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
→‎Jpop73: coin archive
Line 385: Line 385:
::Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::This group of articles/editors came up here before [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Inviting_review_of_Alaska_Wildlife_Conservation_Center_and_others|back in 2010]]. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
::This group of articles/editors came up here before [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_44#Inviting_review_of_Alaska_Wildlife_Conservation_Center_and_others|back in 2010]]. [[User:Smartse|SmartSE]] ([[User talk:Smartse|talk]]) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

== Account by digital PR firm FP1 Strategies masquerading as legitimate editor ==

An account named [[User:Lesbianadvocate]] has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named [[American Council for Capital Formation]]. After consulting with [[User:1990'sguy]], who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lesbianadvocate here]).

*This year, [[John Shimkus]] employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. [https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/posts/1235199593175282] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, [[Kyle McCarter]].

*FP1 Strategies was employed by [[Quico Canseco]] in his 2012 congressional race.[ https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in writing negative information about his challenger, [[Pete Gallego]].

*Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [http://www.sj-r.com/article/20120902/NEWS/309029986/?Start=2]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, [[David M. Gill]]. (which is now merged into another article.)

*One of FP1’s long-term clients is Fox Entertainment.[http://fp1strategies.com/about/terry-nelson/] LA recently spent two months intensely interested in [[Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC]], including posting reams of negative information about Dish Network and its CEO, [[Charlie Ergen]].

*FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [https://twitter.com/BiofuelBrian/status/709737367284748288])

In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=713714406&oldid=713714118 here] if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- [[User:EllenMcGill|EllenMcGill]] ([[User talk:EllenMcGill|talk]]) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:13, 6 April 2016

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
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Lucy Komisar
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Donald Trump

    From SPI:

    Diffs for blanking/NPOV promo/COI on Donald Trump (over months):

    User:591J please discuss here, continuing to edit the article while under suspicion of having a COI and seemingly ignoring this seems slightly WP:OWN. Here, sourced content was removed [7] "Removed illegitimate reference and sentence regarding material not being released". Care to explain, or about the other account? Widefox; talk 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if I'm doing this correctly here. My other account I can't recall the password to. No conflict of interest, just trying to do my part as a new member on someone who didn't have a page and needed one. :( 591J (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    591J How does that explain that User:SlateORM was created after 591J? How does forgetting the password to the second account explain why you've created it, and are using more than one account? Your level of proficiency is good, what other accounts do you use? (see WP:SOCK). Do you have any connection with the articles edited (listed above), or other accounts? Can you explain why you've blanked negative sourced content on Donald Trump (above)? Widefox; talk 10:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    591J care to reply to this and the other unanswered questions? Widefox; talk 09:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    591J The image [8] has copyright assigned to 591J, so can you please explain how you took this photo but have no connection with the subject? Widefox; talk 18:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rory Ridley-Duff

    User has been creating an autobiography since at least December 2012. His most recent edit was Feb. 15, 2016. He was warned about writing about himself in January, 2009 and about COI at that same time. I see no evidence of a reply. The article on himself is quite promotional (IMO). The article has been tagged for deletion but he has inserted his own works in other articles. LaMona (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Ridley-Duff has been deleted, but in around 2009 he added his works to a number of articles. I spent hours yesterday removing some, but it's difficult because they've been there so long that they've become integrated into the texts in some cases. In each case I was able to verify that he himself had added the content and references. If anyone can take some time to look at what remains: Social_enterprise, Courtship, Worker cooperative, Social Enterprise London, Cooperative, Discrimination, Social Enterprise Europe,Anarchist economics. Some of those are articles when I didn't find a way to do a complete cleanup. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up - I think I got all of it. Removed those that he added but that were either not RS or didn't actually relate to the statement it referenced. Noticed that this person's work does not appear at all in G Scholar, oddly, although he does have some publications in Emerald journals. Not at all sure what the story is. LaMona (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reward Gateway

    I've traced edits by 82.110.75.2 to the PR firm Hudson Sandler Ltd who represents Reward Gateway. This is a clear conflict of interest.

    They also represent Joules (clothing) as well as Bakkavör, similarly undisclosed conflicts of interests. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've relisting this from the archive as I'm uncertain what my next steps are r.e. action against the IP/organisation or review/revert of the edits made. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address does appear to be a proxy HTTP server identifying itself as belonging to Hudson Sandler. – Brianhe (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed the PR firm, and added cc tags to the article talk pages, and tagged the two articles not up for AfD with the COI tag. 02:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks! Deku-shrub (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyra2

    Username "Erandrade" most likely refers to Ewerton R. Andrade, one of the authors of the Lyra2 key derivation function. To me it appears that the article is written in an excessively favorable tone, without attributing points of view or sufficiently citing secondary sources.

    I have notified the user of conflict of interest guidelines, and there have been messages by other users, but Erandrade has not contacted anyone by talk pages. The sources cited in the article probably don't pass WP:GNG; the ones that do talk about Lyra2 are mostly papers co-authored by Andrade and mailing list posts. The only exception appears to be a thesis by Sascha Schmidt, which has one paragraph about Lyra2. I wasn't sure whether I should pursue AfD, hence I'm posting here to get some opinions. -- intgr [talk] 15:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    While I could not find a lot of independent sources about Lyra2, since it is one of PHC finalists it is mentioned in papers about PHC[9][10], also in this paper[11], and has some independent cryptanalysis here[12]. So the subject has some notability, but the article certainly has problems. -- TheInevitable (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Neo-Pangea

    User has added long list of unsourced awards to listing; added multiple "official" pages to External Links and restored them when they were pared back to the recommended one. COI greeting has been left on talk page, COI tag raised on article page, but such editing continues. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not possible to verify the awards and I have doubts about the notability of the awards itself. It looks like a local business using Wikipedia to promote itself. I removed the awards section entirely. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Added back the most recent award since it seemed at least slightly notable. In any case, even if the awards are verifiable, there is hardly any secondary coverage about it. I am not even sure if the company satisfies WP:GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edits! A number of the deleted awards were verifiable, as some had links to the website for the awards organizations themselves, who would be considered a reliable source for their own awards. Having said that, many look to be award factories, with literally hundreds of categories and multiple levels of winner in each category, so barring third-party discussion of the subject having won a given award, they are likely best not included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Hassan bio

    The Steve Hassan bio [[13]] is not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies regarding reliable sources and the treatment of self-published books. Wikipeida: No original research Claims based solely on a self-published online bio at a personal website is not a reliable source. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion and Peacock claims. The Investigation of Korean-American Relations makes no mention of Steve Hassan testifying. It does source one sentence (p.319)[14] to his testimony before the New York City Tax Commission, Jan.5, 1977 as a "former member" not an expert. There is no evidence to support Hassan's claim regarding expert testimony and the official report contradicts that claim. There is also no independent support of Hassan's claim concerning his past position in the Unification Church. The Unification Church has officially denied Hassan's claim [15][16]. Hassan's books are self-published and should be identified and treated as self-published books.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Media attention for edit conflicts at 3D printer project

    Please see post at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Identification and engagement with COI editors at Talk:RepRap has begun by COIN regulars User:Jytdog and User:Nagle.
    There are 15 registered accounts and 4 more anonymous editors listed on Talk:RepRap as potential COI, see talkpage headerconnected template and message to connected contributors. COIN regulars User:Jytdog and User:Nagle have done some cleanup as well. Brianhe (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh i undid everything i had done. I have backed out of that drama.. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few changes, and asked some questions on the talk page. I'm surprised that there's COI editing. RepRap Professional Ltd. ceased operations in January 2016. John Nagle (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design

    FSillT seems like a decent enough person but they persist in editing the above page, of which they admit to being the organizer of. Is this kind of thing OK to let slide? User warned already but persists. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The conference does not seem to be a notable one (according to [17]). I wonder if the article is even required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Infoiarm and agile management

    Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.

    Infoiarm (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Infoiarm you are new to Wikipedia and are not in a position to make judgements about whether you have a COI here in Wikipedia. Please tell us, do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? This is important - please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain a bit further (much more is on my talk page), IARM is a one-person "institute" founded by Alan Moran that publishes only the works of Alan Moran, and his is the only name that appears anywhere on its pages. So it isn't possible to refer to IARM in a way that is not a reference to Moran. It so happens that the two articles that have been created are also the exact names of one of those books by Moran. These terms are possibly wp:NEOLOGISMS and it isn't clear if they mean anything different from the many "Agile" methods that exist in business literature. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Yes I am new to Wikipedia and in the interest of avoiding any sense of COI (or even commenting further on it if this is not desired) I will voluntarily remove both articles now. Please be advised that there is and has been no attempt to skew/bias content - I feel the material is in itself balanced, neutral and appropriate though I also respect the feedback and issues raised that any association or appearance thereof may imply. Thank you again for your feedback and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Infoiarm you did not answer the question I asked. Do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? What is your relationship to IARM? If you want to continue as a Wikipedian you must answer. If you want to resign and walk away, that is of course an option. Not disclosing and staying, is not an option. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their website, it seems to me that Agile Risk Management is pretty similar to Agile Business Intelligence (hard to tell without seeing the article) and Agile Financial Management is probably related to that as well. As suh, I don't believe either would ever warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jytdog, first off my apologies for overlooking your question that you posed earlier in the thread. infoiarm is associated with IARM as was mentioned in another talk i.e., this was no attempt to hide this fact or mislead in any manner as evidenced by the user ID. It was mentioned somewhere else too that I felt there was no COI because it was not the intent to promote IARM (which was never cited in either article) or Moran (though authorship is cited and the person is named alongside others). I added that I would respect the opinion of reviewers if they felt there might be any issue at all. In light of some comments I updated the one of the articles as I felt this feedback led to improvements but if the prevailing view is still that of concern then I would rather not antagonise or add to these concerns (hence by withdrawal). BTW, I took a look at the Agile Business Intelligence but think the topics differ i.e., there is clear water between the risk and financial materials and this article (sorry, perhaps I removed the articles too quickly?). I did wonder if a separate article was appropriate (or perhaps a subsection in an exiting article) but was unsure how to judge this. To conclude, This was a genuine attempt to air an interesting idea in NPOV but my desire to avoid COI or its appearance takes precedence so I will refrain from writing about it or related topics on Wikipedia. Infoiarm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another long string of words and no answer. "infoiarm is associated with IARM" is non-informative nonsense. "infoiarm" is an account on Wikipedia. By policy there needs to be one single human being operating that account. I am asking a question about the relationship in the real world between that individual human being and IARM, which is a legal entity in Switzerland, so that we can determine what conflicts of interest are at play here. Please answer the question about the relationships, and do not write about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Malcolm L. McCallum (2)

    Regarding the previous discussion [18] on this topic in June 2015, I'd just like to point out that there are still IPs spamming the same old McCallum references in articles, as recently as today [19]. See also 76.0.44.131, 184.6.91.52. Do we still want to pretend there's no COI here? Geogene (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Luly Yang

    I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I requested for the information on the user's talk page. Let's see if the user responds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian L. Jones

    Unremarkable subject, seems to violate WP:NPOV. Username also indicates attempt to self promote . Music1201 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having a username reflecting one's actual legal name is hardly self-promotion, as my own username testifies. I have edited Brian L. Jones so that it is no longer promotional, and it now complies with NPOV, reflecting the best sources I could find online. Notability might be debated, but I think this now satisfies the WP:GNG with multiple news stores from multiple publications cited.DES (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Diamond and Silk

    There's an edit war going on at the Diamond and Silk article, and the same edits keep being made by a single-purpose editor and an IP address, the latter of whom geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. I suspect a possible conflict of interest, especially given the promotional tone of the material that Saundra4you and the IP keep inserting. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    FiredanceThroughTheNight is removing my content and replacing it with his or hers. Don't remove my content and replace with a derogatory message. This is not fair to the users of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saundra4you (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "Active as video bloggers and YouTube personalities." - that's usually not enough to pass WP:BIO. It might deserve a minor note in United States presidential election, 2016. Send to AfD?

    CAcert.org

    User:Neoeinstein added a paragraph to the article. For reasons laid out on the talk page, I think that paragraph should be either improved or removed. Due to my conflict of interest with the subject, I don’t want to attempt improving it myself, but I think that removing the paragraph (restoring the article to its previous state, except for this other edit) would be an edit with very little risk of me introducing bias (since I’m not really introducing anything new to the article). As there hasn’t been any response on the talk page by the author (who was pinged) or anyone else, I’d like to go ahead and remove the paragraph… but perhaps it would be better if someone else could first judge whether that removal would indeed be acceptable for me to do. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed per WP:LEAD -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your assistance! Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Technics Publications

    The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [24] instead of discussing with the commit message

    "This addition is not spam. We are adding important knowledge to this page from some of our technical titles. If you feel the content is irrelevant, that is a different story. But it is not spam just because books from the same publisher are being quoted." [25]

    This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [26], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...

    Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The user continues to ignore the warnings and pointers, and instead continues with copying excerpts from their books into Wikipedia (which likely constitutes a copyright violation): [27]. The uploaded image [File:MahalFaciltationFramework.png] is also straight from the book "Facilitator's and Trainer's Toolkit", Page 23. on Google Books, the text from pages 22 and 23. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I agree that this is spam. I'm going to give them a final warning and block them if it carries on. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Henry I. Miller

    The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [28] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more a BLP than COI issue since the subject has been removing poorly-sourced content which is accusatory - an activist site such as this one is not a suitable source for BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SmartSE I suggest that you take another look at this. I cannot agree that this is mostly a BLP issue. There are issues with a few of the sources that were used, but the user also removed material that was sourced to Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and directly to articles that Miller wrote himself. He appears to have a clear COI, he has a long history of editing this article without responding to attempts to discuss his edits, and his recent implied legal threats while removing material (and while doing so again without responding to the talk page thread)) justify this COIN thread. One of the purposes of this board is to determine "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Any BLP issues with the material removed are already being dealt with (for example, the material you pointed to was not restored with the latest round of edits). Determining if there is a COI violation by the user is contingent on first deciding if he has a COI. Meters (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the section on "Controversial positions" is WP:SYNTH, using Miller's own writings rather than third-party sources. If these statements were sourced to proper third-party sources - and then removed by Miller - COI could be blamed. As it is, I myself would be tempted to remove these as not meeting wp:rs. I also think that much of the article is wp:CHERRYpicked by the editors. I'm not defending the Miller's views, but the article's problems do not stem entirely from his intervention. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Having looked at the various sections in detail I see there is a definite bias against Miller in the coverage. It is being discussed on the talk page, and will be addressed (some already has been). I think the controversial positions section is worth keeping. It needs to have balanced, non-synthesized coverage so that readers can see why Miller takes these seemingly controversial positions. But, as I said, at this point I am simply looking for consensus that we are dealing with a COI editor. Note that the editor has now made his first talk page response [29], albeit with more implied legal threats, and he clearly claims to be Henry Miller. Meters (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a policy BLP takes precedence over COI and in a case such as this where an article subject has raised questions about content we should examine our sourcing very closely. As LaMona has pointed out, much of it is WP:SYNTH - citing articles written about him as evidence that his views are 'controversial' when there are no sources stating that's the case. It's completely understandable why Miller was driven to edit the article himself. Obviously, we would prefer him not to edit the article and I hope he will refrain from doing so in the future, but that's secondary to the BLP issues that need to be addressed. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been some work done on the page and it is getting closer to NPOV. I would advise more discussion on the talk page, and then this one might be resolved. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Messenger and Victoria Nixon

    1. Paulwest (talk · contribs) own userpage on Wikipedia states: "Hi I'm Paul West. I'm a marketing man and sometime website developer. Some of the sites I've built include www.michaelmessenger.com".
    2. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Michael Messenger, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger.
    3. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Victoria Nixon, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon.
    4. Other listed users, above, are all Single Purpose Accounts on same articles.

    Thank you for looking into this matter,

    — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently Victoria Nixon = married to Michael Messenger, per this post to my user talk page: "I also would like to comment that my husband Michael Messenger has tried to help in resolving these problems for Wikipedia, but he is not fluent either, and now also is on the 'Deletion' list!". — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    myfundnow.com

    Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.

    They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also draw attention to this edit posted back on March 28 which affords some insight into the COI issues here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Einstein field equation

    User דוקטורגלי promotes her book on these articles and others. Since she is an expert on these subjects, her contribution can be extremely valuable, but without referencing her own research. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that user has already removed the COI discussion notice from their talk page. That's a bit of a F-U. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming to be a known expert does not allow you to refspam your publications across Wikipedia. Also, no evidence has been given that you actually are a "known expert in history of Einstein’s special and general relativity", and the claims on sexism in Wikipedia sources is completely barbaric.
    I think the user should have a final warning for spamming on Wikipedia, and if they continue, then they should be blocked, and there publications blacklisted if possible. (Is it possible to blacklist names of books, or can you only blacklist URLs?) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits were not reverted because of sexism, they were reverted because of apparent self-promotion and conflict of interests. I tried to make that clear twice on your talk page, and other editors have tried to make that clear when they undid your edits. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor was adding a book written by herself, published by Cambridge Scholars Press, to articles like this. A search of the interwebs leads to some interesting discussions on whether this is a vanity press. – Brianhe (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The two books by "Weinstein, Galina" are held in ~50 and <10 libraries, respectively. This tells me that these are not major books in the field, so adding them to WP pages may not be warranted. They also do not appear on G-Scholar as cited books, and of the articles by this author, the most cited one has been cited 4 times. All of this speaks to "known expert" and unfortunately the results are not positive. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 (talk • contribs)

    Richard R. Fisher

    Premature - editor did the right thing by presenting draft at AfC Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (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.

    User:Nthep's post at Signpost newsroom copied here verbatim.

    See this thread at the Teahouse - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#User:Uchu_RRFisher_and_an_apparent_requirement_for_applicants_to_be_in_Wikipedia - is the position being approached where being the subject of a WP article is necessary to be considered for an appointment? In this case the AIAA (presumably the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) commented on the fact that the applicant for a place on an advisory committee does not have a WP page about him whereas the other applicants do. Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea how to use his page nor do I understand what to do with this page. Could you please advise me if there is some action or information I might provide? Uchu RRFisher (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't clear to me either, as the reviewer who originally declined the subject editor's autobiography, what the purpose of this posting is or how the subject should respond. The AIAA apparently is encouraging the development of COI biographies, but that is out of scope of anything Wikipedia can do. The discussion at the Teahouse suggests that there are also other non-notable biographies, but what does that imply for this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the COIN filing was premature. What the AIAA wants is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and Uchu RRFisher just needs some education about Wikipedia. I will open a discussion with them on their talk page. Closing. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (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.

    Art379m

    {{archive top|

    Per their contribs, this editor is 100% WP:SPA with regard to Alacris Theranostics. When I noticed that I reached out to them on March 30 to open a dialogue. They ignored that and kept editing the next day, so I followed up asking for a reply. They went away and came back today with more of the same, so I followed up with a last warning, sharper, and they have continued to refuse to respond but kept on adding content about Alacris.

    Please indefinitely block this editor as being WP:NOTHERE, but rather here only to promote Alacris. They are ~probably~ a paid editor as well, and therefore are probably in violation of the ToU. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    They have now responded and state that they are not paid, so I don't think a block is justified atm. It is a little strange that the logo they uploaded is much higher quality than the one found on their website or elsewhere online, which raises the question of where it came from and I agree that the edits to personalised medicine are problematic. AFD is probably the best way to resolve this, since the company appears not to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They are starting to respond... and have taken the step of disclosing that they are an Alacris employee, but said that writing the WP article is not part of their job. So that liminal case. And we are not quite there yet - it is not clear yet if they will come all the way through and agree to abide by COI - that is the key thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the person has come all the way through and has agreed to follow the COI guideline. Sorry it took this drama to get them to pay attention. Haven't decided if the company meets NOTABILITY yet... I have worked it over as much as I can, and I think they fall short. But others should look and judge by this point. Would you please do? Feel free to AfD it if you think so. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Coupa

    Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    KORE Wireless

    I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. – Brianhe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Central Area

    Content disputes belong on the article talk page. Complaints about conduct go to AN/I. No conflict-of-interest issues exists here. Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 5 April 2016 (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.

    This article has been updated by only one unique content contributor umpteen times in over 3-4 months. Recent edits by MageLam over nearly 3-4 months are one-sided individual edits without any intermediate review by a qualified Wikipedia editor or administrator. Cuss words uttered by user include cow manure when her competence is questioned. Manner in which the article is being unilaterally edited by the user appears as intentional spamming over months. Linrx (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Linrx: This is not the place to post about it. WP:COI is for cases where the a contributor has some connection with the subject of the article. (In this case it is not possible). I understand that you have issues with edits by MageLam but there is clearly no COI issue over here. I have removed the tag from the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MageLam: Good. Keep the other two tags there. Thanks Lemongirl942.
    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.

    Jpop73

    TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.

    It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.

    Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a quick check of some of these articles and share your concerns. I'm seeing unverifiable, promotional content about barely (or not) notable subjects which are hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Thanks for bringing it here - it needs a lot of clean up work. I'm tempted to block them now, but it would be good to hear explanation. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This group of articles/editors came up here before back in 2010. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Account by digital PR firm FP1 Strategies masquerading as legitimate editor

    An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).

    • This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. [30] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.
    • Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [31]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)
    • FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [33])

    In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=713919602"