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
Line 468: Line 468:
* [[International Financial Services Commission (Belize)]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Financial_Services_Commission_(Belize)&diff=673178790&oldid=672272772 copyvio removed])
* [[International Financial Services Commission (Belize)]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Financial_Services_Commission_(Belize)&diff=673178790&oldid=672272772 copyvio removed])
Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe|talk]]) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

== [[Character theory (media)]] ==

Hi,

I reverted an edit on this page which removed a section referring to a character theory I am noted for. I have been subject to significant cyberbullying and harassment in my occupation as an Internet trolling and cyberstalking expert and I think this page should be semi-protected as the section relating to me has been wiped by many people who breach [[WP:Civil]] and [[WP:COI]] by doing so. --[[User:Jonathanbishop|Jonathan Bishop]] ([[User_talk:Jonathanbishop|talk]]) 15:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:22, 17 September 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: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:Steven Grinspoon
    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:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Chris Kubecka
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    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: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:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    Talk:Profire Energy
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Linda Rabbitt
    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:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Traton
    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:Xero (company)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zillow
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Fulvio Melia

    Adding a lot of self-referenced publications to the subject's biography. Experts in their fields of endeavor are necessary here, but sometimes we're not terribly objective about our own work. May require some guidance and oversight. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Still ongoing as of 29-August, I added a warning to the talk page of 150.135.51.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), pointing to WP:SOCK as well. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP has been sorted, it seems. There has been no further recent editing after I cleaned it out, and nothing for a few weeks on the Sagittarius article. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jake Cawsey

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Hi, am having trouble at the Jake Cawsey article, first of all an ip removes a big chunk of cited factual information about his career without explanation which I revert, then I get this message on my talk page : Cawsey Representation[edit source] Hey Jim, Thanks for the message. I'm new to Wikipedia but I currently work as a representative to Jake Cawsey. As an agency we feel the information you've provided, as good as it is, it's too much. We are trying to keep it short and concentrate on his main achievements in soccer. Within the next day or two, we will be making the correct adjustments to his page and we kindly ask that you leave them alone. We respect you taking an interest in Jacob, however, we just want him to be represented in the way we feel will help him reach his goals.[reply]

    Thank you, Sydney Wilhelm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.130.94 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

    Categories (++): (+) They are trying to remove correct content about his playing for low grade clubs in order that he looks better for promotional reasons. Have asked for semi- protection of the page but perhaps it should have full protection. please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Atlantic306: Thanks for bringing this up here. We don't usually start with article protection, but with working with the conflicted editors first. Based on the message you posted here, the anon editor stating they "work as a representative" of the subject is not only a COI issue but possibly an undeclared paid editor as well. I don't have time to work on this right now but other COIN regulars surely will notice this. In the meantime be careful of the three-revert rule at the article. - Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in the interest of full disclosure, according to his team stats page, Cawsey played all of 15 minutes in six games in 2016. I've added that to the article, and if this so-called representative removes the edit, I'll simply have him blocked. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Herb David

    This article was apparently written by its subject. He got a COI warning at the time but it doesn't look like anything else was done. Just reading it, it doesn't seem likely this was written by scratch from reliable sources. And there is an allegation on the talk page that the article was copied from the subject's sales brochure. This would be a copyvio, even if the subject wrote these words, unless he also conveyed a license to WP. It's not clear the subject is even notable. Not sure where to go from here, advice please. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Earwig's Copyvio Detector didn't get any hits [1]. That doesn't mean it's not a copyvio. Significant tracts of the article are nearly direct copy/pastes taken from this source, simply with the grammatical person changed from first to third.
    • As to notability, four of the six references so far provided point to the studio's (now archived) website. Of the remaining two, one is to a blog (not a reliable source), and the other is a broken link. There's nothing to sustain notability at this point. Simply repairing the instruments of famous musicians does not confer notability onto the repair person, anymore than a mechanic becomes notable simply because they have fixed cars for famous people. I don't mean to equate musical instruments with cars, but the analogy is otherwise apt I think. If the repair person is famous for doing such repairs, there should be suitable references to support that. So far, they are absent. The article has existed for seven years. I think it safe to say such sources are likely not going to be added.
    • My recommendation; while the article is potentially a candidate for speedy deletion under G12, there's some overlap in the article with copyrighted and donated content. Listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems is probably warranted if we were going to retain the article, but that is badly backlogged. Given the lack of notability assertions and sourcing support, it's probably most expedient to WP:PROD the article, and remove the sole inbound link at List of people from Ann Arbor, Michigan after it is deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PRODed. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Kendal-K1: and @Hammersoft: I was thinking definitely a deletion candidate, for all the reasons listed by @Scipio Carthage: on the talk page. But a quick google and I was gobsmacked when I found a number of articles. There's article and article and [2] and [3] then [4] which includes “Newsweek did an article about me, and I was on the front page of a lot of newspapers across the country and other magazines,” he said. He says he has been written about in The Washington Post, and he’s made appearances on popular TV shows including “The Today Show.” After all that press, word quickly got around about David and his workshop — the then-central hub of the music revolution that once met in an Ann Arbor basement" although can't verify the last bit. Have a look, maybe reconsider! E ribbon toner (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those links work for me. This should probably be discussed on the article talk page. If he really is notable, we should keep the article and address the copyright issue. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    - AfDed - I copyedited out a lot of the fluff, and what was left was still drawn from his website and other local news. The subject asserting that he has coverage is not the same as said coverage existing and showing that it was significant. I got a ton of local news hits on the store closing, and that was about it. The fact that he repaired famous people's instruments is meaningless as a NOTINHERITED item. The simple fact is, if he's nearby to a venue, he's going to get the repair - I know for a fact that chain stores that sold signature series instruments from artists would give them to the artists to use if needed due to late luggage, etc. This is neither rare nor out of the ordinary. MSJapan (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    J. M. Pearce

    While cleaning up citations to predatory journals I found a number of citations to Joshua Pearce (Pearce, JM). Other references in the same articles were also tot he same author, in different journals. I went through some histories and found that in each case the reference was added by a single-purpose account. I suspect there are a lot of them, here's a brief sample:

    I understand that Pearce is an authority, but this is stretching credulity: every single article I find with citations to his work, the citations were added by accounts that appear only to edit articles where he is cited, and which usually add those citations themselves.

    This will take a while to check through and clean up. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't heard of J.M. Pearce in my domain: the economics of technology. He is definitely not an authority.EconomistfromtheFuture (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I am new and did not understand how to screen for predatory journals. I added his paper to the economics of digitization because of a paper I was writing on how to value open source hardware - he is known in that field and I thought it was peer reviewed. How can you tell the difference? --Gihiw (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Per here. Indeffed the user in question for the copyright problems. Help with cleanup appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll start by listing the articles here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved quite a few of the articles to draft space. They need a lot of work and must go through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For future retrospectives and input to ongoing discussions, this editor stated that they were hired through Fiverr since mid August. One wonders about all the film contribs prior to that, though. - Brianhe (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrative questions for the community concerning this user. 1) I added the COIN notice to the user's talkpage. Should a note also be left on their talkpage that they are now indeffed? 2) Should their userpage be courtesy blanked? - Brianhe (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    We are still working on cleanup of the copyright issues. I just deleted the obvious image uploads. Waiting on the users reply to the concerns I have raised and disclosure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Check his sandboxes against draftspace - he lifted someone else's draft out of AFC for sandbox3, so I speedied it, but I will bet there's others. There's a WALLEDGARDEN as well with Summer Nicks. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration

    Can someone take a look at this article? Someone saying they are from OSHA is making some enquiries. More eyes would be appreciated. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the pruner was overly happy with the shears. Some of the material removed was certainly encypedic, eg: "Except for earlier laws specific to the mining industry, the OSH Act was the first federal legislation to give workers the right to a safe workplace." - a useful and pertinent fact but was unsourced, "Most of OSHA’s PELs were issued shortly after adoption of the OSH Act in 1970, and have not been updated since that time." - This also seems encyclopedic. The fact that the (set) permissible exposure limits have not been undated in what, 45 years? Despite advances in medicine etc and the understanding of the effects on the human body? There is some other stuff that needs checking as well. It looks like lots of overly detailed information was removed, but it was not really promotional, it seemed fairly balanced. Just excessively detailed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    New editor OSHAUpdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was an possible violation of the WP:ISU policy against shared user names. But the new user was perhaps bitten too hard. See WP:BITE. Someone should have told them that, for example, "OHSAUpdater01" would be acceptable. I put a note on their talk page. John Nagle (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Eisenberg

    I would like to start an investigation on the behaviour of Dan Eisenberg. For a year already he's been involved in the deletion of information from the number of articles related to antisemitism, on grounds that the information he's been deleting is in fact news and lists (and persistently linking to NOTNEWS, NOTLIST) and therefore doesn't belong to Wikipedia.

    I first spotted him today on the discussion page of "Antisemitism in Russia". What he has done is he deleted all recent incidents of antisemitism (starting from ~2000) on grounds that the article is not a list. The reason I have visited the discussion page was that article was overly optimistic on the issue of antisemitism, citing the same source saying basically "everything is good about Jews in Russia" thrice. And that's hardly the case, especially considering that Holocaust denialism was outlawed in Russia only as recently as in 2014. So that's where I suspected Dan Eisenberg may be an antisemite.

    Then I went to his contributions page which clearly showed me he's most interested in the deletion of information from the pages related to antisemitism, which constitutes the bold majority of his editorial contribution to Wikipedia. In fact, on the discussion page of "Antisemitism in the United States" someone requested a "good editor" for the article because Dan Eisenberg's been deleting information from it. That user also referred to Dan Eisenberg's account as "single-purpose account", and with this claim I tend to agree. This is my impression too. However, Dan Eisenberg's been accurate and also created a bunch of minor edits in medical articles. These changes are mostly visual and minor and nowhere as large as his edits in the articles related to antisemitism. I have also got a very minor impression that he is somewhat interested in Anthropology and races, since few of his edits are in the articles related to this topic. And his name seems like a overly obvious username for a Jewish person, which may have also be done on the purpose of drawing attention away from his edits, with an argument that a Jew cannot be antisemitic (which is not true, but nevertheless is sometimes used as a tactic by antisemites).

    To justify his edits in the articles about antisemitism he has created an RfC (weak RfC in my opinion) in the Antisemitism in the United States article which passed with three votes, but even then he was so eager to delete information from that article that he started doing so before RfC ended, of that he was notified by one of the users who participated in that RfC. I also don't think this RfC may be the last instance in the case since, for instance, the articles about Islamic terrorism do not have such RfC, and list recent terror attacks. The second argument against that RfC was presented by some editor from New Zealand, a rather small nation, where antisemitic attacks are rare, and the attacks go to all headlines, so the case of the US article MAY NOT be the case of the article about New Zealand. Third objection to that RfC is that Dan Eisenberg once dropped a line about that "most of these attacks will not pass the 10-years test". However, I am deeply unsure how a thing described in reliable source in the age of Internet "may not pass the 10-years test". So I raise the concern that his behaviour may be antisemitic. And the questions I raise in this case are:

    1. Is Dan Eisenberg's account a SPA?

    2. Is he an antisemite under cover?

    3. Should he be blocked?

    4. If he shouldn't be blocked, should someone patrol all his recent changes?

    As for me - I am an anonymous reader. 178.121.228.214 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what conflict of interest is being alleged I have? My interpretation of NOTNEWS, NOTLIST is that these sort of recent events should not be on these pages. It was supported by an RFC and I felt it should be applied broadly--especially since this seemed to be a problem with a lot of these pages on antisemitism. An ongoing RFC on Antisemitism in 21st-century France seems to be going against this first RFC and is making me think that my fellow wikipedia editors might have a more complex or changed view about NOTNEWS and NOTLIST than I previously appreciated. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (The following is a copy of a posting I made on the user's talk page) Looking over your edits, it appears to me that, while you have a valid point about avoiding long lists of individual incidents, the solution would be to summarize these with references, rather than delete them completely. Wording such as "A number of well-publicized attacks took place in 2015 and 2016..." with some descriptive text and references leading to related newspaper articles would allow readers to follow up for more detail on individual incidents. Based on the reactions you have been getting, I would strongly recommend avoiding any further wholesale removal of large sections of text without inserting some such summary text. Clean Copytalk 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Please first bear in mind I don't have anything to have against you in the first place, nothing personal. These are your deletions of the incidents from Antisemitism in Russia article that brought my attention to the issue. This contribution left that article overly optimistic and unbalanced. If you look at references, 5/9 of them are expressing strong pro-Putin view of current situation with antisemitism in Russia, namely: FEOR (state institution subordinated to the regime), MK newspaper (censored and pro-Putin), and the words of an orthodox Patriarch which is associated in a long-term controversy about having ties with Putin. And at the same time while they say Russia is very peaceful for Jews, the number of neo-Nazis in Russia is probably the highest in the world, traditional antisemitism never disappeared from Russia, people like David Duke go to Russia to present their new books, and Holocaust denialism was only outlawed 2 years ago in 2014. So you may now see that deleting the list of antisemitic incidents in the 2000s-2010s brought this article to the state where it basically says everything is good for Jews in Russia, while this was clearly contradicted by the list of incidentes you have deleted. And that is not objective -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What a load of horseshit! An obviously logged-out editor makes a completely unfounded complaint that an editor is an antisemite because he insists that Wikipedia articles comply with policy? The IP editor's first edit ever was to an obscure noticeboard, and she or he notified everybody in the world before notifying the editor against whom the complaint was lodged? I say we require the IP editor to log in or we throw this baseless accusation in the trash where it belongs. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a political content dispute, not a conflict of interest issue. The editor being complained about has edited on a broad range of subjects, some controversial, some not, so they're not an SPA. This isn't really an issue for WP:COIN. The anon can complain at WP:AN/I if they so choose. John Nagle (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. First I wanna say WOW cause we were taught your algorithm in the uni and it is kind of nice to meet you here. Second, please explain to me what is the most correct way of bringing this issue to the AN/I board. I don't see a point of bringing it there TBH and thats why. I found this board perfect for this discussion as this user seems to edit other topics solely to obstruct his original aim of editing articles about antisemitism. His contributions on other topics are mostly minor and nowhere as large as the deletion of content from the antisemitism articles. So if those edits are a distracting maneuver then Dan Eisenberg has some personal interest in the deletion of that information about antisemitism and this constitutes a Conflict of Interest between his point of view and the point of view that was present in those articles before he deleted anything from them. If you have thoughts why it is better for this thread to be at AN/I, which is, in my impression, dedicated to one-time violations (like MShabazz's incivility above) rather than to posssible/obvious long-term violations, please bring those thoughts up here. Thank you -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the original poster who started this thread and I urge you to avoid the language like that. I am a reader, I don't have a Wikipedia account, nor I want to create one as this is allowed by the rules. I live in Belarus, and if you have problems with that I again urge you to re-read the policies of Wikipedia saying that anyone can participate in making Wikipedia better. As for your abusive language I urge you once again to rephrase your point of view in adequate terms or else I call for nullifying your assertion in this thread as an obvious personal attack. Best regards. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to point out that "Dan Eisenberg" (I noticed him while editing on Antisemitism of Belgium or France, don't recall which one) has been editing since the summer of 2015. Although new, he is a facile editor familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices; his first deletion on an antisemitism page read: "wikipedia is not a newspaper." [5]. Although he has made only 317 edits: 60 are to "Antisemitism in the United States," and many of the rest to pages on Antisemitism and their related talk pages, others to the anti-semitism sections of pages such as History of the Jews in Belgium, here [6] is a typical edit of his. I called him an SPA because antisemitism is the main topic on which he edits, and his editing on this topic consists primarily of going to antisemitism-related pages and removing large sections of material. It is true that pages in this category seem to accrete recountings of anti-Semitic incidents. But Eisenberg has been removing such sections in pages covering on a wide range of Jewish communities without making constructive contributions to such pages by, for example, replacing the material he removes with brief summaries of the incidents, keeping the sources on the pages, or adding material from the many reliable sources that exist on antisemitism in these countries. Repeated, mass deletion on a targeted topic is not constructive editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have always found the NOTNEWS rationale laughable given its a policy with no real teeth, being routinely flouted in practice - wikipedia routinely creates new articles based on News stories, has an 'In the News' section on its main page etc etc. RE Anti-semitism, going to an article that lists anti-semitic attacks, removing sourced anti-semitic attacks based on 'notnews', seems on the face of it, pointy and/or odd. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I remain happy to discuss why NOTNEWS, NOTLIST do not apply as I think they do (and as backed up by the first RFC I filed). If I am misinterpreting wikipedia standards then let's discuss that and I'll work on changing my editing style accordingly. So far I have mainly encountered that some other editors want this information in, but that they show a lack of engagement with wikipedia standards or the reasons for my deleting this material. This is a COI board and the alleged COI seems to be that I am an anti-semite. I don't know how to productively respond to this charge and doubt my denials would help to further the conversation. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just learned that User:37.44.65.39, the self identified original poster, has been blocked as an obvious sock-puppet. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, while anons can edit Wikipedia, if you're going to be heavily involved in disputes in controversial areas, it's best to get an account and become known. Anyway, this really is an WP:AN/I issue. They deal with excessive enthusiasm on the usual subjects - religion, politics, abortion, homeopathy, and the Israel/Palestine mess. This COI department is more about promotion of businesses and individuals, and toning down hype. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nagle, Brianhe, and Only in death: Should this discussion be moved to WP:AN/I, because while that IP can be dismissed, User:Dan Eisenberg's editing is problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    God no, because anything anti-semitism related is a massive timesink but mainly because I dont think there is a behavioural case to answer. I dont think Dan Eisenberg is removing content from anti-semitism based articles because he is an anti-semite, I think he is removing them because he has a policy based reason to do so and there is no consensus (on the articles or within the topic area) not to. Nor any real discussion anywhere that states his interpretation of policy is incorrect. I think his reason is wrong and an overly harsh interpretation of notnews etc, but thats a content/policy issue that should be hashed out either at the articles concerned talkpages, or in a centralised discussion on either the relevant policy talkpage, or at a relevant wikiproject. I understand why he is doing with it, I disagree with the justification. For example - an article will commonly contain items that are not (by themselves) individually notable, but can be reliably sourced - 'Antisemitism in Russia' is obviously going to be a notable subject, not all reliably sourced anti-semitic attacks will be individually notable for their own article, but would be included. NOTNEWS is applied to where you are assessing notability of a subject, not individual content about that subject to be included in the article. You would reject the notability of an article about a recent anti-semitic attack based on NOTNEWS, you generally wouldnt oppose the inclusion of an anti-semitic attack on an existing article specifically about anti-semitic attacks. Regarding list content in articles - WP:NOT says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." and refers to the relevant guidance for list-based content, MOS:EMBED which really doesnt make any comment yea/nay except it has to be related to the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really hard for me to say that this is not a COI case... but I find myself strongly agreeing with Nagle that this sort of thing isn't what the COIN board handles most efficiently. Given what Only in death says about ANI, I don't know if there is another venue that could sort this out either. I think the best advice now is for this editor to heed WP:OWN and give this topic a rest for a bit. - Brianhe (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To shorten my response: I dont think Dan has a COI because I dont think his motive for editing is anti-semitism. I do think he may be classed as a SPA - however that is not in itself a bad thing. As the dispute is inclusion/exclusion of content, talkpage discussions on the relevant articles would be more productive. Or a broader discussion on the application of NOTNEWS at WP:NOT - given many administrators and longstanding editors will have that on their watchlist - would probably be a better, faster, and less drama-filled opportunity to discuss it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm good with that. Dan, since I can see that you are watching this page closely and responding to comments diligently, I trust that we can rely on you to cease deleting well-sourced attacks on Jews from pages on Jewish communities and on anti-Semitism? A sort of Gentleman's agreement? Although, if you actually want to show good faith, you could return to the edits of this type that you made and restore that material to those pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The key word you used there is 'indiscriminate'. It is not 'indiscriminate' to have details of historic and current antisemitic incidents in Russia in the article Antisemitism in Russia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, part of the problem is we're talking about newspaper reports of incidents. Those aren't necessarily indiscriminate, but their relevance remains doubtful as long as they are momentary interpretations of singular events. Some incidents may be vandalism. Some may appear to be antisemitic but cover up another crime or motivation. That's why it is not, generally speaking, a good idea to use newspaper reports to make lists that suggest support for broad statements. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    – I find that the best way to solicit good faith from people is to try to have good faith in them (not to request it). Because of this, it is a little hard to assume good faith under a COI discussion predicated on me being an anti-Semite (an idea started by a now banned sockpuppet). It seems there remains legitimate disagreement in the interpretation of how NOTNEWS, NOTLIST and SYNTH here. I just re-read NOTNEWS and contrary to “Only in death..” my reading is not that this only applies to the notability of the subject, but also to the content of an article. My reading of the discussion here and of the closed RfC is that I am not alone in thinking this. If “Only in death..” has more info on this interpretation, please share. A previous RFC supported me on this (Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#RFC_-_Antisemitic_incidents), but I recognize that the feelings about this in articles more directed towards the present and with less extensive lists such as Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France might be different, and the open RFC on that page seems to be going in a different direction. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Abhishek Verma (arms dealer)

    Efforts continue by his law firm to write the articles about him and his family. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Mainstreamwikipedia seems to be focused on this family and their businesses. It reminds me of Authorincharge from Archive 103. - Brianhe (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am neither directly nor indirectly connected to the subject in question i.e. Abhishek Verma nor his lawfirm or whatever. I suggest aspirations should not be cast on my work on wikipedia unnecessarily. Besides Abhishek Verma, I have edited other articles on Wikipedia and made significant contributions. Thank you. mainstreamwikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, if I am editing an article, wouldnt I cross reference other articles and citations? Editors and contributors should have editorial independence and freedom when contributing. Unnecessarily restricting and casting doubts on the integrity of the contributors would stem the growth of Wikipedia. For the benefit of all participants in this discussion, please be advised that I am a freelance journalist and professor a reputed University. Should you require my credentials or phone number to validate, please feel free to email me and I will reply privately with my contact details. Thank you. mainstreamwikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    EOMA-68

    Resolved
     – All the other editors who have commented here seem to share, to a greater or lesser extent, the concern that there is indeed a WP:COI as described. Only in death does duty end has added the {{connected contributor}} template to the article's talk page. Therefore marking this as resolved. Discussions about the article's content, the quality of its sources, and whether to keep it, are taking place elsewhere. This noticeboard is not the place for them. zazpot (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The EOMA-68 article covers a technical standard. It also covers the first publicly-available implementations of that standard, which are intended to arise out of a crowd-funding campaign. Lkcl claims to be the author of the EOMA68 standard and also to have run that crowd-funding campaign. Lkcl has also made numerous edits to the EOMA-68 article. Even though they have not been entirely uncontroversial (they have included reverting others' edits, and changing the scope of the article), I believe Lkcl's edits to the EOMA-68 article have been made in good faith.

    Nevertheless, my understanding is that Lkcl ought to acknowledge that a conflict of interest exists here, and ideally ought to do so by using the {{connected contributor}} template. I have discussed this with Lkcl, but we have been unable to reach consensus. It appears that either Lkcl has not understood WP:COI, or else I have not: we cannot both be right. Therefore, I would be grateful for other editors' assistance.

    Full disclosure: I ordered an EOMA-68 computing card during the crowd-funder, and therefore would like the crowd-funder to meet its production goals. I also now participate in the public mailing list ("arm-netbooks") used by the EOMA-68 project. Additionally, many months ago, I met somebody at a conference who was demonstrating EOMA-68 prototypes and who I believe to have been the author of EOMA-68. zazpot (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    the edits by non-technical individuals not familiar with the material have been 100% inaccurate and misleading. if you review the history logs, you can see a total of something like *five* contributions by people who are well-meaning but in no way qualified to write the actual technical content of the page. these include basic mistakes such as calling the "standard" an actual physical item that can be held in your hand. some of the misleading information was more subtle. Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't "claim" - i *am* the editor (and guardian of) the EOMA68 open, Creative-Commons-Licensed Standard. the history on the elinux.org wikipedia web site for the page may be verified, as may the arm-netbook archives on lists.phcomp.co.uk. Lkcl (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i have understood it fully.... you are not "wrong" - the review has not been fully completed (and when it has, chances are high that the wikipedia COI policy will be found to be incomplete / inadequate to cover this specific instance). there are three totally separate and distinct "roles". one of those roles has been demonstrated not to be applicable (but is understandably easy to misunderstand that it *MIGHT* be applicable - this would be the NORMAL "COI" business-related "role", which, if it were applicable, i would have signed a "conflict" declaration immediately). that leaves two roles that are not in conflict (that of "OPEN wikipedia editor which is on a Creative Commons Licensed wikimedia site" and that of "Guardian and editor of the OPEN EOMA68 Standard which is on a Creative Commons Licensed wikimedia site". the Wikipedia COI rules are insufficient to cover this case where it is clear that both documents are Creative Commons Documents, both are "public documents", the "editor" (myself) has a 20+ year track record of working in the public eye (software libre projects), the "editor" (myself) FULLY UNDERSTANDS that when working in the public eye you cannot "hide" anything, the "editor" (myself) does not WANT anything TO be quotes hidden quotes, i WANT people to see even the quotes bad stuff quote so that other people can learn from the "mistakes"... and so on and so forth. there are a huge number of similarities, there *are* no conflicts (as there would be if it were a "business"). i will *not* make a false declaration (i.e. make a DECLARATION that there is a CONFLICT when there is NO conflict. to make such a declaration would bring both roles into disrepute, to the detriment of both wikipedia, the EOMA68 standard, but also to myself and to any people who continue to *ASK* that i make a false declaration. Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    expressing both remaining roles in a form which makes it absolutely clear of the similarities: <wikipedia editor | guardian and editor> of the EOMA68 open Creative Commons Licensed <wikipedia page | Standard> on the wikimedia site <wikipedia.org | elinux.org>. Wikipedia's COI policy document is full of examples where COI exists. it contains zero examples where COI does not exist. Lkcl (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    the last experience that i had of dealing with wikipedia "reviews" like this, i witnessed the "reviewers" blatantly violate wikipedia's terms, conditions and charter. unfortunately, the circumstances were such that i had accidentally not logged in (so my IP address was recorded instead of my name), when editing a highly-technical page. the level of verbal violence and lack of trust was so high that i cannot reveal to you either the page, date, or my IP address, for fear of reprisals and recriminations. other technical documents that i have edited which are in extremely specialist areas have also resulted in people trying to basically do "science by consensus", with the individuals claiming to be "experts" doing near 100% reversion. so far, i've found that wikipedia's "crowd-based" ability to handle highly technical specialist areas of expertise is a 100% failure rate. my recommendation is to not have one (or even two) editors "assist" in this COI evaluation - that's not going to work here: one or two editors are not authorised to clarify (or modify) COI policy: it's too big a responsibility. my recommendation is to move this onto a public (archived) mailing list, cross-referenced here, where the people on it are authorised to review (and potentially modify or clarify) wikipedia's COI policy. at present, it's inadequate... as are the procedures for dealing with highly-technical wikipedia pages.
    http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/2016-September/011945.html Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the connected contributor template to the article talkpage. When the creater of the standard is heavily editing the article page, and amongst other things, including claims on ecological benefits sourced to the company they are employed by, there is a clear conflict of interest. Article def needs some more eyes however. A number of speculative claims with only primary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    there's no "company", and i'm not "employed". i fundamentally disagree with the *principle* of employment, as i view it as being slavery by a different name. i have sponsors (from the free software community). agree it needs more eyes, but it's really REALLY important that those "eyes" not replace what's "in development" with totally misleading and false information! there's been *six* such edits by *six* totally separate people so far that have provided utterly false statements! Lkcl (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing the above, why is this notable by Wikipedia's standards, especially when the major contributors are a person who supported the campaign, and the person who created it? MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    after someone else (whom i have no idea who they are) created the page, it contained so much false and misleading information that i was forced to correct it. i've dealt with heavily-technical subjects before (see LMDB page). Lkcl (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Toned down the hype. Mentioned that this "standard" is not endorsed by any standards organization. Mentioned prior EOMA-68 product which was offered for sale in 2014 but may not have shipped. John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i had to revert what you did, john, as you were "person number six" who replaced statements that have multiple sources (yet to be researched and links provided) with factually totally misleading statements. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some claims and language you removed may be controversial (e.g. “EOMA-68 is designed to reduce e-waste”) but I don’t see why other, ostensibly uncontroversial claims like EOMA-68 being an *open* standard and being based on PCMCIA could be affected by COI and need to be removed. Also instead of deleting controversial claims, maybe they should just be changed to make clear that there is such a claim and the reasons behind it. Pelzflorian (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    as john correctly points out below, it's not "based on" PCMCIA at all, pelzflorian, it's "reusing PCMCIA physically manufactured stuff". however, john's replacement words are completely false and misleading ("EOMA68 is a CPU board standard") - it most definitely is NOT. i forget how many times i've had to revert false and misleading statements like that. Lkcl (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article mentions that it uses the PCMCIA format and connector, but is not electrically compatible. Whether or not it is "open" is complicated; see Open standard. It hasn't been through any standards organization, and there are not multiple vendors offering interchangeable products. It's not even fully defined yet; the configuration EEPROM format is "yet to be defined.[7] Arguably, it isn't even a standard, just the description of one vendors' device. John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have reasons for removal. I agree that the wording about PCMCIA was misleading, but I don’t see why EOMA-68 may not be open. This should be discussed on Talk:EOMA-68. Either way; I do believe your edit has also removed controversial claims/wording (like EOMA-68 being designed to reduce e-waste) made by Lkcl. Noone should make controversial claims without a reliable source but a COI apparently makes Lkcl more likely to make such claims. It therefore seems appropriate to call for extra caution as per WP:COI (which IMHO needs no additional examples because a discussion should take place if “common sense” is not sufficient). Lkcl, do you disagree? Note that I’m not very familiar with Wikipedia policy and that I have made pledges to the campaign in question and do believe in the claims, but I agree they are controversial. Pelzflorian (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    i wasn't the one that added the initial statement about it reducing e-waste. i added a link to the whitepaper which explains the logic (JzG removed that), and added the beginnings of a section "Eco claims" which is there to be filled out (needs citations)... this is complex. i've yet to see evidence that there's a COI between the two main roles. am taking too long to read this, sorry, too much to answer Pelzeflorian Lkcl (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RE Open, without a standards organisation or something similar as per John Nagle above, claims of openness are just that, unsubstantiated claims. If you look at Open standard it arguably fails a number of definitions (but also fulfills others) depending on who defines 'open standard'. Given the weak secondary sourcing and over-reliance on primary/associated sources, this is an issue. Not so much with the 'open' part, but the 'standard' bit is more obviously problematic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    you can't get much more "open" than using a wikimedia-based site, publishing the standard as a Creative Commons Document, and having 20+ years experience working in Software Libre to call on, Oid! but i get your point: would something like "de-facto open standard" be more appropriate? Lkcl (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The change is “open technical standard” → “proposed technical standard”. Your arguments support adding “proposed” but they do not support removing “open”. Pelzflorian (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If the word "open" is removed it implies automatically that it's "closed", which is factually misleading. it's actually finalised (*sigh* i still have to put the bits in about DRM not being permitted on Housings... argh so much to do). if this standard is considered "not to be open" because it's not "ratified by a standards group" then that classification needs to be added to *all* other de-facto open standards on wikipedia. big job. Lkcl (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I just took a quick look, liliputing.com doesnot seem to me to be a WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    i had to revert the factually misleading edits that had been made over the past couple of days: a number of people (not me) have been adding in references to the (fifty or so) news articles that were up as part of the crowd-funding campaign. someone *else* appears to have reverted the removal, so when i reverted the misleading edits i left that one in... if you feel it should definitely go please either remove it (or confirm that it should go, and i'll do it) Lkcl (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ok so i note that you issued a "warning" which unfortunately has so many things wrong in it (assumptions, incorrect facts) that it's just too overwhelming to even go over them all. what you *did* do which i feel is totally inappropriate is revert the page back to some totally misleading and plain wrong statements. i trust that this was an oversight on your part and, as an Administrator you do *NOT* intend to be involved in Wikipedia providing false and factually misleading information! i've therefore reverted what you did, and (because i agree that it's not RS, have removed the links to liliputing, replacing them with "citation needed". there used to be four or five references, here, they've all been removed: don't know why, but it means that the statements there now need a citation. Lkcl (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. How about "proposed open interface standard"? As for "liliputing.com", I agree that's weak as a source. It's just echoing CNX-Software.[8] That article seems to be mostly based on PR. The article on BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow, who got to try the device, probably qualifies as a reliable source. The references to eLinux.org, which is a wiki, are mostly to material written by LKCL there.[9] Haven't looked at the crowdfunding issue. John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a dearth of sources meeting the test of being both reliable and indepednent. Lkcl's arrogant tone and WP:OWN appears to be standard, I find a lot of evidence among the relatively small number of edits this user has made to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Geronimo Guerrero

    Editor's contributions consist solely of articles and content additions related to this artist. I've AfDed two mixtapes already for failing WP:NALBUM, but I'm opening the discussion here to perhaps get some disclosure from the editor as to what is going on. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IFSwiki

    Probably no action needed right now, but this user name suggests a connection to International Field Studies. I think all articles and images created by this user have been speedy deleted. I asked on the user's talk page if they had a COI, and got no reponse. User had continued to upload images and create articles after I asked. Ping @WikiDan61: who requested speedy deletion (just FYI, no action needed). Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely no action needed. User has been blocked, after I started writing this report and before I hit "Save changes". Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Roosh_V

    Resolved
     – No evidence at all has been presented of a conflict of interest. The fact that an editor is adding sourced content which one would prefer not to have visible does not by any means imply that he or she is doing it for conflict of interest reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) and EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) have a very longterm unhealthy pro-RooshV obsession, adding commercial links to rooshv commercial website where Roosh V is selling his sex guides "Bang".

    They both keep adding rooshv.com direct links to his commercial websites, and their history of edits are all for protecting these commercial links directly to the commercial website of RooshV, with the clear intent of redirecting the high traffic that Wikipedia receives, to Rooshv.com commercial websites where he sells his sex guides.

    The references in wikipedia pages must be Neutral.

    Their actions are similar to let's say a wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler would contain direct quotes from Mein Kampf, and saying that Adolf Hitler was the saviour of Europe, and the hero leader that Europe needed.

    Users Kendall-K1 and EvergreenFir collude into keeping RooshV wikipedia page not neutral, and they keep adding commercial links to RooshV sex guides directly linking his commercial website.

    Their actions are completely against Wikipedia rules. They should not be able to continue editing Wikipedia page of RooshV, as they have proved they are not neutral at all.


    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Mercadix (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    BOOMERANG please. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, never received a notice on my talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Second the boomerang, and I was also not notified on my talk page, although I did get the "mentioned you" alert. The "commercial links" are actually source citations. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. I have no connection to Roosh. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Optisci and ADC Bioscientific

    This company has been adding links to its own website for > 5 years through various accounts, with Plant Stress Doctor currently being active. I've removed some of the links, but more remain that need attention. I just wanted to post here to make it clear to record that this has been going on for so long and that it needs to stop. SmartSE (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and we've been here before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54#ADC_Bioscientific and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73#ADC_Bioscientific. I think it's time to blacklist their sites and remove a content, e.g. photos of their products that they've added. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - blacklist and remove the spam - David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted. MER-C 08:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the blacklisted links from Plant stress measurement and Photosynthesis system. Recommend other editors add checkmarks to the list at the top of this section as the other articles are cleaned. - Brianhe (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bonnie Burton

    The article appears to be much-tended by the subject; a lot of it consists of non-notable and unsourced career credits. This is ten years after the editor was advised not to use Wikipedia for promotional reasons. 2601:188:1:AEA0:E562:BE4F:6CEE:A08D (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just as comment, this person seems to be posting on social media asking for help to put this information back on their page. I tend to feel that the material on the article was excessive, although I could see some of it being restored with sources. Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, just posting here to note I've edited the page. I've done what I can to remove stuff I couldn't find cites for, though most of it seems legit and just difficult to cite (without citing the primary sources). Definitely would encourage giving it a once-over if anyone has a spare minute, but hopefully it's looking better now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Montage Hotels & Resorts

    Single purpose account who has only been editing on topics related to Montage Hotels & Resorts and their founder since 2014. Language used in Montage article in particular appears to be POV-y, raising suspicions in my head as to whether a conflict of interest may exist. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 04:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Toned down the hype at Montage Hotels & Resorts a bit. There may still be too much detail about each property. Searched news for lawsuits or bankruptcies, and didn't find any negative info. Coverage in WSJ and LA Times, so passes notability. The Alan Fuerstman article still needs work. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Toned down the hype at the Alan Fuerstman article a bit. Reasonable press coverage, including NYT, so passes notability. The image File:Alan_Fuerstman_Profile.png clearly comes from the subject of the article (it matches his Twitter feed photo) and there's a deletion request at Commons. But that could probably be resolved with an ORTS ticket. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nepal film and business people

    It looks like COI editing, including recreation of multiple bios. - Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Worldlink, the biggest ISP in Nepal, is probably notable. Maybe merge the CEO bio into that article. WorldLink should probably be renamed to "WorldLink (Nepal)"; there are at least five other major things called WorldLink. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User Avi Harel

    Articles created

    Avi Harel has confirmed a conflict of interest with the material material he's been adding related to Ergolight in the creation of his now-removed user page [10], as "President & CEO of ErgoLight". (A quick skim suggests there other areas where he has a conflict of interest).

    I've identified some of the articles. I'll update the list and this discussion as I look further.

    He was notified of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline 18:52, 29 July 2016, but did not respond. He returned to edit on 10 Sep, creating many of the articles identified above, continuing to promote his work. I left him a few comments on his talk, and he's responded at User_talk:Ronz#My_user_page_is_empty_now. He's now asking what should be done to eliminate any coi-violating edits. I thought it best to start a discussion here to respond.

    Note on his editing in general, coi aside: I haven't looked closely at the sourcing, but there appears to be a great deal of original research and undue weight problems, beyond the promotion. I'm very concerned that there is little or no proper historical context and he's instead been just writing from his own experience. As a result, some of what he's done appears to be point of view (POV) forks. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My point of view

    I am the inventor of several methods and concepts related to usability assurance, and a new methodology for resilience assurance. I believe that it is the interest of the public, and therefore of Wikipedia, that people will know about these inventions. I do not know of anybody else who can publish them, and I feel obliged to do it myself.

    I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for advertising original stuff. Therefore, I did not publish anything that was not documented elsewhere. Almost everything that I added to Wikipedia was previously published in conference articles or in book chapters. Of course, it would be nice if people know that I am the inventor, but I understand the COI issue, and I am looking for ways to publish the new concepts and methods with no mention of my own contribution.

    I found it difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong in editing Wikipedia pages, so I tried several ways; and each time I received a discouraging feedback from the reviewers. Initially, I thought I may publish my company, which was active 15 years ago, but not any more. Consequently, I was warned about speedy deletion. I did not respond on time them, because I was on vacation. Later, I tried to apply Ergolight as he name of my methodology. I did not think I should be required to change the name of the methodology, to be different from that of the company. It seems that I was wrong on this as well.

    I was afraid of being accused of self promotion, therefore I was careful not to mention the awards achieved for my methods, and the fame of the co-authors of my articles. Ironically, when I did not cite any reference, I was notified about publishing stuff which is not verifiable, and not notable. When I subsequently added the references, I was accused of spamming.

    For example, I would like to present and discuss the WebTester method. This method was invented in 1999, when commercial analyzers of server log files were used to provide usage statistics, with no insight about the user experience (in these days, people still did not use the term UX). I presented WebTester, which was the first to elicit the user behavior from records of the users' activity, in the Comdex/Israel show, and got the Best Of Comdex/Israel award in the category of Internet applications. This achievement was advertised on the Israel version of the PC magazine. I did not mention this in my edits, in order to avoid being accused of advertising myself. Unfortunately, the reviewers concluded that this method is not notable.

    Prof. Ron Kenett is a co-author of most of my articles about WebTester. He wrote 10 books on Statistics. I quote here part of his CV:

    "He is an applied statistician who made recognized contributions to statistical methods and applications in a range of areas including industrial statistics, biostatistics, the design of experiments, statistical process control, customer surveys, performance appraisal systems and risk management. His latest book on information quality is used in data science programs worldwide and is currently editor of StatsRef, Wiley’s major online Statistics reference and StatisticsViews. He is the 2013 Greenfield Medalist of the Royal Statistical Society and Editor in Chief of the Wiley Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability, a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, Senior Member of the American Society for Quality, Past President of the Israeli Statistical Association and Past President of ENBIS, the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics. As a Professor of Management at the State University of New York, he was awarded the General Electric Quality Management Fellowship".

    Prof. Ron Kenett would not ask me to be a co-author if WebTester was not verifiable and notable.

    I would appreciate the reviewers' advice on how to publish my methods in Wikipedia without breaking the rules. Thanks Avi Harel (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    While we wait for others' responses, and while I'm still too busy to look further into this situation, you may want to look over Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, WP:Tutorial, WP:TMM, and User:WLU/Generic_sandbox as resources for learning more about being an editor for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Avi Harel: I'll second the advice above. The Missing Manual is very good and has a PDF version available for offline reading if that is more convenient for you. It might turn out after reading this that you decide Wikipedia is not the best venue to write about this research, in which case there's also a guide to alternative outlets. - Brianhe (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at some of these articles,
    It may be appropriate to have some material from Mr. Harel in some of those articles, but adding entire articles that duplicate existing ones is inappropriate for Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there are problems in the articles that you merged, but merging is not the proper solution. They should be separated because they deal with different aspects of similar issues.
    Now, after getting some experience with the guidelines, I can see that my articles were not written properly. I am ready to improve the original articles, but this will take some time, and I need to postpone it for a while. Avi Harel (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These articles have been written from a systems engineering POV without explaining why they need to be written that way. The concepts explained are merely general ones that are applied in the area, not special ones that don't apply anywhere else, and a lot of them are explained incorrectly. In many instances, these articles are doing nothing more than promoting works of particular scholars (whom the author seems associated with) as opposed to imparting information. MSJapan (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand everything in your critiques, and I would appreciate clarification:
    • What is wrong with the systems engineering POV and why do I need to justify using it?
    • What is wrong in explaining general concepts in any area?
    • What are the concepts which are explained incorrectly? (examples may suffice).
    May I clarify that primarily, my intention was to impart particular kind of information, concerning integrating human factors in systems engineering. I think I understand the spirit of your feedback, and I will do my best to reduce the antagonism to my articles. Avi Harel (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the material you added might be appropriate for a paragraph in another article. But adding an entire article with a new slant on an old subject is what Wikipedia calls a "point of view fork". See WP:POVFORK. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a self-publishing platform. The general idea is to collect together material on a subject under one article.
    It's also considered bad form on Wikipedia to write about your own work. That's why this is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. See WP:COI. You can comment on the talk pages of relevant articles and suggest inclusion of references to your own work, but mentioning your own work in an article is frowned upon. John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyprianio

    edited
    created and edited

    There is compelling off-wiki evidence that this is a paid editor related to a Cyprus brand communications firm, backed up by evidence of long-term promotional editing. Taking a look at the user's talkpage shows a litany of attempted insertion of copyvio to articles like:

    Additional evidence on user talkpage of many improper corporate logos, etc. I have been unable to locate any COI disclosures on article or editor pages. - Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Character theory (media)

    Hi,

    I reverted an edit on this page which removed a section referring to a character theory I am noted for. I have been subject to significant cyberbullying and harassment in my occupation as an Internet trolling and cyberstalking expert and I think this page should be semi-protected as the section relating to me has been wiped by many people who breach WP:Civil and WP:COI by doing so. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=739867933"