Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 82

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scholars who appear to be anonymously self-promoting

Moved from AN/I. Additionally, notified user per requirements of most every noticeboard. Sam Walton (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Action requested Just discussion; if there's a better place (with traffic) please move or tell me.

Issues involved WP:Autobiography, WP:PROMO, WP:COI

General stituation
I frequent science articles, where from time to time I see a registered user just adding what appears to be their own WP:PRIMARY sources, e.g., material about a single researcher, or article edits with refs authored by that researcher. Sometimes the material is obviously problematic, i.e., WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, but sometimes it seems ok in its own right. An example of the latter is User Research83. I have no specific complaints about that user's edits, other than it seems like a stealth COI/PROMO situation. On the other hand, their edits seem decent enough. Before I can decide whether to reach out to Research83 about this, I would like your help deciding what I think about it... after all, we should retain interested experts whenever possible. Note this filing is not seeking admin action on Research83, or I would have pinged them in this filing. Quite the opposite, this filing is about me, and educating me about these issues. When I know more, maybe I will post to their talk page.

Conclusion How do the rest of you view these situations? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems to be a (massive) WP:COI-issue. See here. Author wrote about himself, cited himself. This does not seem to promulgate WP:NPOV. Kleuske (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for noticing they self-identified, confirming my impression. Aside from the obvious COI, the material seems decent enough had it been added by an uninvolved 3rd party. Do you think COI alone is a reason to beat on them? Or is the project more improved by retaining this expert in those subject areas? And how does one move such an editor from just self-promoting to engaging in their subject expertise overall instead of just material about themselves? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: How neutral is an article going to be that's largely entirely written by the subject himself? See the write-up here, where the problems are neatly summed up. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Laugh-and-half, you've linked 10-month old criticisms, in reply to which the ed made nearly 500 responsive edits. This is an expert we should retain and foster to work on the overall subject area, instead of biting them because, technically, they are so far engaged in a COI. Do we care about our rules so much that we drive away subject-matter experts who show responsiveness to our feedback? (And some more feedback for him.... the link to his CV should be deleted from his article.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey... You brought it up. If you want to critisize anyone, apply it to yourself. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

my goodness! OK, I added the usual links above. I also tagged the relevant articles with COI and added connected contributor tags to the article Talk pages. The behavior is completely out of line and violates WP:COI - he is the major contributor to the article about himself and adding citations to his own work is clear violation of WP:SELFCITE. Oy. he will get topic banned if he doesn't stop. We do love subject matter experts, heck we need them, but not when they love themselves more than the encyclopedia. If he is here for self-promotion then he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

status: i worked over all the articles and removed the WP:SELFCITE WP:PROMO content. Conflicted editor has engaged a little at Talk:Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, in a non-promising manner. I have the articles watchlisted.. we'll see if he gets it, or not. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about your various comments above. And they give me the feeling that you underestimate the problem. Labeling text as COI or self-promotion is simplifying the issue and denying the complex situation in which scientists find themselves when writing in Wikipedia (WP) on topics on which they also undertake academic research. I am not denying that scientists may sometimes try to promote their works (don’t also forget that the modern university is continuously stimulating them to reach out to society to explain their research findings). Nevertheless, one should keep in mind that they write the best about topics they have worked on much. And if a scientist is asked to write a review article or handbook chapter, then no handling editor will be surprised or irritated to see him/her refer to own (relevant) work.

To take my case: believe it or not, my intention was not to promote my work; I just looked at the topics I am most connected with (stimulated by an Orphan tag on the JCJM van den Bergh article) and found that some of my most relevant (and some much cited) work related to a few topics was missing, while adding it could provide relevant content. Perhaps the tone of what I wrote was imperfect, but that’s why others in an open Wikipedia process can adapt, and this in fact happened. I have more than 160 journal articles, and just added text related to four of these in some very closely related WP articles. Another thing would be to try to promote work that is far-fetched, which I saw one of you noted to not be the case here.

To illustrate, I contributed a paragraph to the “Degrowth” WP article. Being a known critic of this idea, I couldn’t help noticing that its section on “Criticisms” was dealing with very implicit, vague, far-fetched issues. This immediately explains the tag in the article saying adequate references are lacking. I would add that the few references mentioned are not specifically focused on degrowth criticisms, but more (and too) general. If I was a “handling editor” of this article, I would say: delete all of its text on criticism and rewrite it, focusing on specific criticism that has been explicitly stated somewhere (published), with adequate references. I was in Barcelona when the degrowth movement accelerated there, and was asked to give a keynote speech at their conference as they knew my earlier work, notably on “the GDP paradox” (not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia - and the mention I added was deleted). As a result, I wrote a very critical article on degrowth (published, and much cited now). One main promotor of degrowth (Giorgos Kallis) wrote a reply to my article in the same journal (also much cited). But neither of these are mentioned in the degrowth WP article. So somehow Wikipedia is not working well – because as far as I know these two articles represent the most explicit and elaborate criticism and defense of degrowth. Perhaps it is because the WP degrowth article was dominated by activists and degrowth promotors.

To summarize, the problem as I see it is that if scientists write in WP about topics that they find important and know something about, their texts will often be motivated by, and overlap in content with, their earlier academic publications. As a consequence, it will be very difficult to not refer to these (as they could be criticized for not referencing adequately, which would even contradict acceptable standards of academic practice). If they would write their text based on years of research without any reference to their work you might conclude “excellent piece” but when a reference to own work would be added (and justified) the conclusion might be “alarm, COI”.

Please note this communication is not to convince you that I didn’t make mistakes (in hindsight, I would have done things differently), but to clarify that combining science and Wikipedia is not as easy as it may seem from a distance by non-scientists. I expect (hope) I am not the first to note this. In view of this, I would recommend not throwing around so quickly strong accusations of COI, but instead try to respond more constructively and moderately, especially to not completely demotivate newcomers from contributing to WP. Research83 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Every single edit you have made in WP - every single edit - and they are all here to see - has been about you. That is not "complex" that is raw self-promotion. If you cannot see that... whew. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You miss the intention of my post, and you don't have to repeat your opinions all the time. You made your point already too many times. I indeed haven't been writing on topics about which I don't work, and I haven't tried to write articles unrelated to my work. And I don't apologize for it.Research83 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

it is entirely possible to write about topics on which you work, and cite other economists. most of most editors' work is improving existing articles, which is what you have done outside of working on the article about you. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand that if I talk about a topic like Degrowth, I can only repeat my earlier expressed criticism. Wikipedia is not for reporting new research, right. I would be dishonest if I would have added the information about degrowth as I did without referring to my earlier journal article, because that’s where it was based on. There is no way of attributing this information to anybody else. So stop the generalities, and tell me exactly how in this Degrowth article I could have done it otherwise, because I just don’t see it.Research83 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


I would finally like to add a procedural remark, namely that I don’t deserve to be discussed at this page, for two reasons: (1) The title of this section is “Scholars who appear to be anonymously self-promoting” but I was not anonymous at the time this was posted. In fact, it was very clear for everyone interacting with me who I was, since the beginning of the communications about the article on JCJM van den Bergh, and I even undersigned one talk communication with my full name. The ones who are anonymous here are all of you – I am not (and I get the feeling neither are many other scientists writing on WP). (2) At the top of this page one guideline for a topic to be addressed here states: “This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue”. But I was never informed on my personal talk page about COI issues related to my edits on the articles World population, Green gross domestic product, Economic growth, Degrowth, Human overpopulation and Ecological footprint. The first thing that happened is that on 14:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I received a notification from someone that “there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident” (a message which I saw only 6 days later). So in this case it is not true that “ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted” before this COI Noticeboard page was involved. This doesn’t reflect a moderate approach in dealing with a newcomer who already showed constructive behavior in responding to suggestions by editors. I admit that I had to learn to use talk pages, this was new to me, and I was even confused for a while about multiple talk pages (for the first article and for me as a person). Now I have that at least clear, and I look at all talk pages. Research83 (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see, the first time the selfdisclosure was noted was 17 March. Is there an earlier one that I've missed? In any case wp:COI is not the only issue here. There is also wp:NOTMYSPACE, wp:EXPERT, wp:ACADEME, wp:SELFCITE, and just plain wp:Notability. Everyone engaged here seems to have missed one or more basic points, so perhaps some review is worth while. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that all together, LeadSongDog. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I was notified of this discussion. I approved the (auto)bio article, after it had been considerably shortened by the author after the first declines; this of course did not mean it was anything near perfect, and jtdog has done a good job of improving it subsequently.
As I understand it, normal practice is to cite oneself,but to put the references on the talk page, as ask if it should be inserted. this can obviously cause difficulties when the person is one of the key contributors to the subject. Perhaps if the end result is satisfactory, that's all we need, but someoneother than VanB, but who understands the subject, must do the actual revision. I hope there is someone qualified here. This dosed not seem a case of deliberate refusal to follow with WP rules like we see in many coi situations. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Metcalf sniper attack

It seems to me that IP 192.34.210.170 and CMAyala (talk · contribs) are making promotional edits to the Metcalf sniper attack article. Perhaps I am reading too much into this though, so I am going to disengage and am respectfully asking for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. All their edits have been revdelled for COPYVIO. I've provided the named account with a COI notice and COIN notice, and am watching. We'll take further action if they come back. Watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Morales

Resolved
 – user blocked for IMPERSONATION Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As the username suggests, the user is editing their own page. They are repeatedly adding a career summary which duplicates the infobox, and is unsourced, and is claiming ownership of the article, see here, here, here. This ownership behaviour is clearly inappropriate, and they are clearly ignoring my COI notice given here. Another claim of ownership here. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am Natalie Morales from the Today Show and I should be allowed to edits my own page as I wish. I want a career timeline as many pages do. I know I don't own it but I should be allowed to edit or add what I want as it is a article on me. NatalieLMorales (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is no need for a career summary, it's an exact copy of the information in the infobox. And your only argument for having it is that "I want it, therefore I should have it". It's a completely unnecessary addition, and therefore should not be added. Also, if you read WP:COI, it strongly suggests that editors should not directly edit pages where they have a conflict of interest. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: Despite an edit warring warning, this user has broken WP:3RR at Natalie Morales, and so has also been reported to WP:AN3. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Can someone please remove Natalie Morales edits please, I don't want to revert, as I'll break WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ms. Morales, I understand your desire to control the page. However, Wikipedia is quite different from many other sites (such as, say, Linked In), where the goal is to allow people to be in charge of distributed information about themselves. Our guidelines on conflict of interest have stood for long, and are one of the key parts to how this project works. You are encouraged to suggest corrections and additions on the Talk page of the article, but the fact that the article is about you does not mean that it belongs to you. As you're a journalist, I suspect you would be adverse to the subjects of your news coverage getting final say over that coverage. This is a similar situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Given another editor has been edit warring and using the same reasoning to add the timeline and that getting blocked for editing your bio is far from media-savvy I wouldn't assume the editor is who she says she is on good faith alone. I've provided instructions to her on how to confirm her identity. --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, based purely on behavioral evidence I strongly suspect the most recent editor (who posted above) of WP:IMPERSONATION, and that the two editors who have edit-warred with others over the identical change are one and the same (and neither actually Natalie Morales). The editor should understand that there is a mechanism in place for admins to determine if multiple accounts are being used to circumvent Wikipedia policies, and that the response when this is found to be the case is to block all such accounts (and any other accounts they might create) indefinitely. To my knowledge, no such investigation has been requested of these accounts so far, but the editor would do well to consider carefully whether they should continue behavior that could lead to one if they persist. Dwpaul Talk 03:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
After all this edit warring, the article is currently back to where it was before all the edit warring.[1] The article content seems reasonable enough. Other than waiting out the sockpuppet check, does anything need to be done? John Nagle (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Content-wise, I think we're okay. --NeilN talk to me 13:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
editor has been blocked for IMPERSONATION. marking this as resolved. nice work! Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bank of Maldives

Resolved
 – COI editor blocked for username violation Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the user's username (BML social media) that they have a conflict of interest. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, looks like User:The Fifth Horseman has removed the promotional content, and I've added some citations for some things. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
also a username violation. that account needs to declare with COI and follow WP:COI. I have the article watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
account has been blocked for username violation. article is calm now. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yaniv Rokah

Resolved
 – SPI blocked accounts. they are no longer active. great editor on film has taken and is improving the articles. Jytdog (talk)

User has previously received a warning on their talk page for writing the latter article due to COI from having directed it (and that article was also flagged as a copy-paste of a Vimeo page by CorenSearchBot). The former article is probably about the user and contains numerous unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims which, if removed, make the article basically "Yaniv Rokah is an Israeli-American actor-director who directed Queen Mimi". Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

He has a WP:Single purpose account. Doubtful that he is here to improve the encyclopedia. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
it appears we have a sock now too. added it above, and have opened a case at SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yaniv_Rokach. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
have also added connected contributor tags, if these usernames match the people in the real world. we don't know at this point. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
New one - Yarivrock. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
SPI case was resolved and resulted in blocks. Those accounts are no longer active. E.M.Gregory and improved both articles, likely saving them from deletion. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

Raben Group please help edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raben_Group 162.212.107.47 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

fixed formatting a bit.. checking now. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, crazy edit warring going on. i restored to last stable and requested page protection. issued edit war warnings. listed parties above... still looking. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
and provided notice to everyone. 162.212.107.47 two questions. Are you also one of the users named, and why do you think there is conflict of interested going on - is it just behavior, or has someone said something? Please answer both. Thanks. thx Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
quick investigation, all these accounts are recent SPA. it looks to me like everybody except Barredondo may be a single sockpuppet - i have filed a case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richie1Thoa to see. They may have some COI; waiting to hear from them; it would be in opposition to Raben Group. It appears that Barredondo may have a COI favoring the firm. They all have COI notices on their pages. Watching the page and here, to see what unfolds now. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Jytdog Thank you for responding to this issue. I have been on wikipedia for a while and made a few edits before, to other pages. I've responded to your COI notice, as well. Thank you.
my pleasure. thanks for responding here. i'll look for your reply on your talk page. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

using several draftspace pages as webhost/for promotion?

Drafts created by CompanyDude:

None of these things would have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving in mainspace and I think this sort of draft-writing should be discouraged per WP:NOTWEBHOST and I think it's evidently done by people with a COI for the purpose of promotion. The CompanyDude account was started a day after NetherDragons's article LLRRMMGG Application Development got speedied and he was accused of having a conflict of interest. CD claims on his userpage, "I like writing about companies and wish to become a reporter later on" which I think is an obvious attempt to pretend that he doesn't have a COI.

It's pretty impressive that an 11-year-old is working on these kinds of things but it's just a very bad idea to do this kind of thing on Wikipedia, firstly because it's not allowed here and secondly because the internet remembers everything and 10 or maybe even 5 years in the future they might really regret posting these things for everyone to see. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeraphine Gryphon, I'm not Jacob Caravaggio... Please leave the drafts until I can add more notable stuff in it... I'm still doing research... The story behind the LR Apps was I was watching one of his videos and clicked on his Wiki user link in the description and noticed the deletion, so I decided to research it, make an account then write about it. Remember, if you can please leave the drafts. The Man Of Companys... CompanyDude 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompanyDude (talk • contribs)
CompanyDude, please read WP:COI, and especially the section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work. Can you see that you should not be creating these articles? Let us know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, I never wrote about myself except on my user page... Jeraphine Gryphon, I only edited ND's page to change the LR Apps link and changed the ·s to *s -The Man Of Companys... CompanyDude 20:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read COI. Here I will quote part of it for you: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends". It also says: "Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest." Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

CompanyDude, we understand your enthusiasm, but it is misplaced. I was at school with a lad called Ian Bell, he wrote a computer game at university with his mate David Braben. You may have heard of it, it was called Elite. That's a notable game (and even then I looked for sources about Ian and could not find any, though I did find some for Keith "Flagpole" Ashman, who was in the same form as me. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, as it were. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: admin JzG has deleted the drafts. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

That's me, by the way. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Guy for doing that (although I wonder if the article on Caravaggio could have made it... I was going to do some googling on him but didn't get there yet; the others did seem hopeless to me at this time) & thanks Jeraphine for bringing this. I'm still interested in getting CompanyDude to understand our COI guideline so the problems don't continue - hopefully he will keep talking. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I did some shallow googling of his name and didn't find any sources that might indicate notability. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, that gives me more comfort with the deletion of that article. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
L Aged 11 with an app development team numbering two? Writing apps in Visual Basic? In his spare time while at school? I don't think you have much to worry about there, mate. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Telcordia Technologies

The user is deleting sourced information about the company history here, here, here. and replacing it with unsourced content. Also added unsourced promotional content here, here.

All of their edit summaries have said "I am a company representative and updating old info", so clear COI (and possible undisclosed paid editor), and I have already warned the user about COI, removal of sourced content, and addition of unsourced/promotional content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That article is awful, especially since it's redirected from Bellcore. Bellcore was once the design and engineering part of the Bell System, with a long history. It was the parent of Bell Labs. Today, it's a minor unit of Ericsson. The article should cover the history. What Telcordia really does today is partly covered at Telcordia LERG Routing Guide. They used to manage the North American Numbering Plan for telephone numbers. Some carrier-neutral party has to do that. Right now, Neustar is doing that, but the contract goes up for bid this year and Telcordia is fighting for it.[2][3]. Looks like Telcordia just won that one.[4] Anyway, there's a lot to say about Telcordia, but that article doesn't say it. It reads like brochureware. John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"company rep" is a paid editor, for sure! tagged the article and its talk page, and provided uw-coi for the user. watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This user has still been editing the article, what should be done now? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw that. edits were noncontroversial and factual so i let them go. am bummed the user is not talking with us, which is a sign that they are WP:NOTHERE. fwiw with that pattern they are going to end up edit warring or something and get blocked or banned. we'll have to just keep watching and be on it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't like them editing with the COI, and blatantly ignoring all advice given to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Prima Advertising

I believe this user is either making paid edits for Prima Advertising of Indonesia or is self-promoting a book. A cursory google search on the user name will show evidence of the connection of the name to the advertising company. Brianhe (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Just for information, my name is Prima Subiakto and I love Adventure, so my wikiname is AdvPrima. I am NOT AFFILIATED, GET PAID or COOPERATE with Pima Advertising of Indonesia. To be honest, this is the first time I heard that name. I am ready to face LEGAL ACTION if my statement above is INCORRECT.

Why I wrote the article of Jeffrey Polnaja, although I do not know him? As the first Indonesian to be able to circumnavigate the world, he deserves to get it. I made based on RELIABLE SOURCE of information as attached (references), contains no personal opinion. I am writing this just to REVEAL ACTUAL FACTS.

Purely, I just wanted to contribute to wikipedia, I had no intention to make money from it. As a beginner, I am still far from perfect. If my article that I contributed is less than perfect in grammar, please ADVISE me or I would be more than happy if you spent just little time to do a favour and fix it so that I can learn from you... Thanks for your attention. --AdvPrima (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

your editing appears very promotional and your explanation about you username is not credible. I have posted a notice on your userpage for you to change your username so that an admin can review it. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You need more concrete evidence of COI than this. This looks a lot like a newbie who translated an article. There are issues here but they are fixable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that COI case is marginal at this point and it does look like a newbie; they are not mutually exclusive, however. Am keeping an eye on this. Will respond more at the main article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Scripps College

This user is adding vast amounts of unsourced content to Scripps College, and removing some sourced content (compare old version and current version). They also appear to be ignoring warnings on their talkpage abount conflict of interest, username violation, and adding unsourced content. Clearly this user is a single-purpose account, who doesn't appear willing to listen to more experienced users trying to help them. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for bringing. i reverted the changes and tagged the Talk page. Let's see if they comply with your username notice and the COI notice.... Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The user has been indef blocked as a promotion-only account. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Elgar Fleisch and User:EFLeisch

In the Elgar Fleisch lemma, the User:EFLeisch keeps removing the normal "selected publication" section. Now I request some help here, since I restored a normal selected publication section for the third time. This person apparently wants to structure the article about him on his own way, censoring the selected publication section. He doesn't respond to the comments I made on his talk page. Could some administrator explain him the way it works around here. Thank you. Mdd (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Claude-Henri Chouard

User has a WP:SPA who has worked only on these two articles. Tagged articles and provided notice. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Liposuction

Stale case, in that user Etna-research was active mostly in 2014. WP:SPA who did only promotional editing on this and some hearing aid technology as well. Just recording here so it can be found later if needed. Tagged articles and provided notice.Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Alfred A. Tomatis

Possibly stale. SPA who edited fro June 2012 to December 2014. Tagged articles and provided notice. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actavis

OY - pointed out by Formerly 98 here. Thanks! Have tagged, notified, put username warning, etc. article needs serious review. just oy. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MED-EL


There is a history of sock-puppeting around articles related to MED-EL, as these articles are. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josabeth that were all blocked in Jan 2015. Still working on this... Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

added more parties. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rajat Sharma

Single-purpose account making unconstructive edits on Rajat Sharma. Attempting to censor the article by removing the sourced controversy section here and here, and adding lots of unencyclopedic, unsourced content here. Ignoring my warnings about censorship and blanking of content on their talkpage. To me this seems like an attempt to promote Rajat Sharma in violation of WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: They are continuing to ignore me, and here have claimed to be his daughter. So my COI hunch was correct, but I don't know how to proceed from here. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
the daughter thing is enough... per WP:COISELF - "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends.'. I will come look in with you... Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Instead of posting here, they've posted at WP:BLPN#Rajat Sharma, claiming to have used a source (which they didn't actually include). and that the information at Rajat Sharma is libelous. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Turns out their entire edit was just copying this. I've issue a copy-vio warning, but added a bit of the content back in. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
oh, passionate, conflicted new editors. oy. well at least they are talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SoundBite Hearing System

Stale case, in that user Amyfallon918 was active for a short while in March 2013 and Etna-research was active mostly in 2014. Both were WP:SPA who did only promotional editing on those articles (Etna-research on Liposuction as well). Just recording here so it can be found later if needed.Tagged articles and provided notice. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

AmyFallon918 has 12 edits and hasn't edited in 2 years. Why are you bringing a case now when there is no present danger or prospect of a COI? These talk page notices are very intimidating and I doubt she would try to come back and edit after seeing them. This case might have had relevance in 2013 but it's dated. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
is that a real question, or a rhetorical one? Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ingleby Company

User has repeatedly edited article in unconstructive ways, removing references and more. Their username seems to imply they are some involvement with the articles subject. User was notified nearly two weeks ago of issue. via Template:Uw-coi-username but has ignored it and made further CoI edits. JTdaleTalk~ 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Whitewashing, copyvio; I've tagged and posted on the talk page, but not tagged the article itself as (as far as I can see) all the edits have been reverted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Jim Badra

This user changed Jim Badra here, claiming to have interviewed him. Whilst this may be true, it was unsourced material, so I reverted back. They now seem pretty pissed with me, see here, and I feel like this could become a massive situation/argument, so I wanted more people's input and opinion on the matter. I have just mentioned conflict of interest and WP:BURDEN again in my reply to them here, but I still think more people being involved would be better. I have previously posted a COI notice on their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Watching. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

James N. Weinstein

The complete COI discussion is here, but the user now understands COI & copyright issues, and has said they'll post suggested changes to the talkpage. Please can a few more people add the page to their watchlists, so that people can respond better/more quickly to the user's requests/discussion on the page? The page was unsourced, until I added 2 sources after a quick Google search. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Houston Galveston Institute and related

WP:SPA account making edits related to Houston Galveston Institute. Lorenzo Cohen has been PRODed. Have not had time to look further. Have provided coi notice on user's talk page and notice of this, for now. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

At least some recopied entirely or almost entirely from the relevant web sites,. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I was making some updates to pages that did not have proper links to them (Harlene Anderson, Houston Galveston Institute). When creating the page for Lorenzo Cohen, a researcher in the field of Integrative Medicine, I saw that Vanda Scaravelli's page was improperly titled. The title was listed as "User:Gutlessyogi/Vanda scaravelli"... I decided to correct the issue by editing the title, but then saw that this was impossible, so I made a new page called "Vanda Scaravelli" and moved the page information over to it. My apologies if I went about this the wrong way! Could you tell me if there is a way to alert the editor of this page to change the title of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loucasteph (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Loucasteph. I left some questions for you over at your talk page... but since you are here, I will copy them here, and will remove them from there...
Would you please answer the following questions, clearly and directly? It would help clarify things:
  • are you an employee of the MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Houston Galveston Institute, or any of its affiliated institutions or practitioners?
  • are you receiving pay of any kind for editing Wikipedia?
  • are you a practitioner yourself?
  • your edit note when you created the Lorenzo Cohen article read: 'We created this page for Dr. Lorenzo Cohen, a prolific author in the field of Integrative Medicine and Faculty member at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center". Who is the "we" to whom you referred?
Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an update to the COI post. We had a discussion on my User Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loucasteph (I am not sure how to post a within Wiki link, so I used an external link). Jytdog was very helpful and explain COI information to me. He/She explained about steps to be transparent. I have updated my User Page and am now addressing the issues he/she brought to my attention. This has been such a great learning experience for me and I am glad to have been shown the Wikipedia ways. I am looking forward to further involvement in the community. Loucasteph (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for posting here Loucasteph. Difs of the discussion we had are here,and i am glad you found our interaction to be helpful - i've enjoyed talking with you too. In that discussion you said you are a graduate, which is great, but it leaves some things dangling. Just to give the commmunity comfort, it would be very helpful if you would briefly and directly answer the four questions above. Would you please do so? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

David Coburn (politician)

User claimed to be the subject of the article in edit notes, was not talking, not responsive to notices on his Talk page, was edit warring, was blocked after Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:David_Coburn_MEP_reported_by_User:Nomoskedasticity_.28Result:Blocked.29 a filing at 3RR board Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hammet Cult

Resolved
 – hoax article deleted; username tagged for violation; user warned for hoaxing. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User (article creator) has the same name as one of the referenced websites in the article (www.weregretnothing.com). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a promotional article for a film in development. Proposed deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. John Nagle (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It now looks like a hoax. A murder cult in Vancouver in 2011 would have news coverage. It doesn't. Neither "Hammett Cult" or "Edward Hammett" comes up in Google. The "weregretnothing" site referenced was set up by the movie production; it says so at the bottom of the page.[5] This is looking totally bogus. Sent to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hammet_Cult#The_Hammet_Cult. John Nagle (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
agree - promo/fraud fake news. also the username is against policy. have tagged for COI and notified user of COI and username issues. ToU violation is likely as well. This should be speedy for sure. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
An anon from Vancouver just added "Edgar Hammet currently remains at large" to the article. [6] Someone is not getting the message that this has to stop. John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Trolls thrive on this kind of thing, just revert and forget and wait til the AfD gets closed. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
article deleted as blatant hoax, here. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
edit warned for hoaxing. closing this now. thanks all. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Public Storage

I previously made substantial and bold edits to this article in a volunteer role, with no expectation of ever having a COI. I now do have a COI and am advertising the change in my status, asking for any appropriate scrutiny of my prior, volunteer edits. More information here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Country USA

Resolved
 – COI editor no longer active; appears to be throwaway sock account Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I warned Gdavis2012 in 2012 that there was an appearance of COI and single-purpose editing over her involvement in this article[7][8]. Then again in 2013 when the editor continued single-purpose editing here [9]. After the 2013 warning, which was acknowledged by Gdavis2012 [10], she continued her single-purpose editing, including this 2014 laudatory inclusion of the company's corporate contributions [11], introduced with the blatantly promotional phrase "Giving back is at the core of Sleep Country’s company culture." Similarly promotional additions to article on parent company, Sleep Train e.g. [12]

Gdavis2012 is continuing SPA behavior in 2015 by editing this article last week [13] and this week [14] and has not substantially diversified editing behavior as requested.

There is additional off-wiki evidence that Gdavis2012 is not only a single-purpose account but actually an undisclosed paid editor in the employ of Sleep Train's marketing department, in violations of the Terms of Use. I'd be happy to provide this if requested via email. — Brianhe (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleep Country USA and The Sleep Train have both been acquired by Mattress Firm, which is now the biggest mattress dealer in the US. So I put merge tags on the subsidiaries for merger into the parent company. The parent company article now needs to be built up. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
i reviewed both articles and removed puffery and unsourced content. for pete's sake the guy used the exact same puffery in both articles. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's an argument for merging them all into the parent company's article. John Nagle (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the supposition of "undisclosed paid editor" above and JTYdog's edit at User_talk:Gdavis2012#Please_clarify - a direct question on the same topic. I asked some direct questions) at Talk:Naveen Jain this weekend and got a fairly negative reply from a 4th party. So I guess my question here is "what's wrong with asking a direct question? Are there any best practices here?"

I've always believed that asking a direct question (without an accusation) is better than assuming something, or having everybody think something that might actually turn out not to be true. Direct questions might in some cases be embarrassing, but in the long run it is the polite thing to do. Of course people are not required to answer direct questions, but if they choose not to clear things up then I'm free to make sense of the facts as best I can.

I guess part of the negative reaction by the 4th party was that I asked both the possible-COI editor (1st party) and the editor who brought up the possibility (2nd party) whether they had a COI or were being paid. I commonly ask the 2nd party because a reverse accusation where the 1st party later accuses the 2nd party, is common (and it happened this time) and just to clear up everything in a fair way. In any case an observer accused me of aggravating the situation.

Seeing something similar here, I thought I'd ask about best-practices in this situation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that anyone had put the direct question to this editor, and I did so. I also think that hammering away on someone is bad form. If they give a clear and on-point answer, it should be over. If there is dodgy-ness, then I think it is appropriate to ask further until a clear answer is given. Then it should stop. That is my perspective. In the Talk page you point to, CorporateM said that the editor had been asked many times already. I don't see that the Naveen Jain case was ever brought here; it is useful to centralize these things. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
editor has not edited since March 20. mostly like a paid editor throwaway sock account. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I just now noticed I was mentioned here. I absolutely support a straightforward question of whether an editor is affiliated with the article-subject, or has some other COI, when it is done in a polite and reasonable way, it is reasonable to suspect this is the case, and done so without asking for their real-world identity. Along those lines, @Smallbones: question was completely appropriate and the pinnacle of the type of direct, polite question that can draw disclosures out of editors that often too afraid to do so. It just happens that in this particular case, the editor had already been asked repeatedly and disclosed a personal connection repeatedly, so it was just badgering at that point to continue asking the question over and over (context Smallbones was not aware of at the time). I think @Ronz:'s objection was in also asking Ronz if he had a COI, though there wasn't any reason to suspect it.
In this particular case, it is most likely the editor was lying anyway. They changed the narrative regarding the nature of their COI and real-world identity several times, which is the kind of behavior the article-subject is known for. I just wanted to clarify - please keep asking when there is reason to suspect it just like you did! I support this and I think most editors would. This was just a case where there were some circumstances you were not aware of. CorporateM (Talk) 19:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with "keep asking when there is reason to suspect it" is that different people have widely varying thresholds for suspicion. Sadly, there are a fair number of editors here who find it difficult to believe that anyone could honestly have an opinion that differs from their own. In such cases, perceptions of COI become undisprovable beliefs and repeated questioning of good faith becomes a tool by which to make things so unpleasant for an opponent that they simply walk away from a content dispute. Once an editor has been asked about COI and have denied any issues, the COIN board is the best place to go with further concerns. That way multiple eyes are on the problem and repeated COI accusations do not become content dispute weapons to be used at the discretion of a single editor. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is best practice, especially after the major changes in the COI policies over the past year or so. I believe that it is inappropriate to ask (or accuse) an editor of having a coi without evidence.

However, the evidence is fairly clear that there is a coi here and that the editor works for Sleep Country USA: the editor has uploaded images claiming that they are the editor's own work. Further, the username is very similar to an employee of Sleep Country, an employee that would very likely be responsible for creation of such images for the company. --Ronz (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RiceGumSquad

This user created a sugar coated article about Rice Gum (that got deleted).

"Rice Gum is a man of many talents. From going on the moon to writing more than seven books. Rice Gum has been doing charity for over ten years and continues to donate money to children with cancer. His first talent is that he is a player for OpTic gaming. He came in for Nadeshot who is currently lacking abilities so he called RGS for help. Rice was originally on FaZe Gold which won CoD champs seven times in a row because he carried Aches."

I don't know if the "going on the moon to writing more than seven books." is true, and the OpTic gaming part doesn't seem notable. Additionally, their username suggests this is their only purpose. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, their one article has been deleted, and they've made no other edits, so there's not much that has to be done right now. John Nagle (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

There was a COIN case on this back in 2008, here. Issues have continued.

Am recording past activity here, along with current activity. This is not exhaustive, but was about an hour's work. I reckon I would find more if I spent more time. Note that there was formerly an article on Torossian's PR company 5W Public Relations, which was merged into the Torrossian article. As far as I can see, there are only 2 active accounts that are of concern here. Judae1 has disclosed a COI and seems to be generally complying with the Terms of Use and WP:COI. Southjimkelly is of concern, per last bullet below.

who disclosed his COI on his userpage from day 1 (see here) and since then has generally not edited the article directly. But has some. Still active in WP.
was a SPA with an apparent COI here, who was indeffed for sockpuppeting (note Special:Contributions/IKevod and Special:Contributions/Mblair86 were probably among these and not picked up then; are abandoned accounts now, it seems)
did only promo edits at Torossian and 5W
did only promo edits at Torossian and 5W
did only promo edits at Torossian and 5W
did only 1 promo edit at Torossian
promo edits at Torossian and Audrey Gelman, another PR person
promo edits at Torossian
  • lots of promo editing from IP addresses (like this - ugh.
2006 207.237.54.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2009 12.103.203.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2010 68.173.122.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2011 66.65.72.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2012 68.174.123.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2014 68.173.14.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2014 83.144.18.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2014 87.69.88.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • I note there have been SPAs attacking Torrossian:
2009 Ohnoway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2011 Smellthelies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2014 Mike Delany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) guessing these are negative, as they have been revdelled
  • currently, Southjimkelly is clearly a SPA. My sense of this user's edits is that they tend toward a positive POV that violate WP:NPOV. I have not gathered the diffs showing that; it is my impression thus far, enough to move me to place a COI notice on his page and have ask him to disclose any COI he may have. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
note. Richie1921 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
was a short-lived editor who was indeffed last week for edit warring. CIted Torossian frequently. Another sock, perhaps. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Bitshares


  • KenCode declared a conflict of interest here, writing: "I am working with Robrigo to create the new BitShares Wikipedia page. Ask him yourself if needbe. Since my name will be showing on all of the edits to the BitShares page, and I work for the BitShares company, the people in that community will want to know who is in charge of editing that wiki page. Rob and I both will need to have wiki user pages so I was in the middle of creating mine right now. "

KenCode worked on the draft BitShares article in a sandbox of MatthewJones 608 [[User:MatthewJones608/sandbox|here}} - both MatthewJones608 and KenCode worked on that draft.

Later Kencode edited the UserPage (!) of FLOat1NGP01NT0O1, writing "Robrigo and I will have the BitShares wiki up in a few days. I linked it and removed the"

The article was created, and was speedy deleted. a draft remains in MatthewJones' sandbox above.

  • MatthewJones608 only edited the sandbox on that account. Most likely is abandoned...
  • FLOat1NGP01NT0O1 has mostly done the WP adventure and worked on his/her own userpage.
  • So there is some disclosed COI here, but maybe not all, and not in right place, and there ~seems~ to be some meat puppeting that should stop. I've opened a discussion with each of them on their talk pages, and asked them to come here so we can all talk together.
  • There's been some relevant discussion on my talkpage with User:Ken Code. I put their userpage up for CSD as a U5, and they seem to disagree/be confused by this. If you read this talk, it seems very much like they want to own the article. Ken also confirmed on there that they work for the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for being on this, Joseph. just formalizing what you started. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

EN45

Resolved
 – user indeffed, article deleted Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable user. Their username is promotional, and it seems like they are only here to promote their website about learning English online. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Now he just created an entire clone of the page under EN45.com. Even more evidence this "Learn english online" user is only here to promote this site. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
wow that was really egregious. user has been indeffed and article deleted. Thanks for bringing this, Zeke Essiestudy Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Biofrequency Chip

Article is a mess - was rejected at AfC but created anyway see here.

Creator ducked questions at the article talk page here. Have put COI notice on user's page and on article and opened this thread. Creator is likely to have relationship with company selling the product, http://www.biofrequencychip.com/

Article is up for deletion here Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

partial response from Aenfinger here, responded with more questions. added additional user, who just joined WP and is a SPA arguing against deletion. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Don't cry COI. Just because an account is a single-purpose account does not mean you have to accuse of a COI. --TL22 (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) no need to ping me, i watch this page. I understand that essay, very very' well, and I agree that SPA =/= COI. There are several behaviors that are signalling COI here, not just SPA. Discussions with aefinger are going ~pretty well~ and the COI is established in my eyes; just working with the editor to clarify how that fits with our guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Issues with aenfinger resolved in long discussion. Cajuncritic seems to have stopped contributing; we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Leupold

This article was created by a thrown-away WP:SPA account back in 2007 (see here) and was recently edited by Gwissen, also a SPA account. Needs review per the tag on the article. After somebody else 1) reviews current content for unsourced content, valid sourcing and NPOV and 2) does a search for sources that may tell a different story about the subject of the article, the tag can come off. Left a note on the Talk page and have notified Gwissen. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

partial response from editor here. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

America Needs You

Resolved
 – worked article over, merged NYNY article into this one. lots of SPA editing on these Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently a single purpose account, devoted to expanding the article through copyright violations, addition of promotional content, unsourced content and reliance on primary sourcing. 2602:302:D88:CFA9:BC9E:B1CF:D269:DFFB (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for the organization.[15][16] Looks OK on notability. It just needs some attention to be turned into a Wikipedia article, instead of reading like a brochure. --John Nagle (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
done. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Pick2heal

Resolved
 – :user has been blocked and article deleted, per User_talk:Pick2heal. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

User created a page with the same name about a random website. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

user has been blocked and article deleted, per User_talk:Pick2heal. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Global

Resolved
 – IP address has calmed down; new eyes on the page Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading through talk pages it's probable that these two users are the most active COI reversal vandals with the article:

As agreed I have no COI. Some others need to work on this article to stop vandalism. Alloduckie (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

An IP user, 203.45.237.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is making radical changes to the article and also blanking other editors comments on the articles talk page. Their motive is very clearly to remove any negative comment regarding the company. The article has issues for sure and could do with some Admin eyes on it. 79616gr (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

reported at AIV, Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
have added Alloduckie as a SPA with a negative POV. The IP has claimed to be son of the owner. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
here Alloduckie has claimed to have no COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
yes, warned the user for advocacy here. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Please get you facts straight before accusing me of COI. You are in breach of WP:Harassment and a bully. "I am willing to accept that you have no COI... Thanks. Jytdog". LOL, It's a bit too late for your pathetic apologies and seems I am not the only victim of your misguided accusations. Apology from you - not accepted! Alloduckie (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The IP user 203.45.237.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s ban has ended, they have returned straight back to blanking Talk Page comments. 79616gr (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Allo, it's okay to post suspicions here, they don't all have to end up being accurate. And Jytdog is regularly being a helping hand at this noticeboard, that's not a bad thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
COI issues here examined and resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew West (linguist)

The user editing the page is connected to the subject of the article and the organization he is heading. The username also has the issue of being promotional (which should be resolved in some other manner). The article was previously marked as vanity and the links which were added by User:Evertype (and was used to remove vanity template) are all refer to material which are not resolving the issue of vanity and also creating the impression that User:Evertype and User:BableStone basically cross-editing each other pages. Also, curiously, the initial comments on page creation by User:Kaihsu mentions that the initial text of the article was written by User:Evertype on a personal sub-page.

IMO, this article has serious issues of CIO.


  • Thank you for bringing this case. oh this is awkward. BabelStone and Evertype each has a long and productive history here, but based on the first edit to his userpage, you appear to be right about Babelstone. Let's see what they have to say... hopefully this can be resolved gracefully. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've got nothing to hide wrt to my occasional edits to either Andrew West (linguist) or Michael Everson, and I invite you to go through them all. As I said in the first version of my user page, I do not want to have a Wikipedia article about me, and it was created long before I started editing Wikipedia, but I openly declared on my user page that it was about me, so how it can be considered a vanity page I do not know. I would add that Shervinafshar has an off-Wikipedia grudge against me, and after trolling me on twitter yesterday he appears to have brought his witch hunt here. BabelStone (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
BabelStone if what you say is true, I am sorry for the personal grudge aspect of this; was not aware of that. have to pause this, to deal with that. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Shervinafshar do you have some RW beef with Babelstone? Am completely uninterested in what it is - just looking for a yes or no. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no "beef" with BabelStone except his abuse of community rules on Wikpedia and accepting favours from other editors connected to him for a personal article about him. His abuse of other rules of other communities off-wiki—including abusive language-is unrelated to this issue. --Shervinafshar (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Listen, Shervinafshar, if you are having a real world dispute with BabelStone outside of WP, you have a conflict of interest with regard to claims you make about him here. It does not make those claims invalid (I am not considering them yet), but if you have a conflict, you need to disclose it. So do you, or not? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
If it helps you with processing this issue fairly, the answer is yes, I had an off-wiki dispute with BabelStone, but I do not have a conflict of interest regarding my objections to these articles. I did not make any claims outside of WP regulations and guidelines about quality of these articles. My request for COI investigation of these articles does not have anything to do with my RW dispute with BabelStone. I think this case has enough substantial and objective evidence for making a decision. Finally, can you please point me to the guideline which mentions that any off-wiki dispute brings me to the position of COI in such a case so that I can not ask for checking the socking and advocacy editing? I could not find such a guideline in WP:COI. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks loads for being upfront about the off-wiki issues. it would be bizarre to have one party saying that, and the other party not. so.. whew. OK, I need to look at diffs and think. WIll try to get back to you all tomorrow. Hands full tonight, sorry. Thanks again. 22:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, as a courtesy we will delete a bio of a low profile person who doesn't want a bio. Does that apply in the case of Andrew West? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hroðulf i think it would have to go through AfD. i am not sure it would survive. you could take a shot, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Re editing of Michael Everson article. I do not have a professional relationship with Michael Everson, but I have co-authored some Unicode proposals with him (as have dozens of people, including Shervinafshar)‎‎, and he is a personal friend in real life, for which reason the page is on my watchlist. In seven years of editing on Wikipedia I have edited the Michael Everson article a total of 9 times, the most recent occasion being a flurry of 6 edits over a year ago when I attempted to clarify that Evertype is a publishing company run by Everson. I do not intend to make any further changes in content to this article, but will keep it on my watchlist, and revert any vandalism or BLP issues I see. BabelStone (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Re editing of Andrew West (linguist) article. I freely admit to having occasionally edited the article, but rather than argue about whether my edits were appropriate or not, I am happy to promise not to edit the article directly again, other than to revert vandalism or BLP issues. I would be even happier if the article disappeared but I cannot take it to AfD myself, and no-one else seems willing to do so. BabelStone (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What is the "organization he is heading"? Are there specific issues with this, or the bio in the next section? This one seems free of inflated claims. Johnbod (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
BabelStone! Be civil! This place has rules and regulations. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the "BabelStone" issue and agree with user-BabelStone's assessment. the domain is owned by West, but there is no "babelstone" company that i could identify, no trademark registered, and the software available at http://www.babelstone.co.uk/ is owned by West (not assigned to a company) and available as freeware. this isn't commercial activity.
BabelStone i appreciate your offer - that makes a lot of sense. thanks. I consider the COI issue raised about you to be resolved. (btw, i looked at this edit and you added a lot of unsourced stuff there, based on your own familiarity/authority, i guess. that was not a good edit in my view, both on the COI side and on the basic editing side, and you should have been extra careful to reliably source everything there, given your personal relationship there) Please do consider using the "edit request" function for both articles - I have added a box to the bottom of the yellow/brown box at top of the Talk pages to make that easier. Would you please let me know if you agree to what i propose below with regard to Shervinafshar? Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, thank you for your evenhanded handling of this situation. I am happy to agree to your proposal, and will use the "edit request" function if ever I want to make a change in content to the Andrew West (linguist) or Michael Everson articles. As to Shervinafshar, I think your proposed resolution is reasonable, and in my turn I will do my utmost to avoid interacting with him. BabelStone (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Shervinafshar per WP:COI, the heart of conflict of interest, is "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." Because you are in conflict with BabelStone and Everson in RL, you have a conflict of interest in WP with regard to them, and you should refrain from directly editing the articles about them. I have added you as a party above. Would you please agree to refrain from directly editing the articles and instead use the "edit request" function? also, do you accept the resolution with regard to BabelStone above? Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I will "edit request" if need be, but it doesn't mean that my RW COI should affect the handling of the existing COI in this article. Hence, I do not accept the COI resolution you provided. I believe this is a vanity article with high level of COI. What was resolved was that Andrew West is free to use BabelStone on WP. That article had issues from day one (I mentioned above that the draft was written on user page of Evertype and was moved by another connected user to an independent article. There are issues of COI and notability on this article. Since Andrew West, IMO, is not a notable person to have a WP article about him and the article has issues of COI, WP:AfD seems like an option which people might want to consider. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • note per his contribs, Evertype has not edited since March 3; resolution regarding him needs to wait for him to come. Jytdog (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, here's another edit reflecting the COI state of the article and how connected users are escalating the promotional bias. --Shervinafshar (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Kaihsu is not a "connected user" and has no COI with me that I know of -- I do not know him in real life or on the internet, and I have never interacted him in any way that I can remember. The question of whether those links should be there is an editorial issue not a COI issue, and should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. I trust that you have notified him/her that you have mentioned their editing behaviour on this noticeboard. BabelStone (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That mere edit is a COI issue. Also on talk page of the article in question, I discussed and provided evidence on how Kaihsu is connected to you and Evertype and how his recent edit is making things worst for the COI state of the article. --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
so Shervinafshar it happens sometimes that claims of COI turn into harassment. I strongly suggest that you really reflect on how fixed you on this issue here in WP - it is really clearly related to your outside dispute with BabelStone because the things you are bringing up are not major. I do intend to work over the article - there is unsourced stuff in it. I may nominate it for deletion but per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) the bar is not high. We'll see. I haven't decided yet.... Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you get that impression. It's certainly not my intention (and I've been attacked and called a "troll" couple of times in different contexts here on WP by West which knowing his usual abusive attitude I preferred to ignore). But interestingly, the outside dispute is a similar case of abusing guidelines of a different community which has lesser guidelines to prevent the types of abuse such individuals can commit. Since I've been involved with WP community for a long time, I feel very strongly about people abusing WP for self-promotion and tooting theirs or their friends' horns. If the article is to be worked on to reach NPOV and verifiability and its notability is proved, I eagerly agree with your disposition on COI issue here. Obviously, connected users should not edit the page in future to prevent further issues. --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
i am sorry that you have been called a troll elsewhere and i am not calling you that. but i have seen articles for academics that really are violations of WP:PROMO and the one on West was really not bad. like i said some unsourced stuff that should go per per BLP and VERIFY but no puffery like "genius linguist" nor was it all glow-y about his software. have a look at this for example and notice the editor of the diff there. now that is some ugly PROMO COI crap editing... right? btw looks like the West article has been nominated for deletion by Hraldulf as discussed above. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly it's not as bad as the example you provided. As I mentioned above, I'd be totally fine with keeping this article if notability of the subject of the article is proven and some work is done on the article to make it acceptable according to common criteria of WP. Unfortunately, the article in current state doesn't have much substance even for a stub and there is not enough material at hand to improve it. My goal was to bring this low-quality article which was created and has only been edited by a closed circle of (more or less) connected users (and IPs) to the attention of the community and those editors to right this wrong. If this would have been just based on personal grudge or vendetta (as West claims), I probably could have taken it through notability and had it deleted without much commotion. The point was to alert both BabelStone and Evertype about the nature of their edits while they are at COI and inform the admins about this issue so it can be recorded and addressed. At this point if those users which are not at COI regarding this article care about the content, they can improve it and it will stay. I also previously pointed out my criticism of the article content in its talk page and if I see good faith from the editors of the article, I'd continue to do so. I also thank you for your time and effort, Jytdog and apologize for any inconvenience. --Shervinafshar (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
ok so we are done til Evertype checks in. Most of what you write above, is dead-horse beating and I would appreciate it you would not do that going forward. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Might be beating a dead horse, but I gladly take my chances any day to ensure the case is clear and to prevent such issues from happening. Your skepticism is much appreciated though. Keeps an admin sane. :) --Shervinafshar (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When this much enthusiasm is dedicated to highlighting another editor there is usually an underlying cause unrelated to a desire to improve the encyclopedia. This noticeboard is for pointing out actual problems—I see one diff above where someone added five external links to extremely reasonable and non-puffery PDFs, but any other claimed problems above are lost in the noise. An argument about the applicability of WP:EL could be mounted, but ranting about COI misses the point, namely that there are many articles where paid editors manipulate the text to puff-up positives and eliminate negatives, but there is nothing in the OP or anywhere else I can see that suggests that has happened in this case (I checked all the links in the OP—none of them are a problem. There is a claim in a PROD on the article that the subject wants it deleted—I urge BabelStone to wait a while before confirming that because the excitement seen here will dissipate and if no actual COI editing occurs there is not a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks johnuniq but i think that while the matters with BabelStone and Shervinafshar are settled (they are both aware of their own COIs now and have promised to remain mindful of it, the matter with Evertypw is not. I agree that the edits made under COI have been minor the principles are important. I anticipate that things will go smoothly as well with Evertype and this will be quickly closed once he checks in to edit again. That is my intention. Others may disagree of course. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand that you have developed an interest in COI issues and are very active at the moment, but how long can such vigilance be maintained, and for what purpose? I sat through exhausting debates and saw all attempts to introduce the mildest form of "paid editing is discouraged" be shot down—it turned out that one of the chief advocates for the no case was both a troll and a paid editor (indeffed more than four years ago for socking, not for being paid), but discussions still conclude that paid editing is wonderful, and experts should not be discouraged from contributing. My opening question refers to my claim that there is no evidence of any unhelpful editing, let alone unhelpful COI editing, and everything at Wikipedia should be based on pragmatic principles that work towards improving the encyclopedia—we don't try to stop certain editors from editing without a reason based on the belief that such action would improve the encyclopedia. I have not seen a suggestion that anyone here might be violating the ToU, so what is this all about? Are there any diffs of unhelpful edits that warrant attention? Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
there is so much important work be done on this board, and the matters above have been handled swiftly so far. I'll pause here to deal with your (somewhat grandstanding) questions - it is not ambiguous that both BabelStone and Evertype have edited their own articles and the articles about each other. It also not ambiguous that Shervinafshar brought this case under an undisclosed COI and has edited those articles with an undisclosed COI and actually had the more severe issue. I agreed already above that nothing was terrible. There is only one matter to be addressed, and I anticipate it will be handled reasonably and quickly. We absolutely love experts on WP, but they need to be mindful of COI - every paper an expert submits for publication requires disclosure of any COI; we have no process here where every submission (or as we call it, edit) to WP requires disclosure. It is not a terrible thing for experts to be reminded of it from time to time in a collegial (and not nasty at all) way. Again, I agree that nothing horrific has happened here (i gave an example above of one of many, many egregious COI edits by academics that I have come across). If you want to really dig into larger issues, please do so on the associated Talk page. But there is work that I want to do, both with unaddressed things here and plain old editing I want to get done. I am glad to have meta-discussions but i feel you are making a lot of friction over something minor that has been handled as such. How about working on one of the open, but not yet fully resolved cases here? Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I guess that means there is no diff of a problematic edit. As you know, I proposed in the section just underneath that these two sections be closed, and I'm not sure why there are still attempts to discuss something. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks but i provided a diff of an actual problematic edit by BabelStone above. Is your issue, that you think this board should be Only For Really Egregious Things? Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I was not going to say anything, despite being extremely irked by this edit, where Jytdog said that I "added a lot of unsourced stuff there, based on your own familiarity/authority, i guess" with these six edits to the Michael Everson article. I think that if you look carefully at the diff you will agree that this is a gross misrepresentation. The edits removed an unsourced statement about Evertype being a pseudonym (an internet search confirmed to me that Everson never uses "Evertype" as a pseudonym in books and articles he writes or edits); removed an unsourced statement about Everson's religion (probably added by Everson in the first place); moved the mention of him still holding American citizenship; added that his Irish books were published by Evertype, which is covered by the immediately following existing ref; added sourced information on the number of books he has published (ref is not ideal from a WP perspective, but adequate for this fairly innocuous fact I think); and summarise the number of books published in the lede, with no ref per WP:CITELEAD. In short, not a lot of additions, no unsourced additions, and nothing based on my personal knowledge. BabelStone (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
oh for pete's sake why does this keep stirring? BabelStone i hear what you are saying. the only really unsourced thing is the citizenship matter. yes, you removed unsourced content. the rest of it was shifting stuff around. you are right, and i am sorry about my characterization. (looking closer, the stuff you moved around is not that well-sourced, but that is not what you did). Thanks for pointing out my mischarcterization. Again nothing here is a huge deal. The biggest problem from my view, which I think I made clear, was Shervinafshar's undisclosed COI in bringing the case. This is getting too much like academia, where there are huge blowups over minor things. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Everson

The self-confessed background on this article being a vanity article is mentioned here. Although the user is notable, but COI should be clearly marked hence the edits from him and some people connected to him. See another COI entry filed regarding User:BabelStone and Andrew West. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Few of many edit diffs: [25], [26], [27], [28].

-- Shervinafshar (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Shervinafshar while we are waiting for Evertype to login to WIkipedia, does your RL argument with BabelStone that you acknowledged here extend to Michael Everson as well? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Same rules applie to this article as well. Although Evertype has lots of good contributions to WP, but the article about him should be off-limits to himself and his professionally connected users to edit and add content for the sake of COI. This is the essence of this request. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Would someone please close this report and the report at #Andrew West (linguist) above. The diff mentioned by Jytdog has Shervinafshar saying "I had an off-wiki dispute with BabelStone". Using Wikipedia to attack opponents is reprehensible. Regarding the report, I checked all the diffs and none of them show a problem. It is not a vanity article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
see above. Jytdog (talk)
Johnuniq, using WP to promote the work of friends is not reprehensible? I did not attack anyone. If I wanted to get rid of that vanity and low quality article on West, there would have been easier ways (e.g. academic notability of him according to guidelines). I brought a case about COI to the attention of the admins. Was I at COI myself doing that? Probably. Should the issue objectively matter to WP, IMO? Certainly! --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hsbc jintrust

Resolved
 – User Randykitty (talk · contribs) already blocked the user and speedy deleted the article. -- intgr [talk] 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious user. His username is similar to the article name, and the article itself is written using words like 'our' and, in general, an advertisement. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

NuScale Power

Just a quick notification that I have disclosed a COI here and offered a draft on Talk. @Bluerasberry: has a pre-existing interest in the page in their volunteer editing and may be the one to review my proposed draft. Bluerasberry and I are friends/acquaintances and both paid editors (he does GLAM-type work with Consumer Reports). There is nothing actually unsordid going on and I will bring the page up to GA per my usual, however to avoid any kind of remote speculation that I am relying on a buddy to review my proposed edits, I wanted to also post a notification here, allowing for broader scrutiny, in case anyone feels it is warranted. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note about essay on COI that is up for deletion

Resolved
 – - close was delete Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Heather Bresch

This page has made its rounds at BLPN, ANI, COIN and Jimbo's Talk page, but @Nomoskedasticity: is still the only volunteer editor that has really shown a sustained interest in the page. He is also the page's original creator and top contributor.[29] I'm a little concerned that there isn't a more diverse range of editors involved. Let me provide some context.

Nomo was the exclusive author of the original version of the article that was written almost exclusively about a controversy that reflects negatively on the BLP. There have been numerous efforts to address the undue issue dating back to 2011[30] and more recently after my having flagged the issue[31][32], however it wasn't until the third time that Nomo stopped reverting it.[33][34] When Collect tried to make edits that added sourced content about other topics or balanced the article more favorably to the article-subject, he was consistently reverted by Nomo about four times.[35][36][37][38] Nomo shows contempt for PR people in his edit-summary here and is basically trolling me here. More context at ANI here.

When I ask for outside input on the article, Nomo accuses me of canvassing and bullying; he highlights editors that agree with him (one of which showed suspiciously similar behavior as him) and dismisses or reverts editors that disagree with him. The Talk page is filled with accusations that I'm attempting to add PR spin or whitewash the page, whereas we are suppose to assume an editor is trying to do the right thing when a COI is disclosed. Furthermore, as is proven with diffs at the ANI post, I have repeatedly argued against the article-subject's best interest, despite my COI, so I find the ABFing difficult to justify. I feel like I am being punished for complying with WP:COI; it took months and Jimbo's Talk page just to get the most obvious BLP issues addressed over Nomo's reverts.

Editor's are not forbidden from contributing to articles where they have strong views, just as editors are not forbidden from contributing with a COI; though both lead to bias, they are common motivations for editing. But balanced articles are achieved by editors with a diverse range of opinions working together constructively. I don't have a specific item to point an editor to, except that I'm hoping generally that an editor or two will step up and be willing to invest a significant amount of time getting involved in the article and editing boldly, as oppose to a passing comment or two. CorporateM (Talk) 07:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC) (in case it wasn't obvious - I have a COI on this page)

This is a strange post to make at COIN. It's almost as if CorporateM is trying to say that I'm the one with the COI on this article, when in fact it is CorporateM that is being paid by Mylan to work on this article on Bresch's behalf. CorporateM tries to draw an equivalence between him and me with the insinuation that I have "strong views", and I naturally reject that perspective. Apart from that -- I have no objection to the involvement of other editors, and I'm not interested in getting into a back-and-forth re the tendentious accusations above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, what is exactly is the issue that you want addressed here at COIN? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think it should have been posted at a different board? It is hard to say which would be most relevant. I just want more editors involved that will evaluate NPOV based on whether the sources are reliable and accurately represented (our definition of NPOV), rather than who the content is coming from. I don't think there is a WP:OWN board, which would be most on-target. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Corp, as you know I have expressed concern in the past about the portion of the article devoted to the MBA controversy, which appears to have been rectified. However, this is not the place to post concerns about another editor who does not have a COI, as you point out. Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Brice Stratford

Accounts that appeared in AfD, fresh users, other edits pretty much limited to acting/theater

A small army of similar accounts with an obsessive interest in one person, Brice Stratford, and his doings, his awards, his family and his achievements. Not all the edits are intrinsically bad (we needed an article on John Counsell (theatre director), for example) but the intention appears everywhere to be to promote. All of which serves to obscure the fundamental question: is this person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? More eyes, please.

In putting this together I have come to realise that an SPI is also justified here. Off there now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, 'tis I, Brice Stratford: I'm afraid I've only just become aware of all this mess, and only just now saw the notification email (which had gone to my junk folder). To be honest, it's all a little overwhelming: I'm currently accessing wikipedia from a shared connection in the large warehouse conversion that acts as the offices for our theatre company, and living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do a few people who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers without really thinking. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications. BriceStratford (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the edits are quite good . But the mentions in articles only vaguely relevant to the subject are overdoing it. John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
So, to try to move this forward: BriceStratford, can we then take it that all of those accounts are some manner connected to you? If so, they all have a conflict of interest in topics related to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't the foggiest! I reiterate; this building is, essentially, a theatre space, cafe, offices and living area for many, many connected and unconnected people. Internet is shared by the lot, public and private. I've no idea who's here doing what. I'm perfectly happy for everything to be considered a COI if that makes things easier for you? I'd really rather not be involved - I had no idea about any of this until you brought me into it, please conclude it however you prefer! Best of luck to you. BriceStratford (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds kinda like "my little brother did it". Each editor is responsible for integrity of his/her account. - Brianhe (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
sorry i haven't given this any attention yet. this is a mess, yes. will try to look at this today or tomorrow, to add my thoughts, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

added new one. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • listing out promo edits:
  • QualityEngli edit summary first edit Mar 4, 2015. 2 edits to date, two promo. WP:SPA. no declaration of COI. has never used a talk page.
add promo language
add content about company
  • CalfLiver edit summary first edit Jun 2, 2014. ~55 edits. every one related to BriceStratford. no Talk discussions. SPA.
created category that is up for deletion
uploaded one image to Commons related to coat of arms, used in Stratford family (England) article, described as "own work" See images made by Personofi described below. File was uploaded 19:18, 2 June 2014; was added to article minutes later. note that prior edit was by another member of this group, BishopRick9, 6 hours before, and that user was writing about the coat of arms.
promo
promo
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing
promo categorizing on promo article
etc.
  • Theehnwor edit summary first edit Mar 29, 2015, 25 edits, every one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. no Talk.
created article with promo title Windsor rep acting dynasty after adding content about that to several articles, all edits after are more of the same.
  • LlowCro - edit summary first edit 27 March 2015. about 60 edits. every single one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. has never talked. created four articles all related to this stuff.
Elizabeth Counsell 2015-03-27
Jean Miller 2015-03-28
John Counsell (theatre director) 2015-03-28
Dee Ocleppo 2015-03-28 (wife of Tommy Hilfiger and... maternal cousin to Brice Stafford. all in same breath. oy.)
  • Personofi edit summary first edit Aug 2014. ~116 edits, nothing on Talk except for one AfD discussion. SPA for Stratfords and Brice etc. with a very few exceptions like this and this)
uploaded 2 files to commons - pic of stratford and putative stratford coat of arms
one of those is:
described as "A publicity shot of Brice Stratford in character as Ralph Roister Doister, from the Owle Schreame theatre company's 2015 production of the play at the Bread & Roses Theatre (London, England) - the first full, uncut, professional performance of the play on record." (so WP:PROMO)
source is "own work" (!)
author is named as Simon Bendix Borregaard - seems to be true per this article
used only in Ralph Roister Doister in WP:PROMO edit for Stafford's company
NOTE in that article, Persofi removed the old image in this dif, and in the next edit, which happened 20 seconds later, another of these accounts, TheFrontDeskMust, uploaded the image to the article. very clear evidence of sock or meat puppeting
other uploaded image is Stratford coat of arms
described as "freehand, then computer edit", and
NOTE was uploaded to Stratford family (England) article by Personofi in this dif, a few days later, another of these accounts, MarlovianPlough, added another iteration of this image and added a bunch of content about it. Also clear evidence of meat/socking.
created category, Category:Stratford family
  • MarlovianPlough edit summary: 48 edits, starting August 2, 2014. 6 AfDs included 2 related to this sock/meat farm. !votes are keep, of course.
has written on their user page: "Hello! I am the Marlovian Plough. I am committed to truth, neutrality, and history." uh huh.
More diverse than other members of this group
some random/unproductive things like this)
has done some desultory Talk series of diffs at Shakespeare article
cleaned up a different theater award article
contribs to AfDs are desulory "delete per x" here, here, here, here in fast succession.
proposed to delete 3 other family categories in fast succession, here, here, here
next edit was adding categories to Stratford family (England)
as discussed above, sock/meated with Personofi to add image to Stratford family (England)
removed COI/sourcing tags from Brice Stratford article about COI, etc. and added promo content: "Historically significant work has included his 2011 Measure for Measure (which contained the first Stage Jig in over 400 years on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose theatre)...." (zoiks)
one file uploaded to Commons (award for Owle Schreame Awards
description is quite detailed: "The engraved glass skull of the Owle Schreame Award, this one presented to Passion in Practice for their work in Original Pronunciation at the inaugural award ceremony in 2014"
described as "own work" but author is "James Thompson"
uploaded to commons at 18 September 2014; added to article by same user a few minutes later (no socking there)
  • PeggyMa edit summary: 20 edits, starting Aug 11, 2014. Pure SPA. (edits on other theater award categories too)
adding badly sourced content to Owle Schraeme award
removed copyvio tag placed by bot here - article had been created by BriceStratford here with the copyvio content. and BriceStratford edited the article 2 minutes later. Terrible.
added promo content to Brice Stratford article
added unsupported category to Brice Stratford article
more promo to Brice Stratford article
  • TheFrontDeskMust edit summary: account opened Aug 10, 2014. 101 edits.
7 articles created - note the classic SEO strategy with redirects.
John Counsell 2015-03-28 log · page history · topedits
Secret Cinema · (redirect) 2014-12-15
Francis Fulford (born 1953) · (redirect) 2014-10-29
The owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
The owl scream awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
The owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owl Scream Awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
Owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
per contribs you see some classic editing around (mostly tagging) to get started, then a series of AfDs in quick succession ("delete per x", etc)
Aug 11, makes first on-target edit, to theater awards category, and notably, the edit note says, "Removed tautology - as Softlavendar says elsewehere: "'Winners' of this award (singular) are only the first prize winners". surprising with full-blown knowledge of past discussions. and seems to refer not to softlavender, but rather to edit by other sock, whose earlier edit note read "Reduced list of award winners on this page to just the First Prize Winners, moved the exhaustive list to the pre-existing List of Ian Charleson Award winners"
then a bunch of edits to that award and the Owl award, adding bad sources, more categories. here and here
removed COI, tone, etc tags here with edit note "Edited with an unbiased, objective, encyclopaedic perspective and tone". while adding SPS sources. argh.
moved article about a current guy named John Counsell and created a disambig page for John Counsell (head of "dynasty" ) So clearly tied to BriceStratford's interests.
  • RichElph edit summary: first edit Nov 20, 2013, 3 edits. That's all.
created Brice Stratford article did nothing else here.
  • Cremlo89 edit summary: first edit Mar 11, 2015. 19 edits. everyone is about Owl awards
one of them was creating Owle Schreame Awards
added content about that two to other articles.
two weeks ago, added ref (that may be bogus and that these socks have been using a lot) to another article related to "dynasty"
whole run here - adding tons of promo. ugh.
voted !keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty in very elaborate diff
other 4 are to related articles, more padding/promo
started with edits to other theaters. seemingly significant contributions to Blackfriars Theater were reverted for copying from another article
first major contribution was elaborate ~vote to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty
7 diffs that did little to [[Francis Fulford (reality television)].
(NOTE - TheFrontDeskMust also worked on this article, moved it
see also this sequence:
series of edits by Gabby to Secret Cinema (company)
5 minutes later, edit by TheFrontDeskMust
20 minutes later, another run by Gabby begins
then finally, looong !vote to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty, in conjunction with adding a chunk of unsourced content to the subject article.
  • WalkingOnTheB edit summary: first edit Sep 20, 2014; 24 edits. contributed to 12 AfDs, including the one on Windsor dynasty. One of the edits is also a comment at his own SPI.
nominated Solvent Thashers for deletion (group project; see below)
did some random football editing (like others of these accounts)
keep !vote at Windsor AfD
comment at SPI, "Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI." With the edit history, not likely.
  • Elephantbronze edit summary, created 03:07, 30 March 2015, 26 edits
note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
Special:Contributions/Elephantbronze - first edit is ridiculous; next few are to other AfDs.
largest contrib by miles is to AfD on Windsors.
  • Feast is Feast edit summary, created 2:47, 30 March 2015, 7 edits
note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
Special:Contributions/Feast_is_Feast - first edit is to AfD; others are desulotory


  • Group efforts at AfD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination): WalkingOnTheB, TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough, Personofi. Only non-sock vote is Dirtlawyer1. This was a railroad job.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty Feast is Feast, Theatre Royal, Windsor, WalkingOnTheB, RoodEnd, Gabby Road. That is most of the !voting there.

OK, I spent way too much time on that. Will copy this over the SPI case as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just FYI: There actually are about 30 or more accounts in this COI sock/meat farm, and various additional crossover articles involved than are listed here. Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
are they listed anywhere? Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Not all together, and not all in list form. Y'all are on the right track, but need to check both SPIs (there are two of them, one was unfortunately and precipitously closed and archived almost instantaneously) plus the comments therein. Plus this conversation. Plus all the COI AfDs any of them have ever voted on (where extra members pop up). Plus at this point, any article that any of them has edited that isn't obviously diversionary will likely turn up new members. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

LinkedIn Economic Graph

Resolved
 – done by Smallbones. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've proposed an update to the "Economic Graph" section of LinkedIn based on developments since the section was first added last June. I'm not editing directly because I have a COI; I work for a communications firm that represents LinkedIn. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at my Talk page posting and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

done by smallbones here. thx! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Esproenko

Having a bit of a weird situation here. Here's what the user said on my talk page: "I need to create a page about my company with the field of oil and gas. The name is : ESPROENKO INTERNATIONAL. I did it before even I upload some picture in wiki file uploader and use it to complete my article every time I was just viewing by show preview to check last changes but suddenly all my picture gone. I fear to create article and wiki remove that. My company forced me to create one." -- I kind of feel sorry for them, how are they going to explain Wikipedia's rules to their boss when even they don't understand the rules?

Anyway, I encouraged them to create that article in draftspace (Draft:Esproenko International), and they uploaded some images that probably shouldn't be here, but I've gone through and tagged those images on here and on Commons.

I'm thinking I should probably... stop encouraging them, because everything they're doing is going against WP:COI, and that article itself will most likely not become a thing because the notability is lacking. I'm not 100% sure but some shallow googling tells me that this company may not be notable enough so we'd just be wasting our time trying to create it.

Posting here in case anyone has any thoughts about this, or any suggestions to add for the user (User_talk:Cyboy110#Images). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_82&oldid=1138419205"