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
→‎Kathy Ireland: notified in 2012
→‎Kathy Ireland: added links. User:Danny D De Lillo perhaps sock or skirting failed AfC
Line 754: Line 754:


== [[Kathy Ireland]] ==
== [[Kathy Ireland]] ==
*{{userlinks|Borntodeal}}
*{{userlinks|Danny D De Lillo}}
*{{la|John Kiedis}}
*{{la|Kathy Ireland}}


Over the years [[User:Borntodeal|Borntodeal]] has quite lovingly tended to the [[Kathy Ireland]] article. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Borntodeal&page=Kathy+Ireland&server=enwiki&max=100] The result is an article largely sourced to press releases that a person connected to Ireland would know about. They've recently started a related Ireland page: [[Draft:The Sterling Winters Company]]. Any concerns about this promotional editing or conflict of interest issues are quickly deleted under the guise of "moving". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorntodeal&type=revision&diff=668393743&oldid=668393501] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Over the years [[User:Borntodeal|Borntodeal]] has quite lovingly tended to the [[Kathy Ireland]] article. [https://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/usersearch.py?name=Borntodeal&page=Kathy+Ireland&server=enwiki&max=100] The result is an article largely sourced to press releases that a person connected to Ireland would know about. They've recently started a related Ireland page: [[Draft:The Sterling Winters Company]]. Any concerns about this promotional editing or conflict of interest issues are quickly deleted under the guise of "moving". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorntodeal&type=revision&diff=668393743&oldid=668393501] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:51, 24 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:A Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Access Industries
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:BP
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    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:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor)
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Moody Nolan
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Karen O'Rourke
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Joseph C. Papa
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Polymarket
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Jarred Rome
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    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]
    just adding a comment here as we are not done cleaning up this mess and i don't want this to get archived. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 12 June 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]
    Unresolved
     – editor changed username and blanked COI declaration. Brianhe (talk) 06:22, 19 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]
    He did return, has changed username to User:Boskit190 and blanked his userpage. I.e. the COI notice has been removed by the editor in question. Meanwhile the elance profile he claimed ownership of has accepted at least this and this new Wikipedia jobs since Joseph2302's last comment above this one. — Brianhe (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Boskit190 re-created the user page with a brief disclosure. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought they'd created a new account, I guess changing username is okay, as the history including the deletion of their articles, and the block for harassment and undisclosed paid editing is still attached to the account. However, the disclosure is inadequate, because it should provide a list of all the articles they were paid to create (including the deleted ones), along with information on who their clients are, in accordance with the Wikimedia Terms of Use on paid editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)The user doesn't have a fresh start, just a new name and a fresh user page. The talk page still exists, and the user archived it at User talk:Boskit190/Archive 1
    • Disclosure of deleted paid articles (and any undisclosed articles) seems like a good recommendation. User should absolutely take note that all future paid edits must declare the client.
    --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hroðulf: I realised, and edited my post above (before you posted). Frankly, they're just trying to hide the fact they created bad articles, because that makes them less likely to be accepted by clients. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So their userpage now says they've retired permanently. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 20 June 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]
    BiH started talking back at their talk page and has promised to complete the disclosure of articles they edited for pay. Fulfillment of that promise hasn't happened yet and I just followed up with them. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We now have a COI list at User:BiH#COI but some problems ... first of all, it has no explanation at all, so will not serve as a legitimate declaration for people unfamiliar with this conversation. Second, it appears to be a lightly redacted copy of User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and I'd bet is missing at least several entries including corp profiles for Code Rebel, Pet Circle, and DGM Services. It shouldn't be up to us to ferret this out if the person claiming disclosure is acting in good faith. — Brianhe (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    yep i agree - I am hopeful that they will reply and complete it. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I used your list for a reference, but there were some articles that I created without any COI, while some are just redirects or renames. I do not understand what you want as an "explanation". Please share more details so that I could fill that up as well. I will check the listed 3 though. --BiH (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BiH: Well, the Wikimedia terms of use specify that for each article, you need to "disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". Also, the section COI is misleading, as editors who haven't seen this page won't know that means "I was paid to create these articles". Frankly, I think you should be blocked for undisclosed paid editing in blatant violation of Wikimedia's terms of use. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: I believe I showed reasonable amount of cooperation with the community, in comparison with other "problematic" editors you encounter each day, so I expect some good will. Unlike others, I use single account and I am OK with disclosing everything if the TOS say so. I am aware that I am not popular here, but I am also aware that I am not a destructive editor, and I try to give something back to the community as much as I can. I have explained myself to User:Jytdog in a private email, because I believed it should be done. If someone else wants the same explanation (privately), please let me know how we can get in touch. Cheers! --BiH (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @BiH: I personally don't see taking a month to disclose some of the things you've been paid to create as overly-cooperative. And a violation of the terms of service is a violation, regardless of whether or not you knew about it (although how could an experienced editor not have known they had to declare paid contributions??) Personally I think you should stop editing other things, focus on clearing up all this continued confusion- it seems the only way to actually get you to focus on disclosing would be to block you. Give me one reason why I shouldn't report you to WP:ANI for undisclosed paid editing? By the sounds of it, some of your paid editing is still undisclosed. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gave it a thought and decided to share my, pretty much, private story, which I already shared with User:Jytdog. Here it is, as follows:

    "I just wanted to explain a few things, and I feel it would be much more easier for me afterwards. Back in 2005, I was on of the founders of BS Wikipedia (Bosnian) I served as and admin, bureaucrat and checkuser. I, above all, believed that Wikipedia should be a volunteer work. I was often ridiculed by other people due to my attitude. I was just entering college at that time. During college, I was pretty much busy with learning, so I was not active on Wikipedia, both BS and EN. After my graduation and after I got a degree in mechanical engineering, I could not find any job (Google: "employment in Bosnia" and everything will be clear). As my mother is unemployed as well, I had to find a source of income. A friend offered me to help him with some article for money (as he knew I was "good at it"), and the rest is history, and I got involved into it somehow. Now, I got the (first) job in the capital of Bosnia (I had to move from my home town). However, since I have no experience in my field, I work for 300 euro per months (as an intern), which is not even close to what I need for the living.

    To be short, necessity made me do what I do. However, I still tend not to do disruptive editing and promotion of non-notable individuals or companies - some might got passed that criterion, I must admit. All this time, I want that community somehow acknowledge that, to see my good will. Since I was feeling bad for what I do, I was taking time to do some new page patrol from time to time and I think I did some massive work in that field. None wants this to stop more than me, but I will simply have to do it until I get myself a decent pay. Due to all the things that happened, I have been ashamed, but I understand your scrutiny over me and I respect it."

    I really hope you understand my position. Thank you for helping. If you have any questions about the above said, please do not hesitate to ask me." --BiH (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BiH thanks for sharing your story here. What really matters is that you get your paid editing disclosure finished and with a proper heading on your User page. That more than anything will go a very long way toward gaining trust. Please take care of that as soon as you can. If people look at your contribs they can see the admin-like work you are doing, but what folks here at COIN care about the most, is the getting the paid editing disclosed and reviewed. So please do that. Please don't wait any longer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Jytdog, from a COI perspective, Wikipedia needs a full disclosure as soon as possible, so we can start checking it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog:, @Joseph2302:: I suppose I have to elaborate myself in the COI section on my user page. Can you tell me specifically what needs to be done or give me an example of disclosed list. I really want this to be done already, but I am a bit confused by your demands - I do not know what to write to meet all TOC requirements. Jytdog said I need to write a COI section heading, but I need to know what is expected from me. Please note that I am willing to cooperate, otherwise all this would not happen. So, we have a rough list, I will go through it once more as there might be some articles that were not in COI (article renames or my new page patrol edits), while I might missed to include some or deleted them from the list by mistake. With that completed, I will add "connected contributor" tags on all pages that are in COI, as I already began. Is that OK? In the end, I will need a bit of your help to complete any other requirements. I hope you all agree. --BiH (talk) 12:39, 19 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 [12] — 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

    Resolved
     – editor appears to understand that linkspamming was not OK. No further activity from them. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    I reached out to this editor as well and they emailed me. Seems that they understood what they did was not OK, and seems to have gone away. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 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]
    SPA popped up at AfD here. At least a very strong advocate. I approached them but no response yet. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    article deleted through AfD but editor remains nonresponsive Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ferratum Group

    Resolved
     – result of AfD was delete; conflicted editor understands their COI Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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" [13]. 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)

    Resolved
     – Conflicted editor seems to understands the issues. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    I talked with him at his talk page and I think he gets it and understands how to do things going forward. Marking this resolved. I have it on my watchlist in case issues arise in the future. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 14 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 [14] 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]
    • C.Fred, that is correct. I have no personal relationship with the subject, but I have illustrated and read a significant amount of unbiased articles regarding his life and career in the Cape Cod Times, Falmouth Enterprise, Bridgton Newspaper, and a couple others to which I cannot recall off the top of my head. I do not believe this is a true conflict of interest issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyPelkey (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably doesn't matter anyway, Draft:James V. Toner got deleted as spam, James V. Toner is salted for a month, and James Toner is indefinitely protected (as it's supposed to be a redirect to a different page). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    According to LinkedIn, Sasha Rearick is "Head Men's Coach at US Ski Team". That doesn't mean there is a pecuniary COI here, perhaps just subject matter knowledge and familiarity with the subject. But still, the onus is on them to disclose or deny it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds about right, I thought Sacha was either family, close friend or professional coach of James Toner. Assuming this is true, I also don't believe RandyPelkey's answer- especially as I cannot find a thread about it on Yahoo Answers, which is were the non-COI Sacha allegedly posted for help. Therefore I return to my previous theory, undisclosed COI and undisclosed paid editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 12 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[15] 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. [16]. 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.

    Jesse Young (politician)

    Resolved
     – seems settled for now. bears watching. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rep. Jesse L. Young has obvious COI from the username, given them COI notice. Both them and the IP are adding a mixture of sourced and unsourced, non-NPOV content- I think I reverted back to the best sourced content. Needs more eyes on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Rep. Jesse L. Young" should be blocked ASAP as an account possibly impersonating a public figure....reported at UAA. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So "Rep. Jesse L. Young" has been blocked, but IP 174.21.234.50 is adding basically the same information, only with (predominantly primary) sources, see [18]. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stubified this and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears they've halted their disruptive editing after the block and warnings. Let's hope it remains that way! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OCEAN Style

    This was an elance job [19] that takes just a little work to detect. I've done some cleanup but would appreciate another set of eyes for adherence to policy and, in particular, to determine if the subject is notable. Brianhe (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph2302 AfDed it. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert)

    Greetings. I have created a biographical article regarding a well-known nonproliferation researcher and academic that I know in real life, Jeffrey Lewis. Per ethical requirements and the COI policy I am self-declaring that this is a Conflict of Interest and have disclosed that on the talk page as well (see here). I believe that the article meets academic and general notability, that all non-trivial comments are sourced, and that it's neutral. However, others' input and review are welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for disclosing and for posting here. As an editor with a COI you should have going through WP:AFC instead of creating this article directly. Lots of problems with it (sourcing, embedded links, unsourced content)... would you consent to moving this to your userspace or to draft space until it is ready for showtime?Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it to Draft:Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert)- as an AFC reviewer, I think this submission stands little chance of being kept long-term. Needs a proper AFC review and continued work on it, to show they're actually notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a small field, and most of the active participants don't reach public view all that often in general. I think there are three to five Wikipedians active enough in arms control to understand who the major players are; the field is clearly important enough to be covered, so in my opinion are the major players. Two of the online journals he is a commentator at were already notable enough to have articles (neither of which I had edited).
    I started here because it's easy, but intend to create articles for another whole pile of the lead academics/researchers/policy experts. I've been around plenty long enough to understand what is required to fairly and neutrally cover a topic area one is somewhat involved in. There are only a handful of us working on articles on say nuclear weapons technology and history, too, and one of the other main editors is an involved source himself. I'm disclosing out of an abundance of caution, but the topic area is seriously lacking depth of coverage on Wikipedia now, and I intend to fix that. This is probably as close to a COI that I would have with a particular topic or subject in the field, but we need sufficiently clued in experts to know what to write about and create the articles.
    I would like to request that you comment on the talk page about the specifics of your sourcing, embedded links, and unsourced content concerns. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I also added refs for 8 NY Times and Washington Post stories that quoted him as an expert on the nuclear programs in China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. (and could keep going, he's widely interviewed and quoted as a source for media stories). Hopefully addressing notability in terms everyone should agree to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert WP:EXPERTs are appreciated in WP very much (if you are not familiar with essay, please read it) but you definitely have a COI for this article and the ones you want to create. COI says: "You should not ... edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends..... You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." You need to take that seriously. Would you please:
    a) acknowledge that you have a COI on this topic and the ones you intend to write about as you discuss above;
    b) use the AfC process going forward; and
    c) agree that if any of these articles are created through AfC, that you will not directly edit them after they enter WP space?
    thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have a COI on the whole topic area; I am an expert (as defined in the essay) in the whole topic area. I only know a few of the people well enough to meet the COI criteria (Jeff Lewis most prominently, hence the disclosure). Experts are not and never have been declared auto-COI across the whole topic area(s) they edit in; COI is much more specific and close-in.
    AfC is for dealing with people who are problem creators or who don't know how to edit well enough to create safe articles. It's not for every expert editing in their field of expertise, and never has been. I started here with the one article which I have a genuine, disclose-first COI on, but the rest I forsee creating would not meet the COI definition. I know how to create safe articles and have been doing so for 10+years.
    I understand caution, and I posted here because I do have a COI as defined in policy and any rational normal definition in real life. The policy urges that so others can see that I'm not actually creating a problem, be it a bad BLP, a vanity page, a badly written page, something which truly isn't notable, etc. The policy recommends a lot of stand-off with COI topics, but does not require it. It recommends because it's aimed at less experienced editors who are less familiar with WP culture and standards, neutral point of view, etc. I've been around nearly forever, have over 16k edits, am an administrator, and have created hundreds of mainspace articles over the years. If there are quality problems with the article I listen and encourage others to point them out for me to correct or to correct them themselves. If notability was not clear enough to start with I listen and work on that. If there's a genuine dispute I stand back and find other uninvolved editors.
    People need to be informed and aware that I do have the COI on that particular article (done). Someone needs to review it and keep an eye on it (in progress). I do not need to crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI or bad editing; I am safe from that, am looking to improve the project and its coverage of this rather important topic writ large (we have had a war over it, and could have another one if the Iran negotiations go badly). If you want to look over my shoulder on the topic area in general that's encouraged and appreciated. If I go off the reservation feel free to call it out. But it desperately needs work. Unless AfC has picked up a lot in the last year I do not believe it would be capable enough to address the gaps. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying George. This board is not about judging your competence, so please leave that out of it. This board is about COI. You clearly have a COI for Jeffrey Lewis. Who else do you personal or professional relationships with (both positive and negative) and plan to write about? Thanks. (by the way, describing a discussion about your COI and managing it as asking you to "crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI" is just a really bad reflection on you. Please also leave the drama out of this. Thanks.) Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert will you please respond here to the substance? Would be good to wrap this thread up. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Execulink Telecom

    Execulink Telecom was created by IP 209.213.231.168- I accepted it at AfC after a thorough copyedit to make the language more neutral. Now User:Kchalmers (username recently changed from User:Execulink) is editing the page- the edits have been fine for now, but I'd like more eyes on the page, as they clearly have a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've approached Kchalmers. Hopefully she will respond well and we can resolve this smoothly. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaiser Permanente

    User:vggolla (self-described on the KP talk page as 'Vince from KP', which I take as a FCoI notice) complained about the section “Grossly Inadequate Mental Health Care”, and Jytdog, who has, IMHO, worked hard to avoid more explicit bans in wikipedia policy on FCoI/ Paid Advocacy Editing, removed it. I requested and was hoping User:Jytdog would comment on their edit and suggest a solution, rather than engage in ad hominem attack on a Kaiser union, which is how I see the response to my request. Seems, furthermore, that my statement was glossed over: Seems hard to see the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser for not providing adequate health care to its customers" and a strike over the care failures as entirely unworthy of mention- since I mentioned a strike (which was noted in the whitewashed content), obviously I was aware of the labor dispute. I'm challenged as to how to get the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser ... mentioned in the article again. Because it's the largest fine in DMHC history, it is surely encyclopedic, and about gross shortcomings, not mere union posturing about minor delays. The WP:DR POLICY states, for example, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Wholesale deletion at the behest of a user with a clear FCoI seems a clear violation of the letter and spirit of our policies. I would ask that the material be restored by User:Jytdog who can then add balancing material or make the wording more neutral --Elvey(t•c) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Elvey. What is your evidence that I have a conflict of interest with regard to Kaiser? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    btw the dif that I reverted due to POV not to mention removal of sourced content was this. and the source relied on for much of the added material was this, an opinion piece by the head of the union. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I took was useful out of that POV content and FIXEDIT here. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    by the way, sorry for this. I thought i self-reverted right away but i didn't. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Your edit summary made it seem quite clearly intentional; it wasn't? I'll assume you changed your mind and meant to self revert, but didn't. --Elvey(t•c) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah i thought you had put that stuff into WP:COI not here. and then i as i said i thought i self-reverted. two mistakes. sorry Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Glad I was able to keep my cool even after that and what I saw as you edit warring at H2 antagonist too. <Pats self on back.> Glad to see you reverted both edits after User_talk:Jytdog#June_2015. --Elvey(t•c) 09:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I was going to say Please address my concerns. And I did @$#^@$%& discuss it first on the talk page. I expand my concerns here and you haven't addressed those, and you still haven't even addressed the concern expressed on the article talk page yet. but it sounds like maybe you've now addressed my concerns (based on your edits i conflicted with). Will review follow up. Thanks. --Elvey(t•c) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elvey you need to address your claim that I have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanante. Please present your case or withdraw the claim. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog : "COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article". "There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request..." I await the outcome and one of the three appropriate actions. You need to address your claim that I claim that you have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanante. Do you? You need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim. (IIRC you made a blanket statement a while back about having no COIs with respect to any edits or topics on wikipedia, but I can't find such a statement.) --Elvey(t•c) 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elvey, when you posted here at COIN and listed my username, you raised a concern that I have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente. And no, I do not. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog:Again, you need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim. IIRC you made a blanket statement a while back about having no COIs with respect to any edits or topics on wikipedia, but I can't find such a statement. Do you recall making one?--Elvey(t•c) 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    this doesn't appear to be serious. I will not be responding here further. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is becoming harassment now. Elvey tagged the Kaiser article for COI which I have reverted. This thread needs attention of independent voices and I am looking for at least a trout to Elvey for bringing an unserious case to COIN - You can see above that they are not even owning the claim that I have a COI, yet they posted here and have tagged the article. Pinging admins SlimVirgin, Smartse, OrangeMike and FreeRangeFrog who are active here at times. Please review and comment, and act or close this, as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (Following 2 comments moved from my talk page (and later expanded here). Please continue discussion here. -Elvey)
    You have made no serious case at COIN. Do not throw that around lightly. Get serious. If you continue being casual about this I will bring you to ASI for harassment. Make a serious case or walk away. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, please. This is not about mere suspicion of COI based on POV pushing. There's an admitted financial conflict of interest; from my opening post to COIN: 'Vince from KP', which I take as a FCoI notice. Jytdog later said at COIN that he would not comment further. But that was UNTRUE : he did comment further - above and on my talk page. Threw down an accusation against me and when I asked for a quote or diff to back it up, you refused to provide one. That feels like harassment to me. After the recent edit warring that I warned Jytdog about - on multiple articles - Jytdog wisely stopped and even self reverted in one case. Now Jytdog has done it again, removing the {{COI}} I placed. (diff) Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Jytdog, go away or come back to COIN and KP and stop violating policy or you'll end up on "ASI". As my edit summary noted when I placed the COI notice, ("Per Talk:Kaiser_Permanente#Whitewashing ") the problem IS explained on the article's talk page.--Elvey(t•c) 17:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AGAIN: It seems hard to see tens of billions of dollars in reserves as entirely unworthy of mention in the article. Please comment ON THAT. Anyone dispute that the COI tag should be restored until the whitewashing has been addressed? What's the policy on removing an appropriately placed COI tag? Jytdog has been violating policy left and right lately; I warned about deleting other users comments and have yet to warn about failing to provide required notifications. Pinging admins SlimVirgin, etc - boomerang? --Elvey(t•c) 17:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed Jytdog's edits and can't see anything that sets off my COI alarm bells and this is just a bog-standard content dispute. Jytdog's removed a lot of very poorly sourced content including promotional content such as this. I've certainly never seen a conflicted editor do that before! If Elvey thinks that there is something omitted from the article that can be sourced, then they should fix it themselves rather than making empty accusations. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth time, what empty accusations, SmartSE? For the umpteenth time, where did I claim that Jytdog has a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente? Not here. I say to you as I said to him after he demanded much the same from me: "You need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim." Do you deny that the fact that KP has tens of billions of dollars in reserves was removed from the article? That an editor with a FCoI who works for KP asked for negative information to be removed? Yes, he removed promotional content. Good for him. What part of I'm not claiming that Jytdog has a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente do you not understand? There's an admitted FCoI, unaddressed whitewashing and yet the COI tag keeps being removed, though Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Also, I just noticed curiously-named [User:PermanenteJ] has made but one small edit, but a FCoI is likely. Jytdog frequently edit wars when users try to fix things themselves - diff, diff - see whole section. --Elvey(t•c) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elvey asked me to comment here. Jytdog, I can't see where he accused you of COI. He is drawing attention to the acknowledged COI of User:Vggolla. As for the content, I haven't looked at it, but given Vggolla's statement and Elvey's concern, Vggolla's removal of criticism should be rolled back, so long as there are reliable sources for each point that he removed. Sarah (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, please look at the usernames listed at the top of this thread. There are two ways to interpret that. Elvey made a mistake, or Elvey is raising a concern about COI with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I see Vvgolla didn't edit the article, but complained about certain things, so this is more complex than I thought it was. I'll try to find time to look at the edits, but can't promise. Sarah (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jade_at_Brickell_Bay

    Resolved
     – article deleted, spammed site blacklisted Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    the problem is that I have discovered a spammer hiding, it's www.dienerproperties.com person keeps changing user names. I request some help preventing this consistent undoing onepoint (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    watching the article. listed the site at the spam blacklist. looks like the article should be PRODed. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PRODed by Joseph here. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no extensive coverage available as far as I can tell. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    my nomination of the site for spam blacklist was accepted, and the PROD just resulted in deletion today. so this is done. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Balochistan

    No COI, it's just a content dispute. There is no evidence that either party works for Pakistan or Indian army, and even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily be a COI. Go back to the article talkpages. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 15 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.

    Is it conflict of interest for member of Pakistani army to delete information on human rights atrocities by pak army from articles 78.146.43.52 (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So anybody trying to remove wrong info/info that does not fit the scope of the article/ info that has been discussed at the respective talk page and then removed, even though the info was reverted back pending further discussion is a member of Pakistan Army??? Great! Moreover, conversely, anybody who tried to add info to pages related to Pakistani Military must then also be a member of Pakistan Army? Similarly, anybody who remove info regarding the revelations by the Indian Prime Minister on

    and Mukti Bahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be a member of Indian Armed Forces or have had volunteered for Mukti Bahini in the past? I guess not. —TripWire talk 11:53, 15 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.

    Do I need to declare COI for talk page discussion?

    Resolved
     – question answered Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have declared my COI on my user page. I have NEVER made any edits to the British National Party wiki page, but I hold various positions within the organization. On the Talk page, I have an editor/admin (I don't know what rights he has) who keeps threatened to have me banned for not "Formally declaring COI". Do I need to declare anything anywhere to participate on the articles TALK page? Am I banned from talking about anything on the talk page because of COI? Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Chrisdbarnett: WP:COI strongly recommends that you shouldn't directly edit, but recommends you instead suggest edits at the talkpage- therefore what you're doing seems to be correct to me. I'll tag the talkpage with a COI notice, but you are definitely allowed to participate in talkpage discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! You see I couldn't work out whether I'm supposed to tag the talk page with a COI notice or not. Thanks. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris, I've always very strongly advised editors with a COI much weaker than yours: fully disclose your COI on the talk page before even beginning to take part in the discussion. Than, having done so, please do participate fully, just like the rest of us! How else are we going to reach a consensus about ways to improve the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Janette Kerr

    This says that Lucasta10 is from Janette Kerr's Gallery, and username suggests JanetteKerr= Janette Kerr. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JanetteKerr very freely admits to being Janette Kerr. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reached out to both of them on JanetteKerr's Talk page, here. Hopefully they will start talking with us. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Levine

    I have a disclosed COI as I am the subject of this article. I have thoughts about editing, shortening, removing puffery and otherwise cleaning up the article. But I ask for your suggestions. Please feel free to post on my Talk page or otherwise bring to my attention your concerns. Is there a Wikipedia editor out there who might assist? Thank you. Solomonandlord (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Solomonandlord[reply]

    Well I've started by removing all of your poorly sourced selective quoting, and some of the blatantly non-neutral language, and all your self-quotes. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also cleaned it up a bit. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Badly needs better sourcing. Can't find any third party sources about the person, just a few reviews of the books. Notability is questionable. Does this pass WP:AUTHOR? Send to AfD? Comments? John Nagle (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added find sources templates to facilitate searching.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I certainly question its notability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a "proposed deletion" template on it, and someone took that off. That's not unreasonable; the subject of the article is near the low edge of the notability threshold, but it's hard to decide on which side they fall. John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    <snip> (proposed content put here in this dif; cut from here and pasted to the article Talk page in this dif, with Solomonandlord's permission per this dif Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    Solomonandlord this should really go on the Talk page of the article. Will you cut this and paste it there, or may I? Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Jytodog, yes, please copy and post wherever appropriate. Obviously, I'm out of my depth here. Solomonandlord (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Solomonandlord[reply]
    done. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kansas Christian College (Overland Park)

    Hello! I acknowledged that I worked for a college that was changing its name, and I made edits to the page not knowing that I was creating a conflict of interest. I was just doing my job. I have cited sources and used references, and the editor cleaned up the contents. Can we please remove the warning that it was written with a conflict of interest? Thank you! 2602:306:CECB:1FF0:9DA:31B7:AD3F:4390 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No, because you've been editing it, therefore the COI applies. As do all the other tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not necessarily negative, it's just an alert. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation by paid editors

    In the past couple of weeks I have been contacted on and off-wiki by users responding to e-mails purporting to be sent by me offering to write articles for the users for a fee. When I asked to see one of these e-mails, it was sent from a Hotmail account by someone saying, "I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:" and linking to my user page. When I challenged this individual by e-mail they apologised and promised not to do it again. Just reporting this in case anyone else has received similar messages.--ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See these threads:
    *Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Highly_relevant_ANI_discussion
    *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me
    — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is related to an issue which has been referred to WMF legal dept by DGG. They should be notified of this thread.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdennis (WMF): This thread is related to the other impersonations. I also have emails with some ID info. You may want to confer with Guerillero that has some as well. Ukpat please email your info to Maggie (User:Mdennis (WMF)) so that the legal dept may be informed. Thank you,
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging again because I got a name wrong here (sorry). @Ukexpat and FreeRangeFrog: please email Maggie what you have concerning this case. Cheers,
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reported this via OTRS to legal some time ago. I note a particular Facebook account involved in this was terminated, but I don't know if it had to do with anything Legal did. They never got back to me. I should clarify they did acknowledge my forward, just that I never heard from them again.§FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can get me an IP address, I can CU it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero: Unfortunately I have nothing more than the evidence presented in the ANI thread. Perhaps Ukexpat can glean an IP from email headers? I'm not sure Hotmail includes the sender's IP, I know gmail does not. I never actually corresponded with any of them, just people writing to OTRS about them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @FreeRangeFrog: and @Ukexpat: If you're using outlook.com, open the message and then click the ••• button on the top menu bar and then "view message source". The sender's IP should be somewhere near the top. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Not necessarily, as I said Gmail excludes the sender's original IP for privacy reasons. I just don't know if Outlook/Hotmail do the same. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Gmail for Wikipedia related e-mail. I did check the message headers and see the IP address 157.55.2.21 if that helps.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I see your point @FreeRangeFrog: - that IP is a mailserver: [20]. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Big pain. AN/I and the Wikimedia Foundation are on it. Is there any more action needed here? John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Gibraltar

    Just come across University of Gibraltar, and seems like it's been a target for puffery and promotion for months. Both these accounts, and the 2 IPs have been adding promotional material to the page. User:The University of Gibraltar has been reported to WP:UAA for username violation, but I'd like some more eyes on the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Egress Software Technologies Ltd

    This article appears to fall under Wikipedia's ACTUALCOI guidelines as it appears to be written by an employee of Egress Software based on the offending users username of "RebeccaEgress". 167.21.141.14 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've PRODed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess

    These articles were created by the last checkuser likely group at the above SPI. This is mostly likely undisclosed paid advocacy. Eviscerate away. (I have blocked all accounts involved. All the other spam in the SPI has been reverted and blacklisted.) MER-C 12:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Put a couple up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Asteroid Day, Starmus Festival

    Heads up on some unusual edits related to the Starmus Festival and Asteroid Day articles, and biographies of people involved in those areas. Doesn't seem to be particularly effective. Geogene (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, looks like a good faith confirmation of probable COI, paid editing, maybe socking on my talkpage here. I don't think they're aware of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for input - Greenfacts and its no-longer-involved Founder

    Hi all. Jacques (who discloses his RW identity on his "Deselliers" Userpage above) founded an organization called GreenFacts in 2001, ran it til May 2007, and was Vice-Chairman until 2009. He says (and have no reason not to believe him) that he has no connection to the organization now. GreenFacts is a nonprofit science-writing organization.

    Does he have a COI with regard to GreenFacts, and should he refrain from directly editing that article? CorporateM says no, Jacques says no (all civil and good, no big conflict here), and I say "I think so". Jacques wants to directly edit the article. What do folks here think? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has a diverse editing history and has not been affiliated with the org for 5+ years. It's only natural for editors to show an interest in their former employers. I think this applies equally to routine employees as it does to higher-level ones. I continue to AGF the case and see no reason for sanctions. I continue to be surprised by how often I remind editors of our founding principles. We're the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We assume editors are trying to do the right thing. We have no firm rules. This is not the type of case (hired spin-doctors and advocates) the Bright Line was intended for. All indications are that this can be handled through normal, civil discussion, not regulations and sanctions. The editor has not been editing article-space recently anyway and the article is heading towards the trash-bin at AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 20:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CorporateM. But again, I'd like repeat that my four edits that you reverted on the GreenFacts article (subject of our discussion) have nothing to do with any possible form COI. They are purely updates of obsolete links and, in one edit, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website, in order to improve the quality of the article. I really don't understand why they should cause any problem, and why this point was never addressed in any of the replies in the GreenFacts talk page or on my talk page. Could someone kindly address this point? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CorporateM please don't describe making edit requests instead of editing directly as a "sanction" - that's terrible. It is just managing COI, that's all. Yes it is a bit clunkier but we have gotten great contributions that way. It is the only real means we have to manage COI outside of actual sanctions like topic bans. Now all three of us have said what we think here - let's see what others think on the questions. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A former association, especially one that has cooled-off, should not necessarily imply an on-going conflict of interest. Generally speaking, there can be associations to other parties (close friends, family, current employer, prospective employer, etc.) that could cause conflict if they have associations with the organization. There's neither evidence nor disclaimer of such associations here. I would hope that, again in general, Wikipedia won't have to deal with Enron-level obfuscation of associations, although I suppose it could happen. Back to this case, if edits are promotional, not notable, don't cite reliable sources, form a pattern of such or whatever, they can be dealt with on those bases. Meanwhile, conflicts can end. --Unready (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible undisclosed paid editor

    This has been noted at their talkpage by @Canuckle:. The website of the Evolve Multimedia describes them as developeing attractive websites, particularly river websites, see [21], [22]. They've been adding unsourced promotional spam to teh Britannia articles, and Mark Angelo- a river conservationist. Also some minor edits on World Rivers Day. Aside from the fact their username is an obvious violation, all these pages need massive cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly undisclosed paid editing, in contravention of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under Section4). The username also indicates a corporate account, contrary to WP:CORPNAME. The account needs to be blocked, but I will wait a day to give them a chance to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What started as a few questions has led to an attack on the pages and questions of the ethics of my work. Mark's page was started and largely written by someone other than myself. I have assisted the updates of these pages out of interest and I have volunteered time to complete these pages. I used my real name and business in the spirit of good digital citizenship. If you need to terminate the account because it uses my business account, that is fine but first let me know if you plan to delete my content. I understand the reasons for not allowing advertisement but do you really expect the average person to be able to edit in wikipedia? What if there are people who wish to contribute and cannot because the editor is intimidating and the review is even worse? I am concerned that this medium is becoming exclusive to an elite few who understand the rules and who can judge the proper intent, format and content for pages. In some ways this smacks of digital facism and the trial system is even worse, guilty until proven innocent or responds appropriately as judged by the few judges engaged at the moment. The proces is arbitrary and random....bit like a kangaroo court with little explanation of the rules when the account is set up and an ever changing list of do's and don'ts that seem to vary from reviewer to reviewer. My concern is for the pages. Requests were made to change, cite and update the pages and this was done for each request. Despite this fact, reviewers are keen to find 'obvious violations' and demand 'massive clean-ups' without explanation or inquiry into history or intent. Hardly in the spirit of a collaborative, open, participatory and fair system that is a resource for all. As for the promotional accusation, how are events, history and actions to be added so that they are not perceived as an advertisement? Is it the adjectives, the lack of a negative element, the format? What, in your defintion is a neutral tone? Provide a link, a resource and some assistance if you want to improve this rather than accusations, judgement and condemnation or you may find your contributor and interaction diminish to a select few in years to come. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (strike per intent of this dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    The evidence is clear. What normal editor would use a company name, of a company that specialises in writing articles about rivers? It's such a duck that there's a company involvement here. And you've pumped the articles so full of promotional praise for Mark Angelo it's ridiculous. Wikipedia is a collaboration, which is why all the other editors are working hard to clear up your promotional spam mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (removed, as possibly a bit harsh) Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What a ridiculous statement Joseph. What normal person would accuse and assume the worst intent without inquiring first? If you want to talk about neutral tone, why not try one in your review and accusation of editors? I did not know that there was an issue with using a company name, it seemed far more insiduous to present oneself falsely and without identity. What promotional spam mess? The page in question is a biography of one man and the other pages are stories of a cleanup on a river and a global event about rivers? I understood this resource to be open to editing by everyone and that eveyone is an editor and the system to be supportive and educational. What a joke. I looked at the section referred to by John and I am not sure how my business, which is never mentioned on any page beyond the editing list at the bottom, which was not in my opinion of any import, was promoted by any content I added here. This dialogue and the process here is childish, punishing and unprofessional. I will delete my account myself and reconsider my payment to and support of this resource, which has been significant and steadfast over the past decade --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    One last statement before I delete my own account. This account has existed for over 5 years with no issue. I have interacted with numerous wikipedia editors over the last several months, none of whom indicated that there was an issue with my name and none who have been as viperous as Joseph. In each case where an issue was indicated, I followed up and made the best attempt to change, edit or update the pages in question. No other individual has identified it as a promotional page or noted any other issues with tone or content. To me, this recent series of comments and tags is thus suspect and indicative of issues beyond any legitimate problems with the page(s). Here in this forum and on my own talk page, I have asked several times for examples and for direction on how to correct the page and have recieved no constructive response. From another source,Jytdog that is outside this communication, I have received helpful advice on how to deal with the name issue and for that I am grateful and will follow their instructions for ending the account and association with a business name. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (strike per intent of this dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    I'd like to point out that it wasn't me who tagged all the articles as COI and advertising, and it wasn't me that found the evidence to accuse you of being an (obvious) undisclosed paid editor. I've done nothing wrong but collate the facts of other people into one place here. Also, @JohnCD: seems to agree that all the evidence shows you're an undisclosed paid editor, so I clearly can't just be talking rubbish, like you suggest. Talking of which, JohnCD please can you block them, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hey Evolve Multimedia. I have not looked at the content - am just dealing with the COI issues here. First, I know it can be hard to have a spotlight thrown on you like this. And I am sorry that Joseph is a bit harsh - he deals with the flood of conflicted editors we get here all day long, many of whom get very nasty, and it makes him be too short sometimes. But he is coming from a good place. I am sorry again for the harshness. But please step back and consider the Big Picture a bit.
    I hope you can understand that Wikipedia is trusted by the public (for the most part) and one reason for that, is that we try to manage conflict of interest here. It is important. Please think about it - if this place were a garbage dump of promotional articles and so nobody every read Wikipedia, you would have no desire to edit here, right? You wouldn't waste your time. Think of Wikipedia like any public good - like a river. Editors with a conflict of interest are like factories dumping pollution into it. They want to use Wikipedia for whatever is important to them. They often think their outside interest is super important. That's fine, but not when it causes them to edit in a way that violates our policies.
    So we try to manage COI here. What does that mean? Two things. We ask editors who have a COI to disclose it on their userpage, and on the talk pages of articles that interest them. And we ask them not to edit articles directly - and instead to propose content changes on the article Talk page, so that independent editors can review the content to make sure it is neutral per NPOV and well sourced. We have gotten some really great contributions that way. It is just like academia, really. Disclosure and peer review.
    This doesn't have to be ugly and combative. It isn't "fascism". It is just a sound way to preserve the integrity of the public good, that is Wikipedia. I hope that all makes sense.
    So please take a deep breath and think a bit before you reply. Will you please, simply, disclose any conflicts of interest you have (including, per the Terms of Use, any editing you have done for pay)? We can work with you to get that disclosure made complete and appropriately done. Also will you agree to not directly edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, and instead, offer suggestions on the Talk page? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - as you noted, I tagged your account for a username violation. People edit Wikipedia, not companies. Would you please request a change to your username so that it reflects a single person, and please have just a single person use it going forward? You can't actually "delete" an account here - you can request a change to the name, which is better anyway. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted many of my comments here. Leave it to say that I did not percieve edits made to a page on behalf of someone who could not make the edits a conflict of interest. My work was voluntary and out of interest and assistance to another. I was also not aware that a business name was an issue. This account is over 5 years old and no one, in a number of interactions has asked me about the name or made any comment to suggest I should change it. For every change requested, I have done what was asked and was happy to comply with the wikipedia code. As previously requested, you may delete the name. I will not ask for a name change as I am not keen to continue editing or participating in this forum. It is a bit like quicksand and a miss step leads to a very difficult exchange. Out of deference for the efforts to everyone here, whether I found them pleasant or not, the content is deleted (as well as I can do so) and I hope the edits are made soon to the pages in question so that the tags are removed and these pages remain a resource for others. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reinstated the comments, as you aren't allowed to remove them, as it disrupts the talkpage. Also, it wasn't me who tagged you as a paid editor, the whole point of this board is to determine if you have a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck them, which was the appropriate way to achieve their intent, per WP:REDACT Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I have read through the above and will do the following: 1)request a name change as suggested by Jytdog; (2) I have given my time and supported updates to the pages in assistance to another who could not do so. While the pages do not promote me or my work, they do refer to organisations and individuals for whom I have worked in the past. The organisations are part of the context of the page and these seem to be listed as references and partners of the projects rather than a promotion of the organisations themselves and certainly provide no benefit to me. I understand that I may not do editing for pay and I agree to not directly edit articles where I have a conflict of interest (which includes any association with an organisation or individual). In future, if I were to participate in wikipdia, I would offer suggestions on the Talk page only. Its distressing that prior to the decision being made here, edits and deletions to the pages and my contributions are already being deleted some of which remove part of the history and context for changes to river management and health (Britannia Creek). (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evolve Multimedia so here at COIN, we look for clear and simple disclosure. some simple questions, to make it easier for you to be clear:

    • have you ever edited WP for pay (for example someone hired you or Evolve to edit or create an article about them)? (that's a yes/no, please answer directly)
    • you have mentioned a couple of times that you made edits to a page "on behalf of someone". Can you say more about that relationship? (COI is about external relationships) Which pages do you make edits to, for that person?
    • Several editors here have said your edits were very promotional. Can you see their point? (Not asking if you agree, just if you can see what they mean)

    Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    well the above is pointless, as EvolveMedia has said they are leaving the project, per this. All that is left to resolve this is clean up the articles. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the cleanup, I'm concerned that Britannia Creek and Britannia Beach are very similar, with some of the relevant sources on each page. For example, Britannia Creek#History = Britannia Beach#Copper mine (1900-1974), and Britannia Creek#Treatment = Britannia Beach#Britannia Creek pollution. Would people complain if I merged Britannia Creek into Britannia Beach, as the extra information and sources would benefit that section. If no-one's complained by the time I get up, I'll be bold and do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, As I said above, I have volunteered my time for wikipedia and so the answer is no, for this I have not been paid. It seemed a simple and easy way to get involved and I have assisted another who cannot edit in this forum and who wished to add their own thoughts. I am happy to help with the cleanup but understand, given the comments and complaints, that given my association with the pages, I may not do so directly. If Joseph wishes to blend the two pages, that is fine with me as long as the new content and story in the Britannia Creek is included. As I said in earlier comments, this discussion is a lot of work and now that my ethics and contributions are at stake, I will stay in the conversation until it is resolved. If you think the content is promotional, then edit it. I did not start the Mark Angelo page and much of what is there existed prior to my involvement but I understand that there are issues and that there is an issue with the promotional tone of the page. For a story or issue, it would be easier to discern promotional where for an individual who has done these things, it is a bit harder. I welcome your input and suggestions but am not sure if I should participate in the actual editing. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Evolve Multimedia: (seems like you're blocked but I'll post anyway) I'm sorry if I was harsh yesterday, but all the evidence did point towards an undisclosed paid editor, although I'm willing to accept that you're not. Having looked closer, it wasn't just you adding the content on these pages, so I'm sorry for wholly blaming you for it. Th issue I have with Britannia Creek and Britannia Beach is that lots of the content isn't supported by reliable sources, and so counts as original research- the basic principle on Wikipedia is that everything must be supported by a reliable source. My thought was merging them together would keep all the good content from both articles, so instead of having 2 articles, both with half the reliable sources, there would instead be 1 article that's pretty good. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Panda Games

    Been created by a SPA, and edited by some more. I tried cleaning it up, and got reverted by the last SPA, who also removed all the maintenance tags. A worse version of the article also existed at TribePlay (old name), which was created in 2012 by SPA Sir logance, and only edited by TribePlay and LTasc. Feel like it might be worth an SPA maybe- I've now redirected this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just gave it a little cleanup, e.g. removing LinkedIn SPS citation, let's see what happens. The stuff Joseph2302 removed and the SPA restored was a copyvio too [23] so thatxs another problem. Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged the talkpage, also LTasc declared a COI here, and Brianhe has told them to post here about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I am doing this reply correctly but my child is a fan of the games and I was just trying to make sure they got represented accurately.I did reference the descriptions on their site but didn't think they were 100% verbatim nor did I realize that would be a copywrite vio.LTasc (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)LTasc[reply]
    Trimmed the article a bit, took out some of the minor awards, and cleaned up the references. With 40 million installs, some press coverage, and some awards, it's notable, so that's not a problem. Please check. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder about those awards. First of all, many of the citations didn't check. Second, Parents' Choice Award may be legit, but who exactly are National Parenting Publications and TechWithKids.com? Is this one of those things you can pay to get listed? — Brianhe (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunshine Sachs

    I guess I'll go ahead and start this overdue conversation. The Signpost newsroom sums it up best -- another PR firm twiddling Wikipedia articles. Several editors self-disclosed six days ago; however, none disclosed the specific articles they worked on, and I found at least one IP from the organization who has not disclosed at all. Looking at edits close to the IP's reveal some other suspicious editors who have not disclosed. — Brianhe (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Note to other editors: I suspect another bunch of editors with COI around Armed Forces Foundation and Patricia Driscoll (business executive); a sockpuppet investigation concerning this was rejected in 2010. It doesn't immediately appear that they are related. Brianhe (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kathy Ireland

    Over the years Borntodeal has quite lovingly tended to the Kathy Ireland article. [24] The result is an article largely sourced to press releases that a person connected to Ireland would know about. They've recently started a related Ireland page: Draft:The Sterling Winters Company. Any concerns about this promotional editing or conflict of interest issues are quickly deleted under the guise of "moving". [25] --NeilN talk to me 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the editor I find it is very likely that they are operating with an undisclosed conflict of interest and that they are being financially compensated for promoting Kathy Ireland. It is the typical pattern, adding spam links, add large amounts of puffery to a very narrow range of articles. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor was clearly aware of these concerns for at least two years. — Brianhe (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=668400524"