Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ricky81682 (talk | contribs) at 02:16, 10 July 2016 (→‎Jesuit Social Research Institute et al: resp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    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]
    I am not seeing an IHS logo in each of the article userboxes mentioned above. I am seeing each organization's logo - and I am seeing the same with the second set of "Catholic" articles. I don't see a problem here. So, am I missing something? --- Steve Quinn (talk)
    OK - correction. I see what User: Happy Valley is saying. There are a few or several articles that are using the IHS logo - and this is not these organizations' logo. So, this is not appropriate. I am not going to say WP:PROMO in light of AGF. However, it is not appropriate. Especially if the IHS logo is non-free content, i.e., subject to copyright. Also, the use of the IHS logo in these instances is unintentionally misleading, because I think these organizations each have their own logo. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK - sorry - I just had one more thought based on new information. Apparently, this IHS logo has been downloaded as being in the public domain. So, if these userboxes in question are in articles about Jesuit founded and funded organizations, then is it appropriate to use this logo in these several articles? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, with egg on my face, I see that User LaMona already answered my question. I have to go with the IHS logo cannot be used in these several articles based on conventional Wikipedia norms and WP:LOGO. It would only be appropriate to use the logo "owned" by each particular organization for that particular article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a lawyer but "public domain logo" might be a contradiction in terms, at least the way you're using it above. Public domain is a copyright-related concept, and copyright is just a subset of intellectual property, in which logos and trademarks are a separate domain. An image can be both public domain, and a protected mark. See the second paragraph under Trademark#Comparison with patents, designs and copyright. It would be a complex determination regarding continuous usage and other factors to decide whether the IHS logo can be used indiscriminately on Wikipedia. - Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll be glad to read that out of curiosity. But I have no interest in the status of this logo or its use. The issue was its indiscriminate use. Truthfully, I been having a hard time believing that this is really a public domain download, ever since I checked its Wikipedia licensing, because it is a logo. I think it was downloaded as such in error, or because the down loader did not do due diligence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a ping so this doesn't get archived. I want to look at this still. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank's for keeping this alive,Jytdog, I was not aware of the replies above by Steve Quinn and Brianhe. I'm wondering if this discussionmatters at all (he said pessimistically) as the user seems to not be following the suggestion to stop using the logo indiscriminately for Jesuit institutions. Here's a new article from June 17, and another from the same day. Also his new articles (examples: one, two, three) do not seem to be going through the AFC process as was suggested for someone with a perceived conflict (a Jesuit priest writing on Jesuit institutions). I really have nothing against religious people editing Wikipedia, but I am bothered by the obvious promotional editing bias here and our inability to do anything about it. It is clearly non-neutral and also clearly ignores the repeated suggestions of other users that it is promotional. Pinging @LaMona:....HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    HappyValleyEditor I am curious about the source for the logo so I queried over at Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions - IHS emblem. However, looking at the different language Wikipedias that are now using this logo I am not hopeful about discovering anything. Here is the file, and just scroll down to see: [1]. Also, someone will have to ask Jzsj to remove the logo from the info boxes of the articles mentioned above - based on consensus that seems to be here - that this logo does not belong in a certain set of articles - per this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for looking into the logo. The user has already been told not to use it based on the WP:LOGO policy and COIN consensus. However the use persists. Feel free to give it a shot!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please give me the reference where it says a generic logo may not be used in an infobox. I'm not ignoring what is said; I respectfully note, Steve, that most of the previous discussion was about a logo being used outside the infobox. Also, this logo can be found somewhere on the website or in the publication of most Jesuit institutions, and so is shown as appropriate to the institutions. Also, please note that the file is used on over 150 websites, only a few being my doing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ihs-logo.svg). It might fairly be said that the logo is owned in common by all Jesuit institutions, none claiming exclusive rights to it. Also, I don't understand the examples of use at the beginning of this section; some of these are logos specific to the institutions. Pinging @Steve Quinn:. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    sigh. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jzsj - Actually, the discussion did include placing this logo in info-boxes in articles where the Society of Jesus is not the main subject - and this was emphasized. We have several blocks of text above. Also, apparently this has been discussed previously someplace else with User:HappyValleyEditor and I am hoping they will provide a link to that discussion here. This was also discussed on your talk page with User:Pjposullivan here [2], and here [3]. Based on what I have written so far, I think what is happening is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

      In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.)

      I am assuming this logo is not in the public domain, as is the norm for logos. Also, public domain for a logo must be proved per WP:LOGO. At the same time, I am going to follow User: Marchjuly's suggestions over at the Media copyright questions discussion board [4].
    Additionally, if I am reading WP:LOGO correctly, use in a template is not allowed either. So the many aritlces that use the Society of Jesus template with probably have to do so without this logo. And to repeat in so many words what has already been said - I quote WP:LOGO:

    A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, the main company logo may appear in the main article about the company, the main school logo in the main article about the school, and the main sports team logo in the main article about the sports team, but a school logo and a school sports team logo may not both appear in the same article (although they may appear in separate articles). Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article.

    Lastly, I stongly doubt that the Society of Jesus is so desperate for publicity that it needs to have its logo placed in articles where it does not belong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve Quinn:, Here is the previous COIN discussion where the conclusion was that the logo did not belong in infoboxes beyond the main institution. Also see this discussion which mentions the logo use as well. This has been discussed, repeated and ignored for more than a month, so it would be good to hear form the editor that he will follow communicy concensus and the WP:LOGO rules. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jzsj has contacted me twice on my talk page. I am copying and posting this section here to continue the continuity of this discussion. Here it is:

    I don't find the directions in articles about Wikipedia to be very user-friendly. I usually try to imitate what others have used and hope that it works. I tried to alert you in two ways on my talk page. Did either of them work, and if not how do I send an alert? Thanks.Jzsj (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

    • Hoping to receive a response, but let me add, please. We seem to be pushing in opposite directions, with my seeking maximum freedom where issues are not clear and your wanting to remove logos from all the templates about Jesuit works. Also, I saw Pjposullivan giving me qualified support in the end. And I see wiggle room within the statement introducing the Logo article: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Also, my take on your partner in this endeavour is that he may be harrassing me, as he was warned of this before (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyValleyEditor&diff=722059718&oldid=722033869 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centro_Gumilla). Since he has erased his talk page it's difficult to get a sense of his work, but he appears to have just begun editing this year, and has perhaps not yet captured the spirit of graciousness and tolerance within rules with fuzzy edges at times. My conclusion is that the Jesuit logo is permissible within the infobox of Jesuit works, as they all use the logo for their works. I believe we would need a broader discussion to definitively rule this out. I have moved non-free logos into the infoboxes of all the Jesuit schools where I found the more specific logos copyable. Jzsj (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Jzsj - I don't understand why you are trying to engage me in a discussion here on my talk page or even on your talk page. In the above, you said we need a broader discussion and one is happening over at the COI discussion board. And there will be another one opening at the Village Pump about the Logo's status as soon as I get time, within the next few days. There is also a link to another discussion taking place over at Copyright questions [5] on the COI discussion board.
    This discussion that you are attempting to have here, should be taking place over at the COI discussion board. Please don't try to discuss this issue with me on my talk page anymore. If you do so, I feel compelled to ignore it. I am probably going to post this section of my talk page over at the COI discussion board.
    As an aside, you have already set up an alert when you pinged someone over at the COI discussion board. And that is how it is done use "ping" or "re" in a template preceding the person's name. The "ping" or "re" is separated with a vertical line "|". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    End of talk page discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for help with the "ping" problem.Jzsj (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Jzsj, I think it would be smart to stop blaming people and to start following policies. Now, if you would please just follow WP:LOGO and not brand your pages with the jesuit logo, we could stop this silly discussion. Do you agree to stop putting the IHS Logo in the infobox? If not, I am considering bringing this to an admin's attention as I think you have engaged in a pattern of disruptive and promotional editing that will be easy to clearly demonstrate. But-- before that, you have a chance to stop that and join the community concensus. You do not seem to realize that you are wasting poeple's time here by trying to write your own policies on both notability and logo use. It's really a question of whether you want to follow policies and work with others collaboratively, or remain on your own churning out low notability Jesuit pages that go against policies! This is a place where we work together and respect collective policies. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently inquiring from a Jesuit historian to see if he can identify the first use of this precise version of the 16th century logo, used by the earliest Jesuits.Jzsj (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The logo is obviously public domain at this point. It's in the Church of Gesu, over the altar, and that is abotu 500 years old. The point in this discussion is not the copyright of the logo. The point is that we (Wikipedia) have a policy on this, which has been explained to you at least a dozen times now. I'm going to ignore this for a week. If you have not stopped the promotional editing by then I am taking it to an admin, with the two COIN discussions and a list examples of you ignoring community advice. Noting personal, you sound like a nice person. However you refuse to follow policies and are wasting a lot of other poeple's time, which qualifies as disruptive editing. Have a nice evening. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    HappyValleyEditor To me, the case can be made that because this logo is still in active use [6], that may be grounds for changing the licensing from PD. Please see the discussion over at Media Copyright questions. In any case, maybe we should now leave questions of copyright and trademark over there and not here - just a suggestion. These seem to be evolving into two different issues - imho ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How about using an architectural detail instead of a print logo? Examples:

    Maybe crop such photograph? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis Schonken, the issue is not copyright, but trather than Jzsj uses the logo across a group of articles inside the infobox, in violation of WP:LOGO. The ultimate effect is that the Wikipedia pages on jesuit organizations in question are branded with the logo, in violation of the logo policy and the promotional editing policy.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the best scenario is to place the specific logo of the specific organization into the infobox. Also, the main reason for doing this is - it is considered to be part of the subject of the article - as well as being something that is not very well expressed in the prose section. Furthermore, it represents the organization. Obviously - the Jesuit logo does not. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest this entire discussion be closed and someone just take those images to WP:FFD and discuss their usage there. I have no idea this would be at the COI board. COI or not, it doesn't affect image use policy and the people with experience in image use policy aren't likely to be here anyways. You're going to just end up taking this discussion to FFD anyways and repeating the same arguments so why not cut it out the middle man. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree this is in the wrong venue. It requires a fair-use policy discussion at WP:FFD. Suggest this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ricky81682, Softlavender, could you explain why this does not belong here? the file is not what's in question, it's its use in the infobox as branding and the creation of promotional pages for the Jesuit faith. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what WP:FFD is for. "D" stands for discussion, whether that be fair-use usage on whichever articles, or whether the file should exist on Wikipedia at all. This is a case of the first. It doesn't matter who uploaded the file or placed it in articles, but it does matter whether usage on more than one article is fair-use. That is a matter for WP:FFD to determine, via poll of editors knowledgeable about Wikipedia's fair-use rules. If however a logo is used on only one article (the article on that particular organization), that is perfectly fine, and your objection to that is ridiculous and harassment. Either AfD the article(s) or not, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the logo of an organization being on the Wikipedia article for that organization. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from that, literally this discussion will end nowhere other than with taking this to FFD. No one closes an COI board with a mandate about image usage policy. You'll be rehashing the same issues at FFD all over again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    S. Georgiev

    85.118.69.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding references to S. Georgiev to multiple articles, including fringe references. Also abusing multiple accounts: 85.118.68.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Why has the editor not been notified?TeeVeeed (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    5.120.252.218

    5.120.252.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding links to an unreviewed abstract to the article Navier-Stokes equations. Also, abusing multiple accounts: 5.120.209.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Disruption continues. I guess no one at this noticeboard really cares. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sławomir Biały: This seems to be the wrong venue. I would try WP:AIV or WP:AN3. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has now been protected from editing by IP users. Seems like a closed matter now. --Drm310 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think the IP is abusing multiple accounts then I think trying WP:Sockpuppet investigations is best Steve Quinn (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Recovery research institute

    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.

    Funny article in that it goes to great lengths to provide references. A closer look shows that the refs are not really for the article subject, but rather for the people involved in the institute. A Google search for "aplante recovery research institute", returns results that indicate a strong likelihood of COI. I've asked the user about this on their talk page. I think the article should probably be deleted, purely on a notability basis. Ah, and the institute is at Harvard University, if you have by chance heard of that. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Aplante1 confirms here that s/he works for the institution in question. Perhaps a few people could comment on the page itself? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aplante1 has continued to edit page after being warned. S/he removed the PROD so I've sent it to AfD on th ebasis on non-notability. Pinging @Jytdog:.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Afd result was redirect to Massachusetts General Hospital#Affiliated institutions.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 14:46, 5 July 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.

    Solynta

    Article deleted (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 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.

    Article creator appears to be Managing Director of the article topic. MSJapan (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominated for deletion, and there hasn't been a response to the COIN notice. MSJapan (talk) 17:59, 29 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.

    Barracuda Web Server

    User focus is articles on Barracuda products (there's another in User:Sorisen/sandbox) and uploaded a file to Commons as explicitly licensed to the creators of the product. The live article has been nommed for CSD, but the sandbox article clearly shows it's a larger problem. MSJapan (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two articles which relate to the Barracuda technology. Wikipedia has distinguished (correctly) the topics in isolation of Application Server, vs. an HTTP Embedded Server. Given it was my first experience for creating material for Wikipedia and that I spent time researching the background of a particular technical tangent implementation "of course" the subject matter would appear in isolation and the COI acquisition is unfounded. Your reaction to submit everything for CSD and apply a COI acquisition is in haste, clearly evidenced by the reference to the sandbox which is merely the draft area used for the Barracuda Web Server page, therefore it's not "more of",... material, but the basis staging for the content itself. The image has a CC permission and I will add it. (Error that it was unintentionally left out.) Further to the point I have started a new draft on Lua Server Pages located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lua_Server_Pages, which demonstrates that the material I work on is relative subject matter related to server technology rather than any particular product or use scenario. These technologies are (new) to common knowledge or laymen awareness, time, use in industry, etc. The Internet of Things movement will help to establish a wider audience and the background information such as the areas where I'm focusing will be appreciated by a broader scope of readers that hope to learn and understand how these types of technologies are applied and historically evolved. Personally, as a new contributor I find that receiving this kind of notice with no examples, or guidance for improvement extremely discouraging. It would be useful to understand how the material that I created could be improved relative and in comparison to the same type of material which was already established i.e. Comparison of application servers, where similar technologies are discussed. Sorisen (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering you pushed both articles live, my reference to the sandbox is irrelevant, and I've added the other article above. You started Draft:Lua Server Pages months ago, and haven't touched it since it was declined after about two weeks. So that's entirely irrelevant, other than the fact that you used a Barracuda/Real Time Logic LLC reference there as well. You've had months to learn about policies and ask questions, and you have done nothing to educate yourself about what is acceptable and what is not. Moreover, if you do not have a COI, why are you writing about a particular set of products by a particular company (instead of a technology), uploading intellectual property of that company that you somehow "know" is CC-BY-SA, and referencing well more than half of the sources on the products to articles written by employees of that company? Our policies are very clear on this, and yet you have done it twice, as well as on Lua Server. You're relying too heavily on one company's material for it to be accidental. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as far as license for the file is concerned, the user was somehow able to go find this document on the company servers, which is not accessible from either the public downloads page or the directory immediately above the file. So how did Sorisen find it if he wasn't told where to go to get it by someone at the company? I think it's because he created it himself at work, which explains why it's legally incorrect. I think is the most likely explanation, as he has not yet denied an affiliation with the company. It's the lying here that's the real problem, frankly, because I think Sorisen is well aware that the product is not notable, and therefore, he's either being paid to write the article or he works for the company, and he knows that if he admits it, the articles lose all merit. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also not a new issue: Talk regarding SharkSSL in March 2016. This editor only writes about Real Time Logic products, period. The style of license provided by the user has also been used before, and I don't see why we are finding it acceptable. It was clearly not from an acceptable source available to an uninvolved editor. Every Commons upload he has made is sourced to Real Time Logic. WP:DUCK. MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if I am lacking in Wikipedia educate. This is not a full time job for me and given I use Wikipedia regularly to learn about technology attributes I thought it would be nice and kind of neat to make a contribution. I'm neither an employee nor paid writer for these articles. In explanation, I became interested in the server technology behind IoT Internet of Things as used in embedded devices. I have a personal work history in working with embedded operating systems which is a different but related topic all considered within the realm of 'Embedded Programming'. IoT is new evolving and I'm learning as I go along... After reviewing many server implementations on Wikipedia, I didn't understand why no one added the comparison of Barracuda. It is easy to find information about this implementation via google search and in my opinion made a good compatible with unique attributes for its construction vs. the other implementations sited. I looked at the other webserver and application server articles to get ideas for how the material should be shown and then created one for Barracuda. At first, I had complaints that it read too much like a brochure/marketing material and I had help from another experienced editor to fix it. Here I learned (after the fact) that just because other 'like' material exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean those particular articles used correct form. The reason there are separate articles for Barracuda Application Server, Barracuda Web Server, and SharkSSL is because the underlying technologies are interrelated to the whole, but needed clarification explanation in isolation. (Again I am looking at comparable within the same technology realm and how they were shown on Wikipedia.) example: Comparison of application servers, Comparison of web servers, Comparison of TLS implementations

    The Lua Server Pages (draft), article shows that I did start to continue into a new topic with similar subject matter but nothing which is owned or controlled by the people that designed Barracuda. The first draft was not approved, but I intend to finish it if my continued participation is allowed. This entire experience is new for me and I would appreciate help to fix the areas where I have made mistakes. In full disclosure regarding my interaction with Real Time Logic, I found the images on google and asked them to release them under a creative common license that would allow use on Wikipedia. I also requested that they review my articles for accuracy to make sure that I had captured the capacity of the technology correctly. Many of the references used for this article do have either Real Time Logic participation as material that editors pulled from for their publications, however we could add more sources and eliminate anything, which is not credible. Additional guidance and help for areas to make corrections would be appreciated. Sorisen (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sorisen:To answer your first question, nobody added Barracuda because Barracuda doesn't meet our notability guidelines. The type of material you have found is pretty much indicative of that. I've added a reading list of policies and information to the end of my reply.
    Much more importantly, if you are having the company review your article for accuracy, then there are two problems. If you cannot write about a topic without help from others, there's a real possibility that you don't know what you're talking about; why that is a problem should be obvious. Secondly, by allowing editorial oversight by the company about the company's product article, you're essentially functioning as an unpaid public relations employee of the company. You are basically giving them free advertising. Companies do not have the right to vet their Wikipedia entries. The fact that you are in contact with them is also problematic.
    For the time being, I would suggest you read the following policies: general notability, reliable sources, promotional articles, existence is not notability, and neutral point of view. I would also suggest you read the essays on independent sources and third-party sources. It might explain a lot of things of which you do not seem to be aware at present. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And the editor has neither responded nor edited in over a week. This thread can probably be closed. MSJapan (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Untangle

    Aabatangle makes edits to the Untangle page, in some cases removing critical comments and performing ongoing unsourced updates to the page.

    No response to my talk page comment, I believe this user is being a naughty boy and should be censured appropriately. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Radyo Kabayan

    Article has already been deleted. Nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User claims site logo as own work. Per the article, the user seems to have far too much biographical information on the owner of the station to be an uninvolved party. User has made all of seven edits on WP over the course of 23 months, 5 of which were this article, and 2 of which were to request the article be put back after PROD. MSJapan (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radyo Kabayan. I doubt this is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 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.

    Community Supported Shelters

    Would it be considered a conflict if I create an article about Community Supported Shelters, a charity in Eugene, Oregon? My relationship is: I am a major donor, and served on the board of directors until 2014. Also, obviously, a friend of the founders. JerryRussell (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Most definitely for the last reason, certainly for the second, and likely for the first. My initial response would be not to get within ten miles of the topic, and not even edit relating to the state of Oregon or the Pacific Northwest, but the latter is perhaps a bit extreme. I will explain, though:
    In all those three situations you mention, you show a vested interest in the cause, and more particularly, you have a vested interest in its success because you've contributed to it monetarily, worked actively for it, and have a persona relationshuip with it. It's also likely that you might be associated with some of the material out there, so here's an extreme example (that I assume to be untrue): What would you do if CBS News in Oregon reported "User:JerryRussell, former member of the Board of Directors of CSS, was found to have stolen $37 million in donations from the organization and run off to Cancun with his longtime friends and founders of the charity, who had devised CSS as an elaborate scheme for their timeshare funding"? I can't see you putting that kind of material in, somehow. In short, I see a problem in adhering to NPOV, and by being involved in it, it's going to be very hard for you to see WP:PROMO issues and the need to show both sides/perceptions of the organization.
    Following on from that, I see an editor conduct cobcern. I'd note that by asking if you could write the article, it seems you already have determined that it is suitable for Wikipedia. So i have a series of important questions. Are you familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies to make that determination, or is the idea to get it into mainspace (because as a registered user, you can) and then see what happens, simply because you think it should be there? If the community decides it does not meet policies (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:GNG, WP:CORP, etc.), would you accept that decision, or would you fight it because you "knew it was notable and should be here", maybe "because I know the founders worked so hard on this?" These may seem silly, but if you have problems with any of these types of issues or situations, it is likely you can't write from a neutral point of view because you can't approach the subject from a neutral point of view. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @JerryRussell: Yes, it is most definitely a conflict of interest, although it is not forbidden for editors with a COI to create articles. However, what happens is that editing with a COI, usually leads to a bias. This is natural. If someone is associated with an organisation, the editor might think that the organisation is notable, while others disagree. Now, coming back to policy, editors with a COI are not forbidden from creating articles. However, such articles need to go through a review. For this we have a process called "Article for Creation". If you are convinced that the organisation is notable, then you can start a draft and submit it to WP:AFC, where a reviewer will then look at the article and accept/reject it. For editors with a conflict of interest, going through AFC is preferable to creating the article directly. In addition, you need to declare on the talk page of the article that you are a connected contributor using the Template:Connected contributor (or Template:Connected contributor (paid) if you have been paid for editing the article). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @MSJapan: and @Lemongirl1942:, thanks for the input. I believe it's marginally notable: one article in a national publication (linked above), several independent articles in local newspapers & TV station websites, some more op-eds from organization members, and an independent branch opened in Tuscon, which has attracted similar local attention there. I would appreciate your opinion, about whether this is good enough to meet notability policies.
    I've been editing here since Feb and am having fun, gotten into a few scrapes, and now I'm taking a hard look at my own conduct issues in hopes that I don't eventually get into trouble with the arbitration board. So if it would be wiser not to edit an article about CSS, I won't do it.
    But on the other hand, I think it would make Wiki a better encyclopedia if this article was created -- not mainly because it (marginally) meets GNG and CORP, but because I as far as I know, their approach to the problem of homelessness is unique in the USA at this time.
    Is there a place where I can go to request that some other editor create the article? Is this, realistically, an option; or is there a huge backlog? Or if I write it as carefully and impartially as I can, and run it through WP:AFC, would I emerge with a clean bill of health from a conduct perspective? JerryRussell (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to disclose the COI on the article itself, regardless of conduct. So I'm not sure you'd get what you're looking for in terms of "cleanliness" no matter what, because you'd have to disclose, essentially, that "a major contributor to the article has a close connection with the article topic" and leave to the reader to decide what that means. It's always wiser not to do it, but maybe your writing skillset is better than someone else's, or there's some other factor. It's not black and white in that sense. I personally find COI-written articles to be poor overall, but a lot of that is because paid editing is about getting it done, not getting it done well, so they basically hang everything on the WP:COATRACK to show a perceived meeting of WP:GNG.
    You could also avoid the issue entirely and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but that's not a guarantee that it will get done. So you need to figure out what the priority is there.
    Notability is outside the scope of this board (Try WP:N, but I would point out that op-eds by board members are not "third-party independent sources" as required by WP:RS, so their use is very limited; they're closer to WP:PRIMARY sources, so you can use them to talk about what the group does, but that's about it. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pubs Code Regulations 2016

    The issue is with the Pubs Advisory Service (PAS) section.

    Chriswright68 appears to be the proprietor of the company known as the PAS (his own link - http://pubs.expert/information/about-the-pas.html - would indicate so).

    I have attempted several times to add to the section the fact that the PAS has no special status in the legislation which is the subject of the article nor in relation to the government's desire to see a "pubs advisory service" and that other avenues of obtaining advice are available.

    All of the forms of words I have attempted have been reverted by Chriswright68 who has not engaged in my several requests to discuss the matter on the articles's talk page.

    The most recent example is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pubs_Code_Regulations_2016&diff=727369196&oldid=727355545

    On the face of it this would appear to be an attempt to suppress knowledge of the existence of competitors to the PAS.

    In the absence of any response to my requests for discussion I am unsure where to go next.

    Pedant999 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the existing refernces [7] is fairly clear that the company PAS is one source of PAS advice, but that, for instance, the BII are also organising themselves to offer PAS advice. It's clear to me that the current section of the article does not deal with these two sources of PAS advice equally. Unless someone else gets involved, I'll edit the article and speak with Chriswright68 in a few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An even better link to establish COI is this where Chris Wright is named as the team leader. I passed this article on to main space from AfC but didn't see the COI evidence at that time. (I always post COI notices on talk pages when I do.) This person should really be blocked from editing this article, IMO. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That, in the current climate, may be a better way to get yourself blocked, laMona - see User_talk:Jytdog#June 2016, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jytdog Outting a new editor by linking to their LinkedIn Page & WP:OUTING. I've yet to see Chriswright68 make any declaration of identity or of COI with respect to the PAS company. Unless & until he does, I suggest it is better to deal with this from the content perspective, than worry too much about a possible COI. With luck we end up in roughly the same place - an NPOV aticle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh give me a break. The name is obvious, Pedant999 has already pointed to the site and the name, and the behavior, if you've looked at the history, is absolutely begging for blocking, COI or no. Note that no one has put a COI notice on their talk page, nor do I see a link to this discussion, and both of those would be good places to start. They have refused to engage around the article contents, but I'll add the COI tag to the talk page to give him a chance to confirm or deny. LaMona (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in my power to give you a break on this matter. I'm merely pointing to the recent actions of a clique of admins. Try not to shoot the messenger, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile: I've amended the contentious section in line with the source - (diff) - and asked Chriswright68 to respond on the article talk page if he has problems - (diff). I'm well aware that he has to date chosen not to avail himself of the talk page and instead to edit war, but one can always be hopeful. Clearly, warring much beyond this point will tend to lead to an edit block being placed on the account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm new to this and if I've done something I shouldn't have done (outing) or not done something I should (COI notice) then I apologise for that. Pedant999 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We currently have a user blocked for making a fairly obvious connection between a username and the identity of the user, based on the username and the editing behaviour of the user. A camp of admins thinks that's outing, and has gone somewhat nuclear. I think a little circumspection is probably called for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Pedant999 (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a COI notice on User talk:Chriswright68 and alerted them to this discussion. LaMona (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tend to agree with the advice above (especially in light of recent events) not to publish inline links to off-site pages that show COI. The policy also seems to support that idea-- someone gives up their name here, OK, but does that mean we post their occupation through offline links? Policy on harassment says "Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other." I think we need a smarter test to communicate and confirm COI without posting actual incriminating offsite links. Just my two cents.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey LaMona, sorry to say this but I would agree with the above advice as well. The current climate is not encouraging for COI investigations and I am personally refraining from mentioning any information (even though in some cases I know that is IS paid editing). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a COI template to a user's page is not outing. Please read the template. It does not say "you have a coi" - it gives users information about the COI policies and does not assume that they have a COI. I have placed templates on somewhere up to 150-200 user pages on AfC, and it is highly effective. Many AfC'rs have no idea about WP at all. As for offline links, there's a big difference between a link to the very pages that are the subject of the article, and making a connection that could not be otherwise made. I read through the arguments on the ANI pages and many make that same point so there isn't a consensus on that. We can't pretend not to notice that "XYZco" is creating the page "XYZco", or that "ABC" is also the name of the CEO of "XYZco". So fine, I'll not post the link here, but I will continue to alert folks at AfC when I see a connection. I haven't done a thorough run-through of my list, but in the vast majority of cases people who previously had no idea of COI either fess up or stop editing. They came to wP to write an article about their company or themselves or etc., without any idea that wasn't what one does here - they think it's the same as Facebook or LinkedIn, where you create the page for yourself. I actually think that a COI reminder should be given to all new accounts or at least to accounts that initiate a draft. It's not that people are trying to put one over, they just don't know. And they won't know if we don't tell them. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    LaMona Adding a COI template and asking about a relationship/connection is perfectly fine. I'm talking specifically about "pasting off-wiki links" to establish COI of a editor which in certain cases may be termed OUTING. This can be done tactfully of course and I actually (agree with you) and prefer that this evidence is presented transparently in front of everyone. But it seems the community has different opinions on this. Btw, one way I use is to state "Hey XYZ, it seems you may have a connection to XYZ Company. If you don't mind could you please clarify your relationship. This is to comply with our COI guidelines". (I never actually present the linking evidence anymore to the editor). And if they deny, I try to tell them that complying with our COI guidelines is essential and that it is better to comply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I ALWAYS paste a COI notice to the COI editor's talk page. This is essential to warn other editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Eskişehir Osmangazi University

    Umm...Article reads like a webpage, and may actually be (a non-English webpage). There's an extensive history if IP editing. It's been tagged as PROMO for five years and it seems to be getting worse if anything.

    I don't know that I'm even really reporting a particular IP. There seems to be a lot of them throughout the page's history. Not sure what you do with a mess like that. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. This is a mess. We may have to WP:TNT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Jaaz Multimedia films and many others

    I am suspecting he is working for Jazz multimedia. He has created an article List of Jaaz Multimedia films. Created articles for the movies Premi O Premi, Rokto, Doob: No Bed Of Roses, Niyoti, Hero 420, Angaar (2016 film), Detective (2016 film) etc - all of these movies are produced by Jazz Multimedia. He also added a commercial link to a movie booking site to the movie article Niyoti, a Jazz Multimedia Movie diff. There is currently an SPI case open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bishal Khan about this user. - Mar11 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a COi enquiry to the user's talk page (diff). I'm pessimistic, based on the user's conduct to date, that we'll get a response, but I live in hope. For the most part, the user's additions seem relatively non-promotional (or perhaps I should say non-advertorial) - the film articles created are fairly prosaic and basic. I suggest that, to the extent you have concerns, you deal with the additions on the basis of notability (i.e. speedy or AfD) and then the normal WP:BRD to remove anything that is promotional. The user may or may not have COI; may just be enthusiastic for this strand of cinema ... seems to hve contributed in other areas too, but with limited success. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Medmira product pages

    Two articles on some kind of testing technology, aout 95% sourced from medmira.com. Likely COI. User has been queried but did not reply. I used the following general procedure to determine the COI:

    1. User names sometimes contain a first initial and a last name.
    2. It is sometimes possible to easily extract a last name from a user name,
    3. It is possible to search for that name with the company name in question, as in "name + company"
    4. it is possible to read the results of such a search privately.

    I'm hoping I did not break any outing rules there. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the pages is gone thanks to CambridgeBayWeather. The flow-through page seems to have some useful info, but it is hard to say without a medical education! Pinging @Doc James:...... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    T'other article has a speedy tag on it right now. I've pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, since they may have a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you kindly Tagishsimon. Doing a little searching, the main result for ""flow through" test blood" is the Wikipedia page, so I am not going to be worried if it gets deleted. Sounds like a revolutionary form of pin-prick blood testing... wait, where have I heard that before?....HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:HappyValleyEditor unfortunately it has appeared to have come to this. I think you are on safe ground. Agree it needs independent sources. I have supported its deletion through normal channels. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly, Doc James! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    China Construction America

    SPA has created an article that consists almost entirely of a list of non-notable projects undertaken by this company and a list of awards, almost all unsourced. I tried to fix it but got reverted. Other than that I have no direct evidence of COI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the article and asked if they are a paid or COI editor on their talk page. Have another shot at making some edits to the article and I'll back you up. It's rabidly promotional. Definitely notable though-- I see many sources. The long lists do not belong though.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it a trim from 10,500 to 2,500K.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you HappyValleyEditor! The article seems much better now. The editor in questions hasn't replied to the queries though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Form 1120

    It is difficult to keep track of all this. User:Majesticfish is being paid by User:Vipul to create articles [8]. The articles edited by User:Majesticfish so far are (the U.S. Tax Forms) Form 1120 [9], which this person created as has been editing [10] and Form 1040 [11], [12], [13].

    Next I have noticed that -- User Vipul states on his/her User page:

    "For more on my Wikipedia editing, see my site page about Wikipedia, my site page about sponsored Wikipedia editing, and the list of all pages I have created, with pageviews across the years".

    I wish to point out the above link within this blurb about this editior's link to the description of this person's self-disclosed Wikipedia sponsored editing, which is located at an off Wiki site - for clarity I will place it here [14]. The page discusses detailed paid editing and analysis of its impact via page views:

    I am quoting a small blurb here:

    2015

    "In April 2015, as part of an Experimental Content Creation Grant (ECCG) to (a person), I included reimbursement for Wikipedia page creation. The scheme was as follows: for the period from April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, I’d pay (a person):

    $1 for every 1000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2015. If the pages he created were specific ones that I had requested him to create or approved the creation of, and the page as created by him met my standard for quality and completeness, then I’d add a one-time payment for each such page. The one-time payment would be determined per page, but the standard would be $25.

    (There is some fine print that caps the total amount I need to pay (a person), but that’s not relevant here since Wikipedia pageviews don’t contribute enough to the overall ECCG to trigger that fine print). (A person) is User:Simfish on Wikipedia. You can also access his contribution history" (link provided on off wiki web page).

    There is more on this page that should be read. This also continues into 2016...

    2016

    I renewed my content creation grant for 2016 with (a person), with some changes to the rules surrounding payments. I would pay (a person):

    $1 for every 2000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015, or $0.50 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 800 pageviews of pages he created in 2015, or $1.25 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2016, or $2 per 1000 pageviews.

    My goal was that, while (a person) could still make money of pageviews of pages he created of his own accord, the focus of his work should shift more in the direction of creating pages I wanted him to create, with a fixed pay from me..."

    There is more under "2016" that should be read. Personally, I am taken aback....

    However, all this may pale in significance to the page linked from the above quoted page [15]. This page outlines the whole of User Vipul's paid editing operation for (or aimed at) Wikipedia: List of contributors, Money spent this month, Impact (of efforts I suppose) based on Page veiws and anecdotal evidence. The section on "Total Money Spent This Month" is particularly amazing. (Someone else) is a recruiter (recruits paid editors for Wikipedia, apparently from high schools and colleges). (A person), mentioned in the first sentence in "2015" is the paymaster. And most of the others do "piece work".

    Sorry for the wall of text - in this instance I felt it was needed for clarity. Hopefully this is so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be entirely altruistic, although it may violate some policies (e.g. sock/meat puppets, COI, paid editing) I found this quote on one of those pages you link to above: "I am interested in funding similar pages on the timelines of malaria, cholera, and influenza, and might consider expanding to things like AIDS, particular cancers, senescence research, smallpox, and other diseases."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HappyValleyEditor ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That page is a little outdated :). The more up-to-date location is this, linked by Steve. Also, since I wrote the earlier page, I have had success with having many of these other timelines made, as you can see: timeline of global health, timeline of cholera, timeline of malaria, timeline of influenza. It's been great working with a number of enthusiastic Wikipedia writers to create content of lasting value accessible to a global audience. Vipul (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Steve, really appreciate the free publicity! As you can see, none of the information you uncovered is particularly secret, and in fact I pride myself (and the people I work with, Issa and Ethan) on an extremely open process for content creation, along with full disclosure of real-world identity and amounts of money exchanged. Let me know if you find anybody else you think would be a good recruit for Wikipedia editing! Cheers. Vipul (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vipul: While I commend you for being transparent about paying people to edit articles, I am having difficulty identifying the other users under your employ. Are they all using your own account to do their edits? --Drm310 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can access the full list here. If you click through to the pages about them you will see links to their Wikipedia user pages and contributions. Vipul (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AjnaCondor

    User has admitted to being directly involved with the fringe-oriented organization Health Australia Party, and has spent most of their time here pushing their POV on the page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imrust

    The user has confessed to being Varun Parandhaman's manager, and by editing that article following his own laws, he clearly shows conflict of interest. Yet, he believes that by removing the COI tag, he can get away and be seen as a normal editor rather than a COI editor. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 102#User:Imrust Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This previous discussion did not redeem him; it temporarily protected the article, only to allow him to edit in his old style again when the protection expired. He is still unchanged from his old habits, and something must be done. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kailash29792, I put the COI tag on the article. I would have helped to clean it, but I am a bit busy for the moment. Just to let you know, we cannot really block an editor for COI, unless the editor is engaging in disruptive editing. Right now, it seems the editor is not doing any such thing. Should it continue, I guess we can look at it again. The way forward is to clean the article and hope the editor responds to our queries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    An important discussion related to COIN follow up

    Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As a new(ish) editor, the depth of the discussion you point too is too much of a barrier for a newbie! In other words, that is a tough discussion to enter into. What I notice about the COIN discussion surrounding JytDog's block is that the people who are aghast at us checking the web for evidence of COI are not the ones doing the COIN work.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    people who are aghast at us checking the web for evidence of COI are not the ones doing the COIN work Spot on! I noticed that too. The discussion is bit too deep but I will try to understand it today if I have time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick summary - as part of the harrassment (specifically outing) policy, the phrase 'links to accounts on other websites are allowed on a case by case basis' is currently in dispute. It has been in the policy for awhile with no issues however it has recently come to a head because an editor was blocked for 'outing' when obeying the letter of the policy.
    The main arguments for including the wording are that it is necessary in order to address COI/Paid editing issues, being unable to link to accounts off-site that disclose the person's identity may hinder that. The example that got Jytdog blocked was that a editor was editing registered as a user under his real name, and Jytdog linked to his public Linkedin profile that disclosed the COI with the company whose article they were editing.
    The main arguments for removing the case-by-case clause is that 'outing' is unacceptable regardless of the reasons why, and that any information not disclosed on wikipedia regarding a person's identity/location/workplace etc is outing, regardless of how public that information is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaun David Barker

    "New" editor Wikiedmedits created this article in just 4 edits. Bears all signs of a paid job... Eyes needed --Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked (diff). --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon inspection of article, I notice that many of the references are about clients of Barker that make no mention of him at all. I have removed a few, but more need to be removed. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 11:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Every hallmark of a paid editing job. Let me look up the notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Western Sydney University

    There has been controversy about the university's research into alternative medicine. The first editor, Fkooy1, appears to be the university's leading critic, who is quoted in the sources that he cites. He persists in adding information about the university's "Bent Spoon Award nomination", but apparently he was the one who made the nomination. The second editor, Nicoleswanson, appears to be working for the university. She has been removing material damaging to the university, including that inserted by Fkooy1. The evidence for these identifications is pretty obvious, but I can't spell it out without "outing" these editors. Both of them have clear conflicts of interest.Jack Upland (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Senesh Dissanaike Bandara

    Apparent COI. The article has been maintained as a resume, and could use oversight from objective editors. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Healey

    Following on from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Kevin Healey, this subject have since became angry that the picture of him has being deleted due to copyright issues ([16], [17] [18]), yet he fails to understand the reason behind it. He has since announces that one is going to be uploaded soon. The next part is shall we revert all edits as well that he needs to be reminded of WP:OWN on Twitter (where he is mostly active at) that he has not have any control of his "own" page like he think he is entitled to. Donnie Park (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    He does not seem to have done anything to his wikipedia page since your last COI notification. I don't see a huge problem in him providing a properly licenced image. I can't see his tweets since he blocked me after I noted on twitter that he seems to engage in exactly the cyber bullying he claims to fight against. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Communion (music)

    COI, editing article on eponymous label. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message on the user's talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And up popped an IP, who I've added above. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope I don't cause inconvenience by moving the page to Communion Music, while Communion (music) may be perceived as a synonym of Communion (chant) (so making Communion (music) a redirect to the Communion DAB page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also left them a note about their unsuitable user name. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Solid acid fuel cell

    I am a freelance science writer. I was hired to write a Wikipedia page about solid acid fuel cells by a company that produces solid acid fuel cells. While I am not writing directly about the company, I want to make sure that this potential conflict of interest is as transparent as possible.

    I would like to add a section to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Types_of_fuel_cells.3B_design as well as create a separate page explaining what solid acid fuel cells are.

    Should I post what I have written (including all references, which are mostly published journal articles) ? Ldajose (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Ldajose. It would be helpful if you posted what you have. One venue for the new article would be Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but you could as easily use your sandbox - please let us know where to find it. And perhaps use talk:Fuel cell to discuss the changes you want to make to that article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Tagishsimon, my sandbox is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ldajose/sandbox . My apologies.. I am somewhat new to using wikipedia so please let me know if this is the wrong place for this discussion. Thanks! --Ldajose 22:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't the first step here be to make the required full disclosure? - Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. That policy says: "Users must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contribution to Wikipedia." There isn't a way to know if the article uses an neutral point of view without having the information that is required by that policy. LaMona (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    William E. "Bill" Thornton

    Persistent addition of unsourced resume to a biographical article. New user has acknowledged this is autobiographical, and has sought assistance, but is plowing ahead. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rory Ridley-Duff

    Information to help with your deliberations on the article about Rory Ridley-Duff.

    There are misunderstandings and misinformation in the discussion about the deletion of my Wikipedia entry. I'm not asking for the article to be re-instated, only that misinformation is acknowledged and accepted.

    1) "His works range from a book that is cited >600 times ('Reader in Co-operative and Social Enterprise')" / "He does not hold a notable academic position" The 'Reader' is not a book - this is my job title at Sheffield Hallam University. A 'Reader' in the UK is a Professor without Chair / Associate Professor in international parlance. You even have a Wikpedia page that explains what a 'Reader' is. It is a notable position (as I have clarified to Wikipedia editors in the past by providing the letter of appointment in 2011). You can verify here: https://www.shu.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-profiles/rory-ridley-duff

    2) "self-published novels" - I have one novel published in collaboration with the FairShares Association (in Sheffield, UK) and another that was published by Booktrope (previously Libertary in Seattle, USA). I think it is a mistake to automatically equate publishing through Libertary / CreateSpace Independent Publishing with self-publishing. I am an experienced author with the skills to produce books and the choice of platform for publishing depends on the project being undertaken and whether I want to be in control of its distribution, rather than a third party publisher. In the case of CreateSpace, the decision to use that platform was taken by a vote of members of the FairShares Association. The collective decision to publish Dragons' Apprentice on CreateSpace is evidenced here: https://www.loomio.org/d/NxtoESf9/proposal/ovZ6Jeb8. Having taken that decision, subsequent publications with the FairShares Association (including academic publications accepted by my university such as 'The Case for FairShares') (see http://shura.shu.ac.uk/10198/) were also published using CreateSpace.

    3) "Checking 'Libertary Editions' as publisher. [2] This is a self-publishing platform. So is 'CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform'" The comment on Libertary Editions is wrong in fact. At the time the book was published by Libertary (2010), I entered into a contract with them and had no role in the preparation of the book for publication or its marketing beyond that I would have - for example - with Sage Publications. It later became a publishing community (Booktrope) for groups of professional writers, artists, marketers to collaborate on book publishing projects - a different, more co-operative, publishing model to a private-sector publisher but equally legitimate in the eyes of the law and the public. I never participated in the Booktrope Community beyond registering myself on their website.

    4) "He did publish a textbook through Sage, but it's currently unavailable, according to their site. So, fails WP:AUTHOR. No references with any depth from reliable sources." The statement that the book is unavailable is untrue. The 2nd edition of the book was published in 2015 - your editor probably found a reference to the first edition which was withdrawn after the second edition was published. This is a hugely successful book with worldwide sales. Sage Publications are a respected academic publisher with a worldwide operation (and also publish the world's top social science journal in which I have also published). You can verify the second edition at https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/understanding-social-enterprise/book242879

    5) In the list of journals I have published in is Human Relations. Journals are ranked 1 - 4 by the Association of Business Schools (ABS) (4 is the highest rating, recognised as 'world leading'). Human Relations is a 4* ranked journal - a world leading journal - and any academic published therein is 'world leading' in their field by definition. You can verify the rating of Human Relations using the Harzing Journal Quality list at http://www.harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ACADEMIC PROFILE / STATUS There are over 1600 academics who have deposited works in Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA). I am listed at 5 in the 'Top Authors' section. You can check the latest information at http://shura.shu.ac.uk/cgi/stats/report (Top Authors are listed on the right hand side of the page).

    The impact of my research was accepted as 3* (Internationally Excellent) by the Economic and Social Research Council (government research funder) in the last Research Excellence Framework evaluation during 2014. The impact case can be found at: http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=4965 

    Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 08:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 08:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

    This forum isn't involved in deletions. I think you meant to post this at Wikipedia:Deletion review. LaMona (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dalit Freedom Network

    EDITOR BLOCKED
    Editor blocked for promotional username. Recommend keeping an eye on the article. Nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure)--Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 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.

    An editor called "DalitNetwork" is editing the page Dalit Freedom Network. This seems to be a violation of Wikipedia policies.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind, I did not notice he was blocked.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll close this then VictoriaGrayson. Just keep an eye on the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 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.

    Articles relating to the band Against the Current

    I discovered this user when he added dubious content without a source to Rheumatic fever. However, most of his edits have been related to articles about the band they're in, Against the Current, both editing articles and creating new ones. Most of his edits in the user talk namespace consist of removing notices on his talk page. I have almost no experience with situations like these (and I'm not so good with people), and I have no interest in the subject, so that's why I've put this notice here. Graham87 15:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rana (genus)

    The user in question has been engaged in strong, persistent advocacy for the taxonomic viewpoint of a particular group of scientists since 2008, with almost zero other contributions to WP, and has deliberately omitted mention of published rebuttals of that taxonomic viewpoint. Their near exclusive focus has been on opposing the splitting of genera Rana and Bufo (aka. the common frog and toad, respectively), the two taxa of dispute between this group of scientists and other taxonomists, with no interest in even closely related genera of less contentious taxonomy. Most importantly, however, the user has overtly stated in prior discussions (including a Mediation) an awareness of unpublished literature over a year before the appearance of the paper in print, and, when confronted about their possible COI, completely ignores or diverts away from the topic. Note that nobody has demanded their identity, just a simple yes/no to whether they have a COI as an author of one or more these papers. HCA (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, I have been the only person to follow the Arbitration agreement reach in this case, and present a neutral, balanaced viewpoint of the literature. The consensus that was reached in Arbitration was that ALL current views on the taxonomy of this groups would be represented evenly and fairly. There was never an agreement to use the AMNH database exclusively, especially since that database is written by the person (Frost) who proposed using Lithobates as a genus. Despite this agreement, in March HCA unilaterally changed all the pages, which has presented both the AMNH and the alternative, widespread viewpoint, to show the AMNH viewpoint only. Then in June, a consortium of Rana systematists from throughout Europe, Asia, and North America (Yuan et al., 2016), who had previously supported different taxonomic arrangements, published a major systematic review of the group, with the first extensive, multigene data set for the group, and sampled across most of the taxa. They supported the view that Rana, in the sense of all the Holarctic brown/true frogs, was monophyletic; that the group called Lithobates was nested within Rana; and that recognition of Lithobates as a genus made the rest of Rana paraphyletc. They published (in Systematic Biology) a classification of all the species of Rana which kept all these species in a single genus Rana, and they recognized several well known and well supported species groups within Rana as subgenera. Another WP user updated the Rana page to reflect the Yuan et al. (2016) paper; this was immediately reverted by HCA. Consistent with the Arbitration agreement, I then modified the Rana page to show the differences between the Yuan et al. (2016) taxonomy and the Frost (2006) taxonomy, and added the Yuan et al. (2016) reference back to the Rana page. I fixed some non-controversial errors in the page (e.g., the old page said that Rana was distributed in Africa; that is untrue for anyone's classification of these frogs). I also noted that the taxonomy supported by the international group (Yuan et al., 2016) has been adopted by the online resource AmphibiaWeb. All of this is exactly in agreement with the Arbitration agreement, agreed upon by myself and HCA.Ranapipiens (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=729125673"