Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:53, 16 April 2016

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-wpwikipedia.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&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:Ameena (film) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel 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:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson Talk:Valerie Jarrett 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:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:David E. I. Pyott Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:ShareFile Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tara (2013 film) Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:VML (agency) Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Benjamin Wey Article

Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/ 75.137.237.5 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Ridley-Duff

Article deleted & contribs checked by LaMona (thanks). All quiet for now, though we may want to watchlist the redlink against the possibility of its return. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 6 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.

Rory Ridley-Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roryridleyduff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

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.

Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design

Article deleted. Watchlist the redlink & move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 6 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.

Symposium_on_Integrated_Circuits_and_Systems_Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FSillT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [1]). I wonder if the article is even required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 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.

Luly Yang

Draft:Luly Yang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Luly Yang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

I'm not sure if the user is deliberately not responding or cannot understand the instructions. Regardless, I don't think the article is suitable for moving to the mainspace any time soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Jones

Article deleted. Watchlink the redlink and move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 6 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.

Brian L. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rhbrjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

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.

Henry I. Miller

Henry I. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henryimillermd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [2] 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 [3], 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

Paulwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
VictoriaNixon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Messengero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
OCtom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Michael Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Victoria Nixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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".
Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Michael Messenger, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger.
Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Victoria Nixon, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon.
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

Melodyafsana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

This account is still being used to add material along the same lines: here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein field equation

Einstein field equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relativity priority dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newton–Cartan theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Einstein–Cartan theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gravitational wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
דוקטורגלי (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

Draft:Richard R. Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Uchu RRFisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

COI issues sorted. Notability issues may remain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 6 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.

Art379m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alacris Theranostics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

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.

Coupa

Coupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]

The article looks rather like an ad now. I had to trim it back a bit. I also added a section on "Misappropriation of trade secrets", covering the admitted use of competitor Ariba's trade secrets and IP. There's also a redlink reference to "Spend management", which may be a newly coined term. "Accounts Payable" and "Financial Supply Chain Management" are closer to being standard terms. We need to either create a "spend management" article or use an existing term. John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here! on the "awards". There are a gazillion of these "Top n" type articles, and I think those should be declared to not be "awards". They aren't any more authoritative than the various top ten lists that mainly function as click bait. Then there are the "send us your entry and we'll give you an award" sites, e.g. Stevie Awards, and local Emmy awards. I'd be willing to contribute to a list if one were begun. Even if we can't create a binary yes/no it would be helpful to add more information that would speak to potential notability. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A great starting point would be an award has to be issued by a notable organization, as established by an enduring Wikipedia article on the org. I think this came up before in the context of media industry (film etc.) awards. Probably for this business awards we'd need additional criteria, such as scope, i.e. non-local, and selectivity, i.e. not a "top 1000" type list. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Nagle and Brianhe.

As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.

For "Coupa has partnerships with international advisory firms. On April 10, 2013, the company announced a formal partnership with KPMG. It also has partnerships with Deloitte, Accenture and IBM Emptoris Commerce."—^[1]^[2]^[3]
For the "Funding" text removed in this diff—Series G and $169 million total raised,^[4] Series F,^[5] and Series E.^[6]

I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.

As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.

And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.

Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Fineberg, Seth (10 April 2013). "KPMG Forms Alliance to Drive Procurement Services". Accounting Today. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
^ Busch, Jason (3 June 2015). "Coupa Inspire Dispatch: Musing on Partnerships, Accenture and More". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
^ Kase, Thomas; Busch, Jason (14 May 2015). "Does IBM Emptoris, Coupa Announcement Raise More Partnership Questions Than Answers?". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
^ Hesseldahl, Arik (1 June 2015). "Cloud Startup Coupa Lands $80 Million Round at $1 Billion-Plus Valuation". Re/code. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
^ Gage, Deborah (20 March 2014). "Coupa Raises $40M For Cloud Procurement Software, Takes On SAP". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
^ Nusca, Andrew (10 May 2012). "Coupa raises $22 million to manage your company's expenses". ZDNet. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

KORE Wireless

KORE Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CO10 715 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KORE Marketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

Central Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MageLam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
linrx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Amy Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Linx Dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Jon Birger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Hutchins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jordan Schaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Draft:Jonathan Michaels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
John E. Michel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
William Hurley IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mieshelle Nagelschneider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eden Sassoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Sandra Dee Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Kathy Riordin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Sal LaBarbera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Western Wildlife Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
The Biodiversity Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gretchen Hillmer Bonaduce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Sujoy Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John A. L. Currie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rachel Reenstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Awesome Ocean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jefery Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jessica Denay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
Inga Verbeeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD.
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suzi Singstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Jpop73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) list (including deleted articles)
Laurel Neme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grey Stafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- zooaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) list (including deleted articles)
Zootrainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zookeeper4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wallabyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eatyler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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]

There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Wikipedia pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made clear that the uncredited info appears in the Levy article prior to the publication of the HuffPost piece. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona: I get what you are trying to imply. You might wish to see this [4] as well, where the user states "In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created". I'm afraid we cannot go any further without violating WP:OUTING. At the moment I think it would be better to ask the user for clarifications about the accounts. If all the accounts belong to the same person, then it needs to be noted. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.

Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpop73: Could you let us know if any of these accounts (Zootrainer/zooaction/Zookeeper4u) are/were operated by you or anyone known to you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help?Jpop73 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found something additional which is most probably COI though perhaps not related to Jpop73. User:Eatyler did 4 edits in 2013 to Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. The list of staff mentions "...entered into a mentorship under our then Director of Sales and Marketing, Ethan Tyler". Mentioning it for record, although it seems the concerned person is no longer associated with the center. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about sending COI articles to AfD

I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: I don't dispute that this was done in good faith but that doesn't change the fact that many of the subjects are not notable. It's true that our attention was drawn by the disclosure to look at their other articles but if they aren't notable it is only a matter of time before they are noticed as was the case back in 2010 when Zooaction (which Jpop73 has indirectly admitted was him e.g. [5]) made similar edits. What are we supposed to do, ignore problems we find because they made a disclosure? Surely the point of the disclosure is to allow us to scrutinise potentially problematic articles? SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More of the AFD'ed articles are notable than are not notable, it just takes searching sources thoroughly. Unless a comprehensive search of sources was done here (and I intend to do what I can as these AFD's run, and already have enough sources to significantly exceed notability requirements on at least several of them - and I have done far from a comprehensive search,) then AFDing pretty much all articles not created for pay without doing a thorough search of available sources, including newspaper archives and offline sources, because someone actually followed our TOS is actively promoting blackhat paid editing. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 02:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked onJpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal.Jpop73 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to meJpop73 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpop73: First of all, let me thank you for cooperating and being transparent. We appreciate that a lot. It is of immense help to us when editors tell us about a conflict of interest. I would like to let you know that article are nominated for AfD not just because there is a COI. There have been multiple articles involving COI editing and yet the articles were not send to AfD, but they were just edited to remove any overtly promotional content. I had a look at some of the articles you have written and (as far as I saw), there was nothing overtly promotional in them. Once again, this is something I appreciate a lot.

However, the problem with some of your articles is that the article subject may not satisfy the notability guidelines. For example, if you see Sandra Dee Robinson, you will notice that the article contains just 3 references, none of which could be counted as a third party reliable source. One way to find an article subject is notable is to see if they have multiple references in independent sources (which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). In this case, you might wish to evaluate yourself (see WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR) if the article subject is indeed notable. I would be happy to hear your feedback. Please rest assured that we are not sending these articles to AfD (or undoing your edits) as a form of vengeance or punishment. AfD is a mechanism to seek community input whether an article subject is notable or not. If by chance someone sends it to AfD and the subject is indeed notable, you will find that other editors will vote keep. I hope it clarifies your queries. In addition, nothing prevents you from contributing to Wikipedia even now. Apart from the articles with which you have a COI, you are welcome to contribute to other articles. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. SincerelyJpop73 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the question that I have, which I will state as a hypothetical. Let's say that someone is a writer for a newspaper or magazine, or even a book. In the course of their writing they obviously run into interesting people and subjects, and they decide to create (or edit) Wikipedia articles for some of them, in part using research that they've done for their writing. That doesn't seem to be a problem. Now let's add to the hypothetical that as part of writing the article the writer creates (or edits) a Wikipedia page for the subject of the article, and links to that in the article. This case seems more fraught to me. Is the Wikipedia article being used to 1) validate the subject of the journal article? 2) promote the subject of the journal article? 3) make the subject of the journal article seem more important? or 4) is it none of these, and therefore is not considered promotional? The gist of this question is: if you are doing paid-for work and you create or edit Wikipedia articles related to that work coincident with the work, is that COI, and is it considered promotional? I realize that this reads like splitting hairs, but I think it is a real question. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Wikipedia article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Wikipedia entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Wikipedia article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questionsJpop73 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jpop73. I don't think I mentioned "paid", but that's ok. I think that the question of COI is extremely complex, and that there probably are very few articles on WP that haven't benefited from a kind of interest that might show some conflict. Most of us have areas of our life that bleed over into WP in ways that we cannot easily define. In this case I'm convinced of Good Faith, and that we're seeing Interest that I couldn't confidently call Conflict of Interest. I also looked at the articles and some look like reasonable candidates for AfD. That said, most times when my attention is drawn to a group of articles, at least some portion turn out to need work or to be AfD-able. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks againJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unearthed three more that I've listed above. I've noticed there is an in-common within; most of these are those their late-40s to mid-50s, its like if he is acquainted with them. I doubt highly that he would do articles about 20-year olds. Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies

Terry Nelson (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Council for Capital Formation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Shimkus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kyle McCarter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quico Canseco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pete Gallego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charlie Ergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vocativ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Airlines for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robert S. Rivkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lenovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ann Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

editors

Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Intermittentgardener (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iliketoeatpotatoesalot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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”. [6] 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 [7]. 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.[8] 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” [9])

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]

The combination of Positive writing on FP1's clients, negative writing on their client's opponents, as well as the specific timing involved (when FP1 took them on etc) quack loudly to me. This combination of pro/negative editing was pointed out in 2012 by an editor who subsequently was banned for socking. However it does show that the editing pattern is a long-term issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by LA. (shortening the user name); the documentation for the image says it is owned by F1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often. LA never directly edited the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud.
Here are the relevant edits at Kyle McCarter mentioned in the first bullet, which are very negative. Not mentioned, the edit-warring to retain them here then here then here; no talk page discussion.
this set of edits to the Pete Gallego article are not so blatantly POV, but see this immediately next edit by LA, removing information that LA had just added with edit note "On reflection this is not appropriate". The first edit didn't add strongly negative information (although depending on your politics it might be upsetting, e.g abortion bill) but did remove a bunch of unsourced positive content. Overall did make the person less attractive to people in the other party.

A connection with FP1 seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [10] does anyone know what timezone Twitter uses? Was that Twitter post made before or after this edit [11]? And what was the outside impetus for this--something that Paul Ryan said? Geogene (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also will add that I find this dialogue interesting: [12]. I'm seeing some overlapping personality traits that may be grounds for a SPI here. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Jytdog, for looking into this. It's such a relief to finally get this into the open.

I agree that IntermittentGardener sounds a lot like the enraged, policy-scolding tone I've gotten very familiar with from LA; I don't know if that means it's the same person, or just FP1's official policy to try to bully and shout down users who question their edits. Just at a glance I can see that IG and LA have edited several of the same obscure articles: Vocativ, Airlines for America, Robert S Rivkin, and Lenovo. IG and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot also overlap on both PJ Media and Terry Nelson. It would be extraordinary if this was coincidence. Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place? What are the next steps here? Thanks everybody. EllenMcGill (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added Terry Nelson (political consultant) to case. Back to back favorable editing by eds Intermittentgardener [13] & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot [14]. Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".

Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown opinions"). Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG). It seems increasingly likely given various similarities in apparent motive, argument style and writing habits, that the three accounts named here may be operated by a single person. - Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: Re twitter times see this - the time displayed depends on your user settings, but that tweet was posted after the edit was made.

@EllenMcGill: "Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place?" WP:SPI is the place to find that out but checkusers will only be able to compare User:Lesbianadvocate and User:Intermittentgardener because User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot hasn't edited in almost a year and there isn't a great deal of cross over between those two: [15]. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More correspondences noted. There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors if not outright socking.

Correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.

Correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (permlink) (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Wikipedia, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener. - Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: I may need to add to the SPI case, but I can't see deleted pages; could you or another admin check if User:Lesbianadvocate/sandbox is a recreation of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data whose original author appears to be Reills78? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: You're pinging the wrong me again ;) I've had a look and no, there's no similarity between them. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darn it, I have to get out of the habit of c&p your signature. Anyway, thanks for checking. Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from Commons

I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.

Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Jolly

PR firm account blocked per USERNAME; article has been reviewed and the press has brought lots of independent eyes to it Jytdog (talk)

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.

07:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

David Jolly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cleaned
Bascomcomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indeffed for user name

Two news reports state that David Jolly's PR firm has been editing the article on him. He is a candidate for the US Senate in Florida. See Buzzfeed and The Hill. A staffer with a similar name has said s/he made edits to Jolly's page. They have only 2 edits, which look quite POV. They have disclosed in the Buzzfeed story.

I suppose there won't be further edits of this type from the staffer and suggest that if they make the required disclosure per WP:PAID that no further action be taken. But if there is no on-Wiki disclosure, then they should be formally banned. I've informed them on their talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and worked it over some; it seems OK now. Wasn't bad before i started as the POV pushers from both sides seem to have been cleaned out. The account is a username violation as Bascomcomm = Bascom Communications. I expect the account will be indeffed soon. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 7 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.

Tabish q

Tabish q (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notice. I tried. We'll see how that goes. I appreciate your desire to retain Tabish! Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ssa1990

Psychology of Women Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ssa1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Proximo9737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.

Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "find us" as you noticed here and the linking to PWQ and nothing else strongly suggests a COI I believe. Perhaps reverting all of the user's additions as promotional spam would be appropriate? They only appear to be tangentially related at best. Elaenia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits [16] and [17] use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review. Brianhe (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently there's enough going on that I could have posted this almost anywhere and it would have been appropriate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?

This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question but the efficacy is debated. Do a web search for "Wikipedia off-page SEO" for some of the answers. It's my sense that reputation management is more important these days; see my essay for details and feel free to follow up on the essay talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loubna Berrada

Loubna Berrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Loubna berrada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [18] and [19]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is a BLP issue. I didn't find any biographical information about her in the sources listed, and even checked the wayback machine for the staff page of the organization, but she's not there. I don't think she should be editing this page in the way that she has done, but I must say that the article does sound inflammatory. There's now a delete request on it, and I think that may be the best route. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found

These are some (possibly) reliable sources about her [20], [21] (web archive copy of Elsevier (magazine)) which show that she was involved with the VVD as well as a founding member of the committee of ex-muslims. [22] quotes her as a cofounder as well.
She also removed the information that she was a candidate of Libertas Netherlands in 2009 (see List of Libertas list candidates at the 2009 European Parliament elections) although her name was in the candidate list (see the Dutch Electoral Council website [23]) and there was a biography of her on Eline van den Broke's website (see [24]).
Article at NRC Handelsblad where it says [25], [26] she left the ex-muslim council.
Opinion piece which (possibly) says she is an ex-Muslim [27].
Not sure if opinion or news article, but implies that she left the council after some disagreements [28]
An opinion piece about her [29] which should be read with care as it seems to be written by someone who has a beef with her (POV).
Unable to understand the translation here [30]. Would be glad if someone could help.

I'll try to ask her to reply here so that we can look at what she is trying to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a BLP issue as well, I am not reverting her edits until this is clarified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the coi tag on this because there was no problematic content. I've also sent it to AFD per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE since the subject is barely notable and they are obviously (and understandably) not happy with our portrayal of her. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc

Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Caribana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SMCKINNON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see [[31]]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest- this matter was deemed accepted by other users that is accurate, further more it was objective and not promotional in any way. Furthermore I am not involved with organization its just information I have knowledge about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMCKINNON (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMCKINNON. So your username is very, very close to that of Steve McKinnon, and you have written a great deal about Steve McKinnon. So one thing at a time, and that has to do with your relationship with Steve McKinnon. There are only two possibilities here. You are not him, but are impersonating him. This makes your account name a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE and we would need to block your account. The other option is that you have an unambiguous COI here and you need to acknowledge that and work with us to manage your COI. So please clarify which it is. There are other issues here, but that is the primary one, as it has to do with the existence of your account. So please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem.SMCKINNON (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what is going on with the account, that is helpful. It would be really helpful if you stopped making declarations and just talked with us a bit and explained the relationships you and your company have; this whole thing is here at COIN so the community can look at what is going on and make determinations. OK, so you are CEO of Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc, and what your company does, is put on help others put on events, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do , is we help put on events that contract us to do it.SMCKINNON (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON[reply]

CAcert.org

CAcert.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Neoeinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.

I believe that Neoeinstein (talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.

How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Wikipedia account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should drop the matter imho. (Adding - and be very careful you don't fall foul of WP:OUTING) -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright… thanks —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous discussion has now been archived here. —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Saatchi

Hi – I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox (here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ralph

J. Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eldorado74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last month I attempted mediation on this article where the editor has insisted on reverting it to a version he has deemed acceptable. Previous version were removed for copyright infringement. From a struck-out edit on 16 December 2010 by a possible sock User:Eldoradoclinton the content was referred to as 'this is the approved bio from j. Ralph'. Since then the editor has engaged in WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to comment on the COI aspect at the moment, but there does seem to be a lot of puffery in the article. I have opened a new section on the talk page for resolving the dispute. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate your input. Parts of the previous content is included on the official J. Ralph biography page here - pointing to a possible WP:COI. Karst (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Time redux

Youth Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F aristocrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - now blocked
Spaceludens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
109.80.248.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is a return of issues we had addressed previously, here at COIN that also involved a bunch of socks, dealt with in this SPI case, which resulted in all the Youth Time representatives being indeffed. (some of the socks had names like "Ytprograms" indicating they were part of the organization).

The group Youth Time has again turned their attention to Wikipedia. First Spaceludens made one edit, replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one" which is all they have done so far. Getting their mission statement into WP was a point of concern for the sockfarm.

Then F aristocrat showed up with a re-write of the article, overwriting it here and then edit-warring that version in here and here. That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page and press releases. It also removed negative content and added specific positive content - same edits that the prior sock farm had made.

They stopped when I gave them notice of edit warring. They left this note on my Talk page saying: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add."

I did the obvious thing to see if issues similar to last time are happening. I also opened a COI discussion with them at their talk page, here. They are replying, but are being combative and will not deal with the basic issues here, which is clear COI and perhaps more importantly, WP:PROXYING for the indefinitely blocked users. They have filed an ANI against me here, simultaneously with me filing this. (NB - now closed)

So I am bringing this to the community for discussion and action. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (updated with ANI close Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I leave a copy of my own thread on discussion boards.

Hello!

Unfortunately I am obliged to report Jytdog who prevents updating information Youth time article, removing inaccurate information and replacing it with verifiable and productive content.

[32] - current version diff contains inaccurate and at some point unsourced information, which is not structured.

The new version diff:

[33]

As you may see, the information has been divided into sections, almost every fact has been provided with an independent and reliable reference source such as Le Figaro (french newspaper), the official web-site of Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, The Huffington Post etc.

The above mentioned user repeatedly reverts all of the modifications back to an older version without providing any actual reason or any examples of promotional content, WIkipedia rules violation except for Proxying.

In my turn, I must say that I do not belong to this movement, I do not work there and I do not act on behalf of some banned editor (actually, I do not know who this person is) and of course I AM NOT PAID for updating information. Though I fully support the idea behind this movement, the updated information on this movement has been partially provided to me by one of the movement's ambassadors. My point is to provide wider auditory with true information corresponding to WIki community rules, whereas Jytdog exceeds his or her authority, his behaviour is unproductive as it does not allow to develop and improve existing content.

As rules state:

"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits".

I am not acquainted with banned users. Moreover, as the rule states, I provide proof and reference, that the new information is verifiable and productive.

Jytdog heavily excesses his or her authority in this particular case as if he or she is against this movement. F aristocrat (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the stuff sourced to Huffpo is the same content that the prior socks tried to get into the article. And please note that I am not claiming that this editor is paid; they are however obviously representing Youth Time, per the note they left on my Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@F aristocrat: I find it disappointing that you chose not to engage jytdog constructively on your talkpage but rather initiated what appears to be a retaliatory ANI case. You say that you "do not act on behalf" of an organization but at the same time you say "one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them". It leads an uninvolved editor like me with the impression that you are attempting to mislead us. Further, to state you don't know about the blocked/banned users is not credible, as you have been provided with links to the prior COI case on your talkpage, again here, and the SPI case here as well. Your facility with the various noticeboards leads me to believe you are more than capable of following this. - Brianhe (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe (talk I see no way of engaging Jytdog constructively as he/she simply undoes all of my edits without even indicating which information is incorrect or inappropriate. What is more Jytdog addressed my edits from the very start with comment "oh gosh they are back again". This is actually impolite of an editor. It's a pity you support such behaviour. Why should I try to engage with Jytdog after that? No, you are mistaken. I am not misleading you. My friend who is ambassador if YouthTime asked me for help as she is not acquainted with editing Wikipedia articles. I agreed to help her because I think this is a great movement for young people and more of them should know of such an organisation. So I am not acting on behalf of YouthTime, it just my social position! Hope you feel the difference. And also please keep in mind that you don't have a right to accuse me of working for YouthTime without providing any evidence. In fact, every person who writes an article on some topic has some interest towards the subject. For instance, if a person writes about United Nations, it clearly means this person has some particular interest towards this organisation. However, he is not necessary a part of this organisation. So please do not mislead the readers, making them think I am part of YouthTime.F aristocrat (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even begun to discuss content with you. You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted. Doing that is WP:DISRUPTIVE and I haven't even gone there. It is even more disruptive if the content you are trying to add was already discussed months ago. You don't understand Wikipedia on any level. Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) F, Since you say you are new here, I'll just say this. What I or jytdog have a "right" to do is really bounded by the community's decisions. We both have a history at this noticeboard among other constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Your situation is more tenuous and you really should listen to the community rather than telling us about what we or you should or should not edit. I strongly urge you to reconsider entering the scene with more drama on a drama-ridden article. Maybe there's something else you could contribute to? - Brianhe (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I cannot find the point Jytdog cancelled my edition of the YT Movement mission, since he/she found any promotional interest there. The version of YT's mission he/she prosed sounds promotional too, but its not YT mission. This editor had not provided any prooflinks for that. Any mission sounds promotional, its quite normal. This is sad to observe such a case on the Wikipedia. Jytdog is making efforts to downgrade Wiki's public image. Hope the community can do something with this user because I don't see any purpose to continue fixing this page. Looks like any attempts to make the information more objective there will be worthless if Jytdog continue this process without explaining the reasons of his/her actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceludens (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't copy-paste anyone's mission statement into WP. That is what your own website is for. The prior socks also were keenly interested in getting YT's mission copied into WP, and wouldn't listen to the community either. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Love his/her comments)))) Not much sense in them, nor truth.

"replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one"" - well, undoubtedly, Jytdog, who is failry familiar with YT movement, knows their missions better))) rofl))) and someone dares replacing his composition with the accurate information from official web-site, what a disgrace for such a respectable wiki-editor!

"That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page". - hey, Jytdog , stop lying! You either didn't look through carefully or, rather, you didn't want to look carefully. The only Facebook link goes to... Polaris station page! (https://www.facebook.com/notes/polaris-station/enganging-young-people-worldwide-through-an-impactful-forum-youth-time-global-fo/778774128917211 ) Which is not a page belonging to YouthTime! It appears as if you're strongly willing to mislead people. Seems that the real idea behind Jytdog's words is "That content is sourced OK some, but I still don't want it to be included on WP".

"You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted". Oh, dear, Jytdog , you'd have been satisfied if I had added a sentence per edit?))) rather than adding the whole information altogether? Your argument is nearly ridiculous))) And, yeah, I've been on Wiki for a couple of time, and luckily I haven't encountered such... folks as you in the Russian version.

Brianhe "Your situation is more tenuous and you really should listen to the community rather than telling us about what we or you should or should not edit". - and surely this community is you) and the community's opinion is limited to yours))) in fact, if editing YT article is not for the first time, it means there are people who disagree with your opinion. And there are quite a lot of them, I'm afraid) This makes you the person who dictates us what "we or you should or should not edit".

All in all, I have one unpleasant impression about English Wiki. Some users including Jytdog and Brianhe force others to keep false and inaccurate information on pages for some unclear reasons. What is more, for some reason they prefer keeping ill-sourced negative information rather than approving very well-sourced information which does not contain much negative reception. So is this the true policy of Wikipedia? All negative information no matter how false it is is a priori true for the editors of Wiki, whereas the information which is true and positive is regarded false compared to the above mentioned. I really hope this has no political context here and no intention of discrediting the YT movement.

Spaceludens, totally agree with you. F aristocrat (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@F aristocrat:, @Spaceludens:: you are both to refrain from editing the Youth Time article or any other related article, and if your conduct on the Talk page exhibits stonewalling or other issues then you will be topic banned altogether. You are also to stop hounding Jytdog, who is merely pointing out our policies. If you edit the article directly, you will be blocked from editing. If you continue pursuing Jytdog, you will be blocked from editing. Is that clear enough now? Guy (Help!) 21:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy wonderful pseudo-free WP democracy))) or rather lack of her))) I'm afraid YT will have to submit this topic to public discussion and will make an announcement on Facebook and other social networks about bias and distribution of false information on Wikipedia considering a reputable international organisation. Sorry, guys, it was your choice) F aristocrat (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are back to actually representing them. Thanks for making that clear. Please be aware that engaging in a public campaign to attract editors to change a Wikipedia article is a violaton of WP:MEAT. Jytdog (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies on conflicted and promotional editing have been explained to you. It is now your responsibility to understand and abide by them. If you cannot or will not do this, then we will simply ban you. This is absolutely routine: Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP from czech republic where YT is, that was part of the fun last time around, has resurfaced. Youth Time has definitely got their attention on the article now. BWOT. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear to me that these users are WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia but only to promote Youth Time. I recommend indefinite blocks. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia was built entirely to prevent you from promoting this minor charity. Ten years ago I was made an administrator by the Illuminati specifically so that when you arrived here I could prevent you promoting it. It's all about you. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy You don't really understand the essence of promotion. Having a page on Wiki with minor content is ALREADY promotion. Than you should delete all organisation articles. Believe it or not, no matter what you do, WIkipedia has been, remains and will be a tool of promotion. Unless you remove it from search engines results of course. Even having a link to any organisation's official web-site on Wiki increases this web-site's TIC which in its turn puts the web-site closer to the beginning in search results. Hope you knew that) Than do what? Delete all links from wikipedia? I also see that you choose a different way: contrary to promoting you undermine this organisation and do not allow anyone making information on them more objective, right? And once again I remind you that conscious distribution of false and dishonouring information is against law. You may block me as you wish and refuse to deal with it, but keep in mind that outside Wikipedia there are different laws in authority. It's kind of strange that my comments are being deleted whereas I'm being threatened with block for raising to the bait and speaking out loud about this outrages situation. You may rely on your rules when you speak about inner Wiki subjects, but when your public activity involves other events, personalities, organisation, forcing people to disapprove silently and bear with false information on them is illegal and is prosecuted by law. This MUST be made public. F aristocrat (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your valuable insight into how Wikipedia works. I always enjoy being lectured by recently registered single-purpose accounts, as a ten year veteran I know very little of what constitutes promotion on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, F aristocrat has been reported at ANI for repeated legal threats made in this thread. - Brianhe (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy , rofl))) If you haven't spotted, my account is not recently registered, well, of course, not 10 years ago, and Youth Time was not my first contribution))) you shouldn't claim facts that you haven't checked, it turns against you) It's strange that you being an admin did not examine my other contributions))) Brianhe you're welcome to report me as much as you want :) outside Wiki your reports are of no practical use) actually even here the only thing you can is block and collectively hate me :D such a loss for me, I'm gonna weep and sob for days and nights :D F aristocrat (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. Your account was registered in January, you wrote one very short article on an obscure Russian fashion designer, then you went dormant for months and popped up here. Normally that kind of editing pattern is done to game restrictions on new and inexperienced editors in controversial areas, here it merely indicates that you are new to Wikipedia and are here, as all your contributions in the last month show, to promote YouthTime. Your rather paranoid reaction is typical for rebuffed promotional editors. We are all well familiar witht he pattern. At this point you can either start asking questions and learn how things work, or drop it. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has gone to ANI now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy , the fact that you are not familiar with Lamanova's creations, doesn't make her obscure, so once again, please, check information before making any claims. I came her in the first place to contribute to article on Lamanova, initially on Russian Wiki, eventually - on English and French. And not to trick you and wiki restrictions. F aristocrat (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI was closed as the legal threats were withdrawn, and F Aristocrat was warned that they are very close to WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this board is to identify COI issues and take action based on them. Is there consensus here that F Artistocrat and Spaceludens have a conflict of interest with regard to Youth Time? Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting excessive. I think F has exhausted any resemblance of good faith.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F aristocrat is blocked; noted that above. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since F aristocrat is indeffed, and the other accounts appear to have ceased editing, does anybody object to closing this out? - Brianhe (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Zone

Machine Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kenosplit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kenosplit (talk · contribs), a new WP:SPA editor, works at Machine Zone (MZ). See my talk page for the editor's disclosure, and see Talk:Machine Zone for recent discussion with Kenosplit about promotional edits to the article. Kenosplit has been pleasant and civil in all discussions, and has expressed a willingness to work collaboratively on improvements to the article. Kenosplit has also continued to edit the article, disregarding notices placed on Talk:Machine Zone and the links to guidelines (e.g., WP:PUBLICITY) linked there and also on the COI editor's talk page.

Kenosplit began editing on the same day that Machine Zone rebranded itself as "MZ" and launched a new service. Consistent with the company's new emphasis, Kenosplit appears to be working to shift the article's current NPOV away from MZ's mobile games to its real-time computing software, and specifically to the newly announced platform as a service called RTplatform. The product launch obtained some industry press coverage, but it has not achieved anything like the notability of MZ's games – for example, the RTplatform service is presently "available by invitation only", and has not been advertised to the public. There are no independent third-party reviews of the RTplatform product. There is no evidence that MZ obtains any significant share of its revenue from licensing RTplatform. So far, all third-party sources have based their stories on MZ's publicity: a press release, and interviews with MZ's CEO.

Kenosplit's most recent edits to the lead paragraph appear to be intended to minimize the importance of the company's gaming products, which are heavily advertised (e.g., during Super Bowl 50) and which are the entire reason for Machine Zone's notability, in favor of emphasizing the company's most recent product announced one week ago, and in favor of MZ's desire to market or promote itself as a real-time computing platform company rather than as a mobile gaming company. I believe the edit by a declared COI editor does not meet the requirements of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wormyseas1

Amila Kankanamge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cleaned, speedy nom
Onnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - being cleaned by others

Wormyseas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active July - December 2014 (edits checked); seemed to transition to another account here
Shylypizie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active Dec 2014 - Jan 2015 - not sure if they started a new account from there...

Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NetApp

NetApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents NetApp, and I've proposed some updates to the article on its Talk page, here. This includes major revamping of two sections (including the lead, which is currently flagged as inadequate) and some other minor factual updates—all itemized and formatted for review and straightforward implementation. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and I would greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at NetApp the other day but all they gave me was a load of WAFL.

I'll get my coat.

Guy (Help!) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems innocuous enough. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Guy, I needed a laugh.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starfire glass

Starfire glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

Any help would be appreciated in helping to edit this page, which is currently an orphaned, stub article with low quality citations. The information on low-iron glass is incomplete and the name “Starfire” glass is a trademark violation of Starphire low-iron glass from PPG. Should it be considered for deletion for any of those reasons?

If the editing community feels that the topic does meet a Notability Requirement, reorganization may help improve the quality of article—perhaps it could merge into a new page titled Low-iron glass or a section on the Glass page to provide more complete information to the general public. Low-iron Starphire glass (or, Starfire, as it is inaccurately labeled on this page), has numerous applications aside from aquariums. In fact, the world’s first low-iron formulation of glass was used by Frank Lloyd Wright at his famous masterpiece, Fallingwater.

As a PR representative of PPG, I am declaring COI and will remain transparent and forthcoming while providing objective, verifiable, and reliable content throughout this process. For more information on my COI, please visit my user page and feel free to post to my Talk page.

Some detail on this COI: In 1991, PPG trademarked Starphire glass, an ultra-clear low-iron glass formulation that was based on the aforementioned formulation of glass used by Wright. Since then, numerous manufacturers and distributors of low-iron/high clarity glasses have co-opted the trademark by changing the spelling of Starphire to “Starfire.” I have hyperlinked to some third-party news sources above. Bkorman PG (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark violation is generally not a reason for article deletion. To my not-a-lawyerly understanding, Wikipedia is not violating the trademark for the simple reason that we are not doing trade under it. If it is the term commonly used, even if that use is against your trademarks, than that is likely the name that will be given to the article, and we have plenty of articles under names that were once trademarked and even those that remained trademarked in some areas (such as aspirin.)

None of this prevents notability from being a consideration; I have not yet searched to see if there is sufficient coverage for notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable. Added some finds from a quick Google Books search at Talk:Starfire glass#Sources. - Brianhe (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Huawei

Tang Huawei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - sent to AfD
Huawei Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - speedy deleted twice before
Lyyf2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tang-Studio Huawei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
Tang Huawei Studio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked

It seems like an attempt by a certain "LYYF Visual Art Center" to promote an artist. They had earlier created the article Huawei Tang which was speedy deleted twice. Later they created Tang Huawei. I tried to ask Lyyf2015 about a COI but got no response. I have sent Tang Huawei to AfD since I am not convinced about the notability. No action is required at the moment, but I am posting this just so that we have a record in case of any subsequent attempts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NS1 (company)

NS1 (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - sent to AfD
List of managed DNS providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - send to AfD here
Viral nonstructural protein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Changes reverted
Cstate2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.132.230.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am posting this since it could possibly be an attempt to promote a certain managed DNS provided named "NS1". NS1 is a startup which managed to get funding in 2015. I was twice reverted [34], [35] when I attempted to remove it from the List of managed DNS providers. It seems the IP 68.132.230.51 was also attempting to place information about NS1 at the same article. Could someone else have a look and determine if there is a COI issue? Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I reverted back to your changes and removed NS1 from the list until the issue is resolved on the talk panel. Please if you can explain why it would legitimate to exclude NS1 from the managed DNS list but include other companies? As noted on the feedback for the NS1 (company) page, I plan on making edits inline with other company pages i.e. Dyn (company), etc --Cstate2002 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion with you at you Talk page - would you please reply there? Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mboland.phideltatheta adding unsourced promotional edits for Phi Delta Theta

Numerous articles
Mboland.phideltatheta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"silly" comment
This is silly. TimothyJosephWood 01:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -PROUD MEMBER OF THE WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT FRATERNITY[reply]

Major League Fishing

Major League Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aly.a.akers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber□^T 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was a single-purpose account that only appeared to edit for a few days then disappeared about a month ago. They have been advised of our COI guideline. If they return maybe further action will be reconsidered but it looks like there's nothing more to do for now. - Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wager/ Eleesa Dadiani

Paul Wager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eleesa_Dadiani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I wrote the article, therefore I can edit it" [36], now graciously offering to allow it to be deleted because it doesn't present the subject to this editor's liking. Oy (channeling jytdog). Where did the idea get spread that Wikipedia is an open platform for client promotion? HappyValleyEditor, you're right. — Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fineberg, Seth (10 April 2013). "KPMG Forms Alliance to Drive Procurement Services". Accounting Today. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[2] Busch, Jason (3 June 2015). "Coupa Inspire Dispatch: Musing on Partnerships, Accenture and More". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[3] Kase, Thomas; Busch, Jason (14 May 2015). "Does IBM Emptoris, Coupa Announcement Raise More Partnership Questions Than Answers?". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[4] Hesseldahl, Arik (1 June 2015). "Cloud Startup Coupa Lands $80 Million Round at $1 Billion-Plus Valuation". Re/code. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[5] Gage, Deborah (20 March 2014). "Coupa Raises $40M For Cloud Procurement Software, Takes On SAP". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[6] Nusca, Andrew (10 May 2012). "Coupa raises $22 million to manage your company's expenses". ZDNet. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 585: / Line 585: @@
 * F aristocrat is blocked; noted that above. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 ::Since {{U|F aristocrat}} is indeffed, and the other accounts appear to have ceased editing, does anybody object to closing this out? - [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
-:::nope, thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 == Machine Zone ==
-{{archive top|opened discussion with them at their talk page.  They disclosed their COI and are following the COI guideline, working at the Talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)}}
 <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
 * {{la|Machine Zone}}
@@ Line 598: / Line 597: @@
 Kenosplit's most recent edits to the lead paragraph appear to be intended to minimize the importance of the company's gaming products, which are heavily advertised (e.g., during [[Super Bowl 50]]) and which are the entire reason for Machine Zone's [[WP:NOTABLE|notability]], in favor of emphasizing the company's most recent product announced one week ago, and in favor of MZ's desire to market or promote itself as a real-time computing platform company rather than as a mobile gaming company. I believe the edit by a declared COI editor does not meet the requirements of the Conflict of Interest guideline. [[User:Lwarrenwiki|Lwarrenwiki]] ([[User talk:Lwarrenwiki|talk]]) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{archive bottom}}
 == Wormyseas1  ==
@@ Line 653: / Line 651: @@
 == NS1 (company) ==
-{{archive top|result=user was responsive at their talk page; disclosed COI and expressed willingness to follow COI guideline. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)}}
 <!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
 * {{la|NS1 (company)}} - sent to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NS1 (company)|AfD]]
@@ Line 665: / Line 663: @@
 :Please note, I reverted back to your changes and removed NS1 from the list until the issue is resolved on the talk panel. Please if you can explain why it would legitimate to exclude NS1 from the managed DNS list but include other companies? As noted on the feedback for the NS1 (company) page, I plan on making edits inline with other company pages i.e. Dyn (company), etc --[[User:Cstate2002|Cstate2002]] ([[User talk:Cstate2002|talk]]) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 ::I opened a discussion with you at you Talk page - would you please reply there?  Thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-{{archive bottom}}
 == Mboland.phideltatheta adding unsourced promotional edits for Phi Delta Theta ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards