments here. I'm glad that you now recognize that you have a COI and hope that you agree with the conclusion here that you should not be editing that page from here on. Bruceki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagree wtih a statement or content and a person. Some of your statements about farm operations appear to be exceptional (as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL , and I've pointed that out where you've made them. That has nothing to do with you as a person; you are probably a fine fellow who kisses your wife and doesn't kick puppies every often. Bruceki (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pubwvj&diff=658463771&oldid=657147263
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pubwvj&diff=658973509&oldid=211296194

Break: Notability

I've culled through the article's sources (all 30 or so) and found almost none that were acceptable. Most of them were blogs, primary sources, advertisements, brief mentions, did not mention the article-subject, or did not actually directly support the article text. Some were from credible news outlets, but just linked to the front page of the news site, not to an actual news article about the farm. What was left after my culling were local sources and Voice of America, which RSN archives suggest is a questionable source. Typically we expect at least one strong national level source to verify notability.

I'd encourage that in circumstances like this, notability needs to be considered before other issues; otherwise editors waste a lot of time, energy and emotional investment into an article ultimately headed for the trash bin. In a large number of articles where a COI is involved, this is the first thing we should look at. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Noel Cox

Resolved
 – Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Page is being edited by the named user, and information cited with a news article is being replaced by sources which cannot be verified. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. editor is now aware of his COI and is making edit requests on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


David B. Samadi

Resolved
 – worked over; monitoring by several editors Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is / was fairly spammish. Others thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd take a real close look at user: TEAMSAMADI, who is currently active and editing the article. I'd say the list of publications could go as well. Doesn't add much as it mainly reproduces what can be generated with a pubmed search. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. boatloads of COI editing on that article. i worked it over. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Quality Distribution

Resolved
 – folks bringing this have done good work getting the editor to suggest changes on Talk, and editor is complying, mostly Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A COI SPA editor keeps deleting a sourced version of the article and replacing it with an unsourced version that amounts to marketing material ("the largest trucking company in the USA"). They have been persistent over many months and edit warring against multiple editors. The user name "QDIIR", location of the IP (near company HQ in Tampa FL), persistence and SPA shows a COI. GreenC 14:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the later discussion on the article talk page, it looks as if the editor is now working in good faith to help update the article.  —SMALLJIM  22:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Green Cardamom thanks for bringing this here. Looks like the user is playing ball better. nice work there, talking with the conflicted editor. I've tagged the account for a username violation and provided them more formal COI notice, and also tagged the article Talk page and provided the "edit request" box in the Talk header. marking this resolved. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, thank you for the thank you. This noticeboard was helpful bringing other editors so the COI-editor could see it wasn't just me. -- GreenC 14:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah bringing things to the community is so, so important to avoid the risk of it getting personalized. you nailed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing

Djhuff has not disclosed a financial connection to writing any articles but the pattern of editing strongly suggests she has done so since 2011. I invited her to disclose, today. There is persuasive off-wiki evidence that connects a certain industrial marketing concern to this editor, who wrote in a 2012 advertisement "I’ve had the opportunity to write a few more Wikipedia pages". Brianhe (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor acknowledged paid status and claims that this out-of-order unsigned comment on her talkpage posted in 2014 suffices as disclosure. I leave it up to this noticeboard to reply. — Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks Brianhe. I put a COI warning on djhuff's talk page and he/she has started to go through and make declarations on the relevant pages. I've tagged the articles and their talk pages. Thanks again - nice looking out. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added a Disclosure notice to all pages listed above. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be deleting all of their edits before this disclosure, when they were an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on paid editing? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Tweak. Great news Djhuff. Please add the following code to the talk page banners you added: |editedhere=yes --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So I did some copyediting on these articles, removed puffery/unsourced claims etc, put a couple up for deletion. Still don't think the COI tags should come off though, all the articles seem to have been written almost exclusively be this COI editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 i put the COI tag on, if I don't have time to review the article, so that others know it needs reviewing. an article shouldn't be deleted only because of its creator's COI or lack thereof - it needs to be on the merits. paid editors sometimes create acceptable articles (sometimes); sometimes partly acceptable articles (more common), and sometimes, yes, complete garbage. But each needs to be judged on its own merits. yes? Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they've all had at least a bit that needed removing but I've been removing/copyediting text based on Wikipedia guidelines, not assuming they're all rubbish. But a couple of them only needed about 10 lines removed, whilst others needed about 80% of the text removed, and ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
great - and about your comment above about deleting all their edits prior to disclosure due to ToU violations... that is problematic in my view. I don't do that. The edits need to stand or fall on NPOV/VERIFY/OR (the content policies). Arbcom has said that they do not view ToU as policy so I believe (but I could be wrong) that removing edits due to ToU violations would - if you did that on issues that came before Arbcom - be viewed as disruptive behavior on your part. I think. Or, if the editor is a sock of a blocked user, you can revert based on WP:REVERTBAN. that's all we can do, i think. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
fair enough, I didn't do that, although I think we should have been allowed to. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • I don't think that is the only way to view policy+guidelines+ToU. Here is my contrasting suggestion. Arbcom doesn't arbitrate content, so if there was a consensus to blank 100% of an article, that would be ok, regardless of whether it meets NPOV/VERIFY/OR. Arbcom has said that they won't take Terms of Use into account when arbitrating - AFAIK it didn't comment on whether we should encourage or assist other editors in complying with ToU. Finally, since we are very clear that it is almost impossible for a paid editor to write for the enemy (because of human nature) if we find say 50% of an editor's contributions require deletion : then it is sensible damage limitation and efficient use of resources to delete/blank 100% of that editor's work. We have consensus that paid advocacy is "very strongly discouraged" and 100% revert would be one way to provide that discouragement. en.wiki takes a damage limitation approach for copyvio, and there is no concern of disruption.
  • IMHO we are far too gentle with paid advocacy editors, because such editors have been helping us write policy + guidelines, and we should treat them as firmly as we treat other editors who don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. (It is not just my opinion, the wider Wikimedia community, and the wider world, have told us so on many occasions. When newspapers get caught doing things like this, people get fired. Yet at English Wikipedia, some people want to say: we'll fix your articles for free when we get round to it, and meanwhile carry on editing.)
  • Joseph2302, was there any particular work prior to the Feb 2014 disclosure that should be cause for concern?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
did some updating. some of these articles still need review. Jytdog (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Bellarmine University

Paid editor, disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Population Fund

Eyes on this one please.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: there are definitely potential copyvio problems with the article, but can you explain where the COI is here?  —SMALLJIM  20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nordstrom

Just come across this, the name suggests obvious COI. Haven't had time to look at article though. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Evans clearly works for their PR department. I've posted the "connected contributor" info on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jiří Kylián

Adding unsourced promotional content on behalf of Jiří Kylián, as disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand and have added a complete list of works and some awards to the Article, the other changes are now posted as suggestion to the Jiří Kylián talkpage. kind regards RobBothof (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chauntry Cup

This page was created by LichfieldCC (now softblocked for username vio), and is being maintained by SPA Dartman1001. I've made my views on the article clear, but would like other users to look over the article- note I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chauntry Cup What do you mean by a conflict of interest? I personally have nothing to gain by editing The Chauntry Cup page. I have only ever been to one cricket match in my life and I'm 53 years old. I am not a member of any club and never have been, and have no interest in the game. I think the Chauntry Cup should be recognised. That is my only wish. I have no interest other than that. Dartman1001 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Friends of Coal

Headley declared himself the "official representative" of the organization, and made an extensive edit. Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Aricent

Disclosed paid editor, disclosed here. They haven't been directly editing, but it's still good for other people to be aware. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

They're also repeatedly suggesting the same edits, not discussing properly, and removed my talkpage comments. Can some other users get in on this please? The article is currently fine, but they're threatening to edit on 20 May. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin Bandier

SPA edits only Martin Bandier article. Attempted talk page discussion. Still makes changes based on "this edit has come directly from Martin Bandier himself". Maybe someone else needs to talk to him -- I've tried, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks. tagged, and am watching. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston

The article is being updated only by 2 SPA. Tarik "RVSSIAN" Johnston name suggests they are the person themselves, and Michael Peter Bundi has done most of the editing, and listed it as a B-grade biography (which I edited to C-grade). Just come across this article, but there's already a COI tag on it, and looks like advert tags have been removed as well. Would appreciate other users looking at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I had added those tags and a speedy deletion tag (which another user removed--one of the SPAs). The thing is I don't particularly want to do the afd as even though it meets speedy deletion criteriion, I'm not exactly sure if the sources themselves are reliable. They are surely not diverse. All of the poses, pictures, and wordings are promotional. If you would nominate it I would !vote delete. Tutelary (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
So according to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, both users are the same person (which I suspected might be the case), but they claim not to have COI. They're still working on the article, and removing some of the puffery, so I'm currently willing to accept that it could just be a newbie fan. Also, some of the references look okay (Jamaican newspapers), and so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
if they are not him, they are violating "impersonate" whatever that link is... so either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, they ditched that account and made the "Michael Peter Bundi" account instead. It's basically a case of whether you believe them or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so they've started using both accounts simultaneously (and renamed the Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston one), so I've opened up a SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Karlhard

Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks Widefox! am marking this resolved; seems all done. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
erm thanks Jytdog but not resolved (commented out resolved). My point is the other accounts aren't blocked, and I can't SPI them as the evidence is in the deleted articles that requires admin rights to access. So without SPI, I've listed here to get some suggestion. Widefox; talk 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
oh, sorry. removed the resolved tag. Harshul88 has not edited since sept 2014; and Carlossilva1971 and Fatkarl27 have not edited since Feb 2015. I can tell you that SPI would not have taken action on them anyway, even if the article still did exist. i had something like this where they wouldn't act when accounts had only been inactive for 2 weeks. We have 2 months of inactivity here. They seem quiet now. The articles are deleted. I don't think there is anything left to do. I understand the desire to prevent future problems but they have probably walked away and forgotten the account names even by now.... Or is there some active problem I am missing? (real question, not sarcastic) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Added a draft at MfD. Yes, agree about SPI. They can all be blocked NOTHERE, but as dormant accounts is there any motivation from passing admins here?
kinda doubtful. Smartse might care.... Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I already checked these accounts but they look like throwaways so it's a bit pointless blocking them now. There looks to be some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota/Archive based on the Furvah draft but I can't find any links to active accounts. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
We got / asked for any tools to help us out here? A single SPA is one thing, a cluster of SPA /socks is another. A tool to cluster these SPAs so we can flag up a sockfarm. Ultimately, similar to anti-vandal tools. Are there any tools? Catching them during editing rather than after they've given up would improve live articles. Widefox; talk 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really other than detective work, and it might not be so wise to explain here, so email me if you want some tips. Admin rights are very useful too. Is there any reason for you not to have them? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bellarmine University

Paid editor, disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Population Fund

Eyes on this one please.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: there are definitely potential copyvio problems with the article, but can you explain where the COI is here?  —SMALLJIM  20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jiří Kylián

Adding unsourced promotional content on behalf of Jiří Kylián, as disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand and have added a complete list of works and some awards to the Article, the other changes are now posted as suggestion to the Jiří Kylián talkpage. kind regards RobBothof (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Martin Bandier

SPA edits only Martin Bandier article. Attempted talk page discussion. Still makes changes based on "this edit has come directly from Martin Bandier himself". Maybe someone else needs to talk to him -- I've tried, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks. tagged, and am watching. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston

The article is being updated only by 2 SPA. Tarik "RVSSIAN" Johnston name suggests they are the person themselves, and Michael Peter Bundi has done most of the editing, and listed it as a B-grade biography (which I edited to C-grade). Just come across this article, but there's already a COI tag on it, and looks like advert tags have been removed as well. Would appreciate other users looking at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I had added those tags and a speedy deletion tag (which another user removed--one of the SPAs). The thing is I don't particularly want to do the afd as even though it meets speedy deletion criteriion, I'm not exactly sure if the sources themselves are reliable. They are surely not diverse. All of the poses, pictures, and wordings are promotional. If you would nominate it I would !vote delete. Tutelary (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
So according to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, both users are the same person (which I suspected might be the case), but they claim not to have COI. They're still working on the article, and removing some of the puffery, so I'm currently willing to accept that it could just be a newbie fan. Also, some of the references look okay (Jamaican newspapers), and so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
if they are not him, they are violating "impersonate" whatever that link is... so either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
According to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, they ditched that account and made the "Michael Peter Bundi" account instead. It's basically a case of whether you believe them or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so they've started using both accounts simultaneously (and renamed the Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston one), so I've opened up a SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Karlhard

Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks Widefox! am marking this resolved; seems all done. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
erm thanks Jytdog but not resolved (commented out resolved). My point is the other accounts aren't blocked, and I can't SPI them as the evidence is in the deleted articles that requires admin rights to access. So without SPI, I've listed here to get some suggestion. Widefox; talk 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
oh, sorry. removed the resolved tag. Harshul88 has not edited since sept 2014; and Carlossilva1971 and Fatkarl27 have not edited since Feb 2015. I can tell you that SPI would not have taken action on them anyway, even if the article still did exist. i had something like this where they wouldn't act when accounts had only been inactive for 2 weeks. We have 2 months of inactivity here. They seem quiet now. The articles are deleted. I don't think there is anything left to do. I understand the desire to prevent future problems but they have probably walked away and forgotten the account names even by now.... Or is there some active problem I am missing? (real question, not sarcastic) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Added a draft at MfD. Yes, agree about SPI. They can all be blocked NOTHERE, but as dormant accounts is there any motivation from passing admins here?
kinda doubtful. Smartse might care.... Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I already checked these accounts but they look like throwaways so it's a bit pointless blocking them now. There looks to be some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota/Archive based on the Furvah draft but I can't find any links to active accounts. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
We got / asked for any tools to help us out here? A single SPA is one thing, a cluster of SPA /socks is another. A tool to cluster these SPAs so we can flag up a sockfarm. Ultimately, similar to anti-vandal tools. Are there any tools? Catching them during editing rather than after they've given up would improve live articles. Widefox; talk 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Not really other than detective work, and it might not be so wise to explain here, so email me if you want some tips. Admin rights are very useful too. Is there any reason for you not to have them? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Levine

This account, named after two of his main characters, seems to be either Levine himself or somebody acting on his behalf. It adds him to alumni lists, articles tangentially related to his works, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Naam yoga

For over a month Annalynnehurtgen has been puffing up Naam yoga and Joseph Michael Levry (now a redirect), [18] [19], for instance. She's persistently removed referenced information about Levry's activity prior to his founding of Naam yoga without good reasons, e.g. [20] [21], and insists on referencing to the organization's own (prolific) publications, e.g. [22] [23]. She has indicated a connection with the organization a couple of times, [24] [25] and probably [26]. The problems continue [27] despite extensive attempts by several editors to help/advise her (see Talk:Joseph Michael Levry and User talk:Annalynnehurtgen). I'm posting this as an editor: I can't act as an admin as I've extensively edited the articles. I believe there is a very clear COI here and she should be restricted to making change requests on the article's talk page(s).  —SMALLJIM  20:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another heavily promoted, individual's twist/labeling on yoga. Consider deletion. Definitely needs a complete rewrite from far better sources, and such sources might not exist given what this is. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think an AfD would be successful, awful though the article still is (Annalynnehurtgen has reworked it and added more primary sources since my last edit). I assume that you agree with me about the COI anyway. Anyone else?  —SMALLJIM  12:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The editor needs to be restricted to the talk page other than for non-controversial edits.
I agree that the article appears to meet notability, but only because of publicity stunts and popularity.
The editing from Annalynnehurtgen has waned recently, so we might not get a response quickly. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to the article. Perhaps she has at last realised she was doing the wrong thing.  —SMALLJIM  22:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on COI for alt-med practitioners

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate/Monsanto

COI not likely. WP:Advocacy is an issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

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

In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people.[1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.

References

  1. ^ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No: BC 578 942
  • also today, SageRad posted a request to have examiner.com unblocked from the spamlist - examiner.com is essentially a wiki, and the class action lawyers posted a story (a press release, actually) there about the litigation. That "story" is linked from the main page of the class action website, which is here.
  • also added to the article about PCBs negative content about Monsanto's actions and liabilities in litigation over PCBs
  • i have asked SageRad if they have some relationship to this litigation here. I provided notice of this discussion here.
  • i will also add that I work a lot on articles related to GMO, including Monsanto and glyphosate, and so have been aware of SageRad's edits since they started and please note that the articles are all currently fine (i have not reviewed the changes to Large intestine as I don't watch that article). I have tried to work - and extensively so- with SageRad to teach him/her how Wikipedia works (see User_talk:SageRad), and we have tangled a bit over content as well as what Wikipedia is and is not, so I am stepping out of this, and will leave it to others to follow up on this with regard to getting a clear yes/no on relationship to the litigation. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I can speak here, right? Let me simply speak my side or my case, as the case may be. I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. I noted the case a month ago when i did a news search for "glyphosate" as i have been doing lately, and then when in noticed a section in the glyphosate article relating to legal cases, i thought it would be appropriate there. I do think the lawsuit is clever and i think it's a great idea, but i have no part in it nor do i know anyone involved directly with it. All i know is it's been the subject of a lot of talk and it's pending. I did try to cite the news story that described it instead of the legal filing itself, but i found that the website was blacklisted on WP and i have made a special whitelist request for that specific page so that perhaps we could cite a news article instead of a filing document, but i like the filing document nonetheless, as a reference.
  • As for the sort of background characterization that Jytdog makes about me here, i would take issue with just about every single aspect of it and i don't like the way this feels.
  • I am human being on the Earth, and i care about the Earth, and i care about people. Is that a conflict of interest? Isn't that enough to explain the fact that i am curious about Monsanto's actions and history and products? I care enough to be watchful and inquisitive and to use my mind to understand the world, and because i view Wikipedia as a great location where people can create their own knowledge base, i have come to it also with an eye to editing in such a way as to make it more useful and comprehensive to people in general. Like anyone, i come with my values and my own frame of reference, but it's nothing at all that could even be construed as a special interest or a vested interest other than the basic valuation of the ecology of the Earth, and the well-being of people, and of integrity and openness and transparency in the world.
  • Is there anything i ought to do relating to this COI investigation / accusation / notice or whatever the noun for this is?
  • Any questions you need answered? SageRad (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course you can speak here SageRad. As for me, I am willing to accept that there might just be WP:ADVOCACY here not financial COI but it will be for others to determine, not me. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I care about the Earth and i care about people, and that guides many of my actions. If that constitutes advocacy, then i suspect that nearly all people would qualify for that categorization. I care about accuracy and transparency and that knowledge is shared as widely as possible to all humans who want access to it, which i think is in line with the mission of Wikipedia. I do have a historical and sociological knowledge base that informs me that sometimes people do bad things, to the detriment of others, and i do wish to reduce that as much as possible through getting appropriate knowledge more widely known, and making sure histories are accurate and facts are accurate. That's about it, though. I do focus my actions appropriately to my values, and so i don't just go and work on fact-checking hairstyles ogf the 19th century very often, but i do edit other articles that are less controversial and happen to be in my wheel-house, and did so before i bothered to sign up with a user account. For example, i've edited a few articles on microbial ecology that had nothing to do with Monsanto or the whole big ag industry, but more of a special-knowledge thing, where i had a good grounding to edit an article here and there. I also love Wikipedia and spend a huge amount of time here learning about the world, and so i really am happy to have the chance to improve it when i can. Some topics are just controversial, i guess, and probably always will be because they embody some basic conflicts in society itself. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I can see Jytdog's concern, but don't really see a compelling case for a financial COI here if SageRed denies it. The level of insistence that he shows on the talk page with respect to his POV is a little troubling, as is the very narrow focus of his editing. (I would add that he seems very polite, which is a nice thing.) Sage, my suggestion is that you read the WP:ADVOCACY essay carefully, avoid WP:IDHT, and avoid focusing narrowly on glyphosate/Monsanto-related articles, especially as a new editor. Its good to make it clear to people that you are here to build an encyclopedia, and not just to use a platform built by others as a WP:SOAPBOX. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Formerly. I try to be polite though i can get a little worked up. I'm working on keeping the calmness. As for my focus, i happen to be the kind of person who focuses intensively on a topic for a while, and for the last couple of months, it's been learning all about glyphosate, and that's why i've been focused on the glyphosate and EPSP Synthase articles as well as gut microbiome and Monsanto as a company, to place it all in history. I also have personal experience with the PCBs pollution as i grew up near to the Hudson and Housatonic rivers, both of which are polluted with the products. So, this is the source of my focus, and i hope that's ok. Everyone writes what they know. I have read about 100 research articles and hundreds of abstracts on glyphosate and related biology and ecology in the last couple of months, and so my knowledge on this topic is currently at the forefront of my mind, and so when i returned to some of the Wikipedia articles that i'd seen a few months ago, i found myself wanting to update them a bit with some fact checks and something on the effects of glyphosate on microbes. I am very curious as to whether glyphosate has an effect on the human gut microbiome, but i am not weaving a synthesis into the article. I do wish that false facts get corrected, and i wish that some of the dynamics of glyphosate related to microbes is updated and strengthened. This is what i would have wished to have seen a few months ago when i first started to learn about glyphosate and arrived at that page. I hope this helps to explain my perspective and focus. SageRad (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see obvious COI at all in this case, but defintiely strong advocacy-like behavior to the degree this editor keeps trying to insert content about gut microbiota in somewhat tangential articles to the point it becomes undue weight. I've been watching conversations at articles and especially on their user talk page where it doesn't seem like they are hearing the problem with undue weight or advocacy-like behavior. New editors get some slack, but we might be reaching the point whether we need to ask is SageRad is WP:HERE based on the editing history. I highly suggest SageRad takes the advice they've been given to heed. Otherwise, this isn't the place to discuss next steps or actions if that doesn't occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This feels like a witch hunt. There is good reason that everyone brings different things to the table, and you seem to not like what i'm bringing to the table and then calling me an "advocate" because i have been studying glyphosate in relation to the gut microbiome and i want to include facts relevant to my subject of interest and recent study. Isn't this how a great encyclopedia gets built, one like no other, where hundreds of people can contribute to each article what is closest to their experience and their passion? You want to label me an "advocate" because i am watchful for the health of the planet and the people? You want to label me an "advocate" because i wanted to make sure that the incident in Japan where PCBs got into rice bran oil and thousands of people got sick and hundreds of people died stayed in the article about PCBs, whereas it was summarily removed by Jytdog for the reason that it was supposedly unsourced, whereas it actually contained a link to another Wikipedia article that sourced it extremely well, and i was able to find a relevant source in 1 minute of Googling? As if that sort of thing is somehow ok but my wish to include that part of the PCBs story back into the article with a suitable source, or wanting to include information about what Monsanto knew and when, in regard to PCBs, is somehow a part of a bigger picture in which i am some sort of nefarious actor who is motivated by ... i don't know, maybe working for "Big Organic" or exhibiting "activist tendencies" (as if wanting a better world is a bad thing) or some other character flaw that makes me so passionate to include information about glyphosate on effects on microbes... i don't know what's going on here but i get the feeling of a witch hunt, and i'm really serious about that. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Whatever happened to diversity of opinions, and checks and balances, and balancing out different opinions about what is relevant, and what the focus should be on... No, just bring the person in for a "conflict of interest" and then insinuate that they're an "advocate" because they have a particular interest. I noted that lawsuit because i am interested in the topic of glyphosate, not the other way around. I note that bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate because i'm interested in the way that glyphosate works and the effects it has in the real world, in the soil of the field and in plants' endophytic bacteria, and in the gut bacteria. I am a microbial ecologist and this is what i have studied and worked with in the real world, and i am here to use my experience and passion to improve Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there an actual COI or not? Because if there isn't (and currently there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that there is), then this isn't the place for this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Joseph2302 - I presented the facts I had at hand. SageRad has responded. Some folks have weighed in. It is up to you or someone else to step up and make a determination and close this. I know I usually do that but I cannot do it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
oh to heck with it, I will close it. No clear COI here. Just advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Footwearspecialist

Footwearspecialist's linkspam addition to Bata Shoes. His creation Creative Recreation is WP:ADMASQ low quality press releases, inquirer.com, digitaljournal.com, etc. -- pretty transparent COI editing. Footwearspecialist has not responded to COI notice on talkpage (actually, has not used talkpage).

Baaleditor appears to have collaborated with Footwearspecialist on The Alice app, so listed here too, though not as clear cut. Baaleditor also created CarePlus which was virtually all sourced to press releases. Both editors are focused on commercial/bio articles of the type to attract PR type editing. — Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not spam in Bata shoe. please check my edits. I used refill application to fix the references in the article. I don't have any connection with Baaleditor. I was trying to learn the process of uploading copyright logo in article and found The Alice app from recent changes and uploaded the logo in the article. I disclose that I have interest in designing, specially shoe designing. I welcome other editors to edit in the articles I created and make them encyclopedic. Thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwearspecialist (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 May 2015‎

Creative Recreation was a labor of love? Please state that you're not being compensated for any of this. Or the converse. — Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

UCW

Hi – I have recently posted on the talk page of the article for University Canada West. My COI is that I am a communications professional representing the university. The current article lacks important information on the institution’s history, ownership structure and academic activities. I have submitted a draft Summary, History and Academics section to my user space here, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Many thanks BrandDude (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for declaring your coi.
I'm trying to help with the article, but we certainly could use more. The school recently went through a merger/acquisition (I'm still not clear what happened), and there's much to be updated and reviewed. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Emmanuel Lemelson, Lemelson Capital Management

User has said they have COI, so this discussion doesn't need to happen here. Seems it's gone to ANI instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year, Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else to Wikipedia. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions. Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, do you actually have a COI or not? Because if there isn't a COI, then it's not relevant to this noticeboard. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I have no conflict of interest at all. Let me see if I can find a more appropriate place for it. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Closing this thread, as the text above has gone to WP:ANI now, and the user has claimed they don't have COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple article COI

On Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#An audacious and preposterous assumption of knowledge, they listed all these parties as their clients. Some are up for AfD, looks like they haven't actually edited any of them though. They've also got a draft article on the go, but doesn't look like it'll pass WP:GNG anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The only corrections that I have been made were ones of a factual basis. I will give you an example. The UTFO page stated that Doctor Ice and Kangol Kid met as dancers for group Whodini. That is incorrect. Doc and Kangol met in high school and were a dance duo called The Keystone Dancers before becoming dancers for Whodini.

This type of correction is all I am doing or have done. Correcting incorrect information of a factual nature. After all, isn't wikipedia supposed to be a citable encyclopedia with Factual information ?Lion126 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much COI as it is bullshit. Chuck D. is, and has been for a long time, managed by Walter Leaphart. See [28] and [29]. Sir Mix-A-Lot is managed by Richard De La Font. Anyone who comes around claiming "I manage Chuck D, so I'm important" is full of shit. I'd believe nothing this guy says from now on. --Jayron32 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that would make sense with just about everything else I've seen them write on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Unfair comment, I apologise. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call! Only I never...NEVER...stated that I MANAGED either of them. I have talked about handling publicity and protection duties and I didn't specify which role I worked in with ANY of the artists mentioned, other than Kangol and UTFO. This whole issue has gone beyond ridiculous. Lion126 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, Lion never did say he managed them. He said they were clients. The logical assumption from what he said and they way he said it was that he managed them, and it takes investigation to see that he runs some sort of close protection and publicity organisation rather than artist management. That does not remove the fact that he has a conflict of interest, though I suspect their management would not appreciate the way he has handled it. This whole unfortunate episode may affect his business. Google has a long memory, something we would all do well to remember in our daily doings online.
A decent by-product is that articles which needed attention have now come to attention and may be improved because of it. AFD may not be cleanup, but it does well at provoking it. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • User is now indef-blocked for a legal threat, after intervention by the S1W. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree good is going to come out of this, either the articles will get deleted, or they'll get improved- both of which are good for the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment User is now unblocked, so this COI still applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Edward J. Walsh

spinfisher has disclosed. misunderstandings drove problems. should be calm going forward Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Edward J. Walsh was created on 21 February 2014. Only 3 days later, Spinfisher started editing the article and, so far, over half of his 78 edits have been either to the article, its talk page or otherwise directly related discussions including some deleted images. It's been a while but, as I remember, I became associated because the article when the article creator was having problems with Spinfisher deleting references,[30] substituting references for other sources and generally adding unverifiable content.[31] Some of Spinfisher's edits were no doubt due to inexperience, such as repeatedly restoring a link used as a reference to the "External links" section.[32][33][34] Spinfisher has identified himself as a child of the subject in the images that he has uploaded (all now deleted), even calling one now deleted image "Dad227".[35] I eventually tagged the article with {{COI}},[36] but Spinfisher has persistently been removing the tag.[37][38][39][40] Since tagging the article, he has also removed valid references without explanation,[41] replacing them with others,[42] I had almost forgotten about the article when the tag was again removed today.[43] The last time I edited the article or its talk page was in June last year, so I'm not sure what the best action is here. Should the tag simply be removed? I haven't actually checked the article to see how much of themore contentious edits made by Spinfisher have been removed. Like the original creator, who was told by Spinfisher to "stop needlessly editing the Edward Walsh page",[44] I had abandoned it until today. My concern with Spinfisher is that he still doesn't consider that he has a conflict of interest editing his father's article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Something that puzzled me was Spinfisher's persistent replacement of the Washington Post reference with one from The Oregonian. I have just noticed that the image in the Oregonian article is credited to Edward J. Walsh's wife (I'll leave it to the reader to work out the relationship to Spinfisher). I can't see any other reason for the swap. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this; you have been really patient with them, thanks for that. i have left a message for the user and added a COI editnotice to the talk page and am watching it, so will start to work with you to keep the article on track. i removed the COI tag b/c right now the article is OK. we should put it back again, if they keep trying to edit directly. it will be ANI time soon if they keep editing in ways that violate policy. let's hope they come around. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
this is all good now via discussion at spinfisher's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83&oldid=1084318698"