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 80.221.159.67 (talk) at 09:45, 29 September 2016 (→‎Legal Tech in Russian Wikipedia: Ping User:Дмитрий Кошелев: Translation error). 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:Aleksandr Agapitov
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Nigel Edwards (health)
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:GoToGate
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Camille Herron
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Jats
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
    Talk:Andrew D. Maynard
    Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive)
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moody Nolan
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaze
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Royal Match
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Unity (game engine)
    Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zyn

    Herb David

    Deleted at AfD. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 19 September 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.

    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]
    And deleted. Closing. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 19 September 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.

    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]
    I have filed a sockpuppet investigation. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:27, 19 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 [5], 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]

    OBTW, Cyprianio never responded to this "final" request for disclosure a year ago [6] but has continued editing, including today objecting to speedy deletions of several of their commercial creations listed above. As well as removing evidence of the real-world COI on their talkpage that this case was opened with [7]. - Brianhe (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Euclidthalis, ditto Bremain007. - Brianhe (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Character theory (media)

    Janitorial work completed save for outstanding discussion of a topic ban, whihc belongs at ANI. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi,

    I 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]

    @Jonathanbishop: Can you describe the conflict of interest? - Brianhe (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I provide services to victims of cyber-bullying, including raising awareness of those who have trolled them. In the past this has included 'PontyTown', 'Urban75' and most recently 'Kiwi Farms' and 'Quackometer'. Immediately following people from those websites have vandalised this page. In terms of Kiwi Farms the actions of the users have included contacting my local newspaper and saying they will mutilate babies in local hospitals. The conflict of interest is there for based on retaliation against me because of those victims I help. The following links highlight the timing for the current vandalism: [8][9][10][11][12] --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that two of the users deleting the content at present are associated with the skeptic movement so is likely that they do not like the fact I am helping highlight the actions of Andrew Lewis of Quackometer, whose worldview they share - User_talk:Ravensfire User_talk:JzG. -- Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You just have to look at the reasons given to remove it. They are saying my theory must be removed because there is no independent source, even though there are peer-reviewed sources. That criticism could equally apply to Character theory (media)#Campbell, Fletcher and Greenhill's character theory - mine has been cited more by others than theirs has, proving the removal is malicious and biased because they are applying different rules to my character theory than they are to others on the page. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted the other character theories which had sources that related only to articles authored by those who described those character theories. I'm sure this is fine because if mine was deleted for not having independent sources it is fine for these to be deleted for the same reason? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's normally no issue witht hat, though doing so out of obvious spite at your theory being removed is clearly a problem. You'd have been better off suggesting their rmeoval on Talk, where I doubt it would have been especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main COI here is Jonathan Bishop, who has clearly abused Wikipedia for self-promotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Character_theory_(media)&diff=prev&oldid=739867511 is particularly egregious). Apparently - and I knew nothing of this until his comment on my talk page - he has been supporting Angel Garden and Steve Paris, two people who have been on a crusade against skeptic Andy Lewis for years because he oppressed them by taking a while to approve a comment on his blog (yes, really, that does seem to be the root of it). I have never met Lewis. We have a small number of mutual acquaintances, and one mutual friend. That is not a COI in any meaningful sense.
    I did remove a number of citations to Bishop's websites all added as far as I can tell by Bishop himself, or by user:DigitalDisconnect, who I strongly suspect is an associate. This was a straightforward janitorial matter. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am not allowed to make allegations but you are? I have no idea who user:DigitalDisconnect is. But if they have done anything that could be considered favourable to me I'm certain according to you Guy it will have broken at least one of Wikipedia's rules --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? Because I have been exposing him people have turned on me, even going to the trouble of sending death threats to people that know me. If you have gone to the trouble of removing content about me, what reason have you given? Have you removed other content meeting the same description? No you have not, because you have decided to harass and bully me. You should not be editing any form of encyclopedia if you cannot be fair and objective! --Jonathan Bishop (talk)
    For the avoidance of doubt, I have never communicated in any way shape or form with Jonathan Bishop, my interest in political pluralism (where I have made a few edits) is purely incidental/philosophical DigitalDisconnect (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins may also be interested in the deleted history of Jonathan Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) says enough for non-admins to understand the issue. Look at some of the archive COI and spam reports linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jonathan Bishop, e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 26 § Jonathan Bishop. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins may also be interested to know that Guy is making reference to content that Admins blanked for me as a courtesy. This proves to me that Guy has a vendetta against me and Admins should not take anything he says seriously as he is going against a decision they made previously. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Courtesy blanking is merely intended to keep the material from being found in search engines. It is not intended to remove the material from consideration when the historical editing record needs to be publicly considered; administrators fuller forms of redaction when that is the goal. There is nothing inappropriate in referring to courtesy-blanked material in this way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The material in this article seems to be covered, better, at Personality type. There's a huge literature on this subject, going back at least to Carl Jung's Psychological Types. I put a note on the talk page suggesting a merge. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and all of it sourced to vastly more reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent idea! What better way to keep Jonathan Bishop's character theory off Wikipedia than to merge the article into one where his won't be notable enough to be included? You genius you! Pat yourself on the back for targeting me while presenting as objective --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. It's not notable enough for this article either, so the merge is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanbishop, your paranoia is showing. I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? On Wikipedia, as everywhere else, the law of holes applies. I had never even heard of Joshua Conner Moon - but looking at your links above, he is just about the last person in the world I would defend. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I had forgotten just how surreal the "harassment" claim against Lewis by Garden and Paris was. It's relevant here because Bishop apparently considers this to be an entirely legitimate claim. As an "expert" in online harassment, he considers Lewis to have harassed and bullied these two. In reality, the shoe is firmly on the other foot. Even knowing that he wanted nothing to do with them, they still turned up at an event where he was speaking, forcing him to leave to avoid a scene. They sued him for libel because he failed to publicise their claims of a victory against a Waldorf school in New Zealand. Now I thought that must be a bit of rhetorical exuberance but in fact the judgment supports the statement absolutely. Their chief source of grievance against lewis is that he did not give them a platform, and then that he made a couple of tetchy comments when they would not stop demanding that he publicise their claims. Bishop considers himself an expert on online harassment. I do not know anybody with any expertise in this who would agree with him that Lewis, rather than Garden and Paris, were the problem here. Note that they fired their legal representatives - this is rarely a good sign. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed several cites to Bishop's websites. These sites have in the past claimed to be affiliated with Swansea University. Turns out they aren't. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. You have removed them because you claim I have been editing Wikipedia with sockpuppet accounts I have not. You are bullying me and it is you that has WP:COI not me. You are relying on WP:COI to remove mention of me from articles that other people have added me to. You are thus committing WP:Wikihounding by proxy, because you have removed multiple edits because you think they were made by me when they were not but in any case that action still breaches WP:Wikihounding because the intention was still WP:Wikihounding of me, even though it was not me you were WP:Wikihounding! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And being a cynical bastard, I think VCHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very likely a sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are harassing me again. In the last month I was cricised for always posting in my real name or when I use "Anonymous" linking to my real name. Now I am being accused of sock-puppetry. Which is it? If people want to abuse me - or send death threats to people who know me as they did last week - they could at least keep a consistent narrative --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with you, Guy. VCHunter's contributions look a lot like he/she/it wishes, fairly singlemindedly, to shoehorn Jonathan Bishop into articles. Rather than flannel and misdirection, Jonathan, you could usefully state one way or another whether VCHunter is one of your accounts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "VCHunter is one of your accounts" - clearly if there is anyone on Wikipedia that does something to my benefit then they must be me because it seems the whole world wants to make me suffer one detriment or another. In fact, no VCHunter is not "one of my accounts." Maybe I should write to my MP and ask them to pass a law to make it illegal for anyone to do anything that might be to my benefit and introduce a defence to any crime that it is fine to do it if the person it is being done to is me. That way no one will edit Wikipedia to refer to any of my work in a positive way because they would so afraid in case they are caught --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of standard practice, in cases like this sockpuppets and meatpuppets are generally treated as one anyway. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanbishop: And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. Bullshit. I removed them because I concluded they were WP:REFSPAM. And your comments here have pretty much confirmed it, thanks. I didn't even bother checking the fake institutional affiliation and other problems with them: the fact that crocels is not a WP:RS was enough. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The majority of the sources are primary sources. See Character_theory_(media)#References. Recommending AFD or merge to Personality type. QuackGuru (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    So where the ones referring to my character theory! The reason they were removed by Guy was out of malice. The fact you are called talk suggests to me you have the same WP:COI which is you want to cause me serious harm because I dared help people who were cyberbullied by Dr Andrew Lewis --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If these websites are making false claims that they are associated with a University and we can reliably show they are false, then whether they are primary or not isn't as important as the fact that they are unreliable. If they are continuously added to articles, I would suggest blacklisting them as spam, as the intent is to sell an idea using a fraudulent premise to lend credibility to those claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What you fail to realise is it is being claimed I added these references when I did not. Stop accusing me of things you have no proof of. Prove I have made these edits. You cannot because I have not! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you didn't make this edit?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I made that edit, with my own account. I have not made the edits that Guy claims I have though. I don't think WP:COI applied in that case because I was adding a page to a company that has a separate legal identity from me and I did not try to claim that this system should be seen as above all the other applications listed there. The Q-Methodology community is a close-knit one without the competitiveness seen in other disciplines. Everyone knows each other. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI guidelines cover a wide range of relationships, not merely being the specific legal entity that is invoked. That edit is a clear example of COI, as are the edits where you reinsert material about yourself to articles (and that is true whether or not some other also has a COI.) I suggest that you carefully review the COI guidelines to better understand what is being addressed here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I could name to you a Canadian Professor who uses a sockpuppet account to edit his own Wikipedia entry. However, because that professor is not called "Jonathan Bishop" I'm sure what he is doing does not breach WP:COI --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to review the archives of this noticeboard and see that we do, indeed, find many people in breach of the COI guidelines who among them have a wide variety of names. If you wish to bring up COI concerns on this noticeboard regarding that supposed Canadian professor, I would recommend reviewing the rules at WP:OUTING before doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will do, and I will check and the same time whether this conversation falls within WP:OUTING because Guy has tried to claim accounts that are not mine are me. Is there are policy for determining whether an account is a sockpuppet account that runs in parallel to WP:OUTING? If there is I think Guy should have followed this before assuming accounts that are not mine are linked with mine as it is quite clear he has attempted to out accounts that are not mine as if they are --Jonathan Bishop(talk) 17:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I did what you said Nat Gertler and it was reverted. It seems when others like Guy make allegations about me it is not outing but when I do it is! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I shall try to be clearer in the future. You should review and follow the rules at WP:OUTING. You claimed that because he had typed a name, that means that he outed himself; I have typed your name several times now, and am not claiming to be you. Any "bobby did it first" excuses are things I would not accept from my school-aged children; don't expect them to be taken seriously here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also while this is a COI/N and we will consider COI issues, the particular issue surrounding those websites isn't dependent on people adding them having a COI. If the website is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a source no matter who adds it. (Now if the website is being added by people with a COI, that may suggest a block of these editors if they keep up at it, but that's just in addition.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal of me from Character theory (media) and whatever other pages I was on is in effect WP:Wikihounding by proxy by Guy. Guy thinks all the pages he has removed me from were edited by me using sockpuppets, when this is not the case. He holds a gripe that my professional life has included helping people who have been bullied by people he supports. So even though I did not add myself to all the articles he has removed me form he has broken WP:Wikihounding because he assumed I did and that was why he removed me from them. Either Guy should provide evidence I edited these pages or he should revert all the edits he made in bad faith, contrary to WP:AGF. Guy is the one with the WP:COI not me. It was Guy that removed references to me because of his devotion to Dr Andrew Lewis and other skeptics. Guy has not acted in an objective manner. Guy has systematically removed mentions of me by claiming I am using several sockpuppet accounts that I have not! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally no one here is going to do anything about the material about you/your pet theory being removed from articles when it was sourced to your own website - a site that has in the past falsely claimed association with a University to the point where the University had to cease and desist you, its fringe/non notable material of zero impact. You also insist on claiming harrassment/bullying when no reasonable person would consider it such. To the point where you mightily resemble Garden/Paris. Even should Guy in some fit of mania decide to reinstate the material, I and any number of other editors (who are now aware of it because you have escalated this beyond all necessary reason) would rip it out again with the same justification. You need to do 3 things - learn what a reliable independant secondary source is, find one to support the material you wish added to the article, propose its inclusion on the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To help abbreviate a long argument I foresee occurring about five years from now, it's likely that more than just one supporting source will be needed, giving the likelihood that any one source provided will be a borderline phony paper in a cryptovanity journal. EEng 06:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is impossible for me to know which pages referred to me and thus which I was removed from unless I go through each one of Guy's edits. The only pages I knew I was on was the Character theory and Cyberbullying page. You can see from the Cyberbullying page [13] I was removed by Guy saying it was self promotion. It is my view that Guy is saying I am editing with an account I have never used so he can remove any mention that has been made of me on Wikipedia. He is removing content he things I added not because he cares about the integrity of Wikipedia but probably because he wants to get at me because I helped a couple overcome the abuse they suffered by a skeptic whom he knows --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot be bothered to actually find the edits that you are apparently complaining about, you should at least take a real look at the one edit you linked to and specified. In the edit summary, Guy is not "saying it was self promotion" as you claim; the edit summary is solely "WP:SELFPUB", which is a comment on the reliability of a source that was linked to in the deleted material, where a document placed on jonathanbishop.com was being used as a reference. It is not a comment on the editor who placed the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid any doubt, this and your earlier statements means you are explicitly saying that you are not VCHunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DigitalDisconnect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is that correct? Are you also saying you have not used any other accounts besides Jonathanbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and editing anonymously (without signing in) to edit wikipedia? P.S. I'm not sure if anyone actually thinks your the same editor as DigitalDisconnect, but it's useful to get that out of the way since it appears you are volunteering that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I am saying! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not Jonathan Bishop, and have never been him either. I do not appreciate my edits being removed from people who assume I am and have a personal vendetta. --VCHunter (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit of calm is indicated here. Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor and has no idea how Wikipedia really works. That's not unusual. To Mr. Bishop: what's going on here is this. Wikipedia is very widely read, and many people trying to promote their business, product, or self try to put material into Wikipedia which appears promotional. Wikipedia does not allow this. If it did, it would read like PR Newswire and would be useless. So Wikipedia has defenses against promotion. One of them is this Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. There are regulars here who deal with what looks like promotion, editing articles to achieve more of a neutral point of view backed by reliable sources. Both of those terms have specific meanings on Wikipedia, established after years of argument. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There are also policies against editing articles about your own work. See WP:COI. The people who are dealing with your issue here are not harassing you. Most of them have probably never heard of you. It's just a routine part of the Wikipedia process that makes Wikipedia a useful curated encyclopedia rather than a collection of random junk. You might have more success writing for Medium, and like anyone else, you can promote your ideas on Reddit or various blogs. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Either I am a new editor or I use sockpuppets to self-promote - which is it? Any references I have made to my own work with my Jonathan Bishop account are open and transparent. It seems that Wikipedia operates a different conflict of interest policy to the dozen or so professional bodies I am a member of who are more concerned about not acting in a way to other's detriment for oneself, friends or associates. The fact that Guy has acted not in the interests of WP:COI but solely to get at me would breach my professional bodies codes of conduct, even though it seems what he has done to make me suffer a detriment for malicious reasons linked to accounts that are not mine seems to be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor...
    "No" to the former, since his first edit was in January of 2006. I think ten-and-a-half years is long past the point of calling someone "new".
    ...and has no idea how Wikipedia really works
    No argument there. See his contributions at:

    Also informative: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174#Jane_Davidson

    So why do you think your explanation will work this time, as opposed to all the other times it hasn't sunk in? --Calton | Talk 07:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I think it is time Mr. Bishop was shown the door. His differently-rational assertions of malice as the only possible justification for removing his vanity text is, for me, the clincher. This is not someone who is here to build a great encyclopaedia, it's someone who is here to boost his reputation. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed content produced by accounts that are not mine thinking they are. You are still referring to my "vanity text." I know it might be inconceivable that there are people out there who care what I have to say, but you had no right to unilaterally remove content posted by accounts you believe were connected without first establishing whether those accounts were connected. You cannot prove those accounts are mine so you should not have sought to diminish other's contributions relating to me without proof they were self-promotion. For something to be "self" promotion it has to be done by oneself. They accounts you are claiming are mine are not, therefore it cannot be self-promotion but other-promotion, if that! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes: Yes, Bishop is not a new editor. I should have checked that. AN/I just took a look at this (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Guy), decided Bishop was forum-shopping, and sent the problem back here. So we have to deal with it, which means fixing the content problems.
    Over at Talk:Personality_type#Proposed_merge, I proposed merging Character theory (media) into Personality Type. One opposed vote comments that this would make a mess of Personality type, which is a high-importance article. They have a point. Looking at the Character theory (media) article again, it seems to combine two unrelated subjects - characters in literature and user behavior in online environments. The main article for the first is Character (arts). That starts with Aristotle and goes forward. It could be expanded a bit, perhaps using the types of characters already listed at Vladimir_Propp. There's no definitive list of literary character types; various sources list from 4 to 16 types. Anyway, the literary angle should be covered at Character (arts). That's a standard topic students are assigned to study, so we need to be clear and mainstream there.
    Once the literary angle has been dealt with, user behavior in online situations may deserve mention. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about "users" in various contexts. Not sure where this fits. There's Cyberbullying, which might be relevant. Comment? John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonathanbishop Yes, vanity text. Your pet theory which you edit warred to include alongside theories by credentialled academics - it's that edit warring and this argumentation that make it vanity. As to whether there are people who care what you have to say, I have no opinion. All I know is that nobody has written about it on Wikipedia other than you and a couple of your mates. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did some work on character roles at Character (arts). There's already an article on character theory: Actant. These articles now cover the literature-related material from Character theory (media). Do we still need that article? Comments? --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the Goffman section from Character theory (media), as after inspection I fail to find anything even close to this in Presentation of Self.... You have dealt with Propp. Bartle has its own article. I have added Campbell et al to Online_community#Classification. That being the case, I give you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character theory (media). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Other accounts

    In the second AfD, the following editors !voted Keep:

    I do not think these are socks, but I do think they are associates of Bishop. Politicool, for example, promoted an agenda against a Welsh politician citing Bishop's websites: [14]. Politicool's 11th edit, less than 24h after his first, was a Keep !vote on an AfD for the article on Bishop: [15]. Politicool also made non-NPOV edits including to WP:BLPs citing Bishop, e.g.: [16],[17]. Politicool added Bishop's work to two high profile articles on legislation: [18], [19]. I believe that Politicool and Bishop are associates, and it was Politicool's ref spamming that I found first when reviewing the links to crocels. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • For the record, as a former SPI guy, I did some research on those and agree they are more likely associates, and not likely to be the same person. There is too little meatpuppet on that bone to worry ourselves with it as the amount of real crossover approaches zero. The behavior is the core issue, and I'm beginning to agree with Guy's assessment above. This is starting to look like an issue of WP:NOTHERE, with the unfounded attacks on Guy being a prime example, and his contribs backing that up. I would also like more consideration on simply blacklisting that unreliable website, which would prevent future issues. I think there is valid reason (and likely support) to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And consider the most recent edits from VCHunter (talk · contribs) which cite Bishop: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. There are more but I stopped at four. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, all I have done is point out that Guy removed content relating to me in order to get at me. Guy motives are not in the spirit of Wikipedia's rules they are malicious towards me because I have helped victims of one of his heros - Dr Andrew Lewis --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are going to ban someone because they have strongly criticised the way they have been intended to be treated by another user? Guy's intentions have not been to act in the interests of Wikipedia but to bully me because my professional life involved helping someone bullied by Dr Andrew Lewis whom he identifies with. Even if this were not the case, the fact is that Guy has removed content placed by accounts that are not mine because he thought they were. He has removed the content of accounts that are not me using allegations of sockpuppetry that he cannot substantiate. Are you saying there is no process for editors to establish accounts are sockpuppets before they unilaterally remove content they believe is self-promotion even though they have no proof the accounts are linked or connected with the person they believe is self-promoting? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is it. And the accounts don't have to be linked to be self-promoting or promoting. They are separate issues. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't block you under WP:NOTHERE, particularly when I've read that Swansea says you have no part of their school, and I see you claiming it [20] in more places than your website, which you are trying to use as a source. I'm about at 95% towards blocking you and just being done with it, but wanted to hear why I shouldn't, what you have contributed besides links to your own work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Keep your encyclopedia to yourself - it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever," sayeth the great man. Finally he's getting some clue. EEng 20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • That has no real effect here. People claim they are leaving, then come back all the time. Not saying that he is using it to evade sanction, but it is done regularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that. I still thought it worth noting in terms of setting expectations of response from him, and pointing to it as it was not where on would normally look for a resignation announcement. He has continued to post to my talk page since. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you make sure all my domains are permanently blocked so they can never be used ever? Thanks --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't how it works. We don't just blacklist on your request. I was talking about blacklisting one deceptive website. Any blacklisting will be done per our standard methods, we aren't a jukebox. And for the record, I have NO idea who you, although you seem to think you are pretty darn important. I have no idea if Guy does. This "Wikipedia is out to get me" is a bit of self-aggrandizement. You haven't been treated any different than anyone else doing what you are doing. With all due respect, you need to get over yourself. We have editors who really ARE someone outside of these walls. They get treated the same as everyone else. You aren't a special little snowflake here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not how it works. The sites that Guy removed meet the criteria for WP:RS to at least the same standard as others on that page. I don't want you linking to any of my websites. If some of my content is not good enough for you then from my point of view none of it should be! If I wasn't notable enough for you in 2009 then from my point of view I never should be! Crocels's publications at at the standard of other academic organisations with ISBN numbers and ISSN numbers. If they are not good enough for Wikipedia in 2016 then in my view they never should be! My current CV is equivalent to that of most Associate Professors and start-up entrepreneurs so if I am not good enough for Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016 then I never should be! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As a simple matter of fact, no the don't. Not even close. You have provided only one thing of value to Wikipedia: you have alerted me to the fact that IGI Global is a print-on-demand vanity press, which gives me another list of crap sources to clear out. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're telling us how "it" works??? EEng 20:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So Alexa's 980,616th ranked website[21] is too good for the 6th ranked?[22] Okay, got it. If you are leaving before you get blocked, now is a good time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Guy, you know all the material, can you craft a list of topics for a tban at WP:AN, as well as filter out a few choice diffs? I can review and will personally make the proposal there since I'm uninvolved. It would include "in all spaces" but I can sweat the nomenclature, that's what I do. My talk page is fine. A tban at WP:AN is guaranteed to stick whereas a block can be debated or lifted by a single admin. I'm not going to debate any more, it's a fools errand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Columbo moment

    Just one more thing...

    The plot thickens. Or perhaps congeals would be a better word. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Not seeing the connection at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of cites to Bishop, and blocked for personal attacks after a retaliatory removal of content. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanction proposal

    Please leave this section for use of admins collecting evidence for presentation. Comment in a section below. Thank you.

    Users affected:

    Topic area:

    • Online harassment and trolling, broadly construed.
    • Any citation to Jonathan Bishop, by name, or through his various websites.

    Diffs for Jonathanbishop:

    Bishop rarely edits articles at all, at least under his own name and in fact he has come to admin attention only as a result of his spectacularly inappropriate reaction to removal of his name from an article.


    Diffs for VCHunter:

    • [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] (last 3 are consecutive edits to mainspace, three separate articles, all promoting Bishop), then a hiatus for over a year followed by these first edits in 2010: [34], [35], [36], et. seq. Only two mainspace edits in 2011, this is one: [37]. Another hiatus, first edit back: [38], followed by [39] spamming Bishop's websites, and so on and so on, continuing to his last mainspace edits [40] and [41]

    Notes

    Oddly enough, I would include the topic of Jonathan Bishop, based on deleted contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, sounds good to me. And this will apply completely into the future? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should the citations clause be extended to include "and publications"? He does, after all, have several print books on the market, might reasonably have more, and has cited himself on topics beyond trolling (the Robin Hood material.) (Non-admin comment.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to say. Certainly every book by him that I have looked at, turns out to be print-on-demand vanity publishing. The only writing of his that is not in a vanity press which I have found on WP is a single article in a law review. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone that is an objective Wikipedian you've put a lot of effort into monitoring me and investigating articles in which I was mentioned. Seems further evidence of WP:STALK/WP:Wikihounding to me. Lucky for you the administrators are on your side, but unfortunately for User:VCHunter they are not on theirs, thanks mainly to you. Why do you hate me so much you'd force admin to bring down any other Wikipedian who is not me out of spite? Cheers, Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange man. Having discovered what appears to be a years-long pattern of abuse, of course admins are going to spend time investigating it. Would you rather we simply fired fomr the hip and banninated people? We're expected to do our homework. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You, sir, are a fucking idiot. That is an implicit legal threat, and as any person with even a rudimentary grasp of the facts is well aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has nothing to do with this: we are editing and commenting as individuals. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, don't you think you should be following WP:AGF and WP:Civil? Your attitude suggests to me that you have all along been acting maliciously, even to the point of getting admin to restrict the editing rights of an account which is not mine. I note on User:Dennis_Brown's page he admits he "registered my first account in 2006" - sounds like an admission of WP:Sockpuppet to me. Cheers, 23:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop (talk • contribs)
    WP:NOTSUICIDE. As for Dennis Brown, again you show you don't understand WTF you're talking about. You said you were quitting Wikipedia, so will you please do that? There's zero chance of your being useful here. EEng 00:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So in other words what you are saying is that if the rules do not put sysop prerogative in your favour you will ignore those rules so you can claim sysop prerogative is in your favour? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, just an average editor who despises self-absorbed wannabe pseudoacademic dolts who waste everyone's time and lack the clue to make themselves scarce well after it's clear they've screwed the pooch beyond all redemption. EEng 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We all look forward to being called internet bullies in your next book. If you send us all copies then at least someone will read it. EEng 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a book, or at least not yet, just an issue of their magazine [42]. There is a call for papers, so I guess anyone could try submitting one if they are interested. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin breaching WP:Civil, whatever next. Cheers, Jonathan Bishop (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A clueless self-promoter pretending to take the high ground, whatever next. Cheers, EEng 01:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a researcher studying conflict resolution online. I've been reading his references. One of his cite authors, Fletcher, et. al., study on-line conflict. See [43]. He himself says he studies online bullying. It may be that we're being had. John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think, John Nagle, I hadn't anticipated that. EEng 05:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's particularly likely because the behaviour here doesn't seem particularly at odds with what you see on their website, or for that matter their involvement in the Lewis case. (And before Bishop makes a big deal over this, I'm pretty sure I'd neither heard of the Lewis case nor Lewis himself before yesterday. Actually the only thing I may have heard of is the parents since I live in NZ.) Actually, the fact that they think Lewis is similar to Moon says it all (although this is mostly from what went on here). I did almost say to them that as someone who studies online communities they should understand that even if they were right, when everyone else thinks they're wrong continuing to insist they were right was not likely to achieve anything but I don't think it would have helped. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    International Journal of Internet Trolling and Online Participation -- oh my God! EEng 14:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a real thing, and can be read here: [44]. I put a note on the talk page for Internet trolling about it. John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Published by Bishop, edited by Bishop, with at least two articles per issue written by Bishop. Why, that doesn't look like a vanity journal, at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I already noticed the irony. Bbb23 has blocked him for WP:NOTHERE. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing there is more to the situation than meets the eye, and we can probably shelve this proposal, put it in a sandbox in the unlikely event JB is allowed to come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    VCHunter remains unblocked however. Unlike the other accounts where the connection seems less clear and they may simply be meatpuppets, VCHunter does seem fairly suspicious to me. Is there enough evidence for an CU supported SPI? There is a single recent edit from VCHunter which I guess may be enough for a comparison. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As noted above, Bishop is blocked but most of the abusive editing to mainspace was by VCHunter. I think we need to move ahead with the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    VCHunter's last edit in article space was on 9 February 2016. Too far in the past to justify a block, per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Hence I propose a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Postscript

    Bishop is trying to bleasure[1] the Wikimedia Foundation: [45]. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Shocking. As a so-called "expert" in Internet Trolling we shouldn't be surprised that he is good at trolling. Ravensfire (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also preparing a special editiong of his International Journal of Me, Me, Me, It's All About Me: [46]. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe he's just inspired by Doofenshmirtz! Ravensfire (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bishop, 2014. Note the address. Perhaps another cease and desist is in the works.
    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.

    The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS)

    I'm reporting the two users, who appear to be employees of 2 Leaf Press. I became aware of this after this request to have the page for 2 Leaf Press restored, which contained some comments that seemed borderline WP:UNCIVIL.

    The long and short of why I deleted the publisher page was ultimately that it fell under G11 (unambiguous promotion) more so than A7, although notability was absolutely a concern. If it'd just been the notability issues I'd have likely just asked Reddogsix to send the article to AfD, but the page was so spammy that it was extremely promotional. Below are examples of the promotional content:

    People wrote on leaves in ancient times (so we have the theme of past revived), and the imagery of green leaves, falling leaves, and dead leaves have been tropes in fiction and poetry practically since that time.
    Since its founding, 2Leaf Press has injected new blood into the contemporary literary scene with emerging and established authors by producing strikingly unconventional books like novellas, off-beat memoirs, cool books of photography and illustrations, travelogues, song lyrics and epic poetry.
    The press also creates high-quality industry standard (IDPF) eBooks, which are available on Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Play and iTunes.

    As far as I can tell, both editors appear to be here in order to edit about things related to IAAS, their publications, and the people related to this organization. There's enough to suggest that one of the editors is strongly tied to the organization and one of the people whose article is up for deletion, given the similarity of their username and the article name. I'm not intending to out anyone, which is why I'm not mentioning the specific article, but the tie here seems to be very obvious and one that most editors would be able to make just looking at the username and the articles created.

    Now what makes this an issue for the COI noticeboard is that neither editor has ever disclosed their COI, not even when requesting the article restoration. They've never been officially asked, but I will note that Gdavid01 has been editing since 2012. The edits for Gdavid01 and Rubyperl appear to center entirely on IAAS related topics, either adding the article to Wikipedia or making related edits. They appear to have made any edits that aren't potential COI. I also note that several of the articles were deleted at least once (The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS), Sean Frederick Forbes, 2Leaf Press), so at some level these editors had to know that there were problems with the articles but kept trying to re-add the content. Draftspace seems to really only be done as a way to keep a copy of the content in order to re-add it to the mainspace, honestly.

    My concern here is that the articles are very promotional, some have notability concerns, and there has been no disclosure. I'm also concerned about the editors' ability to edit in a neutral fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I share the concerns of User:Tokyogirl79. I became aware of this promotion within the past two days at Articles for Creation, when I saw several AFC articles in article space, which should not be the state of articles that were properly accepted via AFC. A walled garden of inadequately sourced articles had been moved from draft space into article space, and I nominated them for deletion. This does appear to be a systematic effort to use Wikipedia promotionally, including the repeated re-creation of 2Leaf Press, which has finally had to be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been going through the articles for AfD and none of them appear to pass notability guidelines. I'd actually recommend that we look at the articles that aren't currently up for AfD, since there's a strong chance that those would not pass GNG either and at the very least would require a complete re-write to meet NPOV guidelines. These have to be some of the more promotional articles I've seen on Wikipedia, especially as some of them went undetected for quite a while. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like all of the mainspace articles but Jesús Papoleto Meléndez has been nominated for AfD. I'll try to take a look at that later. If he is notable then I might endorse TNTing the article and replacing it with a clean, puffery free article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two drafts, which both are also in article space where they have been nominated for deletion. I recommend that the drafts be left alone until the AFD's are closed as Delete, at which time the drafts can be MFD'd referring to the deletion of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else that crossed my mind is that Gdavid01 still hasn't been completely transparent here. She's disclosed a COI, but not exactly how she was in contact with these students. If she's the person I believe her to be, then I don't think she's a teacher. This means that if Rubyperl is a student then she's possibly an intern at IAAS or at the very least, she's a student of Forbes, who does teach at that university. However if Forbes is the teacher then that raises the question of how Gdavid01 was in contact with the student(s) - and that's another thing. Gdavid01 mentions multiple students, but so far I've only seen one other account. Something here just really doesn't feel right and feels especially off in a situation where one of the editors is supposedly a student. (Note that Rubyperl has never made this statement herself and that has been relatively mute except for disputing the deletions.) There's also the fact that GDavid said that she couldn't edit because of her COI, yet has done that several times this September, if we ignore the promotional article back in 2012. I'm also not entirely comfortable with how similarly written the 2012 article (Jesús Papoleto Meléndez ) is to the current articles written by Rubyperl. I just feel that Gdavid01 isn't being completely honest here and I can't help but get the impression that if this is a student, that they were given a specific article version to post (meaning that they did not write this themselves), possibly in a way to get around the COI guidelines. This whole thing just feels off moreso than the normal COI type of stuff I see on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Where does Gdavid01 (whom we assume is Gabrielle David) disclose a COI, and where does she mention students? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • She mentioned it here, with the following phrase:
    In as so far as disclosure, here it is: A number of students at University of Connecticut asked why 2Leaf Press and its entities were not on Wikipedia. I explained that I could not do it because of the conflict of interest, so they offered to do it (they took information from the website, and I answered a few questions), and I have since stayed out of it. It was only when Rubyperl, who was responsible for the actual submission, got hit with the notices that she came to me for help and I stepped in to help figure out these notices, including the issue about citations and references, and helped with formatting the info box. This is it. This is the disclosure.
    I'm concerned that she only came forward with this once she was asked about her COI, despite her seeming to have a good enough awareness of the COI guidelines that she should not be editing the articles. For me this shows that she should be savvy enough to understand that whatever relationship lies between her and the students, it's one that would clearly qualify as a COI given that she is in direct contact with several students that have apparently asked her repeatedly about IAAS/2Leaf related pages. That she doesn't state this relationship gives off the strong impression that she's trying to manipulate the system and hide what is going on here. There is a very small possibility that this wasn't what it appears to be: that David handed pre-written, promotional articles to an intern and told them to upload the content, but her being able to pull up various policies suggests that she knows well enough to be aware of the various issues. I'm just going to be honest and voice my concerns here, which I've been tapdancing around. If the impressions here are correct then I'm extremely concerned that if there is a student/intern, that they may be getting exploited or receiving a lot of pressure to post the content. This last part might not be true, but it's not a completely unfounded concern in situations like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a basic summary of events, which includes what I'm about to write:
    Summary

    This is a bit long, so I figured I'd add a basic overview here of the events.

    In 2012 the editor Gdavid01 signed up for an account and created an article for Jesús Papoleto Meléndez. This article was extremely promotional, but wasn't found and deleted as a G11 issue. It's believed that Gdavid01 is Gabrielle David, who runs IAAS and by extension, their publishing arm 2Leaf Press and their magazine Phati'tude Literary Magazine. She has not specifically disclosed herself and I was trying to avoid naming her, but another person has done that already and at this point it seems very obvious, given the username and the IAAS focus.

    She did not make any more edits until September 2016, when a new editor by the name of Rubyperl began creating IAAS related entries, with an emphasis on people related to 2Leaf Press. All of the articles were written in a similar promotional style as the article for Meléndez and when Rubyperl contested the speedy deletions, they were written in a similar style as oppositions written by Gdavid01. Several of the articles had been deleted multiple times, typically through A7 or G11, but were quickly recreated by Rubyperl, apparently from drafts they had created at AfC.

    I came into this because I had speedied 2Leaf Press and Gdavid01 had contested its deletion at the editor helpboard (linked here). To summarize this, she didn't seem to understand why the article was deleted, why it was promotional, and why A7 was a factor. I had deleted it more for G11 than A7, although the lack of notability seemed clear enough to where I also thought it unlikely that it would survive an AfD to where I left the A7 tag in the deletion history.

    It wasn't until I pushed for a disclosure that Gdavid01 said that she had a COI and even then, she was not completely forthcoming about the ties she or Rubyperl had to IAAS. All she said was that she had a COI and that students had been asking her about 2Leaf Press articles. She didn't explain the context of how she knew these students, although she did say that they were students at the University of Connecticut. This is the university where one of the IAAS's employees, Sean Frederick Forbes, works as a professor. Assuming that Gdavid01 is David, there was nothing in the article to suggest that she worked at UoC and as such it makes it somewhat less likely that she would be in contact with multiple students unless they were part of Forbes's classes and/or they were interns with IAAS in some form or fashion (online, in-person, etc).

    This looks to be a clear attempt to evade COI guidelines by enlisting a student to do the work for them. The similarity in the arguments and the articles gives off the strong impression that Rubyperl was either given pre-written articles to publish or they were given very specific instructions on what should be in the article, such as particular buzzwords and marketing PR. I note that in the discussion with Gdavid01, she was very keen on including specific phrases and sentences out of the ones that I had highlighted as examples of promotional prose. Overall I'm concerned that if Rubyperl is a student and my suspicions are correct that she's either a student of Forbes, an intern, or both, about how ethical it would be to put them in this position. Gdavid was blocked for one week for meatpuppetry.

    Since then I've noticed a new account, A. Robert Lee, made minor edits to his article here and here. Both are minor edits, but one was specifically for 2Leaf Press related titles. The timing is quite bad, considering that he signed up for an account on 21 September 2016, after all of the 2Leaf Press related matters. It's possible that he was watching his article and only became active after the article was PRODed by David Gerard, but it's also possible that he was alerted to this by Gdavid01.

    Another thing to note is that a look at the editors who have created the the other two pages related to 2Leaf Press have been blocked for various offenses. Pohick2 created A. Robert Lee and was blocked in 2010 for repeated COPYVIO despite warnings. Another article, Tony Medina (poet), was created by Duckduckstop, a sockpuppet of Slowking4, who was blocked in 2013. His block was altered temporarily because of the DC conference last year (they needed to change autoblock settings), so I'm going to be nominating that article for block evasion. This is somewhat of an aside since I'm not sure if either was a COI editor (one of my first concerns with 2Leaf Press articles at this moment), but it's something that just sort of adds on to how off everything feels here as a whole.

    I recently noticed that a new editor, A. Robert Lee, signed up and made edits to the article for A. Robert Lee here and here. Both are minor, but one concerned 2Leaf Press and it's a bit coincidental that his account was created and started editing right now. It's possible that he only started editing after noticing his article was PRODed, but at this point in time it makes me a little uneasy. I also note that there are two other articles about 2Leaf Press authors and both editors that created the page were blocked, one of which as a sockpuppet of Slowking4, but there's more about that in the collapsed section above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sowell Management Services, Bill Sowell, Concert Wealth Management

    There seems to be some edit warring over these articles. The two sides seem to represent critics of these organizations attempting to add negative information and supporters trying to remove it. All editors are single-purpose accounts which likely have a conflict of interest, one way or the other, here. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bradley Warren Jr.

    Autobiography. Article's creator has placed an 'in progress' template, but it's thus far unsourced and tending toward the standard tone of COI articles. At best, the editor can use assistance; at worst, he may be urged not to write about himself here. I've issued a COI warning, to no avail. 2601:188:1:AEA0:30F8:873F:7608:6364 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD and SPI. I wouldn't normally bother, but that article was sitting in the user's sandbox for three years. The intent was there from the get-go. Timeline-wise, Brad bailed when the autobio tag went up on the talk page and came back as Ernie, so that's an SPI. MSJapan (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug McMillon

    First off, I am not accusing this user of doing anything wrong. As far as I can tell he has followed all the proper COI procedures.

    Having said that, the article reads to me like it was written by Walmart's PR department, and in fact most of the current content came from a Walmart employee. We've got an entire article on Criticism of Walmart yet there is nothing in this article but good things to say about Mr. McMillon, who is the CEO.

    There has already been a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (which I did not initiate) and I hope I'm not guilty of forum shopping here, I just think this article could use some outside attention. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Kendall-K1. You're very slightly forum-shopping, but it's always okay to raise COI-related concerns on this board. I've not looked at the articles in responding to your post, but I'm aware of JLD at Walmart, and have looked at their edits in the past. iirc, I came to much the conclusion that you did, which is that the declared Walmart employees editing Wikipedia are trying to do the right thing by way of COI, at least by being very public about their affiliation. Should they, for instance, remove reliably sourced criticism or otherwise negative content from articles on things they have an affiliation to, that would be problematic; but they're not. I tend to think that any problems of the slants of Walmart related articles has very much to do with an insufficiency of neutral editors, and little to do with the Walmart editors. Sure, they may be responsible for writing only of sunlight and happy unicorns w.r.t. their employer, but even there their contributions probably outweigh the COI concern. What we're left with is a content problem, and not a COI problem; and one which is best fixed by finding more neutrals than by seeking to punish the Walmartians (and I accept that in large part this - getting more neutrals - is what your message here seeks to achieve). But because it is a content issue there's not much that this board will be interested in doing - we deflect content problems to their proper placs - article talk pages, dispute resolution, &c. Individuals here may or may not reprioritise their interest in Walmart articles as a result of your post, but that's the best you can expect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of "Walmart did great with this guy in charge" puffery in the resume that needs to come put. But I'm not finding any important derogatory info (like a conviction) that was missed or removed. We have Criticism of Wal-Mart for the company, so that's covered. John Nagle (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - I don't believe there's any COI issues. Just that there's a lot of puffery in the article. It is already being discussed on the article Talk page (disclaimer: I've been involved in the discussion) in any case. -- HighKing++ 18:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I declare I'm going to create an article called "Legal Tech" in Russian Wikipedia on paid editing for benefit of www.freshdoc.ru. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Дмитрий Кошелев, but your declaration really should go somewhere on the Russian wikipedia, rather than here on the English - presuming I understand correctly that you intend to create an article on the Russian wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks fo your comment. But rules of Russian Wikipedia demand (among others) to declare my intention here. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Дмитрий Кошелев: Really? This is the first time I've ever heard of another language version of Wikipedia demanding that a user post COI declarations on English Wikipedia. Can you please post a link to the page on Russian Wikipedia with that rule? Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this is unusual. I would like to see the page as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ru:Википедия:Оплачиваемое редактирование#Политика Strongly speaking, it as an essay, but the rule does not describe necessary actions. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Дмитрий Кошелев: This seems like a translation error. The page has been tagged with ru:Шаблон:Плохой перевод. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Teamsanborn2016 on Andy Sanborn

    Teamsanborn2016 started editing Andy Sanborn almost as soon as the account was created. Most of the user's edits were minor rewordings and rephrasings, but some of them included removal of properly-cited information, especailly of those critical of the article subject, such as 1 and 2, and unproperly-sourced BLP information like 3.

    In addition, the name of the user directly suggests a conflict of interest, and the word "Team" in the name also suggests a likelihood of shared use. As such, I feel this user is extremely concerning, especially with the scope of the single-purpose account, being the POV-pushing through removal of content et. al. on an article of a United States politician. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Edgar181: I was about to withdraw this report after I noticed you had acted on my UAA report and blocked the account for shared use; as the blocking admin I wonder if you could comment on this COI case because I believe that it was paid. Mainly my questions are: if the block reason should also include reason to believe the editor is paid by the article subject (WP:PAID), and if there is reason to protect the page from further COI or POV-pushing activity. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked the account for the username issue. However, the POV and potential COI are clear. This may or may not be paid editing - it certainly wouldn't be anything unusual for a supporter who is unaffiliated with the politician or his staff to behave this way. The editor stopped when given a final warning, and at this point since the editor was then blocked and hasn't returned with a new account, I think it is probably best to keep an eye on the article and see what happens. Despite this user's inappropriate behavior (edit warring without discussion), this editor may have a valid point to make. Briefly looking at the article, I think there is a BLP issue with the politician's political career being essentially defined by a single email he wrote - a bit of WP:UNDUE in my opinion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency

    articles
    editors

    All the articles named above have been badly polluted by promotional editors and need a checkup. Sourcing to random forex websites is questionable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthalis for further information. - Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Added AnnaPaw who dePRODded Anyoption [48]; is sock involved in Banc de Binary shenanigans according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reuvengrish/Archive. edited to add Not implying that these editors are connected any more than has already been identified (though they may in fact be). Just saying these articles could use more cleanup and more eyes long-term, including the first couple that I did a little cleanup on. - Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh. This may be the beginning of a new big mess. The Times of Israel ran a 16-part expose of the binary options industry in Israel as a massive scam [49]. This got enough attention politically that the binary option industry in Israel now expects to be shut down, and been looking for new areas in which to operate. This often means foreign exchange speculation, or FOREX. There's a lot of overlap; the FOREX people and the binary option people have a common trade show, IFX. See the 2016 attendee list.[50] John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes:
    • "Spotware" is "Spotware Systems" in Cyprus. (There was a US "Spotware Technology" company, which had something to do with Picture in picture technology and whose patents were acquired by Google. Unrelated.) The name is suspiciously like "SpotOption", but I can't find a connection. They both have offices in Limassol, Cyprus, but the addresses aren't close. Spotware seems to be a back end service provider, not a brokerage. In the absence of other evidence, Spotware looks legit, although it may not be notable. John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "XM" is a subsidiary of Trading Point, which is a holding company which only seems to own XM. They are not permitted to operate in the United States. John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nagle for your comments. I fear you may be right about this being a new mess; my suspicion is that I've just uncovered the first layer of a nasty onion here. One thing I noticed across the multiple articles is a heavy tendency to cite how well regulated the various companies and exchanges are, e.g. this and this deleted bits. With parallel construction of articles and bios apparently in an attempt to give the regulators some legitimacy especially in the case of International Financial Services Commission (Belize) which is a virtual orphan other than the link from Justforex. This might have something to do with your observation.
    Concerning Spotware specifically my issue there is the extensive editing by Cyprianio. That was definitely an operator for a Cyprus PR firm, evidence for which is solid but I can't get into here. His editing was my entry point for this stuff which, again, may or may not be coordinated with the other editors. Basically anything he did on enwp is undisclosed paid editing. - Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best we can do for now is to insist that these companies pass WP:CORP and have good, reliable sources. We need to see articles about them in the WSJ, Fortune, and Business Week; the Finance Magnates web site and similar FOREX sites are not enough. The binary option/FOREX industry has a large network of interlinked sites promoting each other and various other stuff, as a form of search engine optimization. Many of these articles need to be deleted simply because there's no hard info about them. John Nagle (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have just added Hellenic Bank to the list as it was visited by several of the promotional editors. Also was wondering if anybody knows why this which looks like an ad for the bank is hosted at the US Embassy Cyprus website? - Brianhe (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is part of the websites Business Service Provider registry:

    The BSP directory is intended to provide an additional resource to U.S. exporters doing business in this geographic area. The BSP directory is not comprehensive. Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service. We have performed limited due diligence research; but we strongly recommend that you perform your own due diligence investigation and background research on any company. We assume no responsibility for the professional ability or integrity of the providers listed. We reserve the right not to list any particular company.

    If you would like to list your company here (the company must be registered with the Republic of Cyprus Registrar of Companies), please call us at 22-393520 or 22-393362, email us at nicosiaecon@state.gov or fill out our online registration form here:</nowiki>

    So, apparently being listed there only means the Embassy is pretty sure your company exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)They did a good job with those articles. It looks like there's a tight network of news sites covering FOREX and binary options that are themselves almost completely non-notable, but give the appearance of reliable independent sourcing. In at least the articles I've looked at, the only references are primary sources, trivial mentions in actual reliable sources, and this type of FOREX fansite. Many of these should go to AFD, but it may be worthwhile to first list the sources being used and discuss whether any of these can be used as indicators of notability. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Someguy1221: I would ask you to please make your thoughts on RS known at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forex trading websites while it is fresh. - Brianhe (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just figured out Spotware is probably a recreation of Spotware Systems and created by by the same editor, Kayakner or another SPA Wavetasks or yet another Omahacrab, if they are really different. Have prodded it based on the weak sourcing, thanks to recent replies at RSN, and tried db-repost on top of that. - Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've COI-templated SPA Wikeditt and they're still editing the article without declaring their COI status. Meanwhile, likely sock ComTruise has appeared. Not sure what happens next. Also, I'm not sure if we really want that article to be a trophy hall for legal victories. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree at first glance the article seems problematic. The references are mostly about certain crimes and the CNN source doesn't even mention Zellner. The source that talks about her most is a Bar Association press release (archived here). It happens to be the local association of which she is a member. - Brianhe (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajasekharan Parameswaran

    Clearly here only to promote themselves- before I cleaned up the article, it looked like this. I have templated him but he has not complied with disclosure as required.jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=741734669"