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
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,547,780 edits
m Signing comment by Samwiki2001 - "→‎DigitGaps: "
Line 207: Line 207:


::::::::::::::[[User:Bilby|Bilby]] You said "I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". Can you show me the evidence that these jobs were posted by the company only and not by an random freelancer? I explored this site for a while and understood that there are 1000's of freelancers and they work on sub-contract basis, which clearly means the identity of the real job sponsor is not reveled in this platform, unless and until an agency has registered them self. On what basis you say that this job was sponsored by the target company? All illogical, invalid, lack of evidence talks by [[User:Bilby|Bilby]], [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]], [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]], and [[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] makes me feel that you all belong to some company who has been paid and hired to create this drama. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Samwiki2001|Samwiki2001]] ([[User talk:Samwiki2001|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samwiki2001|contribs]]) 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::::::[[User:Bilby|Bilby]] You said "I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". Can you show me the evidence that these jobs were posted by the company only and not by an random freelancer? I explored this site for a while and understood that there are 1000's of freelancers and they work on sub-contract basis, which clearly means the identity of the real job sponsor is not reveled in this platform, unless and until an agency has registered them self. On what basis you say that this job was sponsored by the target company? All illogical, invalid, lack of evidence talks by [[User:Bilby|Bilby]], [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]], [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]], and [[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] makes me feel that you all belong to some company who has been paid and hired to create this drama. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Samwiki2001|Samwiki2001]] ([[User talk:Samwiki2001|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samwiki2001|contribs]]) 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::::::::::: [[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] Brianhe clearly said these lines "The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor here". He/she didn't collect the evidences. So logically how can a senior editor rely on someone who has not even edited a single source on wiki (as mentioned by the reporter) and makes a big claim to spoil someones image. I trusted wiki a lot but never thought of it the way judgements are being made without any proper investigation and lack of evidences. I am not here to talk why the pages are getting deleted. That's not my call! I am here to talk on the blame made on someone without evidences. [[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] write only when you have evidences, else your A4 page long sentences does not give me any pleasure nor its worth my time to read. A case not solved means no learning at all for me. I am not worried of anyone's image till the time they are not at fault. Please provide evidences or rectify the statements made on COI (I am not talking either in favor of anyone).


== Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ==
== Vicente S. Santos, Jr. ==

Revision as of 09:10, 12 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:A Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Access Industries
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:BP
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Carbon Trust
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Stephen Schlesinger
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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]

    Ashley Reed

    Ashley Reed deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:20, 6 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.

    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]
    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.

    Have been doing a fair bit of follow up of the copy and paste bots flagged concerns.[1]

    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 [2] 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 [3] directed at User:Bbb23. And it is a proxy server per [4] 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]
    Was about to unblock Authorincharge when Ultimatebeneficiary appeared. Started a SPI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just passing by and noticed. What if they are allowed to upload images to WikiCommons since, presumably, they are the image subject giving permission for Commons. Then have someone else add them/inform them of COI rules? If this is a useless idea, apologies lol. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Byron good

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

    Discussion here [5]

    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]
    It was originally a copyright issue from the person's CV Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 5 June 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]

    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

    DigitGaps deleted, prods removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 6 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.

    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]
    Do we things these accounts are trying to get money out of the companies in question and then trying to harass them if they did not pay? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No. They seem to have been a little misguided. Let's hope they've learned a lesson. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting the page is absolutely acceptable if the references are not up-to the mark. What about the blame made by Brianhe that the company has hired experts to delete the pages? Do they have any proof that the competitors pages were marketed for deletion by the same company (digitgaps)? Any official authentic source to trace whether the blame is real or just a way to take the page down the page of upcoming competitors. --Samwiki2001 —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was deleted after a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitGaps. Participants did not think that the company met wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). The deletion was not predicated on the identity and likely WP:COI of the writer(s). PROD tags were removed from the "competitors" because those companies do meet GNG and so will not be PRODded. Whether the PROD were added by the same person or people who wrote the article is neither here nor there: each problem was resolved on its own merits. This matter now really is closed. If you would like the article back, you need to demonstrate GNG. If you want the competitors PRODded, you'd be much misguided. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 11 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.
    Dear Tagishsimon, I understand you very well. Neither I am asking to delete any page nor I am asking to undo the delete. The final judgement made is absolutely correct and i agree to everyone. What I am talking is about the statements made by the editors on this COI. When other contributors said that the company is running "off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors", did they submit the proof? If yes, then I will like to have a glimpse of it. If not, all irrelevant statements and negative sentiments about any company on this page should be removed. What do you think? --Samwiki2001 —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, Samwiki2001. I think only Brianhe can help you there. She/He speaks of "an off-wiki campaign (prob SEO related, via Peopleperhour) to promote DigitGaps on ENWP", but does not name DigitGaps as running the campaign, and so your assertion "...other contributors said that the company is running..." is wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, Samwiki2001 notes in User talk:Samwiki2001#WP:COI that they are not affiliated with DigitGaps, but merely interested in COI and the burden of proof. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagishsimon As i read correctly, it clearly says "prob hired editor(s)" which straight away speaks that the company (digitgaps) hired those editors to make changes/delete pages. I request Brianhe to submit only valid/official proof to justify his/her comments. Also, "attempted deletions" section and the companies listed (16 companies) below clearly speaks that those page deletion attempts were made by digitgaps. I would again request Brianhe to submit only valid/official proof to justify his/her "strong and bold" comments.
    I'm sure Brianhe will understand your request. Clearly a question is begged: who commissioned or encouraged people to do bad things in Wikipedia, supposing such a commission has been made. But the fact remains that it is you, not Brianhe, who is joining up the dots. And noting your lack of connection with DigitGaps, Brianhe may well not have much interest in satisfying your academic interest in proof of a link which is at best inferred by you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments sounds fishy to me. Brianhe says something and everyone believes, that too without any proof, Big loop hole! I am a good dot connector and I am sure I will find the right person who planned this game. If you are playing with some whatever company's social image, then you should have some sound proof to justify your comments. If not, it clearly says that someone is well paid to create this scenario. Isn't so Tagishsimon?. As you speak on behalf of Brianhe, that he may not have much interest to justify his/her comments clearly means you both have some external connection to this. I request Brianhe to submit proof for his comments, failing which, I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak on behalf of Brianhe, I merely state my sure assumption that he or she will understand your request. Your leap to suppose I have a connection with the situation, beyond tidying up the mess and now talking to you, Samwiki2001, is fanciful and wholly lacking a factual basis. I really am fascinated by your statement "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy." Why will you be forced to do that, Samwiki2001, given your assurance that you have no connection with DigitGaps? You see, we supposed the conspiricy to originate with DigitGaps, or with some proponent of them, and to involve improper use of PROD and COI editing of the DigitGaps article. You seem to have a different slant on this: that someone has invented this whole escapade to damage the reputation of DigitGaps ... am I right? I must admit that that is possible, though in my experience, vanishingly unlikely. Still. I'm reminded that you are of the school of thought that nothing is "highly unusual" and so I suppose that you may think it is as likely, or more likely, that Brianhe, perhaps in conjunction with me, has concocted this whole thing because we have some desire to damage the reputation of DigitGaps ... than that DigitGaps or a proponent of the company was so crashingly incompetent as to have hired resource at via Peopleperhour to promote DigitGaps on ENWP and delete articles relating to several named competitors. And, of course, I accept your assurance of neutrality in the matter, and so don't suppose you are instead connected with DigitGaps and wishing to remove from the web a chronicle of stupidity which reflects very poorly on the supposed expertise of DigitGaps. Just a, how shall we say, muscular samaritan. Obviously, not being connected, you will have no apprehension that this is a Streisand effect in the making. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still surprised to see that my initial attempt was made to get in touch with Brianhe and request him/her to justify his/her comments, however I am not sure why you are so much interested in this topic and answering on behalf of Brianhe. I don't really believe in using long fancy, unreliable, lack of resources sentences; so my question still remains the same: What are the solid evidences on which these negative comments are made? (Evidences which can be validated by all the editors). As you are so keen to answer everything except my single query i.e. evidences and solid proof on negative comments, I have become too keen to know the actual facts. I am not associated with any organization, but your special interest in digitgaps attracts my attention and makes me curious to believe that this is something related to conspiracy. I am not blaming anyone, nor do i have such rights. However, i have complete freedom to ask for evidences. I repeat again, I am not here to talk about PROD, COI editing or page deletion. I do not have any such interest. All I want to know that on what basis, negative sentiments has been spoken for digitgaps. I still wait for proper justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy." That's a very keen interest indeed. We both await the coming of Brianhe, to see what he or she will say. Tell me, whilst we wait: why was your first move to blank this section? Would you not agree that that looks more like the action of a person wishing to sweep the matter away than of a person wishing for evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    2 answers Samwiki. First. Brianhe stated where he found this information in his OP. Second, you have not made clear your interest in this matter Samwiki2001 - your account is a WP:SPA on this single issue, and if you read that essay you will see that the community's experience is that this is a typical sign of having some actual interest in the matter. Please disclose your relationship with DIgitgaps and please also disclose if you have edited here under another account. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a quick comment on this, I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Samwiki2001 and Tagishsimon: The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor here and it involved PeoplePerHour postings to wikiwash one or more articles. Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagishsimon I am new to wikipedia and learning how to utilize my skills. If you can see, I am not even able to write properly as other senior editors are doing. The matter is clear to me now. I said "I will be forced to take necessary steps against this conspiracy" because I can clearly see a straight away conspiracy being played here. When I first created my account, I got a message from Electricburst1996 and he/she explained me by providing proper link on how to participate in the discussion. As I said, I am new to wiki and trying to contribute to some critical scenarios. I am good with debates and this platform sounds interesting to me as i can fight for the right. Do you feel bad that why i am digging the grave? Neither i have any association with anyone, nor i have edited another account. I am sure you can definitely track my activities, or you have already done it.
    Dear Brianhe, thank you so much for sending over the references. Quick question: I can see that all links are dead link and no evidences are there. My question is that what is the evidence that the reporter who wrote to Brianhe is not the same person who has posted this job? The reporter says "Hello, I'm contacting you because I can see you're among some editors that have made some edits on this page digitGaps. The issue is that, the owner or creator of the page wants other old similar pages believed to be his competitors deleted and he has advertised a project to pay someone to do so. And I believe his own page digitGaps doesn't qualify to be on Wikipedia. He wants other older pages deleted just to allow his alone to be on wikipedia. He has been paying people to add his page digitGaps to multiple wiki categories. Here are the evidences:". Have you investigated on this? From my understanding after exploring this people-per-hour platform, one can easily create a profile and post any job he/she wants. What is the assurance that these nasty wicked jobs are posted to create some nuisance with some company's image? Brianhe has not collected the evidence himself/herself but relied one some random reporter? You said: "The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor". I don't think you have well played a role of senior editor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nonsense, Samwiki2001. Brianhe faithfully reported here what was posted elsewhere. The matter was then dealt with on its merits - bad PRODs deleted, crap article deleted. The residue question: did DigitGaps acts stupidly and get caught, or did someone set up DigitGaps to look like fools is interesting, but not relevant to us. Unless you believe that Brianhe is part of your 'conspiracy' you have no basis to criticise him or her; and if you do believe that he or she is part of a conspiracy, you are a fool. Here's what will happen now. Either this thread will be left to be archived, and we can all go about our business. Or else you will continue arguing some point related to DigitGaps, whilst asking us to believe that you really have no connection with them ... and the google trail of a discussion of the high probability of DigitGaps ineptitude will grow and grow. Here is what is not going to happen: that this discussion will be amended or deleted. You say you have come to learn about the handling of COI on wikipedia. I think you have learnt as much as you will from this case, and it is time now to move on and find another COI case to interest yourself in. Here's what you learnt: questions in relation to guilt or motive are of less than secondary importance to us. Evidence of bad actions on wikipedia are of interest. So here, we don't much care if the guilty parties are DigitGaps, or someone seeking to damage DigitGaps. We care about the PRODs and the non-notable article. We have dealt with both of those things. Now, time being limited, we'd like to go and deal with other such things. I trust you will have the courtesy to let us do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog Although I am new to Wikipedia, this doesn't stop me to contribute for the goodwill of all. Does it? My interest is as simple as yours i.e. speaking for the right and justice for all. I believe Wikipedia is open for all to contribute. Let me know if i am wrong. My account is new - that doesn't mean i have no right to speak or contribute against the conspiracy.
    Bilby You said "I had a look in PeopleForHire and was able to find three jobs posted by DigitGaps where WP paid editors were hired, and on job posted to ODesk which was closed without someone being contracted. The jobs on PeopleForHire have tagged as Removed by PPH". Can you show me the evidence that these jobs were posted by the company only and not by an random freelancer? I explored this site for a while and understood that there are 1000's of freelancers and they work on sub-contract basis, which clearly means the identity of the real job sponsor is not reveled in this platform, unless and until an agency has registered them self. On what basis you say that this job was sponsored by the target company? All illogical, invalid, lack of evidence talks by Bilby, Jytdog, Brianhe, and Tagishsimon makes me feel that you all belong to some company who has been paid and hired to create this drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwiki2001 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagishsimon Brianhe clearly said these lines "The evidence I followed was provided to me by another editor here". He/she didn't collect the evidences. So logically how can a senior editor rely on someone who has not even edited a single source on wiki (as mentioned by the reporter) and makes a big claim to spoil someones image. I trusted wiki a lot but never thought of it the way judgements are being made without any proper investigation and lack of evidences. I am not here to talk why the pages are getting deleted. That's not my call! I am here to talk on the blame made on someone without evidences. Tagishsimon write only when you have evidences, else your A4 page long sentences does not give me any pleasure nor its worth my time to read. A case not solved means no learning at all for me. I am not worried of anyone's image till the time they are not at fault. Please provide evidences or rectify the statements made on COI (I am not talking either in favor of anyone).

    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 [6][7], and another editor also preformed a copyedit [8] 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 [9][10][11] 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 [12]. 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]

    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.[13] 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.[14]

    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]

    IDEA Public Schools and De88

    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]
    @De88: you've done nothing wrong here, Rjensen is on your side and so am I. I'm impressed with your article, if there is a problem with tone, it will be corrected over time, I didn't see any. Nice work! @Rjensen: there appears to be a few here in COIN who have completely lost their objectivity. It's beginning to look like they want every edit steered through this committee (i.e., creating editors cannot remove a prod, improperly COI tags must be sustained). It's been my experience that when the guidance does not suit the goals of this small cabal, they simply change them without discussion. This is absurd. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks for replying De88. You don't seem to understand the COI concept so let me explain a bit. A "conflict of interest" is something that an individual person has, when are part of some organization X, but they also have a relationship with some other organization or person Y. If some matter relating to Y comes up when the person is doing their work inside X, the person has a conflict - do they do they work for the interests of X or for the interests of Y? So if a judge owns a bunch of stock in Pfizer, and a case involving Pfizer comes before her, she has a conflict of interest between her responsibilities as a judge to the public and her personal financial interest in seeing Pfizer's stock go up? That kind of conflict of interest, is not tolerable - it is eliminated by the judge recusing herself. Other kinds of COI are tolerable, but must be managed. Somebody coming to WIkipedia to write about their company (or an alum writing about their school) has a conflict of interest between furthering WIkipedia's mission to write neutral articles, and their loyalty to their company or school. We manage that person's COI two ways. First, via disclosure, and secondly, by having the person offer suggestions on the Talk page of existing articles that are reviewed by others before they are added to the article (or if they want to create a new article, creating that as a draft and having it reviewed by others before it publishes)
    So you have a COI with regard to IDEA as you are a recent graduate of one of their schools. The first step is for you to acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest with regard to IDEA in Wikipedia. Would you please acknowledge that? That is the first step. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki has never ruled that a past alum has a conflict of interest. Jytdog made that up just now and is bullying a user [first step is for you to acknowledge] No that is unnecessary. In the article in question Jytdog has been unable to articulate COI problems. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see your Talk page and your email, Rjensen. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do acknowledge that I created a COI with IDEA. However, I do recall mentioning this in one of my earlier messages. If you don't remember, this is what I said: "Yes, I understand that my edits on this article caused a COI on the IDEA Public Schiols page" (Excuse the typo). Also, a whole example on what Conflict of Interest means was completely unnecessary, I know what it means. I did not ask for a definition, I asked about what I could do since you said "there are just some things we will ask you to do." Since the article is placed under speedy deletion, what can I do to keep the article? De88 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that will do. I am not sure what is going to happen with deletion. While it is up in the air, I would say go ahead and edit directly as though it were draft article - that's unsual as we usually ask editors with a COI to offer suggestions on the Talk page instead of editing directly. But like I said, at least while the AfD is pending we can treat it like a draft. If it does get deleted you can create a new article as a draft - we can talk about that when the dust settles. Would you please also post the disclosure of your COI on your userpage, User:De88? Just something simple like, "I am an alum of IDEA Public Schools and have a conflict of interest on that topic" Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I will not do that. I already admitted a COI with IDEA, what else do you need? You are forcing me to plaster this incident all over my page so people can see me as "untrustworthy" and "suspicious". No thank you. De88 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One goes with the other. If you have a COI in Wikipedia, that means that you don't edit the topic directly, but instead you submit things for peer review. For existing articles, that means proposing things on the Talk page, and for new articles, you put them through the [{WP:AFC]] process. That is how it works here. There are many, many reasons for this. The sharpest one for the conflicted editor, is that they tend' to behave badly (edit war, yell at other people, etc) because their COI makes everything over wrought. The usual result is drama and that in turn generally leads to blocks and then a topic ban for the conflicted editor. Not editing directly saves you all that drama. Not to mention the other benefits to the project. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the source URL.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wwwwhatupprrr

    USER BLOCKED
    *User:Wwwwhatupprrr blocked for sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em/Archive#04 June 2016
    • Article at AfD
    (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 8 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.

    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

    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.

    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]

    Akash Dahariya

    User:Akash Dahariya has been editing extensively within the Bollywood area of interest, despite the fact that it is clear that this person is involved himself, as shown here. In particular, see here and take note of who wrote the Mini Bio. Vicky Kewat, whose article is up for deletion. Akash has been warned twice on his talk page about WP:COI here and here but he appears to have taken no notice whatsoever, extensively editing Dinesh Soi since the warnings (I have just a few moments ago reverted all of them under WP:COI). Strongly recommend a warning from an admin and if that fails a block is recommended. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:1.125.48.81 has did't mention why he remove the links.That page is about the casting director,not about a indian film actor.that is the only reason I undo your edit.Akki98 12:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash Dahariya (talk • contribs) [reply]
    The article is in the realm of Bollywood. Your point is therefore irrelevant. And don't hide your user name when you comment, please. Akash. 1.125.48.81 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Akash Dahariya. You interacted with me previously on my talk page. Could you clarify something? How do you know Dinesh Soi, Ajeet Vishwakarma, Vicky Kewat? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Template removal

    There is a discussion underway concerning guidance for editors on removal of template messages, and specifically whether they should be removed by COI and paid editors. See [15] Coretheapple (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a recent discussion. See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Proposal for new limitation --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I didn't notice. The Template Help discussion and proposed text takes a somewhat broader view of the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gdean

    In this edit, the user blatantly admits: "I was co-founder and First Production Director". User has also attempted to use their own personal website as a source. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to add the WHOIS info for that personal website - it is registered to a Glenn Daniels, apparently the original founder of the channel. Rockypedia (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TechnologyOne

    These users, most with an obvious username connection to TechnologyOne, are all single-purpose accounts adding promotional content to the article about the company. Many of their edits have been reverted by established users over the years and warnings have been given, but the pattern is persistent dating back to at least 2009. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave it a little trim. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User: BIG W DDS

    BIG W DDS (talk · contribs) has recently made several edits to Big W, at least some of which are (in my opinion) blatantly promotional. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given the article a light haircut, but frankly, it needs a short back and sides. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable COI-editing for Darryl Maximilian Robinson

    Starting in April 2016, IP-editor User:64.60.211.2 has a clear pattern of SPA editing in theater-related articles, focussing on tangential namedropping for Darryl Maximilian Robinson and the Excaliber Shakespeare Company in as many Wikipedia articles as possible (see Special:Contributions/64.60.211.2). Both topics appear to be non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards). Despite notices and warnings from several editors (see User talk:64.60.211.2) the editor continues to add this content. To be clear, the content is not outright promotional, but overly detailed puffery with completely undue WP:WEIGHT in most of the affected articles. As the editor has ignored talkpage message so far, I'd appreciate another uninvolved look into the user's editing pattern. GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have watchlisted some of the articles, asked for the IP to blocked at AIV, and asked for page protection for some of the articles. Not much else we can do here. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Alicia Yamin

    I'd welcome a bit of external input and comment on this bio. (Sorry, don't usually use this board.) It's a new article about a Harvard academic - created first by an account with the name of the department she heads (which got blocked and invited to change name), then an account with the name of an administrator there, and now from an IP after that account got a COI notice. All these edits (presumably the same editor) have been totally promotional and none of the accounts have done any kind of response to warnings or done anything like disclosure. (Text like that she "has been a leading scholar and activist at the at the intersection of health, human rights and development for over 20 years. She has been a pioneer in the development of the right to health" etc.)

    I've tried to explain the problems politely on the user account talk pages (the academic does seem notable), toned down the promotional language in the article (much of it would be true for any high-level academic) and add in external sources, but they just reverted everything without discussion. I'm not that much of an expert on COI problems, so I'd prefer it if someone else took a look since I don't want to seem too like I won't get off their back, but it does seem like ownership behaviour. Blythwood (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP edits reverted, and I've warned them on their talk page... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    academics are really bad with this COI/promo stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    usually it is not the actual academics who are to blame, but the pr staff at their university who are usually even less competent than their counterparts in industry; or, as seems to be the case here, the staff in their department, who are often given the assignment but are utter amateurs at it. Among the common signs of amateurism or incompetence are a neglect to give such details as birth date and place and undergraduate education, and a description of only their present position. The faculty themselves will at least usually cite their publications, unlike here. I doubt notability of Yamin, and have tagged the article appropriately ````

    Sarah Austin (Internet celebrity)

    editor did the right thing Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 12 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.

    I have been an active contributor to this article between 2008 and 2012. But I have done contract work with this person in 2009 and 2010. After then, I was became disassociated with the subject for personal reasons. I haven't been sure about my "connected contributor" status and cited WP:IAR as a reason not to disclose, as I have edited the article according to policy. Today, I decided to tag myself as a connected contributor. Does this count as COI? --wL<speak·check> 23:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your involvement with the subject would tend to indicate the possibility of a conflict of interest; given that we are where we are, your tagging the article's talk page and raising the issue here is about the best you can do, and I commend you for it. I've checked the article, and don't have a problem with it, so, by & large, no harm done. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:12, 10 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.

    Applied Materials

    done Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 12 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.

    Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Applied Materials, and I've been working with Altamel on some edit requests to the Applied Materials article, here. (Please refer to my most recent reply, dated 4 May, for the latest in the discussion.) In particular, I've proposed a couple short paragraphs (fully sourced) to flesh out a gap in the article's "History" section, and I've also provided secondary sources for much of the information already in the article (which is flagged as relying too much on primary sources). Altamel asked me to seek a second opinion on these latest requests, which is why I'm here. If anyone can glance over what I've proposed and provide feedback, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:19, 11 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.

    University of St Andrews

    Kioj156 is insistent on adding particular rankings to the lead para, to the point where Banedon (with a much more diverse edit history) has opened a WP:DRN case based on it. literally all of Kioj156's edits have been to articles that pertain in some way to St. Andrew's university, so i suspect undisclosed COI. SubcommandanteLOL (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=724907076"