Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:[edit]

In the interest of full disclosure, I work for Painting with a Twist, who is also featured in this article. However, it appears that someone from one of our competitors, Pinot's Palette, is editing this page, as well as creating a Pinot's Palette article, for the purpose of promoting their business. I think references to industry awards (the Entrepreneur Magazine reference) as well as the promotional image including the Pinot's Palette logo have no place in this entry.

SAS81, Chopra Foundation, question[edit]

Hello everyone, SAS81 again. I'm here to inquire the best way to approach this. Also, hoping I got the formatting for this COIN correct. I have a lot of content on the Chopra Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by Deepak Chopra and an organization that comes up in nearly every article on Dr Chopra. It seems like the foundation is more than significant and established enough to warrant its own article. I have all the research, sources, and content needed to make a respectable starter article here in my sandbox.

What I'm not sure I have is the ethical ability to do so. If I wear my Wikipedia editor hat, I think it should go up. However wearing my ISHAR hat and our financial relationship since Chopra Foundation has funded us to a degree makes me question this. Therefore I am reaching out for advice and help. I do think this article belongs on Wikipedia, but since I'm not going to post it someone else would need to. I'd appreciate any Good Samaritan who wanted to take a look at what I put together in my sandbox, then see if they approved and wanted to post it themselves, obviously with whatever modifications, additions, or subtractions they felt necessary. My understanding of COI rules allows unenforced suggestions of content, if anyone has any evidence showing otherwise please alert me. I'm not intending to violate any COI policy.

Like I said, I feel like it's a good article, as good as many on Wikipedia, but I don't feel comfortable posting it myself. If anyone else does feel comfortable, I hope you'll take a look at what's put together here and judge for yourself whether it belongs on Wikipedia. SAS81 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is built on self-published primary sources, and reads like a promotional piece. Unless the topic meets WP:GNG it is not suitable for a WP article (and even it it were, your COI would make you unsuitable as an editor). On a technical note, I don't believe you should be applying categories to drafts in your user space. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles need to built based on credible, independent sources and should use sparingly, if at all, any citations to the org's website. In order to qualify for an article, there must be at least two, in-depth profile stories in credible, independent sources. Contributing with a COI is not forbidden, but it is discouraged, because in almost all cases the editor ends up with a distorted view of what is neutral and notable. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with CorporateM and, for the most part, Alexbrn. I'm guessing this topic could be significant enough to justify an article, but we need more, better sources and a little polishing up of the content itself. I'd offered to go over this material in the past (hadn't noticed this conversation till now or I'd have said something before), SAS81, so I'll look into it, try to address these issues and, unless anyone has an issue with me doing so, submit the article for consideration. Seems that's a resolution to the COI, sourcing and content issues. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is substantially better sourcing, it's no kind of "resolution" at all. Basic question: does this pass WP:GNG? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Still looking into it, but based on what I'm finding I think I'll find enough to satisfy GNG, and can certainly do better than existing random articles like Thomas Whalan, Henryk Ruder and Will Murphy, all of which have no or single, non-secondary sources as references. By the standards of much of WP, the financial references alone would be enough to get a stub posted, but I agree that more is better. I'll get some independent secondaries or bump it back here as a no-go. The Cap'n (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Gold Peak[edit]

User:Capasserby obviously registered from a fixed IP in Hong Kong (where the firm's HQ is located) only to tune the Gold Peak article. He successively deleted most of the content under the heading “Controversy”. He did so in several small bits in order to systematically avoid detection through automated tools. Obviously he accidentally reveals the exactly same IP several times over the course of several months, thereby proving it to be a static IP. A whois query reveals it to be from a Hong Kong IP network provided by CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited.

Related problems with his edits were noticed earlier.

I put a note on his talk page that he didn't react to. He keeps putting brand names and unsourced information in the article - the only one he ever touched. Kulandru mor (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Capasserby hasn't edited since the 30thApr (2 edits) and didn't login for 12 months before that. I wouldn't read anything into his non-responsiveness to your message. (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was the 1st of November 2013 I adviced him on to stay away from the Gold Peak article after noticing his destructive edits.--Kulandru mor (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, they haven't removed controversial details since your warnings. Removal of promotional material can be done by anyone. I don't think such an infrequent editor/article will be blocked/locked. NB pls indent your responses with a colon, also referring to someone as an 'evil agent' in edit summaries is a bit strong! (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Law of One (The Ra Material)[edit]

Editor is edit warring and continues to propose a specific link to the parent company of the material rather than direct links to the material that are freely provided within copyright.


  • diff=615493456&oldid=615475868 Comment: "Undid revision 615475868 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk) no, it conforms to WP:ADV; visitors should have a choice to see the donation & copyright notice"

Additional diff: &diff=615547319&oldid=615547210 Comment: "Undid revision 615540723 by Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) the one edit warring here is you, "immediate benefit" is quite vague, and can not conflict llresearch's benefits" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry immanuel, but what are you doing here? I guess you will get a training from experienced users here -if they would like to participate in the discussion of course-; good luck anyways. (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional discussion involving this user's potential conflict of interest: Talk:The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material)#Edit_warring_over_The_Law_of_One_external_links_section --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit-warring is not good, clearly, but what is the conflict of interest here? Is someone editing the article affiliated with either of the sites that are being linked to, or the authors of the book, or anyone/anything else associated with the article? I'm not seeing where an actual COI is being alleged, so I'm wondering why this report is on this noticeboard. -- Atama 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-disclosure at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest[edit]

We are currently engaged in very sensitive discussions at Wikipedia Talk:COI concerning the amendments to the Terms of Use and whether the current guideline should be superseded by the TOU, or strengthened, or done away with entirely. One of the primary participants in this discussion is User:TParis. Several users have expressed discomfort with TParis' participation because he has declined to make the disclosure that is required in the guideline: "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."

The reason for discomfort is this: In November 2013 [1] TParis said that he had engaged in a "form of paid editing," specifically that Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it."

This issue has been raised on several occasions on the COI talk page and at TParis' user talk page, but that has produced only heat, recriminations and acrimony. TParis adamantly refuses to make a disclosure, and despite veiled references to his paid editing activities from time to time, it does not appear to be widely known. The failure to disclose has arisen because TParis is a leading voice against strengthening of the COI rules, and has edit warred to prevent the guideline from even mentioning the TOU.

The question is whether TParis should make a disclosure on the COI talk page, in the discussions of COI policy/guideline changes, of the fact that he was paid to write an article, which was published in Wikipedia, whether or not he actually used his own account for that purpose. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This link above points to a long section on Jimbo's page. Within that section, TP disclosed the work in question first in this dif and in response to request for clarification from Smallbones, TP added further clarification in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. If you can fix the article link at the top that would be helpful too. I haven't been able to repair it. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine, I recommend that you strike the description of TP's views on what the COI guideline are; it is not relevant to the discussion, is inflammatory and more practically, will lead the discussion off the topic. The question is whether TP "has been paid to edit on Wikipedia" and thus has an obligation to disclose this in the discussion of the COI guideline. TP was paid to write an article. He has been a paid editor. The fact that he had a third party post the article, instead of posting it himself, simply he means that he followed the COI guideline by not directly editing an article where he has a conflict. Using compliance with the COI guideline as an excuse to say that there was no COI or paid editing, is, to be frank, twisted logic. I am not saying that the logic is intentionally twisted with the intention to deceive anyone, just that it is twisted logic. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)(copyedited as per markup Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
You're right - no point. I deleted it. struck it out, per your talk page suggestion. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is simple. As Figureofnine, Coretheapple, and Smallbones have aptly harassed me on this issue ( [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) the result is that there is no practical result of me disclosing at this point. All participants have been suitably notified. So what then purpose does disclosure serve? Simply as a means of power by these three. As Philippe from Wikimedia said the COI guideline is not meant to punish good faith editors. If there are any questions about my good faith participation in this project, the culmination of 25,000 edits, the UTRS system, TPBot, and whatever the hell else I do around here - then please raise them. Otherwise, fuck off. This isn't a matter of elitism, it's a matter of you having 25,000 edits to judge my participation in this project and you hounding me about edits I've never made. I'm not playing your power games. The timing of this report coincides with the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest turning toward an Wikipedia-wide RFC on the subject which I have been advocating for. It's retaliatory against me for highlighting the attempts to modify a guideline w/o consensus.--v/r - TP 21:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
TP, I don't like the harassment either, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this here instead of continuing to say negative things about you on various Talk pages across the project. I agree 100% that disclosure should not be used as a way to punish anyone and I agree with you 100%, that you have the right to participate in the discussion of the guideline; however for paid editors, that right comes with one simple responsibility - you are obligated to disclose that you have been a paid editor somewhere in the discussion. This COI thread is about you, not them. (You might have grounds for action under WP:HARASS but that would be a separate discussion on a different board; and as you know that would go better for you if your own nose were clean) I actually had no idea that you had done paid editing in the past. So please comply with the guideline. (btw, if you comply, then you take away the only legitimate stick they have been beating you with) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
and btw, I think you meant "amply" and definitely not "aptly"! :) Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Threads on any boards are not limited to the scope of the OP. See WP:ANI Advice. Complying wouldn't take away any stick at all, it would only empower them further. If the sentence in the guideline, which was passed under the radar by only 10 people w/o community input - once again, had a practical purpose I might comply. For instance, if it said that I had to post on the talk page once, and then only post a reminder each time the existing notification were archived. However, with the number of threads those three open on that talk page, compliance would mean I'd have to repeat myself every 10 lines of text. That's asinine and pointless.--v/r - TP 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
you seem to be not complying to make a WP:POINT. Again I recognize you are angry and frustrated; I have been hounded as you have and acknowledge that it sucks. I did say legitimates stick; if you continue to be hounded after you comply then they become open game for WP:HOUND. In any case, you should still do the right thing. I don't want to beat a horse, so I will stop here and wait to see what others have to say.... best wishes to you, TP. (btw I think your suggestion for how to comply is entirely reasonable; you could also just incorporate a link in your signature, like Alexbrn does, which I find elegant and simple) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • TParis has disclosed that he has (once or thereabouts) engaged in paid contributions (not direct article editing). There's no point in asking him to keep repeating it on various pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
So your position is that [this disclosure on Jimbo's talk page in November 2013 is sufficient disclosure for participants in the COI talk page discussion in July 2014? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 01:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
TP acknowledged it elsewhere and you raised it on WT:COI. That's surely enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
respectfully, SlimVirgin, COI says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." (emphasis added). I think the trio TP cites went too far and in the wrong way, but the "in the discussion" thing is clear. I had no idea of the disclosure on Jimbo's page (now buried deep in archives) nor what Figureofnine and others were complaining about on WT:COI, which was general indirect about "someone". Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the concerns people have always had with the COI guideline is that it would be used as a bully's charter. That was one of the reasons we could never get it strengthened or bits of it promoted to policy.

Recent developments are serving to show that those were valid concerns – that people are now expected to say who they work for (including when they're self-employed, which means outing themselves), or have to keep repeating that they were once paid to write an article that someone else posted, even if it was years ago. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

But if that is the case, if that is your position, isn't the proper solution to change the guideline rather than just pretend that part of it doesn't exist? I just don't understand the logic of your position. I wasn't privy to the enactment of this particular provision of the COI guideline, but it is clear as a bell as is TParis' attitude toward it, which he states eloquently here as "fuck off." Also I would caution editors to exercise care before swallowing uncritically the "harassment" claim that TParis is making. The diffs he provides are quite clear in being anything but (and none involve me). Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 01:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine you and Core and Smallbones are part of the problem too. It is good that you brought this COIN but it would have been better had one of you done it much earlier. People get angry when they are hounded. TP is acting smallishly instead of rising above being pissed off but please don't take a stance that the way he has been treated is OK. And please acknowledge that you had a role in this - it was your continuation of it that prompted me to ask you what you were talking about, right? Going to drama boards is meant to be a wake up for everybody. Step back from your dug in positions and change, so we can all move on. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually my main problem with TParis, what has bothered me about him, is not this COI issue but his temperament. That I raised with him directly and at length at his administrator review. I didn't even raise the issue of his COI disclosure as I felt it would be fruitless, and also because it was in fact raised at his talk page and the editor who did so was treated roughly and his concerns were treated inadequately and, to be frank, in my opinion not very honestly. I do agree that it should have been brought to this board earlier, and I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't. Perhaps they expected to be told that they could just "fuck off," and that the COI rules don't apply to everybody. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall that provision being discussed (much or at all). I think if it's going to be used against good-faith, long-term editors such as TParis, we ought to think about removing it. My understanding is that it helps to prevent people who are only (or mostly) paid editors from swaying policies about paid editing. But we surely don't want long-term contributors being forced to reveal that they were once paid to write something, as though that somehow undermines their views. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin To remind you, this obligation became part of the guideline in this dif which was discussed on Talk here - the proposal was somewhat formally "closed". SV you actually !voted for it. I am not trying to pin you to the wall - people's thinking changes constantly. But the obligation to disclose in the discussion is pretty simple and pretty commonsensical. Would you please respond to the "in the discussion" thing? Also, please know that i am very sensitive to the hounding issue, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this COIN - to use the process suggested in the guideline instead of hounding. so let's try to make the process actually work. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I agree with the provision being used to stop people who are exclusively or to a large extent paid editors from having undue influence over the policies about paid editing. Someone who is here only or mostly to make money is obviously not going to support COI policies. But it ought not to be used to undermine Wikipedians who may have been paid for something once or twice, years ago. Common sense has to kick in. And given that it has now been posted on the talk page that this applies to TParis I can't see what more is needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually what you're referring to doesn't specifically mention him. But let's say it did. Then that page is archived. There is a new discussion. The guideline requires that the editor self-disclose in that discussion. What then? We're back where we're started. That rule says in black and white that something should happen, and it isn't happening. The fact that an administrator is involved makes it an even more high-visibility issue.
I think that we're stuck between something of a rock and a hard place here, and kicking the can down the road, saying "it's enough," or "let's not be literal," or "he's a good-faith editor and a sweet man so leave him alone" is not going to resolve this matter. We need to either change the rule or it is going to be an ongoing irritant and source of concern and frustration. I was not involved in the drafting of this rule, but its language is broad and sweeping, and I am certain that editors are in good faith going to be raising this issue in the future if there is no compliance. The fact that an administrator is involved only makes the frustration level higher and raises fairness issues. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
My larger concern here is that we all abide by the guideline we have. Core, Figure and Smallbones have blown off the guidance to bring questions to the user's talk page and if they don't get satisfaction, go to COIN. TP has blown off the guidance to disclose past paid editing in the discussion of the guideline And so we end up with a bunch of angry and frustrated people. It doesn't have to be this hard. Bringing this to COIN was the right first step. Now TP should bend and make the disclosure. And Core, figure, and smallbones should lay off. And then we can leave this distraction behind. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, if some users are more equal than others there is very little point in having a COI rule in the first place. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 02:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the rule itself is overkill, and insisting on a literal implementation of it is overkill piled on overkill. When I first started editing here, I removed primary research references regarding in vitro experiments from the Ciprofloxacin article, and was immediately set upon by people demanding to know if I had a COI. I later added a statement to another article showing that a "whistleblower" had been proven wrong, was reverted, and again accused of COI. In a discussion regarding acetominophen and asthma, in which Doc James and I agreed that the overwhelming body of meta analyses suggested no relationship and single editor wanted to quote extensively from a single study suggesting there was a connection, I was dragged into COIN. If Satan can point to a reliable source stating that the atomic weight of carbon is 12, that's good enough for me. And if Mother Theresea quotes a blog stating that the sun rotates around the earth, she's still wrong. I really think we're all better off focusing on the facts and having a reasoned debate, and leaving the witch hunts back in Salem. Apology for pointlessly provocative languageFormerly 98 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps we shouldn't have a COI rule at all. Right now we're discussing a TOU rule that is imperfect but is policy. One alternative that might be presented to the community is to abolish that policy in favor of no rule at all. I think personally that it is better to have no rule than to have one that is not enforced, or enforced unfairly or unequally. If this rule is not enforced against a "good-faith editor," how can it fairly be enforced against a full-time paid editor? By all rights, they should be able to participate in COI policy discussions on an equal, non-disclosing basis. They claim quite emphatically that they are good-faith editors too. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 03:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── too many agendas here that have nothing to do with this topic. I will sit back and wait for other voices to chime in and suggest that you all do the same. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I drafted it, although what is now there was modified. My two thoughts 1) sure TParis can just say in that discussion a reference to that past; 2) the point is to just have it out there for things unknown to others, as CorporateM more eloquently said (in the adoption discussion), so if someone else whose interested in it already knows, feel free to link to TParis cmts on his 'form of paid editing' in that discussion (once) and then it's done and done, as far as the guideline being fulfilled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Alanscottwalker. I am uncomfortable posting a disclosure on behalf of someone else, which is why I have been urging TP himself to comply. If you are comfortable with that doing that, please proceed. Then the spirit of the requirement would be met. If you do so, it will be interesting to see if TP will allow it to stand; I hope so. I also wonder if it would make sense to have a persistent section called something like "Editors who have been paid editors who are participating in this discussion" on WT:COI where such postings could be made and would not be archived.... Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Ping does not work, if you add it after you sign. As I understand it the links have already been placed on the page, during the discussion and TParis has been identified in relation to those links. As for a section, someone like CorporateM seems to get on well with the light weight approach, of just saying it (it's as simple as saying 'I've been paid' or some such, once). Another editor showed up and did similarly. There should be little dispute that the past three weeks has been one continuous discussion. It would be different if the issues were separated by months, or there was a long break, or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so you now are saying that it is already sufficiently disclosed at WT:COI, in particular by Figureofnine's link to it in the midst of this section? Thanks. (and thanks for the note about ping) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Belated, not done as easily as it could have been, not optimal, but done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)How can this be considered a disclosure of any kind when his user name isn't mentioned? One has to go from link to link to find out what we're talking about.Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought the users name is in the next comment right after those links were posted.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in the form of a denial that it is paid editing. How can it be disclosure when the user denies that he has anything to disclose? Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone reviewing that can decide for themselves - they have the information the guideline seeks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── we are approaching a rough consensus that TP's paid editing history is sufficiently disclosed in the discussion and that it is pointless to try to get TParis to actively comply. As for me I am not comfortable with the disclosure being both done by a second party and buried deep in a section about something else. I would like to implement my suggestion that we have a perma-section on WT:COI for disclosure of past or current paid editing. Here is a draft. Can everybody live with this? (specifically, the main disputants here: TParis, Smallbones, Coretheapple, and Figureofnine?) Again I am looking for a way to lay this to bed so everybody can move forward. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft section for WT:COI: "Participants in this discussion who have been or are paid editors"[edit]

(use "do not archive" tag here)

Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative, and WP:OUTING, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS are enforced here as everywhere.

This list is not here to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in WP:COI that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."

Again, this list is not here to promote personal attacks or harassment, but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.

Those who disagree with the obligation to disclose should open discussions about changing that elsewhere. If the guideline is changed, the invisible "do not archive" tag can be deleted.

Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:

End of list. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on draft section?[edit]

Seems like a reasonable solution, given the refusal to disclose. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

NB: Figureofnine just let me know that my use of the use template didn't provide him a notification, so I just left notes on the Talk pages of Core, Smallbones, and TP asking them to respond in case it didn't work for them either. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The general idea seems workable, as it clarifies any potential conflict of interest with participants. Regarding the specific wording, I'd suggest making the preamble a lot shorter. For example:

In accordance with the guideline to disclose a history of paid editing when discussing a conflict of interest guideline or policy, the following editors have disclosed that they have received compensation for editing Wikipedia:
  • Editor 1 (link to disclosure)
  • Editor 2 (link to disclosure)

The guideline should probably clarify if it means any Wikimedia project, English Wikipedia, or something else. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The original or Isaacl's modification would work. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Core! TP said OK on his Talk page; Core and FigureofNine have said OK here. We are only missing Smallbones. I would like to wrap this up with the consent of everybody so that this doesn't keep resurfacing... Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There were others who have weighed in on this in the past too, and it's not practical to expect unanimity. Why not just post it? We're not ratifying the Declaration of Independence. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
that is true. i have multiple goals here - one is to deal with the concern about TP's disclosure; the other is to channel concerns about COI through correct channels - it is best if the main players all agree so that we can really move forward and not get dragged back into this. i intend to give smallbones another day and then i will indeed go ahead and post. we have decent consensus here that this deals with the disclosure. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I oppose any proposal to pin a list of names at the top of the page, for lots of obvious reasons, including that it will discourage people from posting. I might support a template that said something like: "When posting here, editors are asked to disclose whether they have been paid for their contributions to Wikipedia." SlimVirgin (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Even TP did not object... Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Lists of COI contributors are "pinned" at the top of numerous talk pages. That's how Wikipedia operates in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding a note at the end of the list:
Once a discussion has been archived from this page, any related disclosures can be removed, at the discretion of the editor making the disclosure.
Anyone who wants to leave their name up can; otherwise they can feel free to remove it. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems pretty reasonable. "No no no he's not going to do it and I don't want him to do it even if he wants to do it and the guideline sucks" is not. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Core, please don't be inflammatory. We are trying to move forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually we seem to have just run into a brick wall. But let's get the jalopy in gear and move forward. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 :) thanks. your prior comment that there are other Talk pages with pinned list of COI contributors is helpful. Do you happen to know any that you could cite. that would be very helpful. thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Far too numerous to mention. BP comes to mind, as does Chevron Corporation, as does Yelp as does Banc de Binary, to name four articles off the top of my head. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)And by the way, the respond to SlimVirgin's comments below, the lists on these talk pages are permanent lists. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, if you want to propose this, please post an RfC on WT:COI. It would be unprecedented that people wanting to comment on a guideline must have their names pinned at the top if they have done a certain thing. I support people disclosing when posting, but a permanent list is a bit disturbing. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I guess anyone can propose an RfC about anything. You can, I can. We can waste weeks arguing over this, with maximum disruptive effect, or we can resolve it now with the cooperation of the parties, who are more or less cooperating. I've had my differences with Jytdog, but he has come up with a workable solution. When we enacted this provision of the guideline, we did so without much thought to some editor adamantly refusing. It relied on self-disclosure which, by its very nature, doesn't work when people don't want to disclose. So he has come up with a proposal, here, at the appropriate noticeboard, that doesn't override the requirement in the COI guideline but has the intent of making the atmosphere on the COI talk page more amicable. But you know what, SlimVirgin? You go right on ahead. Disrupt the talk page with an RfC. The more that kind of thing happens, the less likely it is that the ToU, which I view as the least bad current alternative, is going to be subject to any kind of change. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking for myself only, I would be concerned if my name was on a "master list" like Wikipedia:List of Paid Editors, which could lead to harassment, advertising or other issues, but at the page-level is where a disclosure belongs and it is already accepted practice to use a Connected Contributor tag. Though whether Tparis belongs on it is up for debate, since only a tiny fraction of his editing is COI-related (POV Railroading is the appropriate defense), the tag itself I would think would be non-controversial. I am referring to this edit. Though I understand why Core reverted me, there is some irony in the community wrestling one editor into forced disclosure, while reverting another that does so voluntarily. Not an issue I intend to pursue, but... CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For better or worse, a list already exists. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Voluntary disclosure at the top of the page, as CorporateM has just done, should be non-controversial, so I suggest to start with this. Editors can choose this way to disclose their editing history, or if they prefer, they can follow another way. isaacl (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec_) ... and since there is a refusal to disclose, it brings us back to square one and the dispute is not resolved. CorporateM doesn't seem to be aware of it in his remark above, but I reverted myself and allowed this self-disclosure, as I felt it would do no harm, but that was with the understanding that it has no bearing on this discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding someone refusing to provide disclosure: I think in this specific case, it's more that the person believes the facts have already been disclosed within discussion, so it seems moot to redisclose it. A central location for disclosure would help avoid this argument, and not become overly cumbersome or repetitive for discussion participants. It would not have to be a permanent list. isaacl (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and that's why your proposal or Jytdog's is the way to go, and in fact seems to have consensus support here and, more crucially, agreement among the persons affected or in dispute over this. What CorporateM has placed at the top of the page, of his own volition, is a nice gesture but doesn't really get us anywhere. (For the record, I would very strongly dispute the suggestion that there has been disclosure within the discussion.) Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The record is clear in that both viewpoints have been stated unambiguously; let's not rehash it. I disagree that CorporateM's disclosure doesn't get us anywhere; the editor complied with the guidance on the page, and provided a model for doing so, which can be followed by others. It seems to me the editor has made an excellent contribution to assist the conversation. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So we just add TParis to this? Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Core not sure what you are asking. And it would be super helpful if you could provide some examples of other articles where there is a pinned list of COI. SlimVirgin please try to work toward consensus. We have dropped the request that TP make a self-disclosure; the list of COI is an effort at compromise. Would you please bend and work toward compromise? You are the key outstanding voice and I would prefer not to claim consensus over your dissent..... I took great care to word the propose listing to avoid it being used as a weapon. Please. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I just was trying to understand Isaacl's point. I'll see what I can do about getting a comprehensive list (maybe a link to the template?). There must be dozens, maybe hundreds. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No, there are thousands. Over 4,200 talk pages carry the "connected contributor" notice, which is basically the same as this one we're discussing. See [13] Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── this has been rendered moot by CorporateM's edit here. I added TParis to that list in this dif with edit note "added TParis as per discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Self-disclosure_at_Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest and with extrapolation of TParis consent User_talk:TParis#COIN_proposal " I will wait a bit, then close this thread as OP. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but Smallbones, {{u|Coretheapple}], and Figureofnine, while you may be unhappy that TParis did not self-disclose, he did consent to being put on the list. I hope you honor that compromise going forward and not use the disclosure as a stick and that you work to prevent others from doing so as well. Hopefully we can all move on now. Thank you, everybody. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As you wish, but to be quite technical about it, your version was the one that was agreed to. Why not just replace it? It has all the warnings about harassment etc. that were desired by TParis, and it contains links to the disclosures. You can add Frieda. Buy if you just want to go with CorporateM's, it's OK with me. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My opinion is along the same line as CorporateM with a lot of the same concerns are SlimVirgin. However, I would rather have this list than have to repeat the same thing over and over at the rate that three editors keep opening new threads on that talk page. I only make this concession because Jytdog and Dank work so hard to compromise and I wouldn't want to obstruct that. However, if that list is ever used for harassment, I will remove my name immediately whether or not the harassment is directed at me. I suggest the editors concerned with it treat it as a good faith list rather than a list of bad people.--v/r - TP 22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That list shouldn't be added to the page without consensus. It's not just about those two editors; it's also about editors in future, and about the principle of whether editors discussing a guideline ought to have their names pinned to the top of the page if they've been paid to edit. The two editors whose names CM added don't have the right to agree to it on behalf of everyone else.

    Jytdog, please open an RfC about this. It ought not to be decided upon here with only certain editors being informed of the discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So... I think this is done. I am done, at least. I acknowledge that SlimVirgin has made objections, but these objections don't deal with the key facts that a) the paid editors have assented; b) it is common to have such lists in the header of Talk pages, and the COI guideline explicitly calls for disclosure but lacks such a list; c) two of three editors (we still lack Smallbones) who raised concerns about TParis have said that this satisfies their concerns. Further, participants at WT:COI were notified of this discussion here at COIN by Figureofnine, here. I like my approach for a pinned section better than a header section because it has the warnings more explicitly stated, but CorporateM (one of the paid editors on the list) created the header himself and it has warnings, and I won't step over that. Again while I acknowledge SlimVirgin's concerns, her arguments have not gained consensus nor addressed the arguments for the consensus. Thanks everybody for participating. (I am not formally closing this as I am involved and there is an objection outstanding) Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I am done too. This is ridiculous. We all agreed to certain language, not the language that CorporateM, a paid editor, has drafted. I have replaced his vague language with the very specific language that we agreed to. In the interests of compromise I have not included the links that we agreed to include in this notice, which we have been forced to put at the top of the page because of the disgraceful reason that an editor, an administrator, refuses to comply with this guideline that he continually seeks to attack and undermine. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nathan Fletcher[edit]

A new user appeared yesterday under the name FletcherNathan. They immediately began inserting lots of positive material into the existing article about politician Nathan Fletcher, along with half a dozen pictures. The material is sourced (mostly) and is not outrageously promotional, but all of it is about good things the subject has done, or explaining the subject's rationale for his actions. I have toned down a few of the additions but have mostly left them in if they are sourced. The user FletcherNathan has been warned twice at their talk page, once about the username, once about COI. They have not responded and have continued to add material to the article at a rapid rate. I have also posted about this as the Usernames for Discussion board. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman[edit]

From July 2013 to October 2013 I wrote Gabe Zichermann and Len Forkas on behalf of WikiExperts. I'd like to thank Invertzoo for pointing me in their direction. I'd also welcome editors to examine my edits to those articles, as I think my work evinces I wrote neutrally. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Although I applaud your disclosure and just see fixable problems in your writing style as it stands, Len Forkas may present a problem. Although you wrote the content to the article before WikiExperts was banned, you only moved the article out of your userspace a little over a week ago, well after WikiExperts - as well as any edits on their behalf - had been banned. That by itself arguably could make the article G5able, especially given that, presumably, you weren't paid to keep an article sitting in your userspace. Although I have much less of an issue with WikiExperts than some other groups and no huge problem with the article existing, since we've had significant prior interaction my word should probably not be taken as gospel, and I would highly recommend reflexing this to AN or ANI for broader community review. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... This makes my eye twitch a bit. Not out of anger, or revulsion, or any other negative emotion, but just because in general I'm not quite sure how to respond. My suggestion is to try out WP:AN about this. COIN is technically the right board to discuss this issue but I agree with Kevin that it should have more eyes on it than you'd get at COIN normally. -- Atama 22:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going to remain silent on WikiExpert's business interactions with me, suffice to say that I was no longer contracted with anyone after October of last year. The Len Forkas article was not published at the time due to other circumstances. Since I had already written it, I saw no harm in just moving it to mainspace for free. If the consensus is to delete it, c'est la vie. I made the disclosure here in part so it could be linked to from the "connected contributor" templates on the respective talk pages. To paraphrase President Nixon: I welcome this kind of examination because people got to know, whether or not some editor is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I would still suggest taking this to AN, just because I'm honestly not sure what to do about it, and think it warrants wider examination. I suspect that Len Forkas is currently G5able because certainly moving it to mainspace was in the interests of Wikiexperts and the original edits were directly compensated even if you weren't explicitly compensated for moving it to mainspace yourself, but at the same time, I don't want to G5 it myself. Additionally, it's of fairly significant interest that you worked for Wikiexperts for some period of time in and of itself - mostly because as far as I know you are the first Wikiexperts contractor to out themselves or to be outed by someone else, despite the amount of controversy they've engendered. I commend you for disclosing it and don't think you should be blocked or anything of that nature (if I did, I'd do so myself,) this is just a pretty unique situation that I think would benefit from additional eyes. If you end up wanting to talk about your interactions with WikiExperts further I'm sure that would be of interest to many as well just because, unlike every other prominent paid editing group to have existed, we know very little about how they recruit/what articles they target/etc. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Chris troutman Would you be willing to give the extra mile and agree to put Len Forkas through Articles for Creation so that the evaluation of any untoward COI influence could be effectively scrubbed. I think a disclosure of your involvement with it and the context of it being a "Paid for article" would allow us to exercise more scrutiny on this submission and clear it of troubles. I would also suggest that you take a editing ban from the articles in question so as to not muddy the waters with your status as a previously PaidFor editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hasteur, Kevin Gorman: No, I don't think moving mainspace articles to AfC makes any damn sense. Editors are welcome to read those articles and edit as needed. I think deleting either article would be an empty gesture serving only to disillusion me to Wikipedia admins but, these two articles are just articles, like all the others. I labeled both articles on their talk pages so I feel my part is done with this. Yes, I'm not going to edit those articles or even watch them anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggest putting it through AfC. AfC is pretty much a broken process. I would not normally consider G5ing the one article that does qualify for G5, but there's a good reason we banned WikiExperts - although certainly less good of a reason than we banned Wiki-PR - and in theory at least G5ing as many of their article creations as possible is likely to hurt them monetarily, damage their reputation, and increase the likelihood of them eventually either agreeing to abide by our policies, or at least floundering businesswise. There are many G5able articles I choose not to G5 when I come across them, but G5ing something paid for by a blackhat paid editing company is much less of an empty gesture than most G5s. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps these should both go to AfD. The Len Forkas article in particular is of dubious notability IMHO. WaggersTALK 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


That page badly needs some clean-up after the spate of paid COI writing. (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Music Awards[edit]

This is a pretty open-and-shut a nutshell the 2014 World Music Awards was delayed by hours, never made a proposed airdate on NBC towards the end of May because of being delayed, and lost their host Sharon Stone at the last minute due to a payment dispute, and these two Monaco-specific IP's (where the show is based and was taped) and the above account want to keep removing the negative information, likely connected to the WMA body. The 2012 show was also not held due to other production and visa difficulties and they want to remove historical information about that too. Eyes here to make sure the back-patting and whitewashing are held to a minimum. Nate (chatter) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LA Models[edit]

On 30 June I filed a WP:CCI request for Trident13, who keeps a very curious miscellany, including a number of copyvios, in hidden text in his various sandboxes. Looking through some contributions, I found this, the initial version of our article on LA Models. I was particularly interested to read this part of the article:

Hey Ian,

Sorry to hear about your rough patch, hopefully all up hill for 2014? :)

Thank you very much for your help, we really appreciate it. Sounds like you're more than qualified to tackle our Wikipedia woes.

Here is all the info we have:

Company Name: LA Models


Most of the articles we are mentioned in are not directly related to the agency. We have a repertoire of press releases but, not many published articles. The bulk of what we have that could be considered valid has already been tried and rejected:

Found the 2 below references. In your opinion, if they seem like something valid, we can track down print copies or continue to move in that direction. If not, it would be much appreciated if you could please furnish us with examples of what you need to get this done. We're here to help. :)

We also have a sister agency that is on Wikipedia without issue. Here is a link to that page for your reference:

New York Model Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia New York Model Management is a modeling agency based in New York City. New York Models started when Heinz Holba started L.A. Models (now its sister agency) in 1985. After operating international agencies, he opened New York Models in 1997. Marion Smith, the current vice president of New York Models, worked under Eileen Ford with world famous modeling agency Ford Models, Smith joined Holba in 2001.[1] The current director of New York is Cory Bautista. Notes[edit]

^ External links[edit]

Official Website New York Model Management in the Fashion Model Directory New York Models at

Potential Sources:

Regarding images, yes, we can def get some to you. Is there a preferred size?

As you are the expert, what is the typical window in which the page is flagged/removed? A couple weeks, a month? We'd prefer to hold payment (or perhaps do 50% upon completion, 50% after the said time frame has passed) to ensure the page stays up. Again, this is your forte, not mine.

Let us know what else you need on our end, we appreciate your help! :)



I don't think there's any question that Trident13 has a conflict of interest at LA Models, and at New York Model Management, which he first edited on 9 May 2014, three days before he moved User:Trident13/LA Models "into production" as LA Models (that sandbox was, by curious coincidence, deleted at his request yesterday). What I'd really like to know is how many other articles this editor, who has over 100,000 edits, has created for pay. Are you going to give us a list, Trident 13?

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am quite happy to admit that I create paid for articles - its is still not the majority of my content, on either a daily or any other period measured basis - and this has been known by some including Admins for a period. But this is not in conflict with Wikipedia's Terms & Conditions, and I have not been asked before this point as to whether I had a COI re LA Models. If I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so. Secondly, having been asked over seven years ago by Admin Fuhghettaboutit to be open in my method of creation - to help others to learn - I now find Justlettersandnumbers over-zealous pursuit of my editorial record in conflict with both this, and WP:AGF. I further amended my method of creation in light of comments in 2008/9, still including research but both noidexing the stub and hiding any collected content. In light of this WP:AOBF-driven posting by Justlettersandnumbers, I will be pursuing mediation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an interesting link that you post about WikiExperts. You seem to have been more than a little economical with the truth in replying to editor Bilby there. And perhaps you could explain how you think that keeping a large number of copyvios as hidden text in your various sandboxes satisfies Fuhghettaboutit's request that you be "open in [your] method of creation"; hidden text in a sandbox is hardly "open", I'd have thought. While we're at it, would you like to clarify why you went on creating copyvios in your sandboxes after you had been advised in October 2011 by JamesBWatson, Diannaa and Lagrange613 that it was unacceptable to do so?
Anyway, back to the purpose of this board: would you be prepared to list the articles that you have accepted money to edit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 under the ToU you are obligated to disclose paid contributions. Whether anyone asked you or not, is irrelevant. I strongly recommend you disclose every article where you have made a paid edit since the ToU changed. Again, disclosure of paid edits is now required; it is not optional or "available upon request." Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're definitely required to disclose every edit you've been paid for since June 16, 2014 by the Terms of Use. May I also suggest that you go back to LA Models and clean up the adspeak and promotional tone. There's no reason that you should make other editors clean up after you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 I feel like i was a harsh, and want to give you a chance to speak... I have a hard time seeing how you are trying to comply with the COI guideline and ToU. Can you please explain how you are? If this thread is a surprise to you and you are seeing things differently and intend to start editing differently, please let us know that too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia drive towards Neutrality. Hence, IMO, all wikipedians should exercise honesty while editing. Considering the present situation, either full article or portion/s of article even images, if any at WP or COMMONS, should be listed and scrutinized by a neutral editor/user regarding involvement of copyvio or promotional tone and necessary action need be taken. It will be better all paid contributions of an IP/User (irrespective of edit count/access level) at wikipedia could be moved to WP:AFC, where it is possible for fine tuning the contents as there are good number of active reviewers are available there. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Dark Wallet[edit]

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Genjix (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Hi, I'm a developer on the project Dark Wallet and wish to start a new page. For comparison, here is one of our competitors Coinbase. ATM Dark Wallet links to a biographical page, whereas I wish to start a dedicated page. Any pointers here on the right approach are appreciated - can I just go create the article and notify editors here after? Thanks. Genjix (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)