Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Raul1798: graduate of a school has a conflict of interest? That seems highly unlikely
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 946: Line 946:
::::I just nominated this article for speedy deletion - it is terribly promotional. [[User:De88]] being a recent grad you are obviously to the school to write neutrally about it - you have a COI here. Will you please acknowledge that you have a COI for IDEA Public schools? You can still work on the topic - there are just some things we will ask you to do. Please do let me know. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
::::I just nominated this article for speedy deletion - it is terribly promotional. [[User:De88]] being a recent grad you are obviously to the school to write neutrally about it - you have a COI here. Will you please acknowledge that you have a COI for IDEA Public schools? You can still work on the topic - there are just some things we will ask you to do. Please do let me know. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::A past graduate of a school has a conflict of interest? That seems highly unlikely--they will not change his grades or revoke his diploma. Such a COI misunderstanding would cast doubt on thousands of articles. Instead the recent grad doubtless knows a lot of info about the school. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
:::::A past graduate of a school has a conflict of interest? That seems highly unlikely--they will not change his grades or revoke his diploma. Such a COI misunderstanding would cast doubt on thousands of articles. Instead the recent grad doubtless knows a lot of info about the school. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I understand that my edits on this article caused a COI on the IDEA Public Schiols page. Before editing this article, I had not known much about the school system until I did a lot of research. Yes, the edits on here are promotional, but keep in mind some edits are not mine. To [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]], what are some things that I need to do? I am not trying to cause problems on here, I am taking a lot of backlash from working on this article and would like to know possible solutions so the page does not get deleted. I did add a criticism/controversy section to even out the "promotional" edits even though the page needs clean up on grammar. [[User:De88|De88]] ([[User talk:De88|talk]]) 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


== User:Wwwwhatupprrr ==
== User:Wwwwhatupprrr ==

Revision as of 04:17, 4 June 2016

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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Rich Barton
    Talk:Bastion (agency)
    Talk:Bending Spoons
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Bound (2023 film)
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Burford Capital
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:CoBank
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:Community-engaged research
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:DISA (company)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Double Union
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Farm Credit Council
    Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Mark Felton
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur)
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Ronnie Liang
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:List of people from Darwin
    Talk:List of University of Queensland people
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:List of New School people
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:David Nirenberg
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist)
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Milton Shedd
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Grey Knight
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Up TV
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zillow
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Dan Price

    User has specifically and only edited content for Dan Price and his company Gravity Payments. Most notably commending Dan Price on the company page and removing any negative (and well-cited) information from the person's page. A search of the IP address links it directly to Gravity Payments in Seattle. "GRAVITY PAYMENTS PAET-SEA-GRAVI-1 (NET-40-139-138-240-1) 40.139.138.240 - 40.139.138.247 Windstream Communications Inc WINDSTREAM (NET-40-128-0-0-1) 40.128.0.0 - 40.143.255.255" — Preceding unsigned comment added by InitiatedCall (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2016‎

    Hey, HappyValleyEditor. I see that you had trimmed the article previously. I was rechecking a couple of days back and saw that an IP had added a bunch of stuff to it. The IP seems to be linked to Gravity Payments. You may want to have a look at it again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Lemongirl942. I wonder if there is any defense against money!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lemongirl942:, I checked the additions by the IP editor. They all appear to be very, very well sourced. It's strange that they are coming from the Gravity payments IP--maybe they have an in-house Wikipedian! In any case it's pretty fawning material, but with good sources. Over and out. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I noticed it was well sourced which is why I hesitated to remove it. I will check it again for any NPOV language and then remove the COI tag. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the article properly. The entire article is written from a fan's point of view. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal

    There is probably some kind of COI editing (and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) going on with the intention to promote Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal. Today I found a redirect (titled "Rohit Sahgal") and tagged it for Speedy Deletion [1] as it seemed an unlikely typo for "Sehgal". This was originally created by Majulah1965. My speedy tag was removed [2] by Hendrick 99 with the edit summary (This is a useful redirect.<ref>[http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/2011/nov/08/awardwinning-rohit-sahgal-named-apac-regional-director/]</ref>). A couple of minutes later, the IP added this. I noticed that both the user accounts were previously heavily involved in discussions at an AfD about the company. I am reasonably certain that COI editing (along with sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) is taking place. Can someone else have a look and confirm? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lemongirl942: FYI. I don't think you were here when Ogilvy came up last time: Archive 89 and before that, Archive 87. – Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for the pointer Brianhe. This [3] is weird. Why are there two different groups both trying to edit the Ogilvy article? One from Washington DC and another from Singapore? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they (Ogilvy) have a Singapore office and a DC office. When this came up before it appeared that someone in Singa was acting kind of on their own, at least that was my conclusion and what an Ogilvy rep stated (see archive 87). Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    119.73.200.50 seems to be a sockpuppet of Majulah1965 and Hendrick 99. It is interesting that the IP geolocates to Singapore and specifically to United World College of South East Asia. More interesting is that both users have edited United World College of South East Asia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The users were confirmed sockpuppets. Have been blocked now. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hendrick 99/Archive --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesuit-branded pages

    One user, a retired jesuit priest, creating many articles (as in dozens) on Jesuit-related centres, educational institutes, missions, peace clubs, social welfare institutes-- you name it. The list above contains page creations since April 7February, 2016-- there are about 170 page creations in their edit history. As a whole I see this as advocacy and/or promotion, leaning towards promotion. The addition of the Christogram at the top right of each article is a kind of "branding" that really bothers me, as it serves as a "Jesuit stamp of approval" more or less. (What does that symbol mean anyway? It's like a secret code for believers I guess. Seems very 18th C and very un-wiki-like.) This editor often pipes links to link to misleading Jesuit easter-egg text, as in the use of the word "development" here to lead to a list of Jesuit development centres. This editor often uses the weakest of sources to get the page published: self-published, wordpress, blogpsot, and often any old jesuit essay is used to support some claim about something else. Finally, The notability of these places is marginal. I have nominated four for deletion. Two were deleted and the other two are in process. Overall I am disturbed that one editor has been able to create so many marginally notable pages around a particular religious subject, and that they brand them each with the Christogram. I see it as an abuse of the objectivity secular nature of the Wiki. This is not just adding to the knowledge pool- at a couple pages a week, it's a crusade. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    OH, a member of a religious order is more like the devotee i mentioned before. This is much more like a COI, yes. He should be following the COI guideline and putting these thought AfC to get them peer reviewed.... I think. Boy this is tough. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    and yes that is the jesuit seal or emblem. see here and here: "The Society of Jesus uses as its seal the IHS surmounted by a cross, three nails below, and the whole often surrounded by sunburst. " So they are "branded". Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    here are all the pages that are so branded. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so the logo you link above is also half of the Jesuits official logo. Seems to be an immediate identifier for Jesuits, if you are in the reilgious "know", which I am definitely not. Here also is a specimen used in the 1998 trademark filing by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) at the US Patent and Trademark Office. So, the image at the upper right of each page is a brand-identifying trademark, albeit for a religion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the "hits" in jytdog's search are from this one template, which shouldn't be considered too strongly as evidence of tagging or whatever: {{Jesuit educational institutions in the Philippines}} - Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that image is mostly used in proper fashion on those pages. However if you look at the end of the file use list, which contains the most recent uses, you'll see that the last 75 or so uses are for the branding purpose mentioned above. I did not check them all but the 75 appear to be by Jzsj, branded in upper right corner. That would be... brand advocacy? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think using the image/logo as part of a template is fine. But the usage in the articles (mentioned at the top of the report) is clearly improper. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree with the gist of what you are saying, and that this kind of branding is inappropriate. Just pointing out that the same image does have some legitimate uses. Brianhe (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question apparently has 500 such articles planned out, according to the category "Jesuit development centres". I updated the list of articles to give a better idea of the scope. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through these, some of them should not be standalone articles. Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service is a unit of Georgetown University. Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice is a unit of Loyola University. Center for Faith and Public Life is a unit of Fairfield University. There are more like that, and they should be deleted or merged out. John Nagle (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also the issue that many of the ones I looked at had only primary sources. If these met GNG then this would be less of a stand-out case. But many do not, and this is a large project. That means that if there is an issue, then it is also a large cleanup project. That is unrelated to COIN, so on that topic, I, too, find the branding to be inappropriate. The categories are what we use to bring together like articles, and to indicate that they are part of a larger organization. The image as it is being used here is quite promotional, IMO. LaMona (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a priori convinced that the articles should be folded into their parents. Taking Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service (CSJ), for instance, I see many comparable articles in Category:Georgetown University and child cats. I tend to think the notability of each needs to be assessed and that a broad-brush rejection of them is not the way to go. Still taking CSJ as an example, having googled it I think a case can be made for general notability. I do accept the probability that we are dealing with an editor who has a COI, but I'm not very upset by the numerous article upshot based on the CSJ example. I support Jytdog's suggestion below - more discussion including WPs interested in the area, with possible remedies ranging from 'do nothing' to COI templates on talk pages, to testing notability through AfD. I suspect the middle of these - marking COI on talk pages - will be the outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are more or less right, with the proviso that the IHS image has to go from the upper corner of articles.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK here is what this feels like to me. We had a guy taking all the entries in an open access protein database and creating articles out of them, sometimes overwriting existing articles. Big project, ambitious, very cool in many ways, but he was doing it lone ranger style, not getting consensus from the relevant communities. And upset some people. This is a bit the same, perhaps? Would it be worthwhile asking him to pause and get consensus for his plans from WP:RELIG and maybe WP:UNIV? Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had no direct connection during my life with hardly any of these works, and have tried to write very objective articles, which I think should be the criterion for judgment rather than whether I am one of the c.16,000 Jesuits in the world. I suggest that many people who write Wikipedia articles about large organizations are members of those organizations, doing their best to be objective. My whole background is in scientific objectivity (MS in math, physics minor) and I believe I am writing very objective articles: where an editor has disagreed I have never reverted the edit. I have always responded to requests by rechecking articles labeled "promotional material" but there's a thin line between presenting the vision or mission of an organization and promoting it, which at times has led me to omit entirely any section on these topics. I find no personal gain in writing these articles, just adding notable organizations to build up Wikipedia. If consensus is reached I will move the logo to the infobox, or remove it if required, but one editor who had first asked me to move it to the infobox later conceded my point that it becomes a huge space in the infobox but is just a small space outside the infobox. I use it only where there is no picture or identifying logo available for the institution, and this is the general logo for the Society of Jesus and all its works. Some Catholics are getting up their own Catholic Commons website but I find Wikipedia a very helpful resource and wish to continue to contribute to it in a way respectful of Wikipeidia's guidelines for notability and non-promotional articles. I wish the guideline for social development organizations was as clear as that for schools, but such can't be and so I'm trying to deal with the more nebulous criteria for notability.Jzsj (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, if there are 16,000 Jesuits, how many Jesuit priests and retired priests are there? Your interest and involvement in the religion is life-long and was your career, so I don't think it is fair to say you are just one of 16,000. Also, the bit about you never having reverted someone who disagrees with your edits is baloney-- you've done that to me a number of times when I have removed your easter-egg piped links, and the bogus reference on Jesuit policy that you use in almost every article. I disagreed with those edits and you reverted, so please stick to the truth here... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out to me one example where I simply reverted your change without trying to respond to what I understood as the point you were making. The latter occurred once, with you, when I changed what you found as an "ëaster-egg" reference and I thought in moving it to another spot it would satisfy the criterion. I have since read up on ëaster-eggs and am determined to avoid them in the future: thanks for pointing them out to me! As to my involvement in the religion, the whole purpose of the religion is to do good: I would have no interest in the Society of Jesus if it didn't hold promise of being a part of works of charity and justice into the future, and not just Jesuits but mostly lay men and women who are the majority as collaborators in these works which I find significant for the freeing up and development of marginalized peoples.Jzsj (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jzsj, the revert I mentioned was on one of your articles that went to AfD and is now deleted. I do see that you are in some ways trying to play by the rules. However, if you read above, you will see that everyone agrees that the IHS image is inappropriate. So, question one is: could you leave this out of future articles unless it is appropriate? WP:LOGO specifically calls for a logo only where approproate and only within the infobox. Much of the discussion above is a result of you playing by your own rules vis-a-vis article creation. You've decided you are goign to create 500 articles(!) on everything under the sun that is Jesuit. Now some of the comments above question whether you might be biased or not in that regard-- that it might be promotional. There was an article recently in the NY Times abotu how Jesuit priests sold slaves to pay for a university debt at Georgetown university. That article in turn led to other reporting. There's probably neough material there for its own article. Now a true Wikipedian who was devoted to Jesuit issues would see that article and be expanding the content that Wikipedia has on it. Is that something you would do, or are you exclusively committed to promoting the positive aspects of Jesuit missions and work? If you are editing solely to promote the religion's work, then you are editing promotionally, and this is not desired. I think you answered that you think you are not editing promotionally, so I will leave you with the question about the slave sale. Question two: Can you slow down on the article creation and please just create articles for those institutions that are notable? YOu've created many articles that do not deserve to be articles in themsleves, as mentioned above. The majority of the time, these are often filled with self-published references and other weak refs. I just deleted a Prezi.com reference, and I have deleted many blogspot, blogger and other poor quality references from your articles. You do not seem to understand WP:RS. I hope you can see from what I am saying here that the overall impression that an impartial editor gets from your rapid-fire Jesuit article creation is that you're trying to get thease articles into Wikipedia no matter what. What I would like, and I am guessing many editors above would like, is if you used your excellent skills to create articles that are a) not rife with bad references and self-published sources, b) not branded with the IHS Symbol, c) not promotional and d) for subjects that are truly notable as established by sources. You see, we are actually a kind of team here. You're a good editor but you are not playing by some of the team rules (i.e. reliable sources, notability, promotional editing). What do you think about playing by the rules a bit more closely?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jzsj, I'm not sure whether this is policy (someone will correct me if it is not, I hope), but 'logos' on religious articles are usually reserved for pages about the belief ITSELF, (fundamental beliefs and concepts, core institutions etc). Pages about subjects 'affiliated' (an Anglican project, a Jewish school, even probably, a Buddhist temple), would not use the religion's 'logo', but would prefer either the logo of the individual place, or, often better, a captioned photo. I'm sure you would agree that information about what is happening in these places is more important than the 'brand symbol' of who is doing it, even though that might be what has motivated you initially. Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not determined to keep using these. As I discussed on my talk page, I moved them outside the infobox because they became too large there, I wanted a smaller version of a logo for Jesuit works that had no logo or picture in Wiki Commons. All the articles I added where independently reviewed, and it's not easy to get a definitive interpretation of what's tolerated in Wikipedia, so I'll let this play itself out.Jzsj (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jzsj, I think everyone agreed that the use of the logo outside of the inffobox, and on pages that were not directly about the Jesuits (i.e. on subsidiary institutions) was inappropriate, so I went throguh and removed the logo on all of the pages where you used it. I mentioned on your talk page as well that WP:LOGO, under "placement", specifically says a logo should only be used on a page in the infobox, and should not be used on subsidiary organizations. So that is dealth with, I believe. Now, in regards to the promotional editing, you did not answer any of my quesitons above. I just removed another of your easter-egg edits. Would you be willing to go throguh and fix your easter-egg edits? They have the effect of misleading the reader andtaking them to a list of Jesuit pages, which is in effect promotional editing. Thanks!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashley Reed

    Hi all, first time doing one of these. I believe this page's article has a significant COI; specifically WP:COISELF and WP:EXTERNALREL. I'm not sure who to email with external evidence as I obviously can't post some of it here owing to WP:OUTING, but nonetheless there's some on the article history. An edit by this user on an Old revision of Ashley Reed was commented with ″If you try to remove the bit about Reed being a delegate to Womens Conference- are you really expecting a source to exist? I was the returning officer. Trust me it happened, she won, end of.″ This user is the creator and significant editor of the page — this comment displays a relationship between the two and its use in justifying an edit. I believe it stands as evidence to this user writing the article with a clear COI, and thus the extent to which it adheres to NPOV is also questionable — plus, of course, external evidence which I'd like to email. Thanks all — like I say, first time process, and I'm not entirely sure on what I'm doing, so more than welcome on feedback etc.

    Maragil (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There definitely is a COI here. In addition it seems to me the article subject is a case of BLP1E at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Lemongirl942. Do I need to take any further steps? Maragil (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated the article for deletion as I wasn't convinced the person has enough coverage for independent notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Davis (astronomer)

    Hi all. I'm reporting myself (again) as I've just started the article about Richard Davis (astronomer), who passed away recently. He is clearly notable as he was awarded an OBE, and there are multiple reliable references that I've included in the article. I'm reporting myself here as I knew him, and I've been working with him for the last few years. I've assembled the article entirely based on the cited references, with the aim of being as neutral as possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm endorsing this article as neutral/non-promotional. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 from my side as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice workHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrea Mura

    I've noticed an editor 86.142.82.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is apparently just adding references to somebody called Andrea Mura. I figure someone at this noticeboard should look into it. Sławomir
    Biały     12:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like an attempt to promote Andra Mura. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the references seem to be legit though and have been inserted long before. Would be glad if others could help evaluate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at library holdings and G-scholar cites, this does not appear to be a book that has been (yet) accepted in academia as significant. (<60 library holdings, one cite on scholar.) At this point, though, it might be best to bring this up on the talk pages since this needs subject expertise, IMO. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, can we be careful here. The IP has also made useful edits to the articles, especially removing a huge chunk of copyright gobbledygook [4] from Transmodernity (I've now removed the rest) and adding some actually useful content. The book was only published a year ago by two highly reputable academic publishers—the 2015 edition by Ashgate and the 2016 by Routledge. Google scholar citations and library holdings are not necessarily indicative of the value of a work in terms of enhancing the article's content, especially for ones that have been published within the last year. I do agree with LaMona in the sense that you should bring these references and/or further reading suggestions to the article's talk page rather than summarily removing them, especially if you don't know the subject area. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be pointing out the obvious here, but that IP geolocates to Exeter, Devon UK which is the location of Exeter University, where Dr Andrea Mura is employed. --Krelnik (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just got reverted by User:Sesamo12. See diff. The user has a very interesting edit history which is relevant here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sesamo12 has been adding Andrea Mura to various articles. See diff here, diff here and diff here, although there are others. Every edit is adding Mura's works, and the topics are quite varied: Osama Bin Laden, Frontier, Topology, Austerity. Also note the change in the user page that took place as this COIN began here. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear! I had thought they'd have enough sense not to do this, or at least not to "push" it, and this edit is really pushing it to get himself in there—a totally useless addition, restating the obvious. Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemongirl942 and LaMona, I've left the user some lengthy guidance on his talk page [5]. I've asked him to stop making any further edits which include adding links to or mentions of Andrea Mura and his publications, until he has come here to discuss these issues. From tomorrow, I'll abroad without regular internet access for a week. I'll leave it to you two to carry on the discussion if he comes here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update. After my message on his talk page, the user emailed me to say that he has now read and understood WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM and why his additions had crossed the line. He promised he will not add any further references to Mura's work. He also offered to remove any of the ones that are still "live", but I suggested that he leave them and either the editors helping here will remove any which may be inappropriate (some are not inappropriate) or I can go through them myself when I get back next week. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Jusjoose

    Notified of COI, autobiog and username policies on Feb. 27, 2016. Has continued editing draft. Re-notified May 17. Would someone else like to try to get this person's attention? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I should mention that I have ~100 COI notifications that I have done through my AfC work; the majority of them cease editing, which tells me that they didn't know that WP was not a "create your own page" service. (My guess: rarely are we missing important contributions when this happens.) A few own up and agree to comply. Some have misunderstood what a username is. Very few continue to edit, ignoring the warnings. I'll try to do a recap of my extensive list, because I think it is informative. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just left a note here. Let's see if they reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No response so far, but person has also not made edits. Are there other steps we should take? Or let this one expire? LaMona (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PreEmptive Solutions

    Three overlapping single purpose accounts dedicated to the promotion of PreEmptive Solutions and their products. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    stockbrokers.com

    posted at the blacklist here 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    Blocked. MER-C 03:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just took this article to AfD, but other articles created by the same editor (Wikielite360 may also merit a second look. This looks suspiciously like the paid editing we regularly see (an overabundance of insignificant sources, impeccably formatted, etc). More eyes needed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. Listed articles above. this and this are pretty clear signs of trying to get an article created on behalf of a client, and
    cannot be their "own work".
    User: Tokyogirl79 gave them very clear notice that they had to disclose paid editing here. I just left them another note here. If they don't stop editing and start disclosing, I'll recommend they be indeffed for PROMO and violation of WP:PAID. Let's see what they do. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just listed Adam Afara for CSD; and listed UYue Xu for AfD. If've suggest a merge for Vertex into the parent company. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Spier Wine Farm

    Anyone interested? User:DGG Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Added SPA users. Will put COI template on talk pages. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking more carefully, the SPA's haven't edited since 2013. I think the article should just be deleted as promotional, unless someone wants to go through the effort to "do the right thing." Another option would be turning it into a stub, but again there isn't much reason to do this unless we think that it is likely to be completed. LaMona (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I chopped it down to stub size, from 15K to 1.4K. Seems like a good PROD or AfD candidate.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion. The house itself has marginal notability. John Nagle (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aravind R Menon

    States they work for the organization they write about. Is copying in material from their webpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted one of their edits and left a note on their talk page.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has had some pretty serious copyvio. I cleaned it up some but more may be lurking. Brianhe (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James, HappyValleyEditor, and Brianhe: It appears to me that there's no-to-very-slight COI, and that the copyviolations is the main issue. Aravind R Menon had permission to use the copyrighted material, hence the wording ("Authorized", etc.). I left a message in a response to a helpme template. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They would need to verification that there was release under a CC BY SA license through OTRS or get them to change there webpage to state it is under a CC BY SA license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Southerngospelvideos

    Username identical to company representing musicians behind the above articles. Your basic promotional editing. Take it from me, it's the gospel! Username reported. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I represent no company as my username is just the fact that I like southern gospel music videos. It is a hobby of mine to collect videos of southern gospel music. Your alleged "company representing musicians behind above articles" is misrepresentation and unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You're giving us an assurance that there's absolutely no connection between Southerngospelvideos, who writes well on the Nelons, and www.southerngospelvideos.com which seems to concentrate on, err, the Nelons? Just one of those fluke coincidences of life? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So if someone used the username ebay, does that make me a representative of ebay.com I think not. There lies your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a good example. If someone had "ebay" as a username, they'd likely be blocked according to WP:CORPNAME and asked to change their username. clpo13(talk) 16:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, Clpo13. It's possible that Southerngospelvideos, who likes listening to the Nelons, was so taken with the circa 1997 chic of the www.southerngospelvideos.com website that s/he adopted the website's name as their own, as per the ebay example. Still. I'd like to hear more from Southerngospelvideos about the startling coincidence of naming and interest. More seriously - since we do at this point suspect a COI despite the denial - there is the question of what to do. I suspect merely mark the talk pages with an appropriate template as the articles, albeit unreferenced, seem relatively neutral in tone and the subjects appear from the most casual read to meet WP:GNG. (IIRC one of the articles is more problematic than the other two, and copyright checks are yet to be done.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I have southerngospelvideos as my username, southern gospel and videos can be associated with many other things as well. I stand by my claim that it isn't a conflict of interest as others have alluded to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    southern gospel and videos! --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    dig a little further and you'll see that they have videos of many other artists in the southern gospel music genre. I am not on trial here. Yawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have a generalised contempt for the rules of wikipedia - WP:COI - as well as the norms of civilised conversation. That's unfortunate and regrettable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Southerngospelvideos: Would you be adverse to a name change? It would solve the problem. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure where to report this... here is an ad from "Elite SEO" offering Wikipedia SEO services, including use of a derivative of the Wikipedia logo. From what I understand this is protected by WMF but I'm not sure what to do with this discovery. Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose we each ask them for a quote on an article, and then post their replies here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We actually site banned the guy from that agency. See here. This is the kind of thing to bring to WMF legal; they would be the ones to send a cease-and-desist order. btw WMF trademark policy is here. Stephen La Porte has been responsive on these issues in the past, pinging him: User:Slaporte (WMF). Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: I would email him, as he probably won't respond to anything on his page. His email is slaporte@wikimedia.org, as it says on his user page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    i've done that too. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. We're looking into it now. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog and Slaporte (WMF): thanks for moving this forward. - Brianhe (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for raising it! Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Markaz

    SPAs

    The user ArtsRescuer seems to be affiliated to this entity called Markaz. I spotted them a few days ago when I found a bunch of AfD nominations with single word justifications. Looks like cleanup is required. If the SPI is true, this has been happening for a long time. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahara McKay

    For those with permission, see VRTS ticket # 2016050910006859. The account BlofeldZurich is run by Blofeld Communication, a PR firm based in Switzerland. The aforementioned OTRS ticket is an email stating that the account is shared and being used to edit the pages of their clients on behalf of said clients, indicating a major conflict of interest. The account has significantly edited Mahara McKay ([7]) and Nomi Fernandes ([8]). An earlier account, BlofeldComm, was blocked for similar promotional edits. clpo13(talk) 21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the non-RS from Mahara McKay- lots of Youtubes of her music, photos, her facebook page, etc. I did the obvious ones, but there are some blog-like sources that probably should also come out if someone has time to look at them. At least what is left appears to be mostly published material. LaMona (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabor Lukacs

    This editor is here editing under their real name. I noticed their editing when they add BLP-violating content about a government bureaucrat and former lobbyist to the article above here. In the ensuing discussion they cited two articles here and here about their litigation against the the Canadian Transport Agency and Canadian airlines. See also here.

    In my view this user has a clear COI per WP:COILEGAL and I asked them to declare that COI and to follow the peer review process, and they have argued that COILEGAL is only about litigation against other people, see here.

    I am bringing this to the community for input. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Happily they just did this, so maybe they are not disagreeing after all. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately Jytdog is misquoting my position, which is as follows:
    • undoubtedly, one should not edit on ongoing litigation that one is involved in, simply as a matter of ethical standard;
    • WP:COILEGAL speaks about disputes between individuals and not between organizations;
    • WP:COILEGAL is phrased in present tense, as such it refers to ongoing litigation and not past ones;
    • I never had any litigation or individual conflict with the bureaucrat and former lobbyist in question;
    • the edits in question were not referring to ongoing litigation, and as such there is no COI. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, bless. COILEGAL is a red herring. WP:COI is not. It is barely conceivable that someone described as a passenger rights advocate who has been involved in litigation against the CTA has no COI w.r.t. inserts about the CTA or its staff on an article such as Regulatory capture. Straining at gnats won't help when there's a mote in the way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a broad interpretation of WP:COI penalizes those who do not hide behind pseudonyms, but edit under their real names; however, it provides no protection against those who advance an agenda using a false or hidden identity. In the context of litigation, WP:COI embodies something similar to the principle of Sub_judice. Once the litigation is over, so is the WP:COI. The real test is, anyway, the reliability of the sources and not who brings the sources. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does penalise those who do not hide behind pseydonyms. It also penalises those who do. Its *intent* is to prevent COI editing. While litigation might no longer be ongoing, COI still exists. Unless you have stopped being a passenger rights advocate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This argument appears to be circular about the meaning of COI. It also fails to distinguish disputes between non-governmental and governmental parties. There are a noteworthy number citizens in any country who have had, at some point in their lives, some kind of dispute with their government, whether it is about their tax assessment, or a parking or speeding ticket, or anything else. To preclude all these individuals from making edits relating to the government of their state, on the basis of COI, would result in overbreadth.

    In order to establish COI, one has to have some kind of stake (e.g., financial or other gain to be made, or expectation of same). Where is the "stake" with respect to a concluded litigation, which is no longer subject to any appeal? What will I stand to gain or lose by making the edits? I am a volunteer, not a paid advocate or lawyer. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I understand the difficulty here Gabor. You are conflating your understanding of Conflict of Interest in the real world with WP:COI in wikipedia. They are not the same, and you have one in wikipedia. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Roxy the dog™ thank you for your response, which I found very informative. Can you help me to better understand the differences between the "real world" notion of COI and the Wikipedia one? The wording of WP:COI is similar to the "real world" notion, but it appears that the community has some additional unwritten rules or interpretation of what this means, and I would like to understand that. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabor, as I explained to you Wikipedia works by consensus. You have had four different, much more experienced Wikipedians tell you that in Wikipedia you have a COI with regard to the airlines and the government agency regulating them. Others may weigh in here but I will be surprised if their conclusions are different; the way we think about COI in Wikipedia, your COI is glaring. There is little new under the sun here in Wikipedia and like many editors with a COI you are more busy arguing than listening. If you want to be part of the community you should become interested in actually understanding how this place works, but that is of course your decision. (your questions above are clearly rhetorical) Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog while I am sure you do not mean it to be so, some of your comments come across as bordering on ad hominem, criticizing me for what you perceive as my poor attitude ("more busy arguing than listening"), instead of focusing on the question of COI. I am open to listen, and I would be grateful for further explanation from Roxy the dog™ or anyone else who can help me answer the question that I asked: what is the difference between the "real world COI" and the "Wikipedia COI"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Lukacs (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 May 2016
    More busy arguing than listening is an apt description of your behavior. I have said nothing about your character, nothing ad hominem. You have argued about this since the moment I brought it up and you have not stopped arguing long enough to listen; even your question (which is almost authentic) to Roxy above is immediately chased by an argument.Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And why are you saying that your litigation is finished when here you are proposing that content about your ongoing appeal be added to an article? Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are conflating several separate legal cases. With respect to the ongoing proceeding, I put in an edit request (see Talk:NewLeaf), and made no edits on my own, as you have previously acknowledged. My actual edits (which you reversed) were either about items unrelated to any litigation or about matters that have already been decided by the court.
    • My understanding is that this board is for discussing COI, and not for attacking my behaviour, which has been civil and polite throughout. While I am open to be educated about the meaning of COI on Wikipedia, your unfortunate choice of words creates the appearance of repeated personal attacks on me. WP:PA
    • I remain of the view that the approach of Roxy the dog™ is the most productive: I would appreciate hearing from editors their views on how the "real world COI" differs from the "Wikipedia CEO". Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you continue to argue and WP:WIKILAWYER. A personal attack would be if I said "You are an arrogant son of a bitch who writes stupid shit". That is what we mean by PA. I have not written anything like that. Describing your behavior on a notice board where your behavior is under discussion, is not a personal attack. In any case I have no desire to continue this. Everyone who has weighed in here has said you have a COI in WP with regard to the airlines and the CTA. Please disclose this on your Userpage and please continue to offer suggestions on the Talk page instead of editing directly. That now has consensus behind it more than just me. If you ever do want to actually understand how this works in WP, I would be happy to explain but I am not going to argue with you. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog You continue to attack me instead of focusing on the issue of COI, which has been discussed only very briefly so far. While I hope that it is not your intention, I do inform you that I am feeling harassed by your choice of words and conduct.
    I suggest that we both sit back, listen, and give other editors an opportunity to respond to an important and broad question, which is: how the "real world COI" differs from the "Wikipedia CEO". Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Real world COI vs. Wikipedia COI

    The answer to that is easy but up until now you have been unwilling to listen. Here it is: In the real world, people are constrained by real world institutions around them. A professor who has financial interests in her research is obligated by policy (which she has agreed to follow in her employment contract) to disclose that conflict to people in her institution under confidentiality, and those people put in place an actual plan to manage her actual COI. We don't have the benefit of that kind of real world verification or disclosure or personalized management in WP. Instead, WP editors are obligated to disclose to the community only if they have a COI (we really don't care why) and to follow the simple peer review process. We think about COI in the context of the larger problem of advocacy (that is an essay you should read). People who are say vegetarians come to WP all the time to add content about how awesome vegetarianism is and how evil eating meat is. (you can replace "vegetarian" with all kinds of things - sports fan (or hater), fans or haters of some celeb, blah blah) That is advocacy. COI is a subset of that - COI arises where there is some RW "interest" that an editor has, that will very likely lead them to edit like an advocate, adding unsourced or badly sourced content that is not neutral, and wikilawyering things to death to get their content into WP, to serve their external interest. It is really, really easy to see advocacy (driven by passion or a COI) in editors' behavior and in the content they generate. Really easy. In your case, you have dedicated a boatload of your time and treasure and energy to your campaign against the CTA and the airlines. You have been and currently are involved in litigation on this set of issues. It absolutely serves your external interest to come to WP and use it to promote your campaign, and to try to use WP as a vehicle to influence the public and juries and judges. To use Wikipedia to right the great wrongs you are battling in the RW. People come to WP to do this sort of thing, exactly because WP is a widely used reference work. Whether they should or not, the public trusts WP. It is the editing community's job to honor that trust and preserve the integrity of WP against people who would abuse it in this way. (We actually have a policy about this - see WP:PROMO). What we ask people with a COI to do is to disclose it, and submit content proposals on the Talk page of the relevant article, so that editors who have no ax to grind - no COI - can review them for sourcing and neutrality in light of the editor's COI. That is the best we can do in this context.
    One last thing. There is a learning curve to editing Wikipedia. What we find over and over and over, is that advocates (including editors with a COI) are too busy arguing and trying to push their content into WP to stop and listen and learn about how this place works. Why? Their external interest and their drive to push that into WP is way more important to them then learning how to be a Wikipedian. They are, as we say, not here to build an encyclopedia but are rather here to serve their external interest.
    That is how COI in WP is different than the world, and how we think about COI in WP. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC - What he said)In the real world - conflict of interest is almost exclusively used where there is either a monetary or influence/power benefit to the subject. In wikipedia which is often the subject of advocacy-related individuals, COI is also used with regards to editors whose interests may result in their editing in a particular subject area being compromised. Over a number of years the COI policy has come to reflect that and clearly indicates the process for declaring it as per Jytdog above. An advocate who may have no potential direct financial or power benefit to editing in a subject area, will still be considered to have an inherant conflict - best practice as per the COI policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    COI has been defined more narrowly here: diff, and the focus was financial interest. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, because that was the accusation of COI at that time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabor you are a litigator aren't you. My goodness. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You're seriously putting one diff up against all the above mentioned carefully crafted essays, guidelines, and policies – not to mention the individual attention you've gotten here? Please, please reconsider what you are doing and start showing us you really are here to build an encyclopedia. Our experience at COIN is more of the "doth protest too much" type. Less protesting, more building. OK? - Brianhe (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog I am not a litigator. I have been trained as a mathematician. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe Part of the problem seems to be that there seems to be no consensus within the Wikipedia community as to how to distinguish COI from advocacy and from stewardship. Wikipedia:Advocacy Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one with a lack of clarity here is you, Gabor. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument that has been made by many who, because of wikipedia's COI guidelines (the relevant part would be WP:EXTERNALREL) are judged to have a conflict they need to declare. It has generally been rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Don't_cry_COI represents a different consensus, though. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    No it doesnt. Its just an essay that states 'dont attack editors with a COI'. It is not relevant to a discussion determining if someone has a COI. Only how they are treated once identified. Also - essay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gabor, "consensus" means something very different here than what you seem to think. The existence of one user essay does not demonstrate it.
    I'm very committed to establishing a framework where we can all make the best 'pedia possible and am a frequent contributor to COI discussions here, and meta-discussions at my talkpage, the talkpage of an essay I wrote and elsewhere. Would you like to participate at one of those places? We can start with more rigorous and objective ways to define COI, if you wish. – Brianhe (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe Absolutely! Thank you for the invitation. Which of these places might be the best for me to join the discussion? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to mention the talkpage of the COI guideline, the "mother" of this noticeboard. But maybe start with my talkpage first and see where people want to go from there (the first step in building a new consensus). I have over 70 talkpage watchers and you're likely to get noticed. – Brianhe (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    71. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianhe, I started a new section here, but so far I have not seen any discussion from you (nor from anyone else). Am I at the right place? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, it takes a little time and your introduction was a bit thin. I added some comments there. - Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Womack

    Unreferenced autobiography, maybe? Brianhe (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I put a PROD on the article, as it is an autobiography with no good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprodded by an anon IP editor. I did some article cleanup. Brianhe (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe and ThePlatypusofDoom: I did a little cleaning and tagged it for notability and BLPsources. My take is that the notability is pretty weak-- I could not find any published articles. On the other hand he was in an actual film that played at Cannes. It seems like Emack has not edited for a few days. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ansif Ashraf

    Seems to be a walled garden of non-notable/barely notable stuff around Ansif Ashraf. Here Agi wiki claims to be Ashraf himself. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent one of the articles Kerala State Business Excellence Awards, to AfD. It is interesting that this advertorial was being used as a reference. Wonder why the Wikipedia page in mentioned in the advertorial itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've chimed in at the AfD. We have too much patience imo with "editors" who do nothing on Wikipedia except promote themselves, their associates, and their business. Agi wiki systematically removes speedy deletion templates and other deletion and maintenance templates and has ignored all warnings, with the exception of one rather threatening reply here (so he does know he has a talkpage). Next time he removes a deletion template, I'll indef per WP:NOTHERE. Thanks for taking it here, Randykitty. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    H S Ranka

    User with same name as article inserting autobiographical material as here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have been doing a fair bit of follow up of the copy and paste bots flagged concerns.[11]

    What becomes quickly obvious is a large portion of copyright issues come from "paid editors"

    For example I blocked this person User:Authorincharge as they had repeatedly added copyrighted material. They claim that they have permission to do so as the person's editor.

    How should this sort of situation be handled? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears they have a COI wrt the people they write about (they are paid by them)
    The twitter account [12] for the person has the same pictures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am intrigued and have asked him a followup question on his talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the 198.143.2.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) it seems. So maybe they are simply a new editors with a COI writing articles about this family. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope just changed my mind. Check out this IPs first edit [13] directed at User:Bbb23. And it is a proxy server per [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another twitter account with the same image. It also tweeted a link to a "Hindi" Wikipedia article about Shrikant Verma. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    These users wish to return to editing. What restrictions should be placed on them? A few I would consider essential:

    • No direction contributions to content about the Verma family
    • Each member of the firm must use their own account
    • They must not edit directly content about their clients

    Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds reasonable to me. Maybe, the first point could be made clearer: No direction contributions to content about the Verma family in any article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James I recommend you write something like:
    In order to be ublocked, please acknowledge that you have read WP:PAID and please demonstrate that by disclosing your employer and clients on your Userpage.
    We also will need you to promise that:
    Each user in your office will create and use their own account and will also disclose employer and clients of paid editing on their userpages
    Each of you will put the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the Talk pages of articles you intend to work on
    You will all make suggestions on the Talk page rather than editing directly
    None of you will violate copyright going forward.
    something like that Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Byron good

    Recreated here as the copyright issue at Byron Good was deleted.

    Discussion here [15]

    Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    With over 2600 cites in G-Scholar on his own book, and similar on books he edited, he easily passes wp:academic. The editor may be problematic, although it doesn't jump out at me, but I'm not seeing major issues with content or notability. What am I missing? LaMona (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard J. Jensen

    There's currently a bit of a... brawl going on at Talk:Richard J. Jensen, where the subject of the article is engaged in a rather lengthy argument over neutrality and notability tags, but my main concern is the fact that Mr. Jensen has been actively engaging in an edit war to remove the tags, and has been showing bad faith by accusing other editors of making up rules and making personal attacks. All of this has culminated in him actually starting a discussion about the situation on the BLP noticeboard.

    I'm not explicitly asking for administrator action, but a few eyes on this would be appreciated and it would do a lot to diffuse the situation if an uninvolved admin were to step in and break it up, so to speak.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's currently an open noticeboard discussion about this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard J Jensen under attack. Unless the BLP aspect and the COI aspect need different treatment, I'd recommend to keep the discussion there for the time being. As identification of the Wikipedia editor and the subject of the BLP article are self-disclosed by the subject, the COI is also maybe the less poignant point here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, COIN is for discussion about potential COI's and how to deal with them. There is no real discussion about the COI of the subject of a BLP article other than 'you have one, dont edit the article directly'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See User:Rjensen's response below. The subject is blatantly pushing themselves.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule that I have been following is explicit: Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. wp:blpedit I have discovered that some editors refuse to accept this explicit rule. Furthermore the rule states emphatically The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. Editors who do not abide these rules are troublemakers. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a content/notability dispute. Best to keep the discussion on the talk page itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an acute issue right now which is being discussed at ANI and BLPN and at the article talk page. There is a longer term issue of rjensen's conflicted editing.
    To deal with the acute disruption, at ANI I have called for a block of Wikieditor101 per BLPCOI and on their talk page I have advised WIkieditor to step away from the biography article, and said that could probably save them a block. At Rjensen' talk page I have asked him to step away from the article for now, including its talk page, so the community can deal with the acute issues. If Rjensen persists in being involved and edit warring that should be handled via EWN, and a block will be a no brainer. I hope Rjensen takes the wiser path here, and hope that Wikieditor does too.
    To deal with the longer term COI issues, I have asked Rjensen at their talk page if they would discuss that with me, after this acute issue has been dealt with. There is no hurry to deal with that and things are just too hot right now content-wise and that doesn't facilitate careful discussion.
    Thanks for posting this here FrancisIP editor. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)_[reply]
    Who is Francis?
    Anyway, I posted this here mainly to get more level heads into the situation and also to make a record of it should the COI part get out of handmore out of hand than it already is142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I assented to Jytdog's suggestion and will discuss coi with him later. Let me add here that I see a deep conflict between the coi guidelines and the rules imposed for BLP by the Wikimendia Foundation. Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Rjensen. Sorry IP, redacted above. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Bet-David

    This promotional article was created by a CMO working for Bet-David (as acknowledged here by another Bet-David publicist), and was moved to mainspace by the somewhat notorious Arctic Kangaroo in July 2013. That was just a month before Arctic Kangaroo was indefblocked (now back with a new name, older and wiser, I don't want to ping him here). I would suppose this article is some of the fallout of Arctic Kangaroo's career at Articles for creation; it should certainly never have been moved to mainspace in that condition. I've been talking with new user AGVT, the more recent publicist I mentioned, who had a rocky start, trying to remove criticism and add praise at the article. Of course it's very common that new users, especially those in the business of marketing, misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia in this way; what's unusual about AGVT is that he caught on very quickly when I warned him, is apologetic, and is perfectly frank about his COI, as seen here. It's really nice to see somebody in the business act like that — somewhat restores my faith in humanity. But what can be done about the article? The section "Career" obviously needs to have it's flowers of rhetoric shorn — I can easily do that — but is Patrick Bet-David notable at all? The numerous references are very weak, imo, they mostly merely show that he has active and competent marketing staff, not so much that any real third-party source has mentioned him in a way that supports notability. AGVT has suggested perhaps he could write an article about PBD's organisation "People Helping People", otherwise "PHP Agency", instead — but is that notable? There are a lot of complaints on the web about a pyramid scam, for instance here, and very little else. (Of course there are other organisations with the same catchy name — we do have a People Helping People article, which is about a radio program.) The article is quite short at the moment, and the discussion on AGVT's page too, so might some of you experienced people have time to take a look? I'd really like some advice. Should it go to AfD? Bishonen | talk 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    Thanks for posting here, Bish. yes it is so refreshing when paid/conflicted editors "get it". I'l have a look at the article and I am sure that others here will too. Will also stop in at the conflicted editors talk page. Thanks again Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone through the article and cleaned it up. I think it is ~marginally~ notable but others here may differ and may want to AfD it, to test that. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog and Bishonen:, I think you are right that he is barely notable. I was about to add a ref from Fortune, but then I noticed he is the author. How do you get your own article published in Fortune, but with a third-party sounding title?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across that ref too. This guy is ~kind of~ like The Syndicate (business group) people. Lots of in-bubble hype. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gaither (artist)

    A single purpose and apparently autobiographical account. I'm on the fence as to whether WP:ARTIST, let alone general notability guidelines, are satisfied. A show in a small museum and a few articles don't appear to constitute significant coverage or significance, though work in several museum collections is helpful. Still, this needs better sourcing and removal of copied text and puffery. I admit, I'm loathe to copy edit an article with any enthusiasm when it's clearly a self-promotional vehicle. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not look notable. Lots of wiki-type artist sites list him, but only a couple news sources. (Interestingly, I just did about twenty artist stubs and it seems like you have to be about 55+ in the art world to have accumulated the right accolades, shows, collections, mentions and awards to be truly notable.) This looks like a promotional page that is not based on much. I think PROD or AfD is the right solution.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Dach

    A reputation management firm has been retained by Jonathan Dach to secure the deletion of his article from WP (see: [16]). Within minutes of WWB Too posting a request for an uninvolved editor to nom the page for deletion, a freshly minted account - that became active just 30 days ago [17] - immediately chimed in (within 54 minutes) saying they would do so [18] (note that this article's Talk page has averaged 0.2 daily page views this month - not exactly a hotbed of interaction that would organically attract viewers). It seems clear and obvious to me the shell game this firm is attempting to run. Further discussion is at the BLP Noticeboard. As I just went through this same thing with the people trying to sanitize and whitewash the Frank Gaffney article, I'm pinging those editors involved in that one as well, namely - DMacks and Doug Weller. This is not a canvassing of editors but an alert of persons who have a special background in these types of sensitive situations. (For the record, I'm not entirely convinced this article doesn't merit deletion - it may, I'm undecided - my issue is more with gaming its expungement.)LavaBaron (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing any evidence of "gaming" here - WWB declared their conflict as they're supposed to. And I don't think the fact that MisterRandomized account is about a month old is sufficient reason to jump to the conclusion that theyre colluding with WWB, it's entirely possible they were just responding to the blp posting. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    LavaBaron, your initial response to me on your discussion page—after I gave you a courtesy notification that I was raising questions about this entry—was polite, and I appreciated it. Now I am surprised and dismayed to find that you are accusing me and some poor editor whom I do not otherwise know of colluding behind the scenes. It is a charge that would be block-worthy if true, but is absolutely untrue, you do not have any evidence for it, and I ask that you rescind it immediately. I was up-front with you about my COI connection in my correspondence, as the WMF Terms of Use require, and your subsequent responses distract from important BLP issues that deserve to be evaluated on their merits. Please, let's do that instead. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, WWB_Too. I'm sorry if you felt I made an accusation against you. I can't rescind what I did not say, but if you want me to unambiguously state I don't think you're socking I'm happy to do that: I don't think you're socking. As for the "poor editor" [sic] - I have also not made accusations against it but simply observed, with diffs, some of their past edit history which is fairly rote. If you'd like me to apologize to the "poor editor" also for some transgression, I'm happy to do that as well, though I'd need to know what it is, probably. LavaBaron (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have been pinged here. Anyway, everything I have to say on the matter is at WP:BLPN. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I would be perfectly fine with someone filing a sockpuppet investigation to put this to rest. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain who that would be, has someone accused you of being a sock? I haven't and, frankly, don't even think you are. LavaBaron (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. MisterRandomized (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. LavaBaron (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Aliciadewi

    Raised at ANI today (permlink) and swiftly blocked for WP:PROMO. Recording here so it is findable if we search on these articles. WIll come back and link archive once the ANI case is archived. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 27 May 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.

    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.

    Jesuit Social Research Institute et al

    I thought we had this discussion already about the IHS Logo and that everyone agreed that it does not belong in an article unless it is actually the logo of the organization. I have to claim once again that Jzsj's Addition of the logo in the userbox for organizations that have different visual identities is promotional editing. It's also a violation of WP:LOGO, which says the logo should only be used for the main organization. The Jesuit IHS is minimimally psychologically invasive, but I have to ask: If there were a big fat Christian cross there, on the page of something like a homeless centre, would it be considered neutral and non-promotional? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your repeated misquoting what is said at various places about this seems to me to raise the question of whether you are harassing me or truly reflecting an established policy. I have reread the places you mention, and more, and find nothing against use of this universal Jesuit logo within the infobox of Jesuit organizations that have in Wikipedia no more specific logo of their own. Please do not attempt to solve this issue on your own but note how complex an issue it might be from other discussions, as on sports logos. If a thorough discussion concludes in an administrative decision that general logos that are in the public domain cannot be used in organizations that claim that identity, then I will place organizational boxes on these websites, but I prefer to not go that route at this point.Jzsj (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison to the above list, here are some articles on Catholic organizations where the logo is used in a non-promotional way:

    HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't get your point: is it that you find the cross less obvious on these websites and you find the cross offensive?Jzsj (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference that I see here, and HappyValleyEditor can correct me if this wasn't their intention, is that each of these articles has the logo of the organization that is the subject of the article. Thus the Caritas articles has the Caritas logo, the Catholic U of A has the Catholic U of A logo, the Boston Archdiocese has the logo of the archdiocese. If you look at Caritas Hong Kong or Caritas Việt Nam, you don't see the Caritas logo. The article for List of Catholic University of America buildings does not have the Catholic University logo in the article -- however, it does have it in a box at the bottom, but that box is about the university, not the buildings. Then look at Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, and even though this is a Catholic charity, there's no logo indicating "Catholic church". In fact, in the article on the Catholic Church there doesn't seem to be such a logo. I looked at articles on specific Catholic churches (e.g. St. Eric's Cathedral, Stockholm) and there's no logo there indicating "Catholic." So I think it is not at all difficult to see what the general habit is, and that habit does appear to follow the stated use of logos which is that they are for the organization that is the subject of the article, not all subordinate organizations. The policy says: "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents." I reiterate of the main article on the subject the logo represents. I honestly don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. LaMona (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    LaMona, precisely. I am hard-pressed to find a group of pages in Wikipedia that use the same organizational logo across a number of pages as Jzsj suggests is permissible, although I could be wrong. Jzsj, does LaMona's explanation of why this is not permissible now make sense to you?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hoping some other editors wil share their opinion on whether this logo use is promotional.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Diamond

    In March, 2016, User:Joeldiamond made this horn-tooting edit "from actual manager & producer Joel Diamond". Mr. Diamond was cautioned here on his talk page regarding a conflict of interest. Today, Mr. Diamond added himself here as a "notable person" to Calabasas, California. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    More specifically, he added both himself and his wife, Rebecca Holden. I'm on the fence about this edit. Diamond and Holden have Wikipedia articles, and if actually from Calabasas, their addition there would not be a bad one, even if it does leave a bad taste in my mouth for Diamond himself to be adding them. Of course, they're also unsourced.
    His own Wikipedia article is a long list of unsourced and questionably-sourced self-laurels. TJRC (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DigitGaps

    prob hired editor(s)
    attempted deletions

    It has come to my attention that there is an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. One probable related account appears to have replied by clumsily blanking the articles. The other has started PRODding. Brianhe (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm prepared to assume good faith and find that the two editors are merely trying to flag up to us the crap SEO articles which should be removed from Wikipedia. Clearly their omission of DigitGaps is accidental, and so I've made up for that omission with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitGaps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They prodded International Data Corporation (better known as IDC). This is a rather notable company (don't know about the other ones). I'm also not immediately seeing any of the promotional editing claimed in the revision history, other than a few incidental edits by User:Mary Conroy. Brianhe's explanation seems to fit the data better, so they may all need to be deprodded (or at least individually checked). —Ruud 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've de-prodded them all. Most stupid prods I've recently seen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vicente S. Santos, Jr.

    User:Fabyan17 has declared that they are the son of Vicente S. Santos, Jr. in this post made on Wikimedia Commons. Fabyan17 has been informed a number of times that he is considered to have a conflict of interest (as defined by Wikipedia) at User talk:Fabyan17#Conflict of interest on Vicente S. Santos, Jr. as well as in Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr.#COI issues, but he insists that he does not. He has also been advised/warned twice here and here that it would be better for him to discuss changes other editors have made to try and improve the article on the article's talk page, instead of engaging in edit warring as he has done here, here and here. Requests for assistance in assessing the article were posted at WT:TAMBAY#Vicente S. Santos, Jr., WT:MILHIST#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and WT:BIOG#Vicente S. Santos, Jr. to try and get feedback from other editors. Two who responded, Anotherclown and Keith-264, and myself have made to good-faith attempts to try and improve the article, but these have been reverted by three times without discussion by Fabyan17. So, perhaps other editors from this noticeboard would be willing to review the edits and assess according to WP:COI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fabyan17 has been notified of this thread here and here, so hopefully he will choose the respond. From this post, it appears that he is trying to argue that the Wikipedia article written about his father is some sort of "authorized biography" based up what is written in the lede of Biography and that as a family member he is "authorized" to edit the article about his father. To me that indicates a misunderstanding of WP:OWN and WP:COI andsince I have never heard of any Wikipedia biography to be authorized in such a way. In fact, trying to treat Wikipedia articles as "authorized biographies" seem to be one of the concerns specifically mentioned in WP:COI#Writing about yourself, family, friends and WP:LUC. An authorized biography about Santos may possibly be used as a reliable source for the article, but I don't think the Wikipedia article in and of itself is considered to be such a biography. Wikipedia does not even consider its articles to be reliable sources per WP:WPNOTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to slightly clarify meaning by replacing "and" with "since" -- 05:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)][reply]
    Not having watchlisted the article in question I didn't realise the recent changes that myself and others had made in an attempt to tone down the POV issues here had been undone by Fabyan17 until I was advised of this COIN post. I endorse Marchjuly's statement above of the issue. There is a clear COI on the part of Fabyan17 as the subject's son. He has been repeatedly advised of policy, suggestions have been made to improve the article and / or edits made to do so but there seems to be little intention to engage constructively in this process on his part beyond reverting and denying any COI exists on the talkpage. Indeed I made a bunch of fairly minor formatting changes per the MOS / fixed a redlink etc [19][20], and another editor also preformed a copyedit [21] and even these appear to have been reverted which to me indicates that there is also a case of WP:OWN here as well. Given that Fabyan17 is continuing to edit war [22][23][24] this seems to be an ongoing problem to me. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the article and felt that it crossed the line between biography and hagiography so made some edits to increase the descriptive nature of the article. I fear that while Fabyan17 has demonstrated that an understandable loyalty to his dad, this has led to COIN. Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, nobody wants to speak harshly to a son determined to celebrate his father, but I'm far from sure Fabyan17 understands what the "warning" and "final warning" he's been given mean in practical terms. I have therefore warned more directly, saying he will be blocked if he continues to edit war. If the article was a BLP, a topic ban or perhaps a page ban (from the article but not the talkpage) would have been the answer IMO, but as it is admins don't have such convenient remedies to hand. Unless somebody would like to propose a community page ban on AN/ANI? Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • P.S. Anotherclown, re your addition to my warning: I think it may be confusing to encourage the user to focus on the 24-hour rule. Any further reverting at all by him qualifies as edit warring in my book. Marchjuly already gave him a link to the edit warring warning template (not that I have much of an impression the user clicks on links. He doesn't seem to be interested in anything starting with "Wikipedia:" only in the Biography article, which he misunderstands). Bishonen | talk 11:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: I think Anotherclown may have posted that based upon our discussion on his user talk page. My suggestion was that if AC undid Fabyan17's last revert that it would probably be a good idea to warn him about 3RR so that he was at least aware that one more revert would be seen as a violation. My post was made before the additional warnings were added to Fabyan17's user talk and AC was probably just trying to follow through and make sure there was no misunderstanding. Anyway, that's all a moot point now for the reasons you gave in your warning. FWIW, I've been looking for better sources and have no problem working with others, including Fabyan17, to try and improve the page. He may actually have information on better sourcing or even non-English sources. My goal is not to get anyone blocked, but he just seems, at least up until now, to be more interested in his preferred version than collaborating with others. Perhaps that will change, now that other more experienced editors have gotten involved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that was my intention but I can see how it may have confused things. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Rider

    A single purpose account dedicated to promoting Ben Rider and his films.. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Add another newly created SPA. SPI coming. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Biophony

    User:Biophony has contributed extensively to a group of five closely-related articles

    all of which have numerous citations of papers by Bernie Krause. He has also contributed to

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong here, the articles are all competently written without obvious bias. But there's strong evidence of CoI, and I'd like a more experienced editor to have a look. Maproom (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a question/note on their talk page.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that they did not answer a question about their connection to the subjects in 2009. I hope they decide to engage the community. - Brianhe (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The first three articles are neologisms that aren't even included in dictionaries, except where the creator has suggested they be added [25]. I'm tempted to be bold and redirect them to Soundscape ecology. Niche hypothesis doesn't appear to have attracted a great deal of commentary either. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeh Hai India

    Blatant WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour going on here. The editor Ankitkmwt has admitted a COI and it attempting to use the page for promotion. They had copied stuff from the movie's website which I had tagged for revdel but my tags were removed multiple times and the editor refuses to understand. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the latest edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll watch the page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    009o9 and direct editing of WP guidelines etc

    I have recently encountered 009o9 who has been here a long time and goes by the book in disclosing that they are a paid editor. Kudos for that. For the most part, they submit drafts through AfC and propose changes on Talk for changes they consider major. Kudos for that too. They are also a tough negotiator, not afraid to argue strongly for what they want. I respect that. They do push it at times (e.g this) but generally they are being a decent citizen.

    What I am struggling with is that 009o9 has been directly editing guidellnes/help documents/template documentation/essays etc in ways that aid their ability to meet their client's objectives. Namely making it harder to get tags to stick and easier to take them off, and in my view working to lower the Notability bar, or perhaps better, making it easier for subjects to clear Notability.

    For example they made this change to the Help document, adding "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features" in bold to the Help document and the same content here to the documentation for the Advert tag. And here pushing hard for easing requirements to remove tags, etc. These changes are all of a piece.

    They then are using those edits at the article and AfD level, negotiating toughly. See for example the edit summaries here about removing tags:

    • Anthony Marinelli - a slew of them.
    • For an AfD example (not on an article he was paid to edit but that he is clearly trying to use as a precedent) see this AfD which they WP:BLUDGEONed and tried use the principles they were arguing for at WP:ORG - for example here - that if a company has a notable product, the company "inherits" that notability. This is an argument that is really, really important for a paid editor to be able to make when trying to get an article created/saved for a marginally notable or un-notable company. Their argument for that view, has been met with no consensus at WT:ORG yet they continue to push and here directly edited the guideline, reverting me, to support that argument.

    I am sympathetic to paid editors having their work tag-bombed and understand the motivation to make it easier to have marginally notable companies declared notable, but at the same time conflicted editing of key guidance documents is not OK to me, and my sense is that it will not be OK to the community either. I have asked them not to directly edit these documents, and they (unsurprisingly) believe that they should be free to do it, since a) that editing is not actually paid and b) the COI guideline doesn't actually forbid direct editing of anything by anybody. (009o9, please feel free to correct that paraphrase if you find it inaccurate)

    What I am asking here, is that the community let 009o9 know that they should not directly edit WP policies, guidelines, essays that are widely cited, help documents, and template documentation but should only offer proposals on the relevant Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    009o9 response

    Let's start from the bottom up. For starters, nobody can really be certain of the current state of the COI guidelines, they are in a constant flux with the wiki-cop and prosecutor (Jytdog) also being a substantial contributor at or around the time of the perceived crime.[26] As of this writing,[27] WP:COI does not contain the word "forbid", but Jytdog should have a very clear my commitment to the Wikipedia guidance from when he was canvassed by User:Lemongirl942,[28] and he interrogated me on my talk page.[29] I claim he was canvassed in that COIN discussion, because his personal page contains a few hundred words regarding his position on "managing" COI editors and makes this statement: "In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more."[30] So it seems that lemongirl942 could be assured on a non-neutral assistance with her COIN case. Additionally, when Lemongirl942 went to pruning an additional volunteer article I am involved with, Jytdog took that conversation private.[31]

    Again, working up Jytdog's list. Tag bombing is just the beginning, slap a couple of tags on it with Twinkle, delete any content and associated references that support notability (in the lede per WP:LEAD) and then see if you can get a quick PROD or AfD. Removing the editor's ability to revert and challenge is ridiculous, what's next? Remove the editor's ability to remove a PROD?

    Maintenance tags and notability
    1. IMHO banner tags are extremely unhelpful, there is no guideline, nor policy concerning their placement, but longstanding essays state that editors should start a talk page discussion addressing their concerns and some template guidance docs, prescribe summary removal without the tagger starting the discussion. Many Twinkle users can't be bothered to start the discussion and a sample edit summary is often simply, "Placed XYZ tag (TW)". In a complicated biography, I can spend a month piecing together a person's life, so after your three minute read, it would be a lot more helpful if you could place section and inline tags, informing me which part of the article is flawed in your opinion. Moreover, I nominated WP:TAGGING for official elevation to Guideline, per WP:PROPOSAL this is to be done in a wider forum, like the Village Pump. So, if the white hat paid editor is not allowed to contribute to policy and his volunteer works are going to also be discriminated against, please explain the downside of being black hat.
    2. I've started several talk page discussions on various Project pages, mostly concerning notability issues where the guidance does not align with the WP:Local consensus or the GNG. I generally bring my AfC or an AfD as an example,(My copy and the recent closed AfD mentioned by Jytdog) in an effort to understand the wider consensus (deletionists are primarily active in AfC/AfD the same names are prevalent in both areas -- a couple dozen out of 125,000 active editors). I've learned that guidance talk pages discussions are largely ignored, the WP:BRD approach generally fixes that.
    I'm not going to disclose how, but I could (without cheating them) make more money off of organizations who cannot establish notability than the ones who can. My interest in starting this discussion was to try to reconcile the local consensus with the guideline. The article that Lemongirl942 originally attacked, is an ill-fitting AfD merge to a parent article, by none other than DGG presiding. Corporate articles are basically impossible and I don't want them, my interest there is to clarify the guidance for the unfortunate employees who have the unenviable assignment of writing them. At least if the quideline was clear, the employee could show the boss that it can't be done. All the boss sees is hundreds of articles about companies that are less notable than his.
    FYI: I don't want book articles either, but at least the people in that project shared the (unwritten) information that reviews have to be NYTimes calibre (4 of them) and the book should be in about 300 libraries. (Unpaid book articles seem to go unmolested, AfC is the problem.)
    A song article, where I have an unpaid COI. The theme song to the film Teen Witch a minor cult classic. The soundtrack masters were lost and the song is the only one to survive on a semi-notable album. The song can't get through AfC because it is a song that became popular a decade later, and is not a single -- the fact that it is a theme song for a cult-film, supposedly cannot be used for notability. In addition to being nonsensical, WP:NSONGS should be a subsection to WP:NALBUMS, not a stand alone section. BRD was the only way to attract any input.
    19:50, 21 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit to the essay while it is being discussed for promotion. Template:Proposed is in the article's header throughout. Jytdog reverts, I drop it and make a note in the proposal.[32]
    I added the following to the help page in a passage about unjustly placed tags,19:06, 14 May 2016 unless maintenance tags are being used specifically to punish COI editors, I see no conflict with editing there.

    For instance, the public face of the Advert tag says, "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement"; however, the template's documentation says: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." In articles marked with the Advert tag, check for passages that, "tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords", and if none exist, remove the tag.

    1. 19:06, 14 May 2016 I added the above passage to Help:Maintenance template removal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    2. 21:40, 17 March 2016 Jytdog changes the verbiage Template:ADVERT/Doc (in response?)
    3. 20:26, 20 May 2016 Jytdog removes the passage from Help:Maintenance template removal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    4. 18:54, 22 May 2016‎ I inquire why the doc is not also protected.
    5. 20:30, 22 May 2016 Five days after his change, Jytdog responds/opens a discussion.
    6. 04:04, 23 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit after being advised to use BRD.

    Finally, when you have the same person writing the guidelines, enforcing them and becoming insulted when their guidelines are not follow to a "T", the result can become embarrassing in the press.[33][34] This is just the short-list, I was expecting this to go to ANI, saving the rest for later. Regards and have at it! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional investigation This guidance on this (COIN) page states:
      • 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.[35]
    WP:BRD and reverts of edits, especially in guidance areas, are commonplace and not controversial edits, the revert indicates (and documents) that the edit does not have consensus -- thus, returning the passage to the long-held presumed consensus per WP:STATUSQUO and elsewhere. (I.e., if an editor adds guidance and it is not contested, consensus is presumed. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) The accusations brought against me here, are expressly for reverting edits made by the two tendentious editors I've named in this response. As for WP:TAGGING and Help:Maintenance template removal, they are neither policy nor guidance, they are both essays, i.e., advice pages. Otherwise, in addition to a couple of reverts on Guideline pages, I am guilty of placing the "under discussion inline" tag in WP:Product, [36] and adding a "See also" and using a BRD to promote participation in a discussion in WP:Notability (music). [37]
    What actually brings us to this point, is that I am contesting Jytdog's lack of foresight in forcefully sustaining his edit that could create an entirely new "Product type" classification/article.My revert was to restore the long-standing consensus. A careful evaluation of the edit history will reveal that this complaint is a simple escalation of Jytdog's edit warring. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What brings us to this point, is your editing of the guidance documents in a way that favors your paid editing work. I just happened to notice. 009o9 as I have mentioned to you a couple of times, it is not going to help you to attack me; it just makes you look worse. You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are long on generalizations and short on diffs, always avoiding issue at hand. As for the rest of you comment, so what? They are provided to improve the goals of Wikipedia and unlike you, I'm more than happy to have them reverted and discussed. For instance, the ill-placement and proliferation of unexplained perma-tags is not good for the Wikipedia, the more prevalent they are, the more they are ignored by the readership. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that permatags are good for no one. But a paid editor should not remove them from articles they are paid to edit, and you should not be directly changing relevant guidance documents, and then citing those documents, to justify you doing that. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE. Apparently, your protegee had never read the guidance on WP:ADVERT.(Version in effect at that time -- aka before you edited it.) (Incident diff) Still not seeing any diffs with your accusations. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting User:009o9:"Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE". Sorry, this is just incorrect! WP:VANDTYPES specifies Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}. So content tags are not included in vandalism. Per WP:COIADVICE#1, COI editors can "remove spam and unambiguous vandalism". Since content tags are not counted in unambiguous vandalism, a COI editor cannot remove these tags themselves. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Lemongirl942 You've misrepresented the passage: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." there is no period after sprotected in the guidance. If the tag placement does not meet the criteria supporting it, the placment conforms to VANDTYPES. Current version 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an Oxford comma after {{sprotected}} which would imply that "other tags" refers to "other non-content tags" apart from the 3 examples given. My argument still stands. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the term "such as" refers to the non-content tags, "other tags" refers to other tags -- exactly as stated. The term "such as" is a preposition and the comma-aside follows. You could remove the "such as" and enclose the aside in parenthesis with the same meaning. "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as ({{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}), or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again incorrect here. But let's agree to disagree on this point. The other important fact is that the policy only talks about "bad faith" placement. Unless it can be reliably demonstrated that the tagging was in bad faith, we tend to WP:AGF. Also per WP:COIADVICE#1, only "unambiguous vandalism" may be reverted by a COI editor. If such a revert is done, it puts a burden on the COI editor to demonstrate consensus that the tag was "unambiguous vandalism". In most cases, only the COI editor considers it unambiguous vandalism while others do not term it as such. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, when you add WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #3 to the mix, and you delete 8000 bytes of content, starting with an edit summary of (Added {{advert}} tag to article (TW)),[38] with no comment on the talk page until after I reverted you, we are beyond WP:AGF. This was a prime example of disruptive editing and you, with your experience at COIN, have to know that it takes months to get an edit request answered to repair the public facing version -- I might even have one edit request that's over a year old. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    009o9 and Lemongirl, this is not the time or place to be re-litigating old things. The question here is whether it is OK for 009o9 to directly edit policies, guidelines, etc. It is simple. If somebody wants to go offtrack, please consider just not responding. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Again you are raising issues that are off-point. The only question here, is whether you or any paid editor should directly edit guidance documents about removing tags and notability. So far the answer from others is "no". Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

    • (edit conflict) Add me as supporting that "no". From 009o9's involvements with guidance/template etc. pages I'm most acquainted with Wikipedia:Notability (music) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), as I have that project page on my watchlist. I saw 009o9's initiatives on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Three NSONGS changes proposed, and below). Every time I thought WP:SNOW would apply to their proposals, so I didn't get too involved in the talk page discussions. It is indeed disturbing that after a discussion going nowhere 009o9 attempted to rewrite the guidance nonetheless (which in both instances was quickly reverted). This COIN discussion has helped me understand where the initiatives came from in the first place: initially not undertanding where the initiatives came from was another reason why it was difficult to respond to the initiatives on the talk page of that guidance.
    On the other issue, 009o9's mainspace edits, I was initially prepared, without prejudice, to accept Jytdog's favorable analysis that they showed due diligence. Seeing some personal attacking here in this COIN discussion led me to think that the issue is maybe less straightforward, and might need further scrutiny, if not preventative measures if it would appear that 009o9's mainspace content disputes exhibit a similar pattern when not getting what they want. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Francis Schonken about my opening remarks - please do note the qualifiers that I gave. What I was trying to convey is that 009o9 actually does disclose their paid editing, does put new articles through AfC, and does work the talk page. When I said "tough negotiator" I mean they push the boundaries very hard and step over them not infrequently, especially in discussions. I fully expected the outpouring and attacks that they have laid out here. I be no means intended to endorse their approach to paid editing. There are several people I would point to as models of great citizens who are paid editors. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I read that, didn't click the "push it at times" link though, as your last comment above was "The only question here, is whether you or any paid editor should directly edit guidance documents about removing tags and notability". Seems you seem to think the "step over boundaries" (in mainspace content discussions) needs to be discussed here too, and that's what I started to think too – or did I mis something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, my intention was not to bring in general article editing. I did want to set the table a bit, and note that 009o9 mostly is compliant with the COI guideline. I am not out to crucify him/her but just deal with one specific issue - direct editing of the policies and guidelines. Sorry if I misled at all. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    User:Francis Schonken Yes, I'm pushing to get the customer facing guidance to conform to evolving consensus, or otherwise discover if the POV at AfC is not the wider consensus. You guys are not required to use AfC, but Jytog's latest article would have been summarily declined for notability. My contention with NSONGS is that it allows AfC to cite it as narrowing the notability option from 7 line items to 3. The article in question was about a theme song for a film (a minor cult classic) that became popular after film flopped, 10 years later, it became a Halloween/80s classic. Anyway, those in AfC will not consider that it falls under "other recordings" in WP:NALBUMS (incidentally, the shortcut NALBUMS is also not in the Albums section, it's in the Recordings section -- more confusion.). IMHO NSONGS still needs to be reconciled and integrated within NALBUMS Recordings section, being in a stand alone section adds to the confusion. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:CONLIMITED, then take your proposed content to WP:PROPOSAL, I don't think a Wikipedia:Noticeboards is the correct forum to support your desired changes, they have implications at the Foundation level. The consensus I see here is a tiny group (reading a specialty forum) that "wishes" they could ban paid editing altogether. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is some difference between finding agreement on what needs to be done, and finding the most appropriate method on how to approach it. I'd say a first gauge on the first aspect goes rather in the direction of 009o9 better not editing guidance-related pages directly: discuss on the respective talk pages if you see a problem, but don't determine consensus in your favour – let someone else decide on whether there's a consensus for the proposed update; For the second aspect: 009o9 could say, I understand the message, and matter solved. Maybe some attention could be drawn here (WP:VPP, user talk:Jimbo Wales,...?) if a broader consensus is needed before that happens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't reckon Jimbo's talk page would be useful; that's just devolved into a sounding board for the disaffected. This is the board for handling COI matters. My hope is that as this discussion develops, 009o9 will hear the WP:CONSENSUS that is already pretty clear and I am confident will only get stronger as more people comment, and that they will agree to stop directly editing policies/guidelines/help/templates/existing essays. If they don't yield, we can take it there from there; there are several in-process avenues to pursue when folks won't yield to consensus. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Francis Schonken: I don't consider a BRD to get some participation in an unanswered discussion, nor a revert of POV driven edits (to document that the edit is contested), is advocacy in any form. The presumption is that the prior (long standing) edit had consensus. Additionally, when a tagger leaves an edit summary of "Added XYZ tag (TW)" and can't be bothered to explain their contention with the article on the talk page (per most guidance and required on some tags), the best way to get them to discuss is revert the tagging edit. Finally, I'm not trying to get the notability requirements lowered, I'm trying to get them observed or perhaps just read in the first place. (There is huge comprehension gap in AfC and AfD, such as every reference must go to notability, or the subject must be the primary topic of the article.) Having unwritten local consensus, like the canned "more references" declines in AfC for months on end, is biting the newbies. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    009o9 I understand your strategy here is to get into the weeds are argue the pants off the details, but the actual issue is a high level one and I would urge everybody to stay focused on that and avoid the weeds - namely - is it OK for a paid editor to directly edit policies/guidelines etc? So far everybody but 009o9 is saying "nope". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

    End 009o9's response

    • You throw a lot of flak up there, but I don't reckon folks are going to be distracted from the key point here, which is simply - it is appropriate for paid editors to directly edit policies/guidelines/templates etc? You are the test case here, and you have clearly done this in ways that benefit your paid editing work. That is the test case. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again, "clearly" making aspersions about the intent of the editor rather than the validity of the content. But I do have to raise the point that a debate without the opposing view is akin to masturbation and not a debate at all. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 13:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Calm down. You have a tendency to be far too aggressive toward paid editors, even ones who have correctly admitted their COI. You should have made a comment on 00oo9's talk page, as he/she has edited constructively in the past. Both of you seem to be at fault. Please discuss according to WP:CIVIL. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am by no means a wiki-buddy of Jytdog, but in this instance I think his stance is 100% correct. Say what you want about him, he is anything but aggressive toward paid and COI editors. Frankly I think he has been too lenient. Really. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why it has been mentioned that I "canvassed" editors. I had a disagreement over an article with User:009o9 which I found too promotional. Since 009o9 disagreed, I invited Jytdog and DGG to have a look - two editors who have more experience than me at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:VOTESTACK which is under WP:Canvas. Jytdog's userpage is predominantly dedicated to COI topics. Not even close to a neutral un-involved opinion. DGG stayed out of it, and is (recently) more neutral, but he was involved with the AfD merge that hosed the article format in the first place. And, this type of merge is what the discussion at WP:PRODUCT is about. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 16:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This would appear to be deflecting the discussion away from the behaviour of a paid editor who is making changes to policy and guidelines regarding paid editing, without any consensus from the community. Does anybody else consider that more than a little fishy? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the edits for yourself, they are introductory BRD edits and Reverts of un-discussed changes (the Help page was friendly, operating mostly under BRD for ease of readability). Besides, the last time I read WP:PAID only the article space was off-limits, policy area were just fine with proper disclosure and mine is in my signature, my user page and my paid articles. Can somebody produce an RfC that widened the scope of the edit ban? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal stance is that I am strongly opposed to paid editors changing guidelines/policies/help pages. First, because there has been a previous case where a longtime (undisclosed) paid editor actually influenced certain guidelines and later used it to defend their own stance in certain articles (See this). My second reason is because paid editing is a form of Systemic bias. I find it ethically wrong that certain individuals and companies can hire editors and have a nice puffed up article on Wikipedia. At the same time, volunteer editors also spend time trying to trim the articles and reduce promotional content. The encyclopaedia gradually gets slanted towards these articles. Although I dislike it, I can live with it as long as paid editing is properly disclosed. However, when paid editors start changing guidelines/policies/help pages, it risks introducing the bias into the very functioning of Wikipedia itself. This is much more critical. If the notability barriers for companies are brought down, it becomes easier to slip in articles and use Wikipedia for promotion. If it is made harder to tag articles for problems, editors may refrain from pointing out problems altogether, which serves the purpose of COI editors. If it is made easier to remove maintenance templates, then COI editors can simply remove the tags without fixing problems. On a long term, this risks transforming a free encyclopaedia to a platform hosting information about people who can pay for it (something like a paid web-host, with free volunteer customer service). Since I don't want that to happen, it is best that paid editors are not allowed to edit policies/guidelines/help pages directly. The problem needs to be nipped in the bud right now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone has some sort of systemic bias, from your article creation list, yours appears to be Singapore. Do you feel you can edit neutrally and take guidance concerning the topic? On the other hand, placing a banner with virtually no edit summary is not guidance. Pruning, where there is an interested editor is not guidance.
    1. are all of the non COI article perfect at the time of submission?
    2. the deletionists are the ones who are making the Encyclopedia a playground for the rich, small innovative startups are probably handicapped without an article, but why should you guys care about the economy? The stock market listed firms, have not created a net new job in the US for over 20 years.
    3. the free volunteer customer service, baffles me. I certainly would be creating rather than spending my time patrolling edits. If it proved necessary, the NGO's would supply the third-world personnel to do what you do for free. Wikidata is too important to allow to be lost. Wikipedia is just the vetting service for the backend DB.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of fact, there was no demand for paid editing in days gone by, people threw up a stub article, other editors cleaned them up a bit, and the deed was done. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    009o9 you have a let's say unique use of the term "systemic bias". My definition would be something related to a system not an individual, perhaps "biases reflected by informal or formal rules under whose influence, when relating to issues outside itself, an organization responds unequally". In no way is this meaningful to apply to any single Wikipedia editor. Further, to label Lemongirl942 this way (as with your comments on Jytdog and DGG) smells like an ad-hominem canard to deflect attention on the subject of this noticeboard, which is your editing. Can we drop the wikilawyering and focus on that? This doesn't seem to me to be the right place to debate COI policy, procedure or guidelines as such. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A country is a system, borders, transportation, citizens etc., there has to be some sort of advocacy (associative bias) either for or against, otherwise the article would never be written. For instance, I've never written anything about Singapore, the association bias with a paid editor is money. A lot of people have died for their country, not many are willing to die for money.
    1. Lemongirl942 instigated this episode by assuming bad faith and pruning rather than discussing, then took me straight to COIN for a revert when she refused to discuss.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #3 She called in Jytdog who is also a wiki-cop and also plays rather loose with the rules and edits the guidelines as he sees fit for his purposes.
    2. Is this not COIN? If I'm not mistaken, the COI part relates to COI policy.
    3. As for the rest of your comment, I guess it's just going to be, STFU you're guilty of something and the wiki-cop's conduct is irrelevant, right?
    4. Here is what Jytdog compelled me to agree to on 6 May 2016, The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story)[39] What he did not disclose is that he would be the one changing the rules.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It says right at the top of the page that this noticeboard is "for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Not for developing COI guidelines. The focus is on you and your editing. Not on whether the rules we're working under are correct in some abstract sense, including your points about deletionism and "free volunteer customer service". Specifically whether you are willing to abide by the standards set by the Wikipedia community. I notice you haven't answered Jytdog's simple question to this point, i.e. do you intend to continue to directly edit articles you're paid to work on? - Brianhe (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Brianhe I only edit in the WP: area when I find that the "Wikipedia community" is not following their own guidance, I consistently start a talk page discussion and there is no compensation for this donated time. How about this: Specifically I am more than willing to abide by the standards set policies and guidelines published in accordance with WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PROPOSAL as I become aware of them. I can't make any promises about local consensus or advice pages, there are 125,000 active editors and this is where there is no oversight, nor official evidence of Wikipedia wide consensus. Finally, I provided the diff where I did answer Jytdog's question, I guess you didn't bother reading it.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer that 009o9 did not edit help/policy/guideline/essay pages in ways that appear to be used to support his/her paid article writing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly support Lemongirl942's clear description of the arguments against having changes to policy made by editors whose use of Wikipedia is WP:NOTHERE. That includes paid editors and those who are here to promote. The issue with paid editors is not simply that they are paid, it is that they often are paid to influence the presence and content of multiple articles and sometimes large groups of articles. Even if these articles adhere to NPOV, those articles change the nature of Wikipedia. I would like to see more restriction on articles for companies and BLPs so that Wikipedia does not simply become another advertising venue in a world where already advertising has too much influence. LaMona (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sebagr

    Sebagr has acknowledged being connected with the DSO Browser site, to which they have added ELs to many astronomy articles. Segabr has agreed to get consensus at WT:AST to listing the site in ELs, and has already posted there. There is nothing more to do here. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Sebagr recently posted 148 edits as a new User[40], which I reverted all of them as per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, where these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Furthermore, few of the linked had any editing comments. I started a discussion on their User Page.[41]

    It was clear to me that this was likely a certain WP:COI, and pointed out the problem here [42]. In the lengthy discussion of the last few days this User[43] has made many excuses but has not disclosed their association with this site even when asked. I.e. Responses like "With all due respect, what defines "promotion and advertising"?" and "How is it that my link is considered self promotion but that one isn't?"[44] It is direct evidence of avoiding necessary scrutiny.

    Exposure of these 148 reverted edits by this User show they were certainly deliberate made, which I found on an external site.[45]. According to the words here [46], and also posted on 29th May 2016. "I'm constantly working on the site adding new features and pay special attention to user feedback."

    This immediately discloses Sebagr as the actual owner of this site.

    Further evidence of wanting to advertising the site. "If you find the site useful, please consider helping me spread the word among your friends, colleagues and clubs."

    I have since found more than a dozen such places in a Google search made all in the last few days.

    There is clear evidence that this User should likely be banned restricted for avoiding WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERTISING, and using Wikipedia as deliberate means just for promotional purposes. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Arianewiki1: I agree, she/he has been adding promotional material. But, you are violating WP:CIVIL. Don't say "thanks for wasting our time, utterly disgusted", as you could be blocked for insults. You are being too insulting. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: This was not an insult. It was how I felt. To violate WP:CIVIL you have to attack another user. I explained the problem straight up after I reverted the edits, Sebagr still did not properly explain his association with the website. After wasting time assisting this User, I find that he WAS associated with the site. Being restricted in not making unfounded accusations without actual proof.
    Also if you quote alleged violations, you should not modify nor misquote statements, and so you could be equally blocked for making misleading accusations . Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: Hi. First of all, excuse me if I am not to add my opinion here, I'm not sure if I am to do this but I feel the need to answer to Arianewiki1's accusations. The whole point of adding those links was to improve the available information on Wikipedia. On my talk page I already discussed which information can be found there that's not on Wikipedia. I was not aware of the guidelines for WP:COI at the time of the edits (discuss in the talk page instead of editing the article), but I'm quite sure that I am being neutral and my intention was not . I also discussed that the value of the links were not correctly assessed by Arianewiki1 at the time, even after I mentioned exactly what that benefit was and the information they provided that cannot be found in Wikipedia due to its dynamic nature (position of astronomical objects in the sky depending on the location of the viewer and time of year). So, I can confirm there is COI, but I am being neutral and I am definitely not advertisting. Sebagr (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sebagr You cannot add these links directly. Make a request on the talk page to ask an editor to put these links in. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sebagr most of what you say above is quite false, and I request that you stop the misrepresentations.
    "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article. Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service."
    • You have totally avoided the necessary WP:NPOV, and your statement of how 'valuable' this site is questionable. Who else says this? Where is the consensus?
    By saying "I can confirm there is COI" makes my original assessment perfectly valid. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arianewiki1: I replied to WP:ADVERTISING because you mentioned above in this page, not my talk page: "There is clear evidence that this User should likely...". Everything you said in my talk page might have been technically correct but you replied in a quite unfriendly manner after a short period of time (given that you are a moderator who should try to make people understand what's wrong and how to proceed). You cannot expect contributors to read, understand and know all those guidelines - that's why moderators exist. You've even been warned by your peers about being unfriendly and got a couple of editions reverted by them. If you are not comfortable explaining things patiently and how contributors can work around issues (as your peers did here [48], which resulted in a quick resolution), then I suggest you don't moderate at all. I hope you understand I won't continue this discussion as I value my time more than this. I will just discuss my proposed changes in [49] as they suggested. Sebagr (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Arianewiki1 and Sebagr! Let's just end this now. Sebagr has understood our COI guidelines and I have suggested them to propose links at Wikiproject Astronomy. I thank Sebagr for that. While Arianewiki1 could have maybe explained better, they still did the correct thing by bringing it here. I thank Arianewiki1 for that and also for identifying the links in the first place! Now that the matter is settled, let's all go back to our editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lemongirl942:@ThePlatypusofDoom:@Sebagr: [SEE IMPORTANT NOTE BELOW] I strongly disagree. These edits were almost certainly made deliberately to avoid COI, there is much evidence to prove it. Seragr has claimed under the "Discussion about COI" "It's a non-profit website driven by donations, exactly like Wikipedia, so I never thought these editions were a problem." Yet this site is also likely commercial, as there is this link.[50] He says above: "I never denied my interest in improving the website reach.", but notably never said it or disclosed it either. Moreover, the continuous deflections, avoidance and/or use of weasel words, even the alleged back down[51] above is mostly a backhander towards me. It is full of the same falsehoods. I.e. Claim I'm a moderator where I never said that nor mentioned the word. As for "While Arianewiki1 could have maybe explained better", yet the first post I sent was exact and direct.[52]
    Yet when given the facts, the only plea was "It took me quite a while to add all those links which were actually providing information to amateur astronomers and you reverted everything! Is there a way to re-add them all at once? I don't agree with your accusations at all. I'm clearly adding useful information for fellow astronomers."[53] None of the responses here were relevant, and I also made no accusations.
    The problem with those in the discussions here is the arbitrators often do not appreciate the elaborate methods used to gain a profile, and the extend people will go. Commercial enterprises know if they can hit the first Google page, their profit and product placement can rise dramatically. [See NOTE 2 : Below] This explains the craftiness behind the desire to gain a foothold in Wikipedia. I knew immediately, the External links were not random but specifically targeted in order of popularity. As I explained, I initially found the discrepancies with a Google search, which is how I found the User and their multiple edits linked to the same site.
    NOTE: Due to the wrongful and incorrect removal of my statements on Sebagr User page here[54] under "Do not modify other user's comments!" stated by ThePlatypusofDoom (which I didn't actually do), Sebagr should have the right to freely remove or modify his statement above, as some of those words were then based on a false premise - based on the wrongful assumptions that the discussion were concluded, especially.[55][56] (You can strike out words using HTML < s >< / s >, which as a Programmer you should know,)
    NOTE 2 : I suggest editors should be aware the kinds of tactics being done here. These things have been done before. This article "The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect"[57], and many more like it [58][59], which adequately explains current actions. I, too, have act precisely as Wikipedia:Search engine optimization suggests here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arianewiki1: Please do not prolong this. Now that Sebagr understands the COI guidelines, I see no reason to think that prolonging this will help. If he wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, I would suggest getting a mentor at adopt-a-user to help him. I trust Lemongirl's judgement, so I don't think warning him again will help. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:NOSHAME. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom:@Lemongirl942:(Please read the Note below) Sorry. You are out of order here. Your deletion interfered with the flow of this discussion placing me in a difficult if not impossible position. You and Lemongirl's have made statements excluding me from the process and Sebagr has made statements they probably would not have made (which he can now properly retract). WP:NOSHAME here does not apply in this circumstances because I was excluded by your deletion.
    As for "Now that Sebagr understands the COI guidelines..." where does that appear above here? In fact he says "So, I can confirm there is COI, but I am being neutral and I am definitely not advertisting." The precise problem is why COI exists, is because it defies necessary WP:NPOV and that in makes information to make it notable - either for profit or personal credit. I implicitly stated that, but you just deleted it without any justification, then make the problem simply evaporate!
    Note: So please explain this edit by an unregistered anonymous user under "External Links" made on the 2nd October 2010 under Deep-sky object[60] and this one on Messier 10 [61]. This is a so-called sleeper link, and has been their six whole years. No one noticed. If you look at the linked site [62], it says "Copyright ® 2010-2016", yet our friend here has only been a "Member since Jun 2015", but admits to being both its creator and the owner of the site in 2010. (Very few knew about this site at that time.) Sorry, this does not gel. This is exactly how this promotion game works, and as stated in the articles I've already linked above, and designed to achieve long-term goals. Against all the current evidence, this is a remarkable set of coincidences. It fails on WP:PROMOTION, doesn't it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arianewiki1: @Lemongirl942: First, stop blaming everything on us. You could have done a better job of talking to him. If Sebagr is editing from an IP address, file an SPI, and then we will get this sorted out. WP:BEBOLD and file the SPI, instead of making comments here, it's a lot more helpful. Just file the SPI, so we can end this. Also, I would advise you to WP:AGF, and keep a more level head, as some editors may not want to work with you in the future. Pinging Jytdog as we could use somebody else here, and he is very good at talking to editors with COI : @Jytdog: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also pinging HappyValleyEditor, as I trust his judgement and he is often at COIN: @HappyValleyEditor: ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind invite, I will try to look at this later if time permits. Some real world commitments are calling!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    End This

    I'm going to try to end this now and hope everyone cooperates. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lemongirl942: @Arianewiki1: Agreed. No good can come of prolonging this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:57, 3 June 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.

    Cuppy's Coffee

    A user (first edit) deleted content about criminal history of fraudulent sale of franchises,diff the article is on my watchlist from an AfD I voted on.

    Here was my logic for keeping:

    * Keep the company is notable because it doesn't seem to be dying a natural death, even after the owner was arrested for check fraud and the assets (without the liabilities) were purchased from Java Jo's where that former owner served time for tax evasion charges.[63] The Cuppy's website is still active and they appear to still be attempting to sell franchises. My first impression is that this may be a pyramid scheme and that the article should (more prominently) detail more of the company's sordid past. This is information which, if it proves to be RS, should be easily attainable to anyone considering doing business with the firm. The knife cuts both ways, Wikipedia articles can have the effect of keeping corporations honest, deleting this article may be a favor to a possibly less than reputable firm.[64]

    I would have just reverted, but I'm not really feeling the community spirit right now.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sparkk tv

    Vbctv created this article, sourced entirely from the company site. It has all of three employees. The company used to be called VBC TV. Seems pretty clear to me. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    VBCtv is a promotional username as it is the initial name of the company... will report.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Tuschinski



    Creation of a hagiography for Alexander Tuschinski and promotion of his endeavors.
    ATuschinski shares a name with the centre of this spam.
    The first 16 articles above are the first 16 articles created by Mike300578. All link back to Tuschinski. The next 4 are by ATuschinski, also linking back to Tuschinski.
    There is more editing that links back to Tuschinski. This is one big mass of promotion for an individual with questionable notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    wow thanks for all that. We have some work to do. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I met Alexander Tuschinski, and wrote articles about him and his films afterwards by my own initiative. I always use reliable sources and quotes, and write as neutral as possible. Step by step, I added pages when there were "red links" (festivals etc) in articles written by me, as I enjoy expanding wikipedia. I also write about different, unrelated topics, always in the same way and style. If you find any factual errors / bias, I apologize, they wouldn't be intentional and I will gladly correct those issues. Concerning photos: I asked Tuschinski (account name "ATuschinski") to provide pictures after I created a page. I felt this was in line with wikipedia policy.Mike300578 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I just removed 23 (yes, twenty-three) sources from Alexander Tuschinski that were a combination of Youtube, Blogspot, Facebook and Isssu refs.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed your edit. Those sources were added to make certain the source of info is always referenced with all statements. Those links are not the articles' main sources, notability is established through press etc. If such sources for minor details violate WP:IRS, I will not include such in future articles.Mike300578 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I have to say that your extensive use of Youtbe links, and especially quotes that are referenced by Facebook references is not such a good idea. When I see a quote in an article that is referenced by Facebook, I question the notability of the article. This is because anyone can say almost anything on Facebook. I can go onto FB now and say "X Is great" and then use it as a source in Wikipedia... but it is a patently bad source, for obvious reasons.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewelry for a Cause

    It seems that editors are adding promotion to this article, such as User:NJgirl07005. More eyes would be appreciated. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please explain where there is promotional material? I am simply adding information that can be found online and referencing each fact found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJgirl07005 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Raul1798

    Appears to be writing WP articles for IDEA Public Schools Other edits also look paid for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    added user De88. Warned for COI on user page. Removed some promotional EL links (Twitter, FB, Youtube stuff). Removed the huge long list of schools in the article as it was redundant, and it cited zero refs. Article is definitely a promotional effort. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I am a student at this school who graduated this year. In regards to my edits, I am not in any way or form being paid to edit this article. I have a huge interest in editing this page since most of the edits on here were not revised and/or well-written. Noting the "huge long list of schools", those edits were not mine and did not want to remove them knowing that was not my work. Is it possible to bring the list of schools back with references? I did not create the page, but have started contributing with edits since the page has not had much progress in a while. Also, my edits did seem like they were "promoting" the school but this is due to being new to guidelines and rules here in Wikipedia. However, I do apologize for any wrongdoing and will try to prevent any of this in the future. De88 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at your first few edits I am not convinced you are a new editor but that is just me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant to say is that even though I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for a while, I have not read most of the guidelines and rules on here. My apologies if it came across another way. De88 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just nominated this article for speedy deletion - it is terribly promotional. User:De88 being a recent grad you are obviously to the school to write neutrally about it - you have a COI here. Will you please acknowledge that you have a COI for IDEA Public schools? You can still work on the topic - there are just some things we will ask you to do. Please do let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A past graduate of a school has a conflict of interest? That seems highly unlikely--they will not change his grades or revoke his diploma. Such a COI misunderstanding would cast doubt on thousands of articles. Instead the recent grad doubtless knows a lot of info about the school. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand that my edits on this article caused a COI on the IDEA Public Schiols page. Before editing this article, I had not known much about the school system until I did a lot of research. Yes, the edits on here are promotional, but keep in mind some edits are not mine. To Jytdog, what are some things that I need to do? I am not trying to cause problems on here, I am taking a lot of backlash from working on this article and would like to know possible solutions so the page does not get deleted. I did add a criticism/controversy section to even out the "promotional" edits even though the page needs clean up on grammar. De88 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wwwwhatupprrr

    Related SPI

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive

    User:Wwwwhatupprrr has recently created an article Julia Friedman which was nominated for deletion and with a messy AfD. I noticed that Wwwwhatupprrr had created the article and had edit warred to remove the COI tag. I tried to open a discussion on their talk page. Somehow I was met with "uncivil comments". You can read the exchange and see that the editor denied all connections. However, there a lot of inconsistencies in the editor's approach which makes me suspect that the editor is actually linked to PCP Press or Lawrence Williams (The Estate of LG Williams) and that it is the publisher who is trying to create this Wikipedia article. Here are some evidence which I would like others to examine.

    1. In December 2014, there was an AfD about "LG Williams". Multiple sockpuppets tried to !vote at the discussion. Check out some of the hatted replies by the sockpuppets - the style is very similar to Wwwwhatupprrr at the current AfD.
      • Incidentally a post by Julia Friedman in HuffingtonPost was used to show notability for LG Williams.
      • Check User talk:Luv my range rover (sockpuppet of Art4em). It is interesting that CaroleHenson was called a "rogue editor". Wwwwhatupprrr called Reddogsix a "rogue editor" as well.
    2. I looked at the Whois records for these websites: http://juliafriedman.net/ , http://pcppress.com/, http://lgwilliams.com/ It is interesting that all 3 of them are owned by "Lawrence Williams" from "The Estate of LG Williams".
      • PCP Press (which published Julia Friedman's book) doesn't seem to be an independent source. Rather it is linked to her and LG Williams. (Thanks to Hydronium Hydroxide for their comment which made me look)
    3. A tweet was sent out by the twitter account of Women in Red. Wwwwhatupprrr was informed of this and enthusiastically replied "please help spread the tweet". In 3 hours, PCP Press retweeted it. There seems to be some connection between Wwwwhatupprrr and PCP Press/Julia Friedman/LG Williams.
    4. During the current AfD, Wwwwhatupprrr referenced a JAVA Magazine (a local magazine). The related post is here. This is probably the most fishy thing I found. They claimed to have discovered the lengthy article on this webpage. Later they said It appears that the JAVA's website has been reconstructed, which is why I did not find it in the first place. So, I have yet to find another digital version at the time of writing.
      • The date of the original post reads Dec 12, 2012. Yet the file uploaded has a path "/uploads/2016/05/Java.Dec_04_Complete.pdf"? (suggesting that the pdf was uploaded in May 2016)
      • I checked the google cache. An 11 May 2016 version of the page did NOT have the link to the pdf. Rather the link was only to the original Java magazine website. (Checkout archive.is slash PJ3c7 for the google cache version)
      • The PDF file was uploaded between 11 May and now, probably to convince editors to keep the article. There is reasonable evidence that some collusion is going on between Wwwwhatupprrr and Julia Friedman/LG Williams/PCP Press.
    5. I have tried to clarify with Wwwwhatupprrr, but they have claimed to have never had a Wikipedia account previously and no relation to Julia Friedman/LG Williams/PCP Press.
      • Update: Check this tweet which says Waiting to see if Wiki will even keep it: uugh!

    I want the community to have a look and determine if the evidence is reasonable. I strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet of User:Art4em and what we have is a case of WP:PROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by others

    User used the talk page of the Women in the art history field article to promote an issue of Coagula, also similar promo material added to the article on Eric Minh Swenson, one of the subjects being covered in the issue. Coagula is a magazine that is called out in the Julia Freedman article as one that endorsed the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion with User:Wwwwhatupprrr

    Ramaz School

    Have blocked User:Berkoar. They first added copyrighted content. Than they stated that they work for the school in question. Requested they read WP:COI; however, they have not disclosed and continue to edit. Thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever you think of User:Doc James, he can spell, and his postings are coherent. I suspect an imposture. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Maproom should really sleep. Worse than usual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=723622944"