Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
james is talking to justin, not me
Line 1,012: Line 1,012:


==Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies==
==Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies==
{{archive top|even if there were COI, !voting in an AfD is not barred to people with a COI. Closing, with a trout to Waters.Justin [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies}}
* {{la|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies}}
* {{userlinks|David Gerard}}
* {{userlinks|David Gerard}}
Line 1,028: Line 1,029:
::<small>formatted properly. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small>
::<small>formatted properly. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)</small>
* {{u|Waters.Justin}}, sjeez, please read up on what a conflict of interest actually is. This is not one. None of the arguments in the AfD that gets you so riled up is about the ideas that the IEET espouses. It is about, as one of the SPA IEET supporters creeping out of the woodwork expressed it, the fact that "nobody ever wrote about IEET". WP includes articles on pseudoscience (like [[astrology]]), as long as it is notable as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Spending your time finding such sources is more useful than attacking people participating in the AfD (Gerard is not even the nom). --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
* {{u|Waters.Justin}}, sjeez, please read up on what a conflict of interest actually is. This is not one. None of the arguments in the AfD that gets you so riled up is about the ideas that the IEET espouses. It is about, as one of the SPA IEET supporters creeping out of the woodwork expressed it, the fact that "nobody ever wrote about IEET". WP includes articles on pseudoscience (like [[astrology]]), as long as it is notable as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Spending your time finding such sources is more useful than attacking people participating in the AfD (Gerard is not even the nom). --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
* Even if David Gerard has a COI, a COI is no bar to !voting in an AfD. I am closing this as an advocacy driven non-issue and a trout goes to Waters.Justin for bringing this. I am going to follow up with Waters.Justin and David Gerard on matters not raised here. Am archiving this instead of just marking it resolved as misfired cases like this tend to spin into dramafests. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

Revision as of 22:46, 10 June 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) 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 meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. 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.
    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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • 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. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. 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|Article}}.
    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, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 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 meets 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:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dax Dasilva
    Talk:Datacommons.org
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Drama Juniors
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Orit Ishay
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Chris Kubecka
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Profire Energy
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:Squishmallows
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Traton
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Wikimedian of the Year
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    30+ articles written by Worthywords requiring cleanup

    This editor discloses on their user page that they were paid to write every article above Herakut other than Citizens Rights Watch. Of the articles I've reviewed I've found numerous problems including notability, verification, blp, original research and subtle promotion. These diffs show some of the content I have removed: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Media Coach section of Alan Stevens (media consultant) was the most concerning as it was completely WP:FAKE and promotional, yet to the reader, apparently reliably sourced. Of other articles that I've glanced at these problems don't appear to unique and I need help to review the others, checking that content is well-sourced and verifiable. I raised my concerns with the user yesterday but although they edited today adding more content to article space, they haven't as yet responded. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There were also meatpuppetry links to this user in this SPI last September after which Worthwords changed username from Georgiasouthernlynn. SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OY, there is a load of work. Thanks for bringing it! Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    listed them; went through them to tag for COI and tag the talk page with COI edit notice and connected contributor. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Jytdog: and @Joseph2302: for your help. Still some way to go and no communication from Worthywords. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    you are welcome! yes ongoing problems seem likely. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been online to make a couple of edits today, but have declined to comment. If they continue with these disruptive edits and terrible articles, I'm tempted to take the issue to ANI. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So lots of these articles have now been deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah we're getting there but I just found another completely non-notable article that I've sent to AFD and others that are notable need depuffing still. SmartSE (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found more with this tool which they didn't create themselves. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Lambe

    LisaLambe01 has not specifically identified herself as the actual subject of the Lisa Lambe article, but her editing has indicated that she has a vested interest in the article. She has consistently altered the content to downplay Ms Lambe's involvement with the group Celtic Woman (which she (the article subject) left in 2014). Several attempts at the editor's talk page to have her avoid the obvious conflict of interest have been ignored, so I'm bringing the matter here. Ms Lambe (the editor) clearly wants the article to move past the Celtic Woman phase, but there is not really much evidence of notability outside of that, so if we redact that portion of Lambe's career, the article woudln't meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that User:LisaLambe01 has been sufficiently warned. If she makes any further inappropriate edits at Lisa Lambe, a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: LisaLambe01 has explicitly identified herself as the subject of the article in this edit, where she writes:
    when you google my name in general a box on right hand size of screen comes up like a fact file
    indicating that she is identifying herself as the Lisa Lambe of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added User:Uncletomscottage, as they're making similar edits to LisaLambe01- removing the image, replacing surname with firstname. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cominform.com

    Resolved
     – all these articles have been deleted. editor discloses they are a paid editor on their user page. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned that @Hilumeoka2000: may be making paid edits to Wikipedia without disclosing that they are doing so, in violation of WP:COI. This came to my attention because I nominated Cominform.com, and Hilumeoka2000 responded quickly by adding articles hosted on Cominform's own website. @NukeThePukes: noticed the same thing, so I began looking into it further. Searching Google, I found these two sites: [5] and [6], which are advertisements for paid Wikipedia editing. The user names on those websites are both "Hilumeoka2000," the same as on Wikipedia. At [7], Hilumeoka2000 notes some Wikipedia pages that they have "created for some organizations." The three articles listed there, Newfield Resources Limited, Garbage Concern Welfare Society, and Mawano Kambeu, are all articles that Wikipedia user Hilumeoka2000 created ([8], [9], [10]). Obviously, undisclosed paid editing is a problem. I will leave it to the admins to determine how to handle this issue. Agtx (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, the evidence appears to suggest an undisclosed paid editor. If this is the case, I believe that administrative attention is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I do not think that this posting violates WP:OUTING, both because the policy allows for postings related to accounts on other websites, and because the external links refer to Wikipedia specifically (making them effectively Wikipedia related). If someone thinks it does though, I will not be offended if this gets oversighted. Agtx (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Joseph2302 and Agtx.. But please hear my story first..

    I'll be very sincere with you. I have been a full time article writer, blogger and web content writer. I also earn a living from that. I work on freelancer.com, Elance.com and odesk.com..


    Here's my public profile on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html

    Here's my public profile on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/

    You can also search "hilumeoka2000" in Odesk to get my details there.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Now, I use to see clients post jobs about "Write a Wikipedia page" or "Create a Wikipedia page" on all the freelancer platforms. In fact, it seems as if everyone wants to be on wikipedia probably because of the high page ranking and traffic that comes from the resource.


    As a freelancer interested in research, I use to get useful materials from Wikipedia and other sources to write some of my articles. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a great resource.


    Sometime in 2002, I created an account on wikipedia to see if I can meet the demands of the clients who request for wiki job on freelance platforms. To be frank, I didn't understand how to use wikipedia as at then. Hence, I abandoned the urge to write wikipedia articles and continued with my normal web content development and article writing career.


    Now, sometime in April this year, I decided to start placing bids on wikipedia jobs via freelancer.com. This is because, wiki jobs are always available but there are few people who actually know how to write them.


    I made a decision to learn about wikipedia writing and what it entails. I started reading all the wiki tutorials I could see on wikipedia. I started learning and indeed, it's quite interesting. It was not easy initially, but, I vowed to know more.


    So, I placed my first bid on freelancer.com. A client wanted me to write on "Joshua Letcher" . I accepted. I used this particular topic to learn some facts about wiki policies. I created and submitted it for review. It was rejected but I was told what to do to make it acceptable. I took some days to make some researches about "Joshua Letcher" I discovered, there are no media secondary resources.. That was the reason the article was deleted.


    Now, the same client also contracted me to write about thier company "Newfield Resources Ltd. I did my research to get some secondary resources. I succeeded and created the article. It was allowed to stay.


    So, I got excited. I really became very happy that I can now write wikipedia articles. So, I went for more. I always focused more on maintaining neutrality and using secondary sources. I also follow the rules on referencing and formatting having taken enough time to learn them.


    Now, as a freelancer, I kept getting alerts about new Wikipedia creation jobs. I go ahead to place my bids. I really got selected by some clients to help them put up a wikipedia page. I also get paid for doing so as a freelancer. I turn down jobs that do not have media coverage or jobs that are meant to promote or advertise since they are against wiki rules.


    So far, I've created the following pages via the jobs I won through freelancer.com and Elance.com.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu


    I made sure each of the pages is neutral and properly cited. I'm also working on few more pages right now. I don't get involved in vandalism or supporting stands to make a page stay on wikipedia. My main focus is to create new pages.


    To be very sincere with you, I've never heard about the issue of disclosing paid identity on Wikipedia until now. I thought that I'm free to create articles as a freelancer and get paid.

    I noticed one thing about most of my clients. They don't know how to create articles on wikipedia. Some of them have tried but failed. Hence, they look for an expert who will help them.


    So please, I'll like to know if I'm contravening wiki rules by creating articles for clients through freelancer.com. I don't really know. There are lots of policies on wikipedia. I learn most of them as I create articles. I learn virtually on daily basis.


    Do I need to declare myself as a Paid editor or something? Do I need to stop creating articles for clients?

    I'll like to get clarifications.

    Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: All these pages have been put up for AfD deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: All of these pages have been deleted under AfD processes. The user doesn't appear to have returned to Wikipedia after their block for undisclosed paid editing and harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthias Hentze

    Several SPAs created and are maintaining this article. Article is a BLP that looks like a CV. It has one reference, to a German library catalog. Princessella123 appaears to have access to digital images from subject of the article's place of employment. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Princessella123 declared at Wikimedia Commons here that she is the subject's personal assistant. — Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BiH paid editing?

    Over at SPI, clerk User:Vanjagenije has just endorsed investigation of user BiH with the comment "This might be some kind of paid editing ring...". I've compiled a list of about 50 articles to investigate at User:Brianhe/COIbox2 – all created by BiH at a prodigious rate, nearly all about PR-seeking companies and celebrities. Just the last 5 are listed above as a representative sample.

    BiH did not respond to my question about suspicious editing on his talkpage [11], and has not commented on the SPI casepage. Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a quick look, removed some unverified promotional text, and put a couple up for AfD. If they've been socking and undisclosed paid editing, my opinion is they should be indeffed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Note, the list on my page was non-exhaustive; I just stopped when I got back to May 2014. And I probably missed some stuff mixed in with his newpage patrol edits. — Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's paid editing going on, the clients should get their money back. BMK (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A good find. And unfortunately another paid editor that somehow acquired autopatrolled rights (I've removed them). There are some links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sibtain_007 e.g. with BiH editing Laura_Sullivan_(composer) (which one of those socks started) and creating Eric Sullivan who is completely NN. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A correction to my note that BiH did not reply to me about questionable editing. This explanation was posted on my talkpage. Sorry, I'd forgotten it was there. I did ask him to post at the SPI, however. — Brianhe (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Some more evidence of sandbox interactions with other editors on software company and plastic surgeon articles is here: User:Brianhe/COIbox5 — Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So the SPI concluded that BiH isn't socking but from the articles I've looked at there are numerous problems and they continue to be created: Klaus Solberg Søilen. Just bumping this up again in case any one else gets a chance to review more. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is clearly a paid editor. i just tried to open a discussion with them too. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    socialworkhelper.com

    I happened across a user whose only contributions involve additions of content referenced to socialworkhelper.com and I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done so I'm just bringing to the attention of this noticeboard. The edits all appear constructive, but it may be promotional as well. Based on the username, Swhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), there appears to be a connection to the website and a possible conflict of interest. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That bears watching. "socialworkhelper.com" has some good content, and some promoted content, and both look the same. The site comes up in Google only in its own PR (Facebook, Pinterest, etc.) I'd suggest that the editor involved refrain from adding more links to "socialworkhelper.com". It's starting to look like linkspam. John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I had responded on the Edgeweyes talk page, and there will be no more links added. Our intent is not to be linkspam. User SWHelper is an editor with Social Work Helper, and it was not our intention to hide this fact. The links that have been added actually covers the span for a couple of years because very few updates have been made to main social work pages. All the links important for us to reference have been added. However, I would note Social Work Helper is the leading authority for the social work profession which helps to elevate the platform of social work professionals and social work topics. Wikipedia editors are not crediting contributions of social work professionals or social work contributions on topics. Social Work Helper should not be judged solely because other magazines or newspapers are not providing publicity to Social Work Helper. Newspapers and magazines rarely provide publicity on social workers or credit social workers contributions to public discourse, but it should not alleviate its importance. Google "Celebrity Social Workers", if it had not been for Social Work Helper, many people would not know Sam Jackson, John Amos, Martin Short, Dr. Steve Perry (who doesn't have a Wikipedia page at all) Alice Walker, and Winnie Mandela to name a few were social workers. To be fair, topic not being covered should not be the only impetus for inclusion, rather than identify whether authoritative figures are utilizing and contribution to Social Work Helper in order to reach the social work community at large. Social Work Helper is the first social work media platform to get press credentials to a White House Event and attend a White House Briefing on another occasion as well as being owned by an African-American woman. Social Work Helper is also a Google News site. Who exactly is going to document this other than someone interested in documenting this piece of history? Any advice would be appreciated for me to pass along.Swhelper (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All of my edits have been reverted (jytdog)despite being good edits. How do I contest this?Storm705 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Contest reverts by Jytdog

    All of my edits have been reverted despite them being good edits. I disclosed the COI, but the edits that were made should have been reverted. Two other editors had already looked at the edits made, they suggested to not make any more to socialworkhelper because it may be spamming. Jytdog, left a message on my page to change my name because it violated policy. Then, they reverted all of my edits. I wanted to contest the reverts, but I am not sure how to do this. My original name was username is swhelper Storm705 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to subsection of original discussion. Also @Jytdog:. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you say they were good doesn't necessarily make them actually good. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    spamming articles from socialworkhelper.com into WP is a violation of WP:PROMO. Most instances I found were not adding value to WP. You should not be using WP to get exposure for your website. I would be happy to discuss any particular edit you made, that i deleted. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Website spamming:[12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
    Frankly I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked for spamming yet. Wikipedia is not a place to spam your website, if you continue then you will get blocked. Spammers may also get their websites blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Shutter - Declare COI and Invite Feedback

    I expect to receive compensation from Rick Shutter, a musician, for writing an encyclopedic Wikipedia article about him. Per the recommendation in the Paid editing (guidance essay), I am declaring my COI here. I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing, COIs, BLPs, and the Five Pillars, and I have strived to abide by these policies. I have written a draft on my user space here, I have disclosed my COI in the edit summary there, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the examination of the user-space draft. The first reader offered constructive feedback, which was quite helpful. The second nominated the draft for speedy deletion, and the third deleted it.Kekki1978 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, WP:NOTADVERTISING was certainly applicable (I was #2 person by the way). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph2302 has chosen to identify himself and state his opinion. (A reason for doing so is unclear to me, as additional discussion, particularly in this forum, seems moot since the draft has been deleted.) Given that his facts are now aired, in the interest of balance I am getting additional facts on the table. (By responding to Joseph2302 in this forum, I am respecting his banning paid editors from commenting on his talk page as well as complying with his stated desire that discussions be kept unfragmented.)
    "#1 person" apparently disagreed with Joseph2302, stating (to the best of my recollection) that the draft was perhaps a bit too promotional but it was nothing that couldn't be fixed. ("#1 person" also thanked me for following the paid editing rules.)
    Regarding Joseph2302's opinion, WP:NOTADVERTISING lists 5 kinds of promotion, (essentially: advocacy/propaganda/recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, advertising/marketing/public relations). Of these 5, the first 3 seem obviously irrelevant, leaving the latter 2 as possibilities; in fact, Joseph2302 cited CSD G11 as his criterion for applying the tag. GSD G11 describes text that is "exclusively promotional" and that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Again, "#1 person", by stating that the text was "perhaps" a bit too promotional but could be fixed [italics added], apparently disagreed.
    I am a few months "younger" here than Joseph2302 and I admit I am still learning the ropes; I value others' guidance. While I may not have been here long enough to have formed opinions that others value, I do feel that the placement of a "speedy deletion" tag on a userspace draft in these circumstances (in place of providing feedback and fostering discussion on the draft's talk page) was surprising. Indeed, CSD G11 also states that "if a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." My draft was about a professional musician, who by virtue of having contributed to a recording whose sales were certified as Gold, definitely met the criteria for notability stated here: Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Since the text could easily have been replaced, (particularly based on requested feedback), it seems reasonable to me to conclude that deletion was not a preferable approach. Indeed, a recent conversation in the Teahouse indicates that at least one other editor has the opinion that "the transgression must be blindingly obvious to warrant the approach." (I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to identify the Teahouse host as s/he's not a party to this conversation. Regardless, it is clear that the alleged transgression was not blindingly obvious as "#1 person" had a different opinion.)
    One of my goals in requesting feedback on my draft was to gain a clearer understanding of what the Wikipedia community considers to be neutral language but I have walked away from this experience with merely an understanding of two people's opinions. I find it unfortunate that I am unable to gather a wider range of feedback because the userspace draft was deleted.
    I realize that it was an administrator and not Joseph2302 who deleted the userspace draft and I recognize that I have the opportunity to discuss reasons with the administrator and to request an undeletion of the draft. The existence of such checks-and-balances within Wikipedia is extraordinarily helpful. IMO, however, the discussion seems moot at this point and it seems more reasonable just to focus on re-writing the draft.
    I appreciate Joseph2302's identifying himself and defending his opinion regarding my userspace draft. I also value Joseph2302's stating his belief on his talk page that "Wikipedia should not have paid editors" and I am impressed that editors have expressed appreciation on his talk page for "all his hard anti-COI work". Nevertheless, I find it unfortunate that this detailed discussion of varying opinions is now taking place in this forum, as the IMO this discussion of opinions regarding an already deleted draft doesn't contribute much to the mission of expanding Wikipedia with solid articles. I do thank Joseph2302 for his work in trying to ensure that Wikipedia remains a high-quality source of unbiased information. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my position on COI/paid editors, my view was that if I was in charge then I would ban paid editors and not let COI editors directly edit articles. However, I fully respect the community consensus that paid editors are permitted, and COI editors are allowed to edit articles, and work and do my upmost to help them as much as any other editor- this is why many people believe that my COI work is good. Also, this post seems to be less about the article, and more about complaining about my actions, which an administrator has supported. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank Joseph2302 for defending his position. As a point of correction, the text in question was not an "article", defined as a page in namespace that has encyclopedic information on it. Instead, it was a draft on a subpage in user space. Storing "drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest" is a legitimate use of user space.
    Regarding Joseph2302's statement that my post here seemed to focus more on "complaints" about his actions than defenses of my "article", at this time I choose not to discuss with the deleting administrator the legitimacy of how I used user space nor defend the text in question any more than I already have because to do so seems moot; it is a deleted userspace draft that is being rewritten. I am of the opinion that subjecting readers here to a repeatedly cycling discussion of discarded text would be futile and I am hopeful that the discussion of it is ending. In response to this experience, I have instituted the practice of tagging my user space drafts with the { { userspace draft } } template to more obviously indicate that the text is a work in progress. I thank Joseph2302 for helping me to augment the robustness of my writing discipline.
    I wish Joseph2302 the best in his COI work.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cellular automaton

    Lev Kalmykov insists on including his own newly-published original research into cellular automaton, and has edit-warred to keep it in after I removed it: original insertion restoration #1 after removal restoration #2. More eyes on this, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear Colleagues,

    I have a problem with a possible misunderstanding.

    My contribution is not about "original research". The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

    My contribution also cannot be considered as "spam and advertising": Latest revision as of 17:28, 22 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by Lev Kalmykov (talk): Remove spam and advertising. (TW)).

    My contribution is appropriate and accurate. It's not about my biography, my personality and it does not contain anything other than a title of the article published in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.231 which is indexing in 27 bibliographic bases and another title of the article published by 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.503 which is indexing in 7 bibliographic bases.

    Re-posting was caused by the insufficiently correct deletion of this adequate contribution by David Eppstein.

    In more details:

    The first removal of my contribution “16:01, 21 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undo WP:REFSPAM, WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this is of any significance)” looked biased because I provided a referenced link to the peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2015) A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata Acta Biotheoretica:1-19 doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9) and it is already indexed in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25980478. Within a month, it is expected that the article will be indexed in all 27 bases. Besides, this contribution directly corresponds to the title of the published article and Wikipedia's section.

    The second removal of the contribution “15:31, 22 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undid revision 663513765 by Lev Kalmykov (talk) same reason. Primary source with absolutely no citations on Google scholar.)” also looked biased because Acta Biotheoretica has Impact Factor 1.231 and indexed in Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, CAB International, Academic OneFile, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CSA Environmental Sciences, Current Contents/ Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Elsevier Biobase, EMBiology, Gale, Geobase, Global Health, INIS Atomindex, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, The Philosopher's Index, Zoological Record.

    I also provided a link to another peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2013) Verification and reformulation of the competitive exclusion principle Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 56:124-131 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2013.07.006). It was published in 2013. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals has Impact Factor:1.503. This journal is indexed Science Citation Index; Scopus; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Mathematical Reviews; Research Alert; SCISEARCH; Zentralblatt MATH

    This contribution also directly corresponds to the title of the article and Wikipedia's section.

    Verification of the competitive exclusion principle and biodiversity paradox were the long-standing problems in theoretical ecology.

    I am a novice at Wiki and I need more correct and understandable arguments. May I cite these articles using their titles and referenced links (as I did in these cases) for example after a month when our article from Acta Biotheoretica will be indexed in all 27 bibliographic bases?

    Thank you for your time and consideration!

    Sincerely,

    Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with User:David Eppstein, although my subject knowledge is limited- they look to be edit warring to keep their own research in the article. I'm choosing to reply here rather than on my talkpage where the message above was also posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Independently from David Eppstein I noticed that Lev Kalmykov has added multiple references to his own work on the Complex system lemma, see here, which I think is not ok. I was planning to add a Template:COI tag to the article (or remove the reference) when I saw this discussion, and decided to comment here first. -- Mdd (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lev Kalmykov please understand that Wikipedia has been around a long time, and you are not the first scientist who has wanted to cite his own work here. The community has figured out ways to deal with this. Would you please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and then reply here, showing us that you've read that and understand it? Please don't think that we don't want experts to work in Wikipedia -- we do, very much! Please do read WP:EXPERT which is an essay written to help folks like you understand Wikipedia.... please also see the last bullet which again circles back to the COI issues being discussed here. If you have any questions or want to talk through this more, please let us know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was the one to report this I should probably note that I have in the past also added references to my own publications to articles. But (1) it's a tiny fraction of my edits, (2) I will not restore such references if someone else disagrees with the addition, and (3) I usually make an effort to include a comment about the COI and about not restoring if there's disagreement in the edit summary. Where the present situation crosses the line for me is not so much the addition, but the edit-warring to keep the addition in. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    good on you, david eppstein. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Colleagues,

    I believe that there should be a rule which definitely allows posting relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. The a-priori labeling of relevant scientific knowledge from reliable published sources as "WP: REFSPAM, WG: TOOSOON say whether it is of any significance" looks unacceptable. A removal of such information may be considered as Vandalism on Wikipedia.

    If there is no firm rule which explicitly permit authors to post relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters, then I offer to implement it. Otherwise, there is too much room for subjective voluntary actions, which are difficult to distinguish from vandalism.

    Note: The problem arose when my contribution was deleted. A text of the contribution: “A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata” with the reference to the Wikipedia article ‘Cellular_automaton’ was posted in the section ‘Problems solved’.

    The reference: Kalmykov, L. V. & Kalmykov, V. L. A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata. Acta Biotheoretica, 1-19, doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9 (2015).

    Impact Factor of the journal 1.231. As our results were published in peer-reviewed journal which is indexed in Journal Citation Reports, these results are not the "original research" and thus they can be posted in Wikipedia. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Gableman

    For the past several days 165.219.245.62 has been edit warring the Michael Gableman article in an effort to add promotional material and to whitewash incidents in which the Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice has been involved. The IP address 165.219.245.62 is registered to the Wisconsin Court System (http://wicourts.gov/). It appears that 165.219.245.62 is an insider there who is trying to spin the justice's article. 165.219.245.62 has been warned about conflict of interest, to no avail. I suggest a topic ban for 165.219.245.62 for all Wisconsin court and judiciary-related articles. 32.218.42.167 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has only just declared they are a paid editor at their userpage, User:TGCJKS197276. The articles look really spammy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'll notice, I had only published the Daniel Ritchie article a few minutes before I wrote the discloser. The Cody Sipe article is only a couple of days old. I was unaware of the disclosure policy as I am new to Wikipedia. As soon as the policy was kindly pointed out to me, I made the disclosure. It was not my intention to hide the fact that I was writing as a paid editor, nor was it my intention to be "spammy". Both men are notable in the physical fitness and functional aging sectors and that was my reason for writing the pages. I intentionally did not link to their personal websites in the articles, nor did I promote any products that they have for sale. I'm new to the Wikipedia world and understand that my style may not be perfect yet. I did, in good faith, attempt to write the articles from a neutral point of view. If they need modification, then I am willing to do so and also welcome the assistance of other editors. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They don't need modifying, they need deleting. Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable individuals to use as advertising space, see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:CSD#A7, [[WP:CSD#G11]. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    one of the problems of paid editing is the temptation to create articles on marginal topics. The way for a paid editor to establish a good reputation here as a responsible contributor is to limit themselves to subjects where there is clear notability, and make certain that the article fully shows it,and contains no extraneous promotional material. In some fields, judging notability has proven difficult, and for these, a sensible editor, paid or unpaid, ought to check the fate of similar submissions and see what comments are made at relevant AfDs. Doing good work here takes effort. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic cigarette

    In March 2015, Kim became President of DADAFO, as KIm discloses here. (My attention was called to COI issues when I read Zad's remark here) On the relevant articles, Kim has edited as follows:

    • So what is DADAFO?
    • You can read Kim's description here.
    • here is their website in Danish,
    • Here is their website through google translate.
    • there is not a lot on English on them, but from (badly done google-translated) stuff like this on their site, they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. I believe he has a COI due to his position as president of an advocacy organization.
    • I brought this up at Kim's Talk page here and suggested that he not edit the articles directly anymore. He replied here, and as I was not satisfied with his answer, I told him I would post here.
    • I was involved in the e-cig articles in the past (I haven't edited them for a long time other than to pop in on RfCs), so I will recuse myself from doing any thing more than posting this. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (note - fixed link above, under "stuff like this")[reply]
    Query to User:Jytdog: What particular item on the DADAFO site are you referring to with the comment "stuff like this"? This refers me to our frontpage, and not to a particular article. If you are in doubt on any Danish item, i will be helpfull in translating it :) --Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it. it was the link to the google-translate version of the Jeg kan ikke lide e-cigaretter article. Please let us know if my description of DADAFO's advocacy positions is not accurate. I looked at several things on the website and my summary above is based on all that, not just the one page.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article that you are referring to is filed under "articles/media/foreign media" - it does not represent our stance (albeit that we agree with a lot of it), and is presented as an opinion article. The original version of that article (in english) can be found here[28] --Kim D. Petersen 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    bunch of diffs with unclear relationship to COI issues - maybe express DADAFO advocacy positions but that was not made clear Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
    Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
    Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
    Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
    User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, did you delete a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? Where was your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to WP:PAG? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) .What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, do you think your reverts improved the page? What was the bat signal thing about? QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No i did not "delete a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS" first of all because MEDRS does not have any policy on what sources can or cannot be removed, that would be WP:WEIGHT - all of the above reverts were during an RFC, and all of them include a note on why the reverts were done, and since this was during an RFC - there was a lot of discussion on whether or not it was appropriate. Including in fact on the AN/I thread about you here[29] (including in the other comments there)
    If i'm not mistaken those are the same diffs as you used on ANI then - aren't they? --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If i'm not mistaken, the postion that DADAFO has on e-cigarettes, mirror Public Health Englands positions[30]. With regards to regulations, we as an organization have been advocation for regulations since 2013, not against. We have advocated against the current proposal for legislation because it is draconian - not because of it being regulation in and of itself. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that DADAFO was opposed to all regulation. What I said was "they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. " Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Well then you are wrong. We are not taking any stance on whether vaping is safe (no one knows that), in fact i stated in national TV that (from memory) "you are putting something down your lungs that does not naturally belong there, is that healthy? Common sense tells us: It is not. But what we can say is that it is less dangerous than smoking, which will kill you" Which reflects DADAFO's stance rather clearly. E-cigs are a product to stop smoking! It is not a health remedy, and we would strongly caution any user who isn't already smoking, from using them. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided my understanding of DADAFO's positions. So that this is properly teed up and others can better think through the COI issues here, please provide clear statements on DADAFO's stances on the following issues:
    • safety of inhaled vapor to vapers
    • safety of exhaled vapor to bystanders
    • role of e-cigs in helping people quit smoking
    • risk of e-cigs in promoting nicotine addiction
    • whether e-cigs and liquid should be regulated like medical devices/drugs
    Others may have other questions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Safer than smoking. Unsafe for non-smokers.
    • We are currently in the stages of creating a test on this with The Danish Technological Institute. Since Burstyn et al. and german research indicate that the emissions fall within the envelope for safe working environment. So currently we are taking the stance that it lies well within the Threshold limit values for a safe work environment. Note that Public Health England states the same on page 14[31]:

    Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke so the well-documented effects of passive exposure of others to cigarette smoke[9, 10] are clearly not relevant. Exposure of nonsmokers to electronic cigarette vapour poses a concern, though laboratory work suggests that electronic cigarette use in an enclosed space exposes others to nicotine at levels about one tenth generated by a cigarette, but little else[78]. The health risks of passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour are therefore likely to be extremely low.

    • Electronic cigarettes should be considered when NRT's fail to work.
    • This question is only relevant if you are adressing non-smokers - and we strongly discourage non-smokers to use e-cigs. (and fortunately research and surveys shows that they do not - we follow the British The Smokers Toolkit[32] developments on this, and have adviced our government that they should start up a similar program here in Denmark)
    • This is an irrelevant question since the EU has deemed that they are consumer products via the Tobacco products directive (TPD). EU Directive 2014/40/EU, article 20[33]. It is not something that an EU member state has influence on.
    I welcome all questions. --Kim D. Petersen 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I will let others take it from here. I appreciate your graciousness in cooperating with this being aired. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will let others weigh in in an official manner. It appears that these organizations are pushing to allow e-cigs in the work environment. I would have concerns from a public health perspective that the re exposure of those who have previously quit smoking to nicotine may increase their risk of resuming smoking.[34]
    This ref says "Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions" [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: That is an incorrect assessment. In Denmark vaping in the workplace is already legal, thus we do not "push to allow it". I mentioned TLVs because they are an objective measure of exposure, which already is incorporated in law here in Denmark and the EU. If e-cigs have a TLV higher than legal, then it should be banned in the working area - which is why were working with Teknologisk Institut to measure it in a climate-chamber under real workconditions, and for 8 cumulative hours (5 vapers within a limited space (30m²), vaping for 8 cumulative hours (typical workday in Denmark), with constant airmeasurements, and with equipment that verifies that they are using their normal "vaping patterns". Air samples will be tested by the Fraunhofer institute (best in Europe for these kinds of measurements), and will hopefully be part of the scientific literature once finished), to figure out where the emissions lie in relation to TLV's, and the indoor climate recommendations (significantly lower than TLV). DADAFO is evidence, not advocacy, driven. --Kim D. Petersen 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The problem here is not whether there is a COI, i'm aware that there is one, which is why i have a statement on my user front[36], just as policy advices, but to what extent the COI limits my editing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Nb: with regards to COI, shouldn't editors who are involved with the article be disclosing that information when commenting here?[reply]

    That is a good clarification, Kim. Thanks for making it. For others, I had requested that Kim refrain from directly editing articles related to electronic cigarettes and instead limit himself to talk page discussion; he did not find that reasonable. That is the question here. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Want to add here, that Europe has indeed passed special regulation for tobacco-based products that includes e-cigs, known as the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). What that means exactly is being fought over both at the EU level and at the member state level. (See Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes#Europe. Totally Wicked challenged recent EU decisions on the application of TPD to e-cigs and that case will be worked out in court starting this year; and Denmark recently floated regulations to implement TPD that were vehemently opposed by many vapers (see here for some discussion of that.). So some more questions for KimDabelsteinPetersen:
    • Has DADAFO been advocating on the EU level on how TPD should apply to e-cigs and is it participating in the court challenge in any way?
    • Did DADAFO take a stance on the recent Danish proposal to implement TPD?
    • Is DADAFO advocating for specific provisions in the Danish implementation of TPD?
    I am asking these questions again because these are cases where public opinion matters, and therefore what Wikipedia says matters, so folks can think through whether it makes sense for you to directly edit the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Here are my responses to your questions - which all seem to be policy issues:
    • DADAFO was indirectly involved in the TPD discussions [sending briefings to local MEP's as well as the Danish government]
    • DADAFO was invited by the Danish government to partake in the hearing process on the new law. (our hearing response can be found here).
    • DADAFO strongly supported the age-restrictions, warning measurements (toxic, keep away from children, do not use if pregnant etc). We adviced that e-liquid with nicotine should not be sold over the counter at supermarkets and other such non-specialized retailers, since these aren't capable of educating new users or giving sufficient warnings. Objected to the cost of putting a product on the market, as well as pointed out that the economic calculations significantly underestimated the market. Pointed out that while the law required emission and liquid testing, there was no description on what such testing should include, as well as how it should be done [this is what we're involved in the CEN standardization process figuring out]. As well as numerous other issues. [it should be noted that DADAFO roughly a month before the law-proposal mentioned was floated, proposed a similar but less draconian implementation of the TPD to the Danish lawmakers (found here)]
    As i already stated: The place that i won't edit is within the policy aspects (particular the Danish ones) of electronic cigarettes, since this is the primary aspect of DADAFO's work.
    Within the health region we're taking a pure evidence based approach. I was instrumental in making sure that DADAFO used Wikipedia WP:MEDRS reviews in our approach to health aspects, and not make the same mistake as other NGO's, by using individual studies as basis, but instead use what reviews state. --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is clearly a COI in relation to electronic cigarettes. The guideline says of campaigning:

    "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Similarly, editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest."

    The guideline strongly discourages COI editing ("COI editing is strongly discouraged"), and I hope Kim will respect that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course i will (and have) respect(ed) that. I will never on Wikipedia rely on my personal opinion on issues, no matter if i have a COI or not. Our pillars are inviolable. This issue is about how restrictive WP:COI should be interpreted. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    KimDabelsteinPetersen, SlimVirgin is an administrator who works on COI issues, generally at the guideline level, and as far as I know has not been involved in the e-cig article. Joseph2302 works on COI issues a lot on the ground (you see him posting everywhere on this board) and as far as I know he has also not edited e-cigs. Both of them are advising you not to edit the articles directly going forward. I work this board a lot too, and I am advising you the same. ( I understand that you may see me as biased, which is I brought this here) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog i do not see you as biased. As i've said before: DADAFO's interests lie in the political aspects of electronic cigarettes in Denmark and the EU, as well as on the European standard for electronic cigarettes - and thus i have a clear and present COI for these particular area. As for electronic cigarettes in general - we do not promote their usage, nor in any other way have advocacy issues. Thus i will (as i've already explained on my talk page) refrain from editing these particular areas. But a complete editban for the whole topic area is not in line with our COI guidelines - since my position does not involve taking a stance on these. I have no predetermined biases towards whether electronic cigarettes are healthy or not, that is for the medical and scientific literature to determine. Nor do i have predetermined views on any other aspect of the topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, as the COI guideline explains, COI has nothing to do with bias or lack thereof. It has to do with external roles and relationships. See WP:EXTERNALREL, WP:COIBIAS and WP:COI#What is wrong with conflict of interest?. That you have a conflict in a contentious area means you should not edit articles in that area, and should probably also avoid RfCs and similar, or else make your COI known in those discussions. If you had only made a few edits to those articles, it would matter less, but you've been focusing on them for a while, so it's a problem. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, but it does have something to do with vested interest. And i have no vested interests in other subtopics of electronic cigarettes outside of Danish and EU policy on the area. My COI is less than for instance health professionals, or researchers within this topic area, and editors from those areas are not considered as having COI. What you essentially translate COI into is: If you have an interest or knowledge within an area, you should not edit it. Which is contrary to Wikipedia's pillars. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a large academic literature on COI, and our guideline follows it. It doesn't mean that if you know or believe something about an area, you have a COI. Please read the guideline, starting from WP:COI#What is conflict of interest?. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, i have read it, just as i've read our policies in general (why do you think i disclosed my position?). And nothing in COI states that i should not edit or contribute as long as i'm careful and stick to a strict adherence to our policies (here i would presume WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are the main aspects). I've disclosed my COI long before this thread, and i've stayed away from problem areas, and i've also mainly contributed to the talk-pages. If you can find any edits or comments that are problematic, then i'd like to hear it - especially since i follow WP policies to the letter. If there are any particular behavioral issues then i would also like to hear them. I'm not involved in any sort of WP:ADVOCACY (or in "getting the word out") --Kim D. Petersen 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    KimDabelsteinPetersen, you made edits to the Safety of electronic cigarettes. I provided some diffs on your talk page. See User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive_2015#Query.
    The RfC resulted in keeping the sources. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_3#RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content?.
    See here on your talk page. You had a discussion with User:Bishonen. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    QG as usual you are only telling half of the story. I did not "edit", i reverted back to the last consensus version before the RfC, while the RfC was running, and because the RfC was running. The problem there was that you wanted to pre-empt the RfC. And that you keep repeating this particular instance, in various forums, is rather more of an indication of problems with your editing patterns than mine - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I have to say, as someone with a "former" COI here, when I worked for Cancer Research UK, I don't find Kim's fairly few edits to the article - a tiny fraction of the torrent - really part of the undoubted problem on that page. Mostly he edits the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at his contribs, he edits several articles about electronic cigarettes. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in fact only edited the main article since my appointment. And my contributions have been very limited even there. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And I also watch some of the other articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no COI: Whether a person has a COI or not ultimately rests on the nature of their relationship with the subject at hand. The revelant guideline at WP:COI states: "An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse." In other words, if Kim were to edit DADAFO articles, that would be a COI because he is directly related to the organization. Electronic cigarette seems to be a much broader topic, and though it might be closely related to the DADAFO, I do not consider Kim to have a direct relationship with this topic area. On the other hand, he definitely has a COI when it comes to the DADAFO organization itself. Just like how alt. med practitioners (probably) do not have a COI for alt med. articles, but only for their own organizations. -A1candidate 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A1candidate, i disagree, i most certainly have a strong COI when it comes to Danish and EU politics with regards to electronic cigarettes, since that is the area that DADAFO is a part of. We have a direct impact on Danish politics on this area, and are part of the political process in implementing the TPD (EU tobacco directive) in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • COI exists. The DADAFO pretty clearly appears to be an advocacy group on e-cigs in general based on the above. Because of that broad involvement in the topic (regardless of the group's actual stances or country of political involement), that would mean Kim should not be editing articles related to e-cigs. Per our standard approach to COI editors, they should only make edit requests. If advocacy-like behavior does become apparent and a problem on talk pages, that's a topic for a different venue (not commenting on if it is currently a problem). However, they should take precautionary measures in talk conversations to not appear like an advocate since this COI could create that appearance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do please explain how DADAFO is an advocacy group on e-cigs in general. We are involved in the political process as a consumer protection organization - not as a promoter, advertiser or advocate on anything other than how to implement e-cigs in Danish legislature (and general consumer rights within the market). That such organizations such us DADAFO exists is perhaps a Danish thing, but we are the consumer arm within the market. You may liken us to a Labour union, which within the workspace represents the workers.
    Thus within political aspects of e-cigs, particularly for Denmark and the EU, i have a strong COI. --Kim D. Petersen 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your group's website supports e-cigarettes. An editor working for tobacco-industry lobbyists would be expected not to edit articles about smoking. It wouldn't matter that she had been tasked to lobby just one government. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo with Sarah here. My "in general" comment was with respect to the fact that the group closely works with the topic of e-cigs, regardless of the actual stance they take (pro, anti, in between measured response, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We work within the topic of electronic cigarette legislature and no other aspect or topic of e-cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a strange stance, since there is definite difference between producers and consumers. Producers are economically dependent on a product. And we aren't lobbyists either. We are not economically dependent on anything. Consumer rights != Industry lobbying. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, it's common for advocates to lobby in the name of consumer rights. The tobacco, pharmaceutical, alcohol and junk-food industries are known for it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Sarah. That would be Astroturfing. And i hope that you aren't implying anything with that? --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, I'm not implying astroturfing in the sense that something's fake. It's just that buyer and seller desires cohere in cases like this, and when the product is one that buyers are addicted to, advancing their rights isn't obviously in their interests.

    Then there are the interests of the non-consumer or former consumer. Buyers want to use the product with minimal restrictions, even if it negatively affects people who are not addicted or are fighting the addiction, which may include the buyers' future selves. It is all very difficult ethically. I think getting involved in those articles with a COI just makes things too fraught. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all Sarah, with regards to addiction: The EU TPD (tobacco products directive) from 2014 makes sure that nicotine containing e-cig products for the forseeable future will be available to customers - so that is not a factor in consumer protection at all. In fact customer protection within the EU now, is to make sure that the products are as safe as can be for the consumers. It seems to me that you are entering more into a personal or US centric view here. Your second point is (just as the former really) a political one, and e-cig policy (as here vape bans) is one of the areas that i've said several times that i have a strong COI towards. But the electronic cigarette topical area is much more than policy issues. --Kim D. Petersen 08:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, I think you misunderstood my post. Also, I don't know what the US-centric view is, and I'm not from the US. The point I was making is that representing the rights of addicted people to obtain more of the substance they're addicted to, especially in a way that affects other people (including former addicts), is ethically very challenging. For example, the needs of consumer X in 2015 when he is addicted ("please let me vape at work") may change in 2016 when he has quit ("please don't let people vape at work").
    You're arguably adding to that ethical burden by editing Wikipedia in a way that suits your position, but without alerting readers that the article is being edited by someone with an external interest. Readers expect WP articles to be written independently of external interests. Just as you feel a responsibility toward consumer protection in your area, we have a responsibility toward our consumers to keep COI editing out of those articles. You have that same responsibility as a Wikipedian. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but i have not ever removed or argued against any material concerning second-hand vaping as far as i know. The only way that we can add or remove material concerning such an issue is if the general WP:WEIGHT in the literature indicates that it should be or not be there. I object very strongly to the claim that i'm "arguably ... editing... in a way that suits [my] position". (first of all because i doubt that you understand my position - since you seem to assert that i would want vaping in the workspace at all costs - definitely: No. This issue of workspace vaping, should depend entirely on evidential material not someones opinions (except for the employer in case he wants to ban it locally - which is always his right no matter the legal state)) --Kim D. Petersen 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC) [ie. whether you can vape in the workspace, is determined by local laws (which is evidence driven) or by the employer - it cannot and never will be the employee's decision! --Kim D. Petersen 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)][reply]
    Sorry, that misses the points I was making, but I don't know how to rephrase them. I don't want to delve into workplace vaping, but it seems self-evident that if someone is trying to stop smoking or vaping, being surrounded by it at work would not be helpful, in terms of exposure to nicotine, the rituals, smells, normalization of it, etc. It would be like forcing recovering alcoholics to work in bars. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah You may think that it is "self-evident" - but reality doesn't really adhere to what is "self-evident" or not. It is correct for cigarette-smoke (from personal experience), but it doesn't seem to work the same way with electronic cigarettes/vapor. Theoretically because E-cigs vapor doesn't have the MAOIs that lit cigarettes contain. But i'd love to see a scientific study on this particular issue - which so far has been overlooked in the literature. Addiction is a difficult animal, no two addiction patterns are alike - otherwise the world would be rid of cigarettes for good by now, and have no need for products such as NRTs or e-cigs. As a rule one should never rely on what is "self-evident" :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's make one thing clear here. COI discourages coi editing but Nowhere does it state one is not allowed to edit an article nor does it forbid commenting on article's talk pages (and that would include RFCs which are decided by argument, not vote). There are clear restrictions on how to edit and so far, no one here has even tried to show how Kim's editing style is against policy. If you keep on behaving like this, you'll be left with less to none COI disclosure by editors (which there are already plenty of on WP). Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally we don't allow anything but extremely minor and uncontroversial edits on the article from a COI editor. That's been the practice for at least the past few years. The talk page is generally open for them, but we also acknowledge that COI editors whether paid or just coming from more of an advocate position can tend to swamp out other volunteer and generally less engaged editors at the page. While not discussed too often, that can lead to the COI editor getting less attention on the talk page or weight in determining consensus if that becomes an issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that this originates in the rather defunct system in the US, where one cannot differentiate between grassroots, astroturfs, advisors, consultants and experts. It seems to be a general creep within the WP system that subject matter experts are discouraged from contributing. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a "general creep" but seemingly only a general creep for certain types of subject matter experts. I'm pretty sure that there are double standards going on here. Anyhow, I have seen quite a bit of KDP's editing and in my experience they are one of the most policy-focused, neutral editors that I have collaborated with. Of course they have a COI. But eliminating them from the subject area will be a net loss to the project just as eliminating a medical doctor or public health official would be.Levelledout (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingofaces43. Re. the first part of your comment: If true, this practice was/is against policy. Actually true is the latter of your post: They get more restricted and/or more harsh measures can be taken, if it becomes a problem that is. We do not restrict further than laid out in policy; that would be a punitive preemptive measure.--TMCk (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @TMCk The COI guideline is clear that editors with a COI should not directly edit articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic fact here Jytdog is that i do not have a stake in or stands to benefit from any other area within electronic cigarettes, than the ones that i've mentioned. My intention here, as with any other area of Wikipedia that i've edited, is to make Wikipedia better, and to provide the best overview of the topic that fits the weight of the literature... I am and have always been a wikipedia editor first and foremost - ironically wiki has a more profound influence on what i do in my role at DADAFO, than it could conceivably ever have the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do appreciate that you have talked here. One of the things about COI, is that folks who have one, often think they are doing just fine. Others can see the problem, and truly clueful editors listen to them and do what they should do. So while i understand the position you are taking, I don't agree and nor do most folks talking here that work regularly on COI issues. You will do as you will. If you decide to ignore us and continue to edit directly, I will likely bring an ANI case against you, combining your COI with your role at DADAFO, with diffs showing a pattern of POV editing that reflects the advocacy agenda of DADAFO, and will seek to have the community impose a topic ban. That is what the community does, when editors don't do on their own, what they should do. Administrators may of course decide to take action directly. We'll see what happens. That's all I have to say. I thank you again for talking; others of course may have a desire to talk further with you. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These "diffs showing a pattern of POV editing". Can you show them please? --Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I build a case before you have demonstrated that you will not abide by the COI guideline? Like everybody here I am busy and do not have time to waste; every editor with a clear COI whom I have advised of the COI guideline, has agreed to follow it or has not cared about Wikipedia to the point where they were indeffed for other reasons. With regard to your editing, it would be very surprising (but not impossible of course) to find that you have edited the article in a way that is actually opposed to DADAFO's interests or aims; I don't reckon that building the case will be hard, should I need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with TMCk, the way that Jytdog is going about this is the wrong way. To try and get someone to stop editing by saying that an ANI case will be brought against them and that there will be evidence based purely on assumptions is not right. Surely what should be being said is that POV editing is against the rules and KDP should be particularly careful with regards to this and WP:COI in general in order to avoid sanctions that may be imposed if there is evidence.Levelledout (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I no where made that definitive of a statement. You are misreading what i wrote. I am also sorry that you do not understand COI. It is one of the rare issues in Wikipedia that is about contributor, not content. Please do read the guideline again, with that in mind. When editors have a COI we advise them of what the guideline says. If editors abide by that, generally there are no problems. If editors choose to ignore the advice, they very likely will end up in hot water one way or another, but most often with regard to NPOV. That is what COI is all about - its tendency to drive editing that is biased in favor of the conflicted editor's external interests. Like I said, if Kim decides to keep directly editing and I bring a case, I will be very surprised to find any edits or discussion by him that are actually opposed to the stances that DADAFO advocates - for instance, I would be very surprised if -- if I go looking - that I will find Kim has made edits explaining the possibility of risks of exhaled vapor to other people, or supported content about that on the Talk page - I expect I will find the opposite - him downplaying the possibility of risks to others in his edits and advocating against discussion of that on the Talk page. And i would be very surprised if he has supported content about efforts to regulate e-cigs as medical devices - I expect to find advocacy for minimal regulation. That is how COI works. In any case, he has been advised, and he will do, what he will do. As will I, and as will others in the community. the e-cig articles are contentious enough without conflicted editors advocating. I would not be surprised if any admins overwatching the general sanctions take action to restrict him to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption of bad faith is strong with this one.... --Kim D. Petersen 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    you are missing of the point. You have a COI - everybody including you agrees on that. You are not taking the next step and working with the community to manage it. That is too bad. And the sniping is not helping you. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I don't think i missed that particular point. You made some very definite statements that assumes bad faith, and you advocated for preemptive measurements without actually looking at my contribution history. You also incidentally assumed that specific views that you appear to have are equivalent to the weight of the literature. It is one thing to warn against, and quite another to assume what will happen. --Kim D. Petersen 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite: people with COIs engaging in conflicted editing are almost never acting in bad faith. They edit in good faith but are oblivious to the damage they are doing. That is why our guidelines are against people with COIs editing in topics for which they have a conflict. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not particularly disagree with your sentiment Alexbrn, what i object against is the assumption of bad faith before the fact. Editors with strong views, generally have this problem - it is not limited to people with COI.--Kim D. Petersen 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, please actually read the COI guideline, and perhaps the books used as references. COI creates a tendency towards bias. Acknowledging that is not assuming bad faith. You really are missing the point. But as I said, you will do what you will do. good luck ( i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, you did quite a bit more than "acknowledge" here. You made specific accusations/predictions without knowledge... you went above and beyond. Despite your insistance on being unbiased, you turned out to be biased - which was actually rather sad to see. --Kim D. Petersen 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems this is a case of COIN fulfilling its purpose (I wish more people would do this rather than sniping / casting aspersions about potential COI at articles). The community here has determined there is a COI and general consensus is that the editor should not edit in this topic. Unless someone who hasn't commented here wants to formally close this RfC style, there doesn't seem to be much more to be said here. Either Kim heeds the decision from COIN, or the consensus is cited at ANI in the form of a previous warning if the question of a topic ban comes up. I'd prefer the former, but given the way Kim is behaving above with regards on how to move forward, the latter might need to be pursued if issues keep coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed a 2014 systematic review that said no conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs because of poor studies (in part caused by COI). [39] In the same diff you removed a quote from the World Lung Foundation that many e-cigarettes "contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives." You removed this another three times, along with a statement from the UK's National Health Service and something about reports to the FDA, and you added the POV tag. [40][41][42]
    On the talk page you argued that position statements from the World Medical Association and World Lung Foundation are either tertiary or primary sources, [43][44] and that we should use only secondary sources, though MEDRS allows these kinds of position statements. Another problem with COI editing can be the time other editors have to spend on talk dealing with the issues. I'm sorry, Kim, but this seems like a very clear case overall. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I mistyped the ping, so repinging KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all Sarah, this was before my appointment - but i will respond to it anyways :)
    Re: Your first item: First of all this was not about the usability of the source in general - but about where it was used. The source is of course reliable, and was already in use on Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. The discussion (which was long, and which resulted in an RfC) was about whether the safety article should use the tertiary position statements or purely rely on WP:MEDRS reviews. I have never argued against using that source, but merely against the placement. If that is POV - then we have serious problems on all of Wikipedia's articles. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it has to be used.. Correct?
    As a note: The Pisinger review as far as i can tell was an unintended removal, that originated from a revert of a mass-insert of material that was under active discussion on the talk page. I would not (and didn't at the time either) object to the Pisinger source. I in fact know Dr. Pisinger (Danish researcher) quite well, and she is one of the researchers that DADAFO is working with on our workspace emission analysis.
    The second issue - the reverts back to pre-RfC while the RfC is running - should be self-explanatory. The POV tag was iirc in fact consensus at the time - fortunately it was resolved later. POV goes both ways Sarah, and mostly the issues were based on WP:WEIGHT.
    The third item is really the same (just the talk-page equivalent), and was resolved by an RfC[45]. Are you saying that editors cannot disagree on what level of reliability (primary, secondary, tertiary) that is appropriate for particular subtopics? In my understanding (as well as other editors understanding) there was a general consensus at the time to only use secondary WP:MEDRS review articles - which is the highest standard that is possible within the medical field. Unfortunately we chose to lower our sourcing standards with that RfC. Are you saying that this is a COI problem? That we should use the best medical articles available? --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, the arguments miss the point. (Also, that this was just before your appointment probably isn't relevant, because you must have been involved with this group before the appointment.) Imagine an editor who removes from Fruitarianism MEDRS sources that state its health risks, keeps reverting, and ties editors up on talk with arguments about source quality, POV tags, not adding things during RfCs, and so on. Others try to persuade that person that they're editing against policy and consensus. So far, so normal.
    Then imagine we learn that the editor is president of the World Fruitarian Association. It changes everything, because it means we know this situation will continue. This person will not be persuaded, because he has a strong external interest and a tendency to bias inherent in that position. We also know from scholarly studies that people with COI underestimate their own bias and wrongly believe they can act neutrally, so what the COI editor sees is not what others see. The question then becomes how much volunteer time should be spent dealing with the conflicted person, and whether it's fair to expect people to do that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sarah actually the appointment time does have COI influence, i candidated for a board position, got it, and was afterwards appointed chairman/president. I'm also member of the Kræftens Bekæmpelse (the Danish Cancer institute), as are roughly a half a million other Danes. ~10% of all Danes) So that would by your assertion mean that i have another COI there? Perhaps even oppositely directed? How many of our current editors are members of the American Heart Association? Or similar grouping?
    You would have a point Sarah, if the removal of the Pisinger source (the only MEDRS review being talked about) had been deliberate, or if i had argued against the Pisinger source. The question on whether a source is more appropriate in one subtopic article or in another - is not a removal. If i had removed the position statements from the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes (where the source is obviously spot on), then it would be different. I'm btw. curious as to why you would think that i'd have an interest in removing such a source. Just curious.
    You would also have a point about the RfC based reverts, if i A) Had been the only editor with this view B) That i reverted against the status quo C) If i was trying to pre-empt the RfC D) Wasn't part of the discussion. - unfortunately none of these is correct. The trouble with the e-cig articles is not removals (of which there are very few), but the piling up of additions to the brink of overflowing.
    I do see your point - but i find that the specifics are cherry-picked without considering the context. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, I believe uninvolved editors would see a problem with your edits, and the COI means the situation won't change, so the best thing would be for you to withdraw voluntarily. Re: membership of a large group, that rarely means there's a COI. If the group is a small one and is campaigning for something the editor is writing about on WP, it would be a COI, as would holding a position in a similar group of any size. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So I.e. members of ISIS wouldn't be considered to have a COI on certain articles?--TMCk (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a quite serious meant comparison Sarah opened the door to argue for!--TMCk (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah again you are misinterpret our purpose: DADAFO doesn't advocate for electronic cigarettes. We advocate for legislation that secures the highest safety for an already existing (unregulated) product on the market, and which in Denmark is used by 4.8% of the population. We have tried to wake up politicians to implement legislation for years, instead of the current "Wild-West market". That is also why i agree that i shouldn't touch articles or content that addresses this particular issue (politics of electronic cigarettes), because i have serious COI there. --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mispinged again: KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but a number of reviews were deleted and there never was any consensus to use only secondary WP:MEDRS review articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=658964452#Discussion_on_positions. Before the RfC User:Yobol wrote "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS."[46] QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    QG: Relying on your own assertions in a diff, is not really an argument is it. Yobol also disagreed, but lots of other editors agreed with me. Thus there was the RfC - and now a new consensus on sourcing. Just as WP should work. --Kim D. Petersen 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim, I am familiar with your firm stances from my brief time at the e-cig article, but just know that you have changed no one's mind here. You have been advised to not directly edit articles related to e-cigs and you are aware of what may happen should you choose to do so. There is nothing more to do here that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Deakin University

    User:Ahladita has recently made a number of edits to the Deakin University article, mainly updating trivial numbers and the like. However:

    Just wondering whether it's just me, or whether a COI exists?

    -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree - one of Ahladita's edit notes said the edit to the Hollander article was authorized by Hollander - that is a clear tell of an external relationship. I have opened a discussion with Ahladita on their talk page, and have tagged the articles. Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Football Family (Football Agency) and Tom Davies (footballer, born 1993)

    Resolved
     – Both articles now deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Username clearly shows COI to GFF. Tom Davies is a client of them (his article did mention the agency, but I deleted it as not relevant). Their response to my COI concerns was for them to basically tell me to fix the article immediately here. GFF is almost certainly going to get deleted (an agency with 4 clients isn't notable), but the player is notable per WP:NFOOTY. More eyes appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sawdust Art Festival

    Promotional language that apparently cannot be removed, repeated removal of COI tag, no disclosures so far from the 3 SPAs that I can see. The topic is probably notable given existing sourcing, but still written largely as a brochure. Would probably benefit from some c/e by an unconnected editor, but I'm primarily worried about the lack of disclosure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    zoiks. left messages for those editors. BC Space is the name of an art gallery in Laguna. warned them about that. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK artwriter has responded here. Local resident and fan who seems interested in learning how WP works. No apparently COI though. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having monitored the page edits, it looked from their edits that Artwriter wasn't trying to promote, they were removing lots of the promotion, buzzwords and weasel words- think it's the other 2 that were adding promotional language. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyck Turgeon

    Resolved
     – deleted, socks being handled at SPI Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Was written by a paid editor from Fiverr. Account was written by one of dozens of this persons socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks include:
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have posted here at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Girlishkim Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for posting here. all done, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncovered a mass of socks [47] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    agents

    I'm not sure of a better place to ask this, so: why do we permit (and even soucourage by having a line in the infobox listing the agents for a model; the information would be of use only to someone who wanted to hire the person and is thus promotional. (eg [48]? DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Doesn't belong in the infobox and unreffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    you are not the first to ask that (that link is at the Template talk page); this post there claims that what agency a model belongs to, is important for their career. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be surprised if knowing this information about a model were the equivalent of knowing whether a professional athlete plays in the major leagues or the minor leagues. Deli nk (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at a fringey blog I see the following: Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout. When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed. Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.[49]

    This looks to be an attempt by a lawyer to use Wikipedia as advertising. The article in question is Monsanto legal cases. There is some discussion on the article talk page and at RSN, but consensus seems to be that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to make the case notable. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawsuits by plaintiffs' lawyers are a fact of life for big corporations. Rarely are any of them notable.--ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But rarely do the lawyers put effort into using Wikipedia to attract clients to their class action cases. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    this is just ...precious. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockland Center for the Arts

    On their talkpage, have said they work for the company- adding unsourced text that seems to be half-copied from the official website. Then proceeded to demand reinstation of their text, despite the fact I've told them about WP:VERIFY and WP:COPYVIO. Needs some eyes/more help please. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    boy they were combative. AfDed. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Election judge and COI

    In an effort to make sure I do not have a COI in a specific area of elections in the US I am asking this question. I have mentioned that I am an election judge in the US during elections in more than one place on wikipedia. I do not campaign for anyone, but I have declared my party as part of the requirements for being an election judge (Democrat). The duties are basically processing people to vote by making sure they are registered and making sure that all the rules for an election are followed. While I am 90% sure this would not be a COI, I would rather be more sure since I have started closing RFC's and if there is a COI I would of course avoid any RFC's that deal with elections in the US. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    hard to see any problem here. Thanks for checking though. Maybe just be careful about using good sourcing to avoid the pitfalls of what you know by doing, should work on any election related articles. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Analog Devices

    Resolved
     – done by another editor and me Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, I've proposed several updates/additions to Analog Devices, here - some minor factual updates and a few expansions of basic information in the article. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    done. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pippa Norris

    This Ip address has claimed to be Pippa Norris here. I've done the relevant talkpage tagging and given them a COI notice, but the article needs a major cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Now editing logged in using PippaN account- the creator of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    tried to engage her on her talk page. let's see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    John Lamb Lash

    Resolved
     – article has been deleted Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Victor666vv has claimed to be John Lamb Lash's official biographer here, and is trying to claim ownership of the article. They have not made any other edits.
    Previously, Victor Vallant and 88.13.49.1 have added large amounts of the same unsourced content, see [50] and [51]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    we have to get them to pick a single account, too... Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean Griswold

    Deleted article on obscure corporate official recently re-created by SPA who appears to be an admitted paid/conflicted editor, based upon contributions and especially creation of photograph of subject [52] and comment on my user page here Use of "reply to" template (I wasn't familiar with that myself) indicates additionally this account is probably a sock (surprise surprise). Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article creator and principal contributor has self-disclosed as subject company's digital marketing director. In his disclosure he generously proposes to become "moderator" of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    National Institute of Technology, Puducherry

    Resolved
     – redirected Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA editing National Institute of Technology, Puducherry, username implies affiliation to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the username is OK, yes? some specific person who works there. That should be OK. I have left them some info about COI - let's hope they talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: They appear to have changed their username to User:Vkumar1216 now, although it was acceptable beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    there was no content there. redirected this to National Institute of Technology. Hopefully that will hold. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Scarborough Town Centre

    The connection between the target article and the editor is clear. The article is the only one the editor has edited. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for bringing this here. i left them some messages about their username and COI issues, and have tagged the article and its Talk page. Needs cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has renamed themselves User:Iriskimberly. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Audio Technologies

    Phnxaudio's name suggests affiliation, and promotional, unsourced edit here with edit summary "Phoenix Audio Technologies Administrator added text and made minor modifications". Not responding to my talkpage messages about COI and username violation. IP address added exactly the same content here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Phnxaudio is now indef blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed Phoenix Audio Technologies for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎

    Resolved
     – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎ created by Savoy209 , obvious COI from the name. The article is promotional, the person seems not notable, and I tried cleaning it up, but they keep trying to readd the same content, clearly ignoring the advice of other users at Talk:Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎. I've put it up for AfD, since an A7 was declined on the claim of some notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Muzammil Ibrahim

    PrinceIsnomiac has a pretty clear COI or huge advocacy problem.

    the editor added a huge swath of unsourced, PROMO content inlcuding, and I am not joking: "His name as a model is one of the most celebrated of all times and he is even touted to be one of the best looking men of entire Asian continent."
    this was reverted by Cluebot
    and restored and added to by PrinceIsnomiac.
    I stubified and left a COI tag and similar tags on the article talk page.
    I also left princeinsomniac a welcome message and opened a discussion about COI in WP
    Princeinsomniac didn't reply there, but reverted the stubification and COI tag
    i followed up on the COI questions on their userpage and have provided a 3RR warning. And I reverted the article back to sub and COI-tagged, and opened this thread. I've provided notice of it to princeinsomniac. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronn Torossian

    The user joined the discussion at Talk:Ronn Torossian 10 days after RonnToro (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet account of the article subject, was blocked. That edit includes a list of links that is almost identical to this edit by the blocked user (except the links are mostly broken as they appear to have been copy-pasted off the page).

    Another thing that stuck out is how the user repeats Torossian's incorrect insistence that "no published writer has said that Torossian is an activist on Right Wing Israel affairs" - it's established that there were such sources, but it was a question of whether the coverage in this article was WP:UNDUE.

    The user doesn't return to the talk page until the day after Torossian's main IP address is blocked, again repeating Torossian's disingenuous claim that he is no longer known for his pro-Israel advocacy (which ignores a quite a bit of coverage in the mid-'00s), and reads essentially as a press release that inflates his importance in the PR industry.

    WP:PE does allow for good-faith paid editing and the user has denied association with Torossian/5W PR here and here, and the user page description says "amateur editor", which is fair enough (although the user doesn't have a "long history of edits on this site" as claimed). But the contributions to the talk page are almost entirely rehashed from previous arguments made by Torossian's many sockpuppets (although more coherent and less hostile).

    I've assumed good faith in my initial interactions with the user, but I find it hard to ignore the near-identical arguments, dates of the edits, and that the user hasn't apparently bothered to visit the links he copy/pasted despite claiming to be "curious", FWIW, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori/Archive appears to show that the account is connected to another paid-editor account. I wouldn't act on any of these red flags individually, but it's too much of a coincidence for me. Mosmof (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said before I feel like you're on a withchunt simply because someone disagreed with you. I guess this can be expected after the sockpuppet investigation. As I've stated before I have no relationship with Mr. Torossian or his PR firm. Burden of proof is on you. Cada mori (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not the first editor to disagree with me, yet I haven't brought anyone else to WP:COIN. And you'll have to forgive me for taking your denial with a grain of salt, because this wouldn't be the first time you failed to disclose a connection to an article's subject. I'm happy to offer additional evidence if other editors ask. Mosmof (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, burden of proof is on you as I said. This is bordering on harassment though. Cada mori (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, nice try baiting me with those elance jobs. I am no longer doing paid editing so please stop. As a matter of fact I'd love to see this "proof" you have of me being associated with Mr. Torossian. Cada mori (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "baiting me with those elance jobs"? I'm aware of your Elance account but I haven't made any attempt to contact you. Mosmof (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what I'm talking about. Cada mori (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, actually. Feel free to contact an admin per WP:OWH if you still think I have anything to do with it. Mosmof (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I refer administrators and editors participating in this discussion to the recent decision by ARBCOM to impose a company ban on any users who are employed - either on salary or contract - by Ronn Torossian or his company, 5WPR. So, if participants are convinced that Cada mori is indeed an editor in the pay of Torossian, it means his account should be immediately banned.

    As Mosmof has noted, there is compelling evidence that Cada mori is indeed a commercial editor paid by Torossian to whitewash his article. Revealing that evidence here would necessarily mean "outting" Cada mori, something that the Wikipedia community, including myself, considers to be unethical. I therefore invite any administrators interested in the evidence to contact me by Wikipedia mail, and I will gladly provide links to the job order by Torossian to Cada mori. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Later: I apparently misunderstood the status of the company ban on Torossian. The issue has not yet been resolved. When the discussion is concluded, I will post the result here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cada mori thanks for replying here and stating that you have no relationship with Torossian or 5W. Ravpapa and Mosmof in the absence of any on-Wiki disclosure of a COI from Cada mori, your only option, if you are interested in pursuing this, is to gather diffs showing that Cada mori is consistently violating NPOV and bring a case to ANI to seek a topic ban from the article on that basis. It would be a mistake in my view to discuss COI in that NPOV case as you have no on-wiki evidence of an external relationship. If your concerns are serious I urge you to pursue that course of action; I also urge you to avoid bringing up the issue of COI again. You have raised it, and it has been addressed. We have limited tools to deal with COI per se in WP; we have tools to deal with POV-pushing. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cada mori Even before issues of COI are even broached it may be of benefit if you can explain why you have any interest in Torossian at all. This is in the light of WP:TALK#USE which states: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." Your user page presents "Welcome to my page. I am an amateur Wikipedia editor who specializes in Mexican History and Rap music" and that you are a native speaker of English and an intermediate speaker of Spanish.
    You have been greatly involved in two long TP threads: Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance as a commentator and Talk:Ronn Torossian#Politics section removal. Why? What is your connection? What is your background of knowledge/developed understanding related to this topic? GregKaye 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No longer interested in pursuing - Cada Mori appears to have stopped editing/commenting on articles, and the on-Wiki evidence was largely circumstantial/collection of red flags rather than any major infraction. I think the account (or any possible sockpuppet) is worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see the need for any immediate action. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Malcolm L. McCallum

    Resolved
     – New editor with lots to learn. No apparent COI. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    User account inserts remarkably promotional material into articles about a particular group of herpetologists centered Malcolm L. McCallum ([53], [54], ("obliterated their arguments") [55]. Also, communicates with an article subject by text message [56]). IP inserts material from a brand-new (days old) study by McCallum into the Malcolm McCallum, Holocene extinction, Biodiversity, and Extinction articles. Warned by template on the IP's talkpage, left personalized on Herpetology2's talk page, editing continues. Geogene (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    First, to address Geogene's edits. Geogene deleted virtually the entire account for Malcolm L. McCallum. Virtually every citation was recused as insignficant. For example, Discover Magazine had a web exclusive listing his paper among the top 10 on amphibian declines. Geogene deleted this because it was "just a web exclusive" and "not a big deal." Last I checked, web-based readings are read more than hard copy, furhter, its a legitimate citation by Discover magazine. I see no point to the "web exclusive" drive. Geogenethen proceeded to post that the page should not be edited due to a conflict of interest (possible COI that is). This, and all the herpetologists' acconts that I put together were edited by a series of Wikipedia administrators. I did not know they were until I questioned and discovered that case. I am not suggesting that Geogene was deliberately vandalizing the page. I think it was completely in good faith. However, when you have to ask what "Altmetrics" are, you clearly have no business editing the page. Then, you do not take the time to look it up, but just delete it, when there is a link directly to the sight, well, what can I say. After he got done "editing" thsi account, it basically said the guy is a herpetologist and showed up in Texarkana at some point. As for the promotional issues, stating that a paper is ranked in the top 1-2% with a link to the reporting page is not promotional, it is stating a matter of fact that relays the importance of the work and therefore relates to the importance of the individual. This is neither unusual nor unheard of on Wikipedia and virtually all biographies from Kings to prophets have similar kinds of citations. The recent manuscript which was added this weekend in of a topical nature that has international repercussions. Members of the National Academy of Sciene have declared it is of great importance, and further, it went from published on Friday to the number 4 paper published by Biodiversity and Conservation and ranks among the top 1% of over 3M papers according to Altmetrics in only a weekend. The substance could be construed as recentism, except in that policy it specifically states that recentism is ok if the topical nature is likely to be important in 10 years. Similar papers by Pimm, E.O. Wilson and others are still important decades later. I have noted after skimming some of geogene's edits on other pages that he often does a very good job, it just happens that the edits here are over-the-top, in my opinion, especially considering the previous administrators who worked with me on all of these pages. i can't remember their names, but a cursory examiniation of previous editors by administrators should reveal them fairly quickly. There were things I originally wrote that were removed due to inflationary languages. If that phrase geogene refers to was still there, it either got missed, or accidentally restored by me or someone else during revisions to correct problems identified months ago.

    As for a COI, I was open from day one that I had contacted some of these people when I first started, not knowing the problems with this. In fact, I obtained many pictures from the foci of these articles from the people who I profiled and posted them with permission to the wiki. Although I know of them, I would not consider me to KNOW them. In fact, I have met 1-2 of them at a herpetology function several years ago. But this would be kin to meeting a movie star or television anchor. Just meeting someone or corresponding once on an email hardly constitutes a COI based on anything I am reading. I started with these herpetologists who are associated with Herpetological Conservation and Biology (Journal). I intend to move on to the many prominent herpetologists at SSAR and HL. however, I have not had time to do that of late. Just like everyone else, I have a day job! My goal is to complete profiles for all the primary editors of the primary herpetology journals, then work my way out from there. This will take years, if not decades and I will likely never complete it! But so what!? Its kind of fun!  :) As per his suggestion my efforts surround only a few related herpetologists, Collins has little relation to the others, and he only lists two of the several I have done. Further, adding relevant info to non-herpetologist pages above should be incontestable, as the content is nothing but informative at any level. For example, if Pimm says 1000 times and mccallum says a different figure, both views are equally legit considering they are published in credible scientific journals .

    Creating a nice profile with some nice pictures taht explains who the person is, where they came from, and what their primary contributions to this area of science are should be central to the mission of Wikipedia. That is all this is about. When you chop out every word except for the person is a herpetologist who worked in Texarkana, when the individual's work has had signficant impact, you are deflating status which is precisely equally damaging as inflationary language. I hope this is clear, it got kind of long because I want to make sure I cover the territory, accusations, and also the rationale of what transpired. Herpetology2 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Herpetology2 thanks for being gracious in this discussion - that is really helpful. First thing, just to clarify parties here - Geogene listed you and an IP address. Did you edit from the IP too (not a big deal, just trying to figure out who is involved here). This is going to be a dialogue, so i look forward to your reply so we can move on to other stuff. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember if I was logged in or not. But, I did add info about the paper. A LOT of people in the conservation community are talking about it. I figured I'ld add it in. However, it does not bother me to wait a while on that. I did add it to some other webpages as well, where it was directly relevant. Pages on extinction and the sixth mass extinction specifically. May have been others, but I don't recall now! A few days go by and I can't remember anymore! :) Herpetology2 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper first appears in Wikipedia with this edit [57], timestamped 06:41 UTC 27 May 2015. The paper is dated 27 May 2015 [58]. I believe that Springer Verlag is on Berlin time, so doesn't that mean that this appeared on WP basically simultaneously with release? Enough time to even read it? Geogene (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that I didn't know what altmetrics.com does. It seems to be a kind of search engine ranks the significance of scientists by counting the number of times a paper is mentioned on the Internet, including the "socially-curated literature" (whatever that is) [59]. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    please excuse my baited verbage above. I should have been more polite. Herpetology2 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmetrics Herpetology2 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.altmetric.com/details/4059569#score

    This particular thing is promoted by Springer and some other journal companies because it is the best indicator of how frequently a paper will be cited in the future.. There is a very decent correlation between discussion of the paper, its newsworthiness, and its future importance/citation rating. Some people prefer Altmetrics to Impact ratings, others use them in consort, and still others suggest they are useless BS. I think the last group is losing ground to the vast majority that use them in consort with citation ratings. Have a nice day!Herpetology2 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Herpetology2 I have looked at your work. You seem to know a lot about the field and as I mentioned, are enthusiastic. But to be frank your Wikipedia editing is really bad. Have a look at the first two paragraphs here: Malcolm_L._McCallum#Education.2C_research.2C_teaching_and_service. Almost everything there is either unsourced or the sources are fake. And there is a tendency to promotionalism. I don't see COI but I do see problems getting settled as a WP editor. That's my take. Geogene do you see what i mean? If you agree, I'd suggest we close this thread and ask Herpetology2 to slow down on creating articles and find a mentor... Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this reasonable. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Geogene. Herpetology2, will you agree to slow down on creating articles and work on bringing the articles you already created up to snuff? We can help you find a mentor. I hope you are open to this. I think you could become a really valuable member of the community but you need some training/experience.... please let me know. thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a problem with that, however, as I said before, these have been repeatedly dragged through by administrators who WERE helping me with the thing. Further, there is not a FAKE citation in any account. It would help if people did not delete citations willy nilly as now I have to go back to the thing and REINSERT citations people have previously deleted as unnecessary. There was a large section deleted by Geogene that was done as suggestive of name dropping. No, it is not name dropping. Name dropping is done to assess importance to non-important persons. However, in academia, especially in the sciences, academic geneologies provide a reader with an understanding of the academic background of the individual because scientific philosophies follow these lines. This is all public information published in secondary sources. Also, there seems to be some confusion in Wikipedia regarding what is a primary and a secondary source. Per definition, and I have taught this at the college level now for close to 20 years, a primary source is the lab book. A scientific article is a secondary source. This is not debatable, its a fact that can be supported by a multitude of sources, including Wikipedia itself. Primary literature and primary sources are not the same thing. Primary literature is the peer reviewed literature such as scientific journals. Primary sources are the actual sources of data whether they be excel spreadsheets, notebooks, or diaries. Herpetology2 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have "interacted" with Herpetology2 before and find their understanding of what constitutes appropriate sourcing on WP seriously lacking. I have told them before that their use of "academic geneology" is not warranted and violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Seems like they persist. Most articles that they have created are borderline notable at best (McCallum's being one of them), using references that not always support the statements made and include huge bibliographies (we usually list the three most important ones in bios of academics). They also frequently include OR (like assertions about mean numbers of publications/citations of people at a certain stage of their career; never seen that except in Herpetology2's articles). Herpetology2 is passionate about their field, but their enthusiasm seems to carry them away a bit too much and I have given up on trying to educate them. Hence I'm not watchlisting this, so ping me if needed. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Herpetology2 I am closing this case, and will pick up the discussion at your Talk page, but will close with this remark. You have gotten feedback here from three different editors, that your skill at writing Wikipedia articles is sorely lacking. No one is questioning anything about your real world knowledge or attainments. Editing Wikipedia is not like other kinds of writing. There is a lot to learn. You really have two choices. You can continue to keep your eyes and ears closed and be defensive -- and end up having a really miserable (and probably very short) time here, or you can relax, acknowledge that you are new to WP and have a lot to learn, and have a long, productive, and happy time here. No one knows your real world identity, so you have nothing to lose listening and learning. Please check your ego. It is a hard thing for accomplished academics to do, but it is necessary. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been aware of Herpetology2's contributions for a while, and think that his or her pattern of editing shows at the very least a disproportionate view of the importance of various herpetologists (and perhaps incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR), even those that have done very notable research. User has interviewed subjects, and been present (or at least their camera was present) in the photographing of several individuals mentioned, (see last three entries at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 February 6), and even created an article about a non-notable children's book by one of the subjects. Re: the comment above about meeting subjects to "kin to meeting a movie star or news anchor", one can have a disproportionate view of the relative importance of a movie star's actions, and not everything they do warrants encyclopedic inclusion. The user is certainly enthusiastic and very familiar with the implications of certain publications (see discussion at Talk:Malcolm_L._McCallum#30_January_2015), The user has declared a PhD and been rather defensive at the removal of some material. Note: being an expert in a field which is certainly not inherently bad-- we need experts, so long as their contributions are measured and appropriate to the betterment of an encyclopedia, more so than the posterity of any person-- but may disproportionately influence one's writing and usage of sources. And even if the user is completely unconnected to the individuals, their pattern of editing suggests an effort to inflate articles with every conceivable element, that even if verifiable, conflicts with WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added). An article (or statement within) can be true, even verifiable and still biased or full of undue coverage: articles should not be predominantly sourced by articles written by the subject (which even if a review article or text book, no matter the focus, is a primary source with regards to the author). Articles should be measured and balanced, not a trophy room of accomplishments and a cherry-picking of papers (and yes, many academic Wiki articles are biased this way: one-sided with a disproportionately long "Selected works" section (approaching CVs in some cases), but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate such articles). Scraping the bottom of the barrel for unreliable sources like Ratemyprofessor.com to further pad articles is certainly undue. Regardless of whether an actual COI exists, and at the risk of repeating my earlier comments on your talk page, I have some recommendations that would help ensure content complies with WP:BLP and other policies, and reduce the appearance of biased editing, which can still occur in the absence of a COI (note however I am not a wiki mentor or ambassador, nor wish to be one at this time):

    • No matter how much personal knowledge you have of an issue, and regardless of your opinion, search for reliable, third-party sources that clearly and directly validate the content you wish to add. No press releases, mailing lists, or websites that merely state existence without context. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
    • Minimize the usage of sources written by the subjects, and/or pair them as much as possible with high-quality secondary sources that clearly explain the context of the research. Any given study may be groundbreaking or mundane or flat-out discredited by a follow-up study, and it is only from sources secondary to the research that we gain context.
    • Minimize the use of analytics, (altmetrics, H-index, etc) which can run close to WP:SYN, and do not use those alone to assert the importance of any study or person.
    • As a teacher and academic, you may be used to performing novel research, and/or encouraging students to analyze, synthesize, and critique information to reach novel conclusions (e.g. an essay, review article, or research paper). Unfortunately, that is explicitly what Wikipedia is not per WP:OR: until such ideas become published in reliable sources, they cannot be included in Wikipedia.
    • Per WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and WP:BLPSTYLE, strive to allocate coverage of facts roughly in proportion to their coverage in reliable third-party sources. We care more about fairly representing how a subject is actually known to the world at large (as portrayed in reliable, third-party sources) more than how you or I feel which of their accomplishments deserves mention. If no or few reliable sources mention a given fact or study, it should perhaps not be included.
    • Assume good faith, and accept that Wikipedia is built on consensus and give-and-take. If others remove your content, or have a different view of appropriate level of detail, then we discuss them on relevant talk pages.
    • Before adding new content (e.g. a recent study), consider mentioning it on the article's talk page first. This will allow other editors to discuss the relevance and due weight.
    • Lastly, I know it can seem like there are an awful lot of policies and guidelines (and there are), but really, the most important and relevant information is covered in only four: the Core Content Policies (Verifiability, Neutrality and No original research) and the Biographies of living people policy.
    All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I wasn't aware of the resolved status of this noticeboard (or perhaps it was added during my composition), and I'm glad to see it was resolved amicably, but my advice still stands. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it was very kind of you to take the time to write that. hopefully it will be heard! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jenner & Block

    Editor has been on a commercial article creation/editing spree, and has not responded to COI notice on his userpage. Jenner & Block was recently expanded approximately fourfold after the COI notice was posted. — Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Mile 2, since Brianhe appears to have previously asked them about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the recently added content is identical to that deleted by Moonriddengirl as copyvio or overly promotional, including these passages:
    • "Jenner & Block has also established itself in recording significant victories before the Supreme Court regarding free speech..."
    • "Jenner & Block was one of the first national law firms to establish a Washington D.C. practice specifically focused on appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court...
    • "the 20 most elite law firms"
    At least part of the old promo content was added by another SPA, JBUpdate (blocked in January 2015), in a series of edits including this. — Brianhe (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me respond here:

    1.) I did not respond to your post because it did not ask for a response and instead included informational links to policies. 2.) I have no conflicts on this or any article I have edited or created. I expanded the Jenner & Block article because it was in almost stub-like condition. My 10,595 bytes addition, which includes references, is a three-fold, not a four-fold, expansion of an article on one of the larger and older law firms in the country. The article is still a limited one given a history of over 100 years, very prominent cases, very prominent attorneys, etc. The entire article is, even with my modest additions, a mere nine paragraphs. 3.) No information added is identical to anything or at all promotional. The small two paragraphs of awards and recognitions the firm has received all seemed notable to me, there is no copyright violation at all and the two small paragraphs on this include nine secondary source references from prominent media. It mentions the exact name of the award (which is what you are presenting as promotional language). "The 20 most elite law firms" is the exact name of The American Lawyer annual award. Original source here: [60]. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, your addition seems to be 7,462 bytes, making the total 10,595 bytes. That does seem to be about four-fold. It does seem promotional to me, reading like a resume. SageRad (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was 3,133 bytes before my edits. I took the entire page up to 10,609, so it's less than four-fold, slightly above three-fold. But the entire article is still only nine paragraphs in total and they are all very straightforward ones: intro (one paragraph), history summary (two paragraphs), prominent cases (three paragraphs), honors and awards (two paragraphs) and location of their offices (one paragraph). MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • MiamiDolphins3 I have noticed your editing too. It looks a lot like you have a conflict of interest, for the reasons provided above and others. No one has asked you this directly yet, so I will. Two questions - please reply to both, simply and clearly:
      • 1) Do you have any relationship with the subjects of anything you have edited about, directly or through an intermediary? (employee, contractor, employee or contractor of an agency that has a relationship with them, etc)
      • 2) Are you being paid (or do you expect to be paid) for any of your editing?

    Disclosure is a good thing, not a bad thing. If either is answer is "yes" you will have to do some things differently going forward, however. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I do not know or have any relationship with any subjects and am not interested in/don't do paid editing. Also to respond more thoroughly to Brianhe points above, I've looked back on the page's deletions that he references[61], which I had not done previously, and none of them have been reinstated by me. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify by responding with "yes"/"no" answers as well?--Elvey(t•c) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. Thought I had answered that clearly: No and no. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MiamiDolphins3 are you hearing the feedback, that we all find your edits to be promotional? I know you said above that you think they are not. I'm not asking about what you think - I'm asking if you are hearing the feedback. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have. I've tried not to respond defensively and have taken it constructively. I may also try to participate in this and other boards a bit more frequently going forward. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    what would be super-helpful is if you went back over your own work and made them more neutral. are you up for that? Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I could suggest some things. 1) Go back over Touch Surgery and remove primary sources (the corporation itself) and questionable sources like news-medical.net. 2) Ditto primary sources on Ryze Trampoline Parks. 3) WP:OR in Jenner & Block, specifically, using wikisource of the trial verdict or whatever 4) Ditto primary sources on Mile2 — Brianhe (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Good suggestions and I will get them done. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ADDgrammar

    corporations
    CEOs
    baseball players
    other people
    books

    ADDgrammar is a now blocked sock, part of a sockfarm possibly linked by technical evidence to a PR firm. Articles created/greatly expanded by this account, most from a November 2014 spree, are a fairly lengthy slime trail of corporate articles, CEOs and the like. Links above are just a sample. Brianhe (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also maybe worth noting for future cases, operator of this account flatly denied COI [62] — Brianhe (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that's fun, you should check out the contributions of the rest of the accounts listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Factsonlyplease39. I honestly can't face going through them all right now, but this person or group of persons has probably created literally hundereds of potentially spammy articles. Enjoy! I'm going to get myself some paracetamol... Yunshui 雲水 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perfect illustration of why we need integrity reform on Wikipedia now. — Brianhe (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    holy cow that is a lot of work for us. thanks so much for digging all that up, brianhe! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gutted quite a few of the CEOs, put a couple of others up for AfD, and a few up for speedy as just spam.
    @Jytdog: You do realise there's about 20 of these editors, and this is one editor's contributions? It's going to be a long cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yep. i wonder if it might not be worth posting at ANI to see if we can get some kind of mega rollback done. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did consider mass-deleting all of their page creations, but I think some of them might actually be valid articles on notable people - we may want to keep them, which means checking them all by hand, so to speak... Yunshui 雲水 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the CEO articles look like they're just about notable, but full of puff. The baseballers all pass WP:NBASEBALL as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    inquired here. This is days and days of work and i don't want to use my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big, if i don't have to. 15:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    The personas created for the socks are unusual, not the mysterious redlinks we usually get. They were crafted almost with loving care. One of them described him/herself as a "retired astronomist" which should have been a tipoff to somebody paying attention. Common threads amongst the 10 or so personas that I looked at are female, dog lover, has children. Is this an indication of a new psychological ploy to avoid scrutiny by other editors? — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Did some forensics on the personas, see User:Brianhe/Factsonly personas. — Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These were added to Plus size model by confirmed socks:

    Probably more to come. — Brianhe (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez. There are also likely to be widespread copyvio problems. See for example here. More will need checking. SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cricketers

    First raised at the Help Desk: user has been spamming articles about cricketer with details of their management company which just so happens to be the company the user works for. --ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, 69 of their 70 edits have been to add the name of the same management company to articles about Indian cricketers- a quick Google search shows that someone with their name works for the company. I've warned them about COI and linkspamming, and also warned cricket people at WT:CRICKET. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    GreenEarth Cleaning

    Resolved

    The editor is has removed content from the article saying it is "libelous information, that is 100% false and detrimental to our company." Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added User:Ajnewport, since their only edit has been the same- meat/sockpuppetry, I think. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now resolved, User:GreenEarth Cleaning blocked for promotional name and edits, and User:Ajnewport blocked for being a sockpuppet. Looks like @Jytdog: has cleaned up the article well too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moroch

    Resolved
     – Situation is under control — MusikAnimal talk 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was blocked for promotion on Moroch but has been unblocked. Their content is questionable, at it includes a long, unsourced client list, which I've removed per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address has admitted to being related here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I unblocked them under the terms of a new username and that they would work to maintain neutrality. They are new and are learning their way, please allow them time to get acquainted with policy. Just because they work for the organization does not mean they weren't making an honest attempt to update information unaware that their tone of writing was an issue. — MusikAnimal talk 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also add the aforementioned list of clients was easily verifiable, and in my opinion relevant given their high-profile stature. — MusikAnimal talk 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But they also used an IP address to evade the block earlier. And spam is spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They used the IP to make the unblock request and to seek help. Hardly block evasion but rather a simple newbie mistake. I am willing to stand by the stern COI concerns leading up to the unblock request, where they made it clear they wanted to simply update the information in accordance with policy. Beyond that we're just biting them and disallowing them a chance to show their true intentions. Once made aware of the issues with tone their proposed changes have been fully acceptable with the exception of sourcing of easily verifiable information that was in my opinion unlikely to be challenged to begin with. The second account was indeed wrongfully used to make further COI edits, but hey, lesson learned and hopefully with gain of a worthwhile contributor. — MusikAnimal talk 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They actually used an IP to complain about their block here. I guess if it's going to be watched properly then that's fine, but has WP:COI been explained to them properly? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It could not more obvious they were simply trying to find out how to address accuracy of the page in accordance with policy. That's why they went to the help desk, where we they would expect others to help them. Between the initial hard block, my detailed unblock statement and the discussion that followed, and the barrage of unnecessary warnings and notices, I think they've got the point. Either way I am actively monitoring both the user and the page, and if we could please take a moment to see the end result which is a more accurate article on this organization, and a new informed editor with potential, in what I should be considered a win for us all. — MusikAnimal talk 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the article is better for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Joseph Rovelli

    This editor has not declared a conflict of interest but I think it's very obvious they have a connection to the subject (if they're not Rovelli himself) -- they've added very promotional-sounding info and possibly original research that only Rovelli or his close friend would know, see here for example, and see the end result (the current article) mostly written by Hermes101.

    I've taken the article to AfD but I'd appreciate having some more neutral eyeballs on the situation. (The article has been edited by a few non-SPA accounts but it's been typo-fixing and the like and they haven't participated in the talk page discussion.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    good nom, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the SPAs have gone quiet so this is pretty uneventful. I expected some resistance. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ferratum Group

    This user created Ferratum Group, and has been the main editor of the page. I asked them on their talkpage about COI, to which their only response was "I have read the policy" [63]. I asked for clarification on their exact role (employee or paid editor), and they haven't replied. They also removed advert tags from Ferratum Group despite the fact they're clearly still relevant. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I replied now approximately 1,5h after you asked. I clarified that I am an employee and failed to disclose it. As for the advert tags I felt that I had cleaned the article well enough to warrant the removal of them. Warlime (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When an employee gives positive information about a firm on Wikipedia, to the extent that you did in this article, that is advertising. Consider a handwritten sign attached to a fencepost "Hay for sale, inquire at McDonald's farm". That meets the plain English requirements for being considered an advertisement, as well as the academic definitions that I know of. You've done more than that, so please don't remove the advertising tag. Please leave the article alone and let editors without a COI do the editing from now on. If @Joseph2302: wants to nominate this for deletion, he certainly may - "notability" by our definition looks borderline to me, and the sources are mostly primary or "non-reliable" by our usual definition. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just worked it over, clarified where sources came from -- all but one are SPS. While i was working Joseph AfDed it. I can only agree Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Smith (fashion designer)

    I noticed that Markrfountain87, a new single-purpose account, has been making a series of recent edits to Paul Smith (fashion designer). I have no interest in outing anyone on Wikipedia, however in this instance the user used his own name as his username, and that name online reveals that he is "Digital Content Editor at Paul Smith". I do not believe he should be editing the article, at least not directly. Perfume.asia (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting here. You didn't notify him, and you must do that. I've provided the notice for you, and reached out to him. The article needs review. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensis

    User page and their talkpage say they are "Social Brand Manager at Sensis in Australia"- currently their article is part of the Telstra article. The user is trying to delete the disambiguation page Sensis, in order to replace it with an article for their company (the Sensis in the Telstra article), see [64] and the fact they've put the Sensis disambiguation page up for AfD, even though I told them I opposed this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Joseph,

    As I stated on my talk page, I'm incredibly sorry I've misunderstood some guidelines. My request for deletion on the disambiguation was in order to understand whether it should be done or not, but I realise now this was an incorrect procedure.

    Please do delete my deletion request for the Sensis disambiguation page and please also advise the best way to go forward. I will be unable to make any changes until I am at work tomorrow - I'm on my phone at the moment.

    CS at Sensis (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    James V. Toner and its draft

    SashaRearick created James V. Toner multiple times, and also Draft:James V. Toner- lots of the content is unsourced original research suggesting a possible COI. Then, RandyPelkey created James V. Toner, and then this implies some off-wiki co-ordination between the 2 users- I've asked both about COI, and asked RandyPelkey about paid editing (since to me that comment implies he might have been hired by SashaRearick), with no response. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph, relax. Nobody here is getting paid. I went onto Yahoo Answers and asked if anyone was interested in assisting me in writing and formatting the article (as my time is limited) and Mr. "RandyPelkey" responded saying that he'd be glad to do so. I don't understand how you interpreted Mr.RandyPeleky's comment about assisting me as being "hired" to do so, and there is no sufficient evidence supporting such a plain remark. Now I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but you're no "Wikihero". You value reporting others over helping them, which is undoubtedly cancerous to the Wiki community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaRearick (talk • contribs)

    Hello, Joseph2302. It seems Sasha has hit the nail right on the head. Both of us happen to be new here, so I strongly believe you are doing more to create a conflict rather than solving it. I'm reillustrating the draft, and it will be posted with proper referencing and without bias/opinion. Thanks, RP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyPelkey (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The purpose of this board is to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, therefore I'm perfectly entitled to ask, especially as neither of you bothered to answer of my talkpage- I'm not trying to be a "Wikihero", I'm just confused by the interactions with you two. Also, I tried to help you, I stopped the article being deleted the first time by moving it to draft, and I've evaluated all the sources for you, and given advice on how to improve it. Oh and by the way, James V. Toner cannot be created for a month, as an admin salted it, so that gives you a month to actually find some decent references, although as I've said before a 16-yr old who hopes to compete in big events in 2018-2022 is almost certainly not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that they tried to recreate the non-notable article at James Toner as well, I've asked for this to be protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an interesting quote in that comment you mentioned, Joseph, where RandyPelkey says "I will be able to incorporate knowledge of my own regarding the subject matter, and include references to my previous editorials on him which cannot be found online". I'm going to assume good faith that RP's work on the subject was as a journalist, so there is not a true conflict of interest issue. However, if he's using first-hand knowledge, then there could be issues related to WP:No original research. Material in an article needs to be verifiable to published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

    even if there were COI, !voting in an AfD is not barred to people with a COI. Closing, with a trout to Waters.Justin Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Conflict of interest problem with a Wikipedia administrator and RationalWiki board member proposing a deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies There is a conflict of issue problem with administrator David Gerard being so influential in the proposed deletion of an article on a non-profit organization that expresses a view that is contrary to the views of a non-profit organization where he hold a board position. David Gerard is a trustee of RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is dedicated to publishing many transhumanist ideas considered pseudoscience by RationalWiki. If you visit the RationalWiki page on transhumanism[65] you will see that the majority of the page is dedicated to criticizing the ideas the IEET promotes, and David Gerard is a contributor on that page. The IEET is a transhumanist organization and used to title its academic journal the Journal of Transhumanism. This type of conflict of interest is similar to Wikipedia's prohibition against staff members of a political candidate editing articles on their opposition. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Campaigning.2C political. What we have here is a staff / board member of one policy non-profit promoting the deletion of its opposing non-profit. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The original lack of notability templates, were added by David Gerard, and he has been consistently promoting this article's deletion. [66]. Additionally, he has been using Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to make the claim that the article's references only cite the spokesperson' for the IEET and not the IEET itself and "notability is not inherited," so the content of the reference must be on the IEET itself and not the spokespersons. It is true that "notability is not inherited" but a spokesperson of an organization is the voice and face of the organization. The organization cannot talk, it's scholars talk for it. The spokesperson is the agent of the organization, so when the references mention the scholar is a member of the IEET this is not a passive mention of the IEET, it is intended convey the message that the scholar is the voice of the IEET. Considering the amount of advocacy occurring on Wikipedia and David Gerard's administrative position on Wikipedia and board membership on RationalWiki, I suggest he no longer participate in the proposed deletion of the IEET article. On a personal note, I respect that he uses his real name and I wish other administrators would do the same. I don't mean any criticism against him as an administrator. I suspect that if more administrators and editors used their real name we would see more COI challenges. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from hearing cases when they have a personal association to it. It's the method of best practices in order to avoid criticism from others and the possibility that our human emotions will get in the way. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only say: um, what.
    I did not propose the deletion, as you can see at the nomination; I commented that I had gone through the references and none of them were good, hence I considered that as it stood the article warranted deletion. This claim of Waters.Justin's is visibly false.
    I do have considerable knowledge of fringe and skeptical topics. This is orthogonal to Wikipedia notability; some are, some aren't. There are organisations I consider reprehensible (IEET isn't one, I have no reason to think they aren't perfectly decent people, even if utterly un-noteworthy) who nevertheless fully warrant a Wikipedia article. I try to make my edits in this area according to the Wikipedia way of doing things.
    I note also the past discussion with Justin at Talk:Institute for Ethics and_Emerging_Technologies#Notability_2, in which I noted that the article was seriously lacking in notability, and that this should be remedied; Randykitty concurred, and we tried to patiently explain the rules to Justin.
    The AFD in question now looks like it's getting brigaded by transhumanists: non-policy-based arguments from infrequent editors. This sort of canvassing is probably inappropriate to Wikipedia.
    - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    formatted properly. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waters.Justin, sjeez, please read up on what a conflict of interest actually is. This is not one. None of the arguments in the AfD that gets you so riled up is about the ideas that the IEET espouses. It is about, as one of the SPA IEET supporters creeping out of the woodwork expressed it, the fact that "nobody ever wrote about IEET". WP includes articles on pseudoscience (like astrology), as long as it is notable as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Spending your time finding such sources is more useful than attacking people participating in the AfD (Gerard is not even the nom). --Randykitty (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if David Gerard has a COI, a COI is no bar to !voting in an AfD. I am closing this as an advocacy driven non-issue and a trout goes to Waters.Justin for bringing this. I am going to follow up with Waters.Justin and David Gerard on matters not raised here. Am archiving this instead of just marking it resolved as misfired cases like this tend to spin into dramafests. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=666402101"