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 2405:204:a708:7ae6:756a:9449:ae4d:66e7 (talk) at 11:17, 14 April 2019 (→‎FOI Online Awards). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

    Singapore Management University

    User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

    Your next box of spam has arrived

    Batch ending 24 March

    Enjoy. MER-C 18:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch ending 4 April

    Looks like a pretty bad bunch this time around. Have fun. MER-C 19:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested

    There is a discussion about the Huff-Po article and paid editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing. Another was started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing? after-the-fact but now points to the AN discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The noticeboard discussion also contains proposals related to paid editing in general. See "Suggestions and proposals related to paid editing" and "Prohibition on all paid editing" for details. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wang Zheng (pilot)

    Not quite sure what to do with this. Seems there is a long standing edit war on this page with several SPAs/IPs adding (unsourced) allegations and these two users reverting. Apparently Wang Zheng (aka Julie Wang) is the flight instructor over at Zulutimepilot (see for example their facebook page).

    A quick google search shows that Wang Zheng was suing someone and that's not either mentioned in the article.

    Props to Kigenkigen for an epic edit summary here Hydromania (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Zulutimepilot should have been blocked a long time ago for WP:CORPNAME (https://zulutimepilot.com/). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPN#Wang Zheng (pilot) and WP:AN#Possible NLT at BLPN are both connected to discussion. It does appear that CTF99 (the editor formerly known as Zulutimepilot) has a strong connection to Wang that likely extends to a WP:FCOI. CTF99 states he is James Fretcher, an attorney for Wang, at BLPN and various articles about Wang in reliable sources describe Fretcher as a manager for China General Aviation (a sponsor of Wang and a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Wang), Wang's attorney, Wang's husband, and also as being connected to Zulutimepilot, where Wang was/is listed a chief instructor. So, there really appears to be more than just a WP:APPARENTCOI here, and CTF99 has been editing the article and other content about Wang on Wikipedia since at least December 2016 (that's when the account was created) without declaring any connection to Wang or without following WP:PAID. Either CTF99 is who he's claiming to be which means that both COI and PAID apply, or he's impersonating Fretcher, which is another issue that's just as bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added EdiK2016 to this discussion as well based upon some posts made to the article's talk page which have been since removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Kigenkigen and CTF99 have been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK. If one or both get unblocked, they should be instucted to follow WP:PAID or otherwise the will be re-blocked again. EdiK2016 is still an active account, but they should also be advised about WP:PAID since they might be involved in off-Wikipedia legal action with Wang, and thus would also likely have a financial COI with respect to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Iridium Communications

    Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

    FOI Online Awards

    I looked up the organization giving out these awards, apparently its an anonymous organization that conducts anonymous polls and gives the awards,(stated on their site). There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites . The article was AfD'ed and deleted 3 years ago, the creator of the article or someone related to it was particularly angry about deleting it(mentioned in the afd discussion).

    The issue with the article is that many prominent celebs and some movie articles have this award listed in their awards section, some of them being added by people who edited FOI awards articles. It might be better if we remove all such occurrences of this non-notable award. Daiyusha (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'll start deleting removing it from those pages. Might take a while. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be helpful to treat this as possible spamming as well. In that regard, I'll list other editors that have added it as I help with cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ronz:,@BubbaJoe123456: If you intend to start on removing this spam, please look for the text "FOI" and "Films of India Online" when searching for it. Thanks for the response Daiyusha (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daiyusha: Thanks for the heads-up. I've been going through, think I'm over halfway done. FYI, should also look for "Films of India Online." Just doing FOI as a search term picks up a lot of cruft (Freedom of Information, mainly), but doing "FOI Online" works well. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside, are "News18 Reel Movie Awards" and "Bollywood Film Journalists Awards" similar? --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • To help find them foionlineawards.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.foionlineawards.com --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is disgusting. Like tell me, who are you people to decide whether its notable or not? Your job is to gather facts, not judge notability. Almost all of the film-industry accepted their results with happiness. First, you deleted the article three years ago saying "If known actors receive awards, it doesn't make the award known." They accepted it and moved on. Now you are deleting it from the Wikepedia page of actors an artists itself. This is the problem with accolades and their unfairness in industry, for India especially. Those who actually deserve and get some due, you take it away from them. When the actors themselves have accepted these awards, who gives you the right to remove it from the their achievement logs? You bunch of computer savy coders are going to decide what was a good achievement, and what not? May be, FOI would now need more time to get a public name, but this move won't hurt their intention, they'll continue with it anyway. Deleting their separate article was fair, but this movement of removing their traces form actors log is wrong to the artists itself. You are hurting the artist by removing a recognition they earned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A21F:9C4B:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia editors are tasked with assessing whether content is relevant enough for Wikipedia's purposes to be mentioned in an article as well as whether something is Wikipedia notable enough for an article to be created about it. An editor's job is not to gather facts like a reporter, but only to seek out article content which accurately reflects what reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary) are saying/writing about something and then try to figure out a way to incorporate this content into the article in neutrally worded and balanced manner. When there are disagreements over things such as this, editors then follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to establish a consensus one way or another. You're more than welcome to participate in that discussion, but you'd be better off trying to show how mentioning the FOI awards is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines than commenting on other editors. Moreover, the awards not being mentioned in actor WP:BLPs is not going to mean that the actor didn't receive the award and it won't harm the actor's career simply because the purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to promote the actor's career or to be a alternative profile page for the actor in the first place. The actor is free to post whatever they want about themselves or promote themselves however they like on their own personal websites or social media pages, etc., and FOI is free to promote the awards it gives out on its own websites and social media accounts, etc. regardless of whether any of this information is mentioned on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is the Official website not a reliable source? And how is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. And someone above talks, there is no organisation named on the website, forgetting FOI Online Awards itself is the organisation (read their About us). NO doubt Wikipedia itself isn't a notable source for information, thanks to those illiterate editors. Do whatever you feel like in your world. I won't interfere anymore. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The website is a WP:PRIMARY source. Notability for Wikipedia's purposes is determined by mentions in WP:SECONDARY sources. MarnetteD|Talk 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @MarnetteD: It would've been a primary source, if the article was about the FOI itself. Here you are talking about artists' page, the information is not being referenced from Actors personal website (primary for this case), it's about sourcing it from website of award the artist earned, which is a secondary material for artist page.
              You want to discuss it in civil manner. Then let's start. Tell me why is it not notable. The very first line of discussion says "There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites." This is so wrong, and manipulated information, and you have based the whole discussion on this basis. FOI Online Awards itself is the name of the organisation. About Us page on their website clearly mentions (if you can read) "FOI Online Awards (itself acting as a non-profit organisation) is an annual online poll, researched and organized by an anonymous team of film enthusiasts and cinema lovers, honouring the artists for their artworks." If you would have researched a little more, you'll find their is a reason why they are anonymous (read the Rules & Guidelines). Also, you have put this discussion under Conflict of Interest page. How is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. It's reasonable that they don't have sources to have their own article on Wikipedia, but its valid to quote them as sources to mention achievement of artists page. Think before you act! This whole discussion is based on the wrong statement quoted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:4051:C28:2E84:7360 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • So when you wrote "I won't interfere anymore" you didn't really mean it did you. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia articles aren’t considered reliable sources for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS, except in rare cases where the subject is Wikipedia itself. Moreover, the burden rest upon those wanting to add content to an article to establish a consensus that it should be added, not the other way around. You’re involved in a content dispute with other editors and when that happens you should follow WP:DR. The best way to go about doing this is to convince others that adding it is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, not by insulting them. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Marchjuly: May be you are right about my tone. I apologize, but I am giving reasons too. Read them above. 1) The very first line of this discussion and the basis is wrong, which says the website don't give out the name of the organisation. FOI Online Awards itself is the name of the organisation. 2) Also, you have put this discussion under Conflict of Interest page. How is this even a case of conflict of interest? References are not made to support FOI's article, they are referenced to support facts on actors page. This is wrong to artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If you feel that the reliability of the FOI’s official website is sufficient for citing a particular artist receiving one of its awards and others disagree, you can always seek additional input at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. Those two noticeboards may actually be better suited for the direction this discussion seems to be heading. I didn’t put the discussion here; I just responded to something you posted. However, as I posted above, Wikipedia articles about artists aren’t written for the benefit of the artist; so, not including content about the awards an artist might have received cannot be wrong for the artist. Your argument rather should be whether including the content is appropriate for Wikipedia and it’s readers and not a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. While WP:NNC is true when it comes to article content, the notability of the FOI awards does come into play when deciding whether it’s worth mentioning and the general consensus with respect to articles like this seems to be to limit inclusion to only Wikipedia notable entries.
                    Finally, please try to WP:SIGN your posts since it will make the discussion easier to follow. Another reason to sign your posts is that WP:PINGs don’t work for unsigned posts. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly: @MarnetteD: @BubbaJoe123456: @Ronz: I apologize if I was rude, before. I understand Wikipedia has such policies, which restrict this particular subject’s inclusion. (1) I will try finding reliable sources for FOI's inclusion, but it won’t be of any use. Media houses have been deliberately ignoring the community of FOI Online Awards, because of their format, that has no monetary advantages. Their anonymity also have a reason, it’s not to create an ambiguity. In a way, you are working for those money-hungry media houses. You are definitely not working for something good, you are in fact a part of the bad politics yourself. (2) Another sad story is, our film industry still takes in Wikipedia profile (if we are lucky to have one or one related) as source of credibility. I am not related to the FOI community. FOI community actually detests Wikipedia as reliable source. I am one of the winners in one of the technical categories and also a part of a film which didn’t garner the deserved attention from the public. But FOI honoured our efforts, and now its removal from Wikipedia is actually a loss to my credibility in finding more work. It’s literally a loss to my resume. (3) Some of you even termed it as spam. No, it’s not a spam; we are contributing to mention something we earned, from hard-work. (4) It’s not even conflict of interest, we didn’t honour this to ourselves, FOI did. (5) We know Wikipedia isn’t a trusted source of gathering facts, but it itself doesn’t have that image in public. Whatever the topic is, a common internet surfer would firstly go to Wikipedia for information. (6) Even after giving this much explanation, I still stand by my point that this discussion is wrongly framed. The subject of this discussion is wrong. FOI Online Awards is a non-profit organisation and has a name. You cannot say, “the website didn’t give a name of the organisation.” And now if you are removing FOI’s traces based on a wrong-framed subject of a discussion, then the action is wrong too, and may I add, “a sign of illiterate and one lacking logic.” (7) We artists, from technicians to actors, have accepted it very much. If you editors think you all have higher precedence in writing our stories by pressing some buttons of your keyboard on Wikipedia, even higher than that of our hard-work we do on film sets, we stand with FOI and completely detest Wikipedia. You can’t be a source of information for our identity and work. Be happy working for it, anyway. (8) This is not a concluding statement. This doesn’t mean I will stop fighting for its inclusion. If in future, it eventually generates the ‘notability’ you are talking and are a self-proclaimed judge of, I won’t refrain from mentioning it here.
    You want to use wikipedia to promote your organization, it doesn't matter how hard you work for it, advertising it for your own personal gain is completely against the spirit of wikipedia. THe film industry may be corrupt, but there is a reason why it considers wikipedia a reliable source, its because there are people who discuss and remove non-notable sources. I know its unfair, but unless your organization is mentioned in news articles, sponsored and conducts "events where people actually come and take the award" it cannot be considered to be on wikipedia. This is not a place for emerging artists to promote themselves, use youtube or linkedin for that. Daiyusha (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daiyusha: "You want to use wikipedia to promote your organization, it doesn't matter how hard you work for it, advertising it for your own personal gain is completely against the spirit of wikipedia." Why did you say this? That's the problem, you are not interpreting it positively. When did I promote FOI? I am not promoting FOI, I am not a part of it. I am speaking on behalf of all the artist including me, who have earned this recognition. We are not promoting anyone, we want a mention that we have already earned. Don't make a separate page for FOI, but atleast give us artist their credit. And if you say only an event where people come and receive their award is a qualifying parameter, you are quite a part of the politics of being the unfair here. There are so many polls who have a mention on Wikipedia. Also, don't post such big shot remarks such as "This is not a place for emerging artists to promote themselves", we don't need promotion for ourselves, we have already earned recognition and we asking for its mention. You are probably too low on hierarchy to understand the film industry. And quite disrespectful talking to an artist about taking away its credit, with unreasonable remarks. You need secondary resources to create Wikipedia page, I also know that. If it was for creating an article for FOI, Official website won't be considered as a resource, fair. But it's about crediting the award at artists or films page, in those cases, official website of the award is definitely a secondary and valid resource. I have said this so many times above, don't you get this.
    • You guys know what? I contacted FOI Online Awards themselves few hour ago, and they quite convinced me how Wikipedia (and equally its self-proclaimed editors) is media oriented platform, and not logic or knowledge oriented. They already have plans for something big, and after which they say even if they get good media presence they would strive to remove all its mention from Wikipedia. They simply believe Wikipedia is as misguided as the Indian media. We were told not to seek notability for mention on a platform that itself has no factual credibility. So I guess, I will stand proudly with my art and hard work, and the recognition I received with it. After all, who are you guys to tell me my worth. In return to pseudo-disturbance (as you may call it) to your mass movement of removing "non-notable" information (I am laughing), I will help you guys :) This is isn't said with any hard feelings, I am genuinely coming on board to improve Wikipedia get rid information as vague as the subject of this discussion. Watch out this space for next few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:A5F1:347D:7D63:378A (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were still traces of this 'non-notable' award on the epic platform of Wikipedia, under the article of Rajkummar Rao, Ranveer Singh, Monali Thakur and Harshdeep Kaur. Removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A708:7AE6:A5F1:347D:7D63:378A (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, today I'm launching the Daiyusha awards, and the first recipient is you. And to give you credit I'll create an article for it. Your argument is just as vague as this. Daiyusha (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daiyusha: But I am a nobody to accept it, I never did anything, by giving this analogy, you are basically saying all the recipients of this subject are vague, they also didn't do anything. I thought I offered an apology above and mended the rude tone, but I guess you yourself proved that you don't care and understand worth. You are basically not elligible to participate in discussions including notability and credibility. You define Wikipedia. Also, that's not how you talk to co-editors on Wikipedia, that's rude. You are about to get some more. Watch out.

    • @Daiyusha: I think by this logic, go to Filmfare Awards 2019 wiki page and remove all references and information sourced from filmfare.com and Times of India (who owns Filmfare). That's blatant Conflict of Interest and article simply based on primary source. I didn't know about this clause on Wiki, there are many more. I can help you rectify them and make Wiki a better place.
    Every single recipient of the "FOI award" has also won something that is actually notable as well, and fyi atleast one person goes and collect their awards, or atleast tweets about it thanking them. Daiyusha (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Daiyusha: If it's about tweeting to thank, I can present many tweets of celebrities thanking FOI for the honour. Apart from that I was talking about Filmfare's referencing on Wiki, its mainly primary sources.

    Pride Northwest

    I could nominate it for AfD, but there's a concern with the number of obvious company associated accounts used. Significant amount of contents as it remains now originated from the account PNWStaff and the other three are basically single purpose accounts. CLMurphy1 describes himself as an event promoter and the name he provided himself comes back as management staff for the org. Debraporta comes up as executive director in Google. Please see article talk page for details. Following the duck quack I can reasonably suspect Mel45's exclusive participation on this article indicates it too is a related editor. How should it go forward? Graywalls (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: diff ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    John Fekner

     Resolved Puppeteer and puppets are gone. Graywalls (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, thank you to all the kind admins who took care of that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like most of Fekner related contents are added by the subject or those related to him through the accounts Daniellasuttoni and Incantation. The activity on those accounts are almost entirely limited to editing the John Fekner article and Fekner's Idioblast album. When they were editing other articles, they're usually related to category spamming with Fekner related contents or Fekner authored photos. example 1, example 2, example 3Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, good call on this one. The Fekner article is like a finely tuned memorial to every time he took a breath or ate an apple. I have trimmed 1000 bytes or so so far, and am trying to rid it of more of the banalities. The general problem is that he's notable, but just in a regular way and not in a Vito Acconci, Chris Burden or Louise Bourgeois kind of way. He's a very average to slightly above average artist. The connected articles are similarly awful. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the above users with COIN templates on their talk pages, per the policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed overwhelming majority of John Fekner promoting contents that have been injected into other articles by these accounts. Graywalls (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fekner seems to say they are the article's subject here, offering to revoke donation of images they uploaded (see File:Fekqueens.jpg & File:FEKMYADwiki.jpg "John Fekner (c) 1980"). Bri.public (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I received a somewhat nasty email from user Fekner, signed by a highly similar sounding name.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything that I donated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for over a decade was done with the best intentions and free for anyone to use. I worked with numerous editors, Wikipedia authority control for over a decade, Recently, both ThatMontrealIP& Graywalls removed text, research and all the images from the john fekner page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This was the letter that was sent to: ThatMontrealIP For the past thirteen years I've made numerous contribution of images to Wikimedia Commons for free use to everyone using Wikipedia as a resource. As a supporter of Wikipedia, I've made yearly donations. I've worked with Wikipedia editors on both the John Fekner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Fekner and John Fekner City Squad Idioblast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioblast_(album)

    Now, I see all the major vicious editing of text and removing of images that bothThatMontrealIPand Graywalls Graywallshave done. It's sad, disheartening, discouraging to power of Wikipedia philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner (talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fekner, I see what you are saying but it's not as well-intentioned as you make it out to be. Participating in the editing of your own article, if you are indeed John Fekner, is basically promotion, and we try to avoid that here. See also WP:COI. John Fekner is certainly an important artist, but the article on him and the article on his album were very, very promotional. All that Graywalls and I did was to counter that promotional intent to reflect the existing sources. We are not here to promote John Fekner's accomplishments, but rather to note them in an encyclopedic way. If John Fekner needs to promote himself, he can do that with his own website. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThatMontrealIP: What seems a little odd here is that he's been labeling the pictures so in a way seemingly contradictory to the license terms by using the © all reserved symbol and "Estate of John Fekner". Take a look at the license spectrum in the article Creative_Commons_license. © is in the most restrictive category. It seems to me that he CC-SA'd the pictures in order to be able to exhibit them and essentially maintain John Fekner as his profile without getting summarily removed but really intends on hanging onto control of how the photos are used by others. Why would he append copyright mark and "Estate of John Fekner" and express his intent to claw back the photos otherwise? Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My take is the C symbol neither adds nor removes anything when they have already agreed to donate (share) content under the CC license. WP:COPYRIGHT states "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here". Bri.public (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Bri.public on this. Uploading a file to Commons under a free license is not the same as an official copyright transfer agreement; basically, the uploader is only agreeing to freely release a particular version of the work. The licensing on that version remains in effect in perpetuity and anyone can continue to use that particular file under the terms of its license, but the copyright ownership or the original work remains with the original creator. This is one of the reasons WP:OTRS verification is often required for files licensed under a free license because the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder needs to be clear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marchjuly and Bri.public: I think what you are saying is exactly right. You can't ever give away your copyright (although your estate might get it, or it might expire and the work enters public domain), but you can license it very freely which is almost the same and what happens when you agree to Commmons terms of use. Fekner always has the right to control licensing of his work ("copy right"), but if he uploaded it to Commons with a CC license, then he licensed it to all under those terms, irregardless if he wants to continue noting that he has copyright over his creative works by appending © to his works. The least restrictive license issued for the work at hand will be the one we should concern ourselves with. I am not so concerned though, as it is promotional editing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be an obvious COI which means he should refrain from directly editing the article as explained in WP:COIADVICE. Any content too promotional sounding remaining in the article should be cleaned up if possible or removed altogether if it simply doesn't belong. His COI however, doesn't prevent him from uploading files to Commons for use in the article; in fact, it's better for him to do so since it makes verifying WP:CONSENT easier. Now, uploading photos to Commons and then automatically expecting that they all be added to the article is where his COI comes into play again and that could be seen as self promotion (even if unintentional). So, the images could be discussed by others on the article talk page and then determined which if any could be re-added to strike a good balance between providing more information to the reader and avoiding WP:NOTGALLERY. Ideally, the infobox image should be for primary identification purposes of the subject; so, if Fekner uploads a selfie or other photo of himself which he holds the copyright on to Commons, such a photo should be fine for Wikipedia's purposes. One or two photos of representative works might also be OK as long as they are tied into the article content and not basically another "different" image showing the same style an technique, etc. Album covers, etc. probably are fine in stand-alone articles about the work in question and not really needed in the BLP article for simply "illustrative" purposes regardless of whether they're freely licensed, unless there is particularly one he received a lot of coverage in reliable sources for some reason; otherwise, hatnotes or links to those articles seems fine. Whatever images aren't being used in the article can also be linked to by using the Commons template mentioned above.
    As for "clawing" back the photos, I don't that's possible; he can as an uploader request that they be deleted per c:COM:DR, but whether they ultimately are will depend on the Commons community and how much it wants to honor his request. If the files are deleted from Commons that would mean they'd be no longer available to use on Wikipedia, etc., but their licensing would still remain in effect and anyone who downloaded the photos and was using them under that particular licensing would probably be OK in continuing to do so. Anyway, we shouldn't really be discouraging him so that he wants to abandon Wikipedia/Commmons altogether by removing every single file he ever uploaded in good faith for use in the article as "self-promotion"; instead, we should be trying to explain how he can help us bring the article better in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, particularly with the images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with what you say, but it's better applied to good faith editors without COI. I see no need to pander to the needs of someone who is using us for promotional goals. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Graywalls: While there may be genuine conflict of interest concerns regarding the article, removing each and every image like you did here seems a bit excessive. It's not uncommon for articles about visual artists to contain images showing examples of the artist's work. Ideally, the article shouldn't just be one big image gallery of images, but one or two representative works which closely ties into the article content should be fine. Problems seem to arise when the files being used are non-free content because Wikpedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive, but most of the images used in the article seem to have been released by the copyright holder under a free license Wikipedia accepts and their licensing has been verified by WP:OTRS. The main infobox image should really be for primary identification purposes of the subject of the article, but some of the other images could be restored. Eliminate those which are being used in other article like album covers, etc. and focus on those which best tie in to the article content. One representaive example of each particular artistic style or technique is all that's really need, and the other images can be linked to using a template such as Template:Commons or another similar template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Commons category}} is usually the template of choice Bri.public (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly:, I personally wouldn't just settle at "while there maybe conflict" when there's evidence that the subjective wrote the article himself and presented it in the way as he likes it and Fekner's name and Fekner authored contents were strategically seeded into articles in subject matter of his interest likely under his full control. Since those close to the subject chose every element of the article, the photos chosen represent how he wanted them presented in relation to prose. Therefore, it obstructs neutrality. I think it's fair game that photos were completely buffed out for now from the article. If others find him notable enough, they'll look around, find the pictures and reinsert them at their editorial discretion. Autobiography creation is highly discouraged. Concerning adding his own materials into other articles, I think this issue runs parallel with the dispute about Michael Simkovic that happens to be being discussed right under this dispute. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Simkovic references

    Wikipedia has a lot of references to the work of a particular law professor, Michael Simkovic. I noticed a new user (Mbs6446) adding a link to the same paper of Simkovic's to 9 articles this morning. Some of these references were to support a new sentence, others were added to existing content. This got me curious, so by employing the search function and the WikiBlame tool, I was able to collect the above list of accounts and IPs who are more or less single purpose accounts that add references to this author. I've only gone through about half the search results so far, I would expect there are a few more accounts to find. I'm apparently not the only person who has noticed this: a law blogger has also written about this here. Posting this mostly to raise awareness. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that one of the subjects of this report tried to alter it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And again here - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    first hat for comments from blocked editor Mbs6446

    Note the policy against outing wikipedia editors which is explicitly stated on this page. "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." I've asked Mr Ollie to engage on substance on his talk page and on the talk pages of pages I've edited and to be mindful of wikipedia policies against harassment and outing, but he has refused to engage on substance. I attempted to edit this page to be in compliance with those policies, but in a way that would not prevent the substance of the report from being comprehensible.Mbs6446 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Plase also note policy against attempting to out a wikipedia editor, which is per se harassment. Please note that attempting to out an editor is not permitted as a way of resolving conflicts of interest, and that citing academic work does not constitute a conflict of interest when it is on point and relevant, as all of my citations have been.Mbs6446 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    way too long back and forth with blocked editor Mbs6446

    This is Mbs6446. I made several edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis, including substantive edits that improved the accuracy and content of wikipedia articles. Specifically, I added more on-topic reliable sources, including citations to an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

    According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

    ″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

    Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

    Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

    Many of the other sources in the mortgage articles I edited are think tank reports written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.

    I've attempted to engage MrOllie on the substance of edits I made and on wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. I attempted to contact him through both his talk page and on the talk pages of the wikipedia pages I've edited.

    MrOllie has refused to engage on substance, and instead blanket reverted every edit I made without any substantive explanation, and has apparently filed a grievance against a particular professor who he dislikes.

    MrOllie also cites to self-published material [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post MrOllie cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community." It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans <ref>{{cite news |title=Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/repetitive-and-avoidable-mistakes.html |publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/11/simkovic-mcintyres-the-economic-value-of-a-law-degree.html|publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"...}}</ref> --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.<ref>{{cite news |title="Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202617450833/?slreturn=20190231121410 |publisher=The American Lawyer |date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>

    I've asked Mr. Ollie about the specific substantive reason for each of the deletions to my edits he made as it pertains to the particular article, source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how he believes that he is improving the quality of the underlying article by making those deletions.

    I also pointed out that his actions--targeting a particular individual based on something that is irrelevant to whether edits are improving wikipedia articles under wikipedia policies--could constitute Wikipedia:Harassment under Wikipedia's policies.

    Instead of responding on substance, MrOllie filed a grievance on the conflict of interest board and is apparently attempting to get every single citation to a particular author deleted whether or not those edits substantively improve the quality of sources cited on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbs6446 (talk • contribs)

    Mbs6446,please learn how to sign your posts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespective of the identity or identities of the individual or individuals behind these accounts, it appears that single-purpose accounts are being used to promote reference to the work of a specific author. If any of these accounts were substantial long-term contributors who made improvements to the encyclopedia in areas other than this one, this could be overlooked, but Wikipedia is not the place for a single author to be promoted as if they were the leading authority in an area where they are not actually of any greater authority than dozens or hundreds of others in the field. MrOllie is correct in reporting the appearance of such impropriety in this forum. I would not necessarily have gone as far as removing all instances of citations to the author in question, but I am satisfied with his explanation for his reasoning in so doing. bd2412 T 22:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As am I. The issue here (to me, at least), is that these edits seem not to be motivated by "hey, this article could benefit from adding XYZ content, with an appropriate source," but rather by an effort to find any possible place to add a citation to a particular author's work. As for the concerns about outing, well, it's against policy, but WP:DUCK applies here as well, so we're not obliged to retain a pretense about the source of these edits. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed maybe 1/3 of them. I think (Wikipedia's search function leaves something to be desired) there are still 70-100 or so cites remaining. So far I've only found 1 that was added by an established editor. - MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BD2412, MrOllie, SamHolt6 I take the point that the Wikipedia articles would be stronger with citations to multiple academics work by multiple authors, and I think it would be great if MrOllie had handled this by adding *more* citations to other prominent academics to reduce the apparent prominence of a single academic. Such additions would undeniably be making the Wikipedia articles better. But just removing some of the few reliable sources from lightly sourced articles is not making the Wikipedia articles better. It's making them worse. If one source is too prominent, then other editors should come along later and add more sources to make the one source less prominent. The more reliable sources, the better. If there are factual statements that have no source or only have a weak source (not very reliable), including a citation to a reliable source helps the article and removing the reliable source hurts the wikipedia article.
    If academics are using wikipedia to promote their work, that doesn't hurt wikipedia, and it's not comparable to promoting a commercial service--it's sharing knowledge. Every academic who wants to should be free to come in and add citations. It would be great if wikipedia actually had some editors with subject matter expertise. If enough academic editors come in and contribute, then wikipedia might actually have citations to serious peer reviewed works of scholarship instead of blogs and op-eds that haven't gone through the most basic fact checking. The Undue weight policy requires some evaluation of the relative merits of different views. See this essay on attracting academic editors. I would encourage Mr.Ollie to restore the sources he deleted and either add more sources to the articles to reduce the prominence of the one academic, or instead add tags to those articles that additional citations would be helpful. It would be great if every wikipedia editor had read every source on a particular topic and could cite 20 academic articles, but if someone adds citations to one source which is more reliable than other sources in an article, that's better than nothing and such contributions should be encouraged, not met with retribution.Mbs6446 (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not read through the entirety of this thread, but will note that reliable sources do not have a mandate to be included in Wikipedia. In this instance, I feel that the addition of a single reference (sometimes attached to a single sentence) can easily be removed as being WP:UNDUE given the scope of the topics involved. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SamHolt6, More reliable sources are supposed to be preferred to less reliable sources. Please read the reliable sources policies
    It's not a question of the "privilege" of being included in wikipedia. It's not a great privilege--wikipedia has about the same prestige as a self published vanity press trade book, which is to say, not much. The only relevant question is whether the Wikipedia article is being improved by citations to more reliable sources. Each citation should be evaluated in the specific context of the article and the quality of the source. Most Wikipedia articles have citations to less reliable sources like think tank reports, blogs, news paper articles, and material that has not been edited, fact-checked or peer reviewed. If a source that is *more* reliable than other sources in an article is being deleted or removed, that makes the article worse. MrOllie's efforts to batch delete references to academic works by a single author without evaluating the substance of each edit and each work cited is not improving articles on wikipedia. It seems to be some sort of punishment, which may be emotionally gratifying to Mr Ollie as a way of exercising his wikipedia authority--note his dismissive attitude toward inexperienced editors--but the fact of the matter is, power-tripping isn't helping make Wikipedia articles better. Let's focus on substance instead of hurling around accusations of conflict of interest and making revenge edits.
    With respect to WP:UNDUE, this policy refers to perspectives or view points, not citations to sources. Undue weight refers especially to giving undue weight to unscientific viewpoints such as "the world is flat." Perspectives on mortgage securitization from an article by an expert in the field, which has been published in a reputable journal and widely cited do not seem fall into this category. I do not believe that WP:UNDUE weight is applicable here. Mbs6446 (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    long response by blocked editor Mbs6446

    Response from mbs6446

    I made several edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis, including substantive edits that improved the accuracy and content of wikipedia articles. Specifically, I added more on-topic reliable sources, including citations to an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

    According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

    ″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

    Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

    Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

    Many of the other sources in the mortgage articles I edited are think tank reports written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.

    I've attempted to engage MrOllie on the substance of edits I made and on wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. I attempted to contact him through both his talk page and on the talk pages of the wikipedia pages I've edited.

    MrOllie has refused to engage on substance, and instead blanket reverted every edit I made without any substantive explanation, has hurled around unfounded accusations of COI as an excuse to avoid discussing substance, and has apparently filed a conflict of interest grievance against a particular professor who he apparently dislikes.

    I've asked Mr. Ollie about the specific substantive reason for each of the deletions to my edits he made as it pertains to the particular article, source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how he believes that he is improving the quality of the underlying article by making those deletions.

    I also pointed out that his actions--targeting a particular individual based on something that is irrelevant to whether edits are improving wikipedia articles under wikipedia policies and attempting to out editors--could constitute Wikipedia:Harassment under Wikipedia's policies. See here. (See especially "hounding" and "outing").

    Instead of responding on substance, MrOllie filed a grievance on the conflict of interest board and is apparently attempting to get every single citation to a particular author deleted whether or not those edits substantively improve the quality of sources cited on Wikipedia.

    Rather than waiting to reach consensus, he has proceeded without further explanation to delete every citation to this particular academic's work that he can find on any Wikipedia article.Mbs6446 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if we should hat the above discussion that involves a back and forth with him/her? S/he refactored his own comments (and mine, which he deleted), so the long text above is mostly meaningless now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt bold, so I hatted that shenanigans. apologies if anyone esle's comments were hatted. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Marko Brajovic

    This user appears to have a COI based on their username and continues to edit the draft while ignoring talk page notifications. shoy (reactions) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the draft, which is clearly a promotional effort as it has dozens of external inline links. I also reported the username for admin action.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pressmarkobrajovic was blocked by 331dot.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikibaji sockfarm

    articles (partial)
    sockfarm (partial)

    I'll come back this evening and put more info here. There's an SPI that hasn't been quite closed yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional spammers:

    MER-C 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Favor to ask of any admin including MER-C : could you evaluate Special:Permalink/812581456 (by sock Apmsia) to the deleted version of Draft:Kraiburg TPE (by another editor sock Apmsia) and let us know if it is similar? I suspect another undiscovered sock related to this group. Bri.public (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are indeed substantially similar. MER-C 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I swapped the labels above (now struck/corrected) but I guess it doesn't really matter now. Bri.public (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting until this case gets merged, it is only visible at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaiLeeKom - Bri.public (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about disclosure requirements

    I came across DIALOG Architecture Engineering Interior Design Planning Inc., which looked like a paid article to me. I checked the user page and talk page of the article's creator, 03wikicreator (talk · contribs), and there is a disclosure on their talk page (in the section titled "Disclosing COI") that they were paid to create the article. I'm glad that disclosure is there, but shouldn't it also be somewhere on the article's talk page as well? I'm not super well-versed in our COI disclosure requirement but thought someone here could educate me. Thanks. Marquardtika

    Other pages this user has created and/or declared a COI with regard to include:
    I added COI notices to articles and talk pages. Peacock (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave Dialog Architecture and excessively long name a trim. Wondering if it passes notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. The user has been blocked as a sock and most of the pages have been deleted already. Marquardtika (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, Bbb23] swooped in there and took care of all the problems! Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rachel Hart

    I created this article and it keeps on getting tagged with a Conflict of Interest. Completly out of line. No conflict of interest. Nothing to disclose. How do we actually resolve this? It was reviewed and is live. Everything links to the appropriate source. --Media Edit NZ (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (user is referring to Rachel Hart article).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. It's probably your user name that is an issue. It sounds like a company: is it?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you happen to know Rachel Hart? It is getting tagged because the article is what we call highly promotional. It was also sourced with lots of references written by the article subject, which I have removed. Also, all your edits for the past six months or so concern Rachel Hart, her husband and their television programs. And the resulting articles are promotional. So it has all the hallmarks of what we call promotional editing, which is exactly the kind of thing we discuss here. Please do enlighten us on any connection you have to the article subjects, so we can clear this up! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaEditNZ, other editors will discuss to see if she is notable, that is the point of the AFD. the larger question is that your editing overall looks clearly promotional; could you clarify what your connection is to the set of subjects you have been editing? Thanks!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly I am a big fan of the subjects I had been editing. That is it. I had started to watch the 100 Day Bach show on NetFlix. Started to learn about the subjects and producers and saw what was linked with them. I have no connection with the subject for the TV show that you tagged has a close connection to. I understand they might be promotional. Your welcome to cut them down. I was new to editing so I am sorry if I had caused some problems. I am. I am definitely a new comer! --Media Edit NZ (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for that, which clears things up. And welcome! One thing you might want to try is to read over WP:RS, which covers what we consider to be a reliable source. For example, you were using articles authored by Rachel Hart to prove she was a writer. This might be marginally ok, but we tend to frown on anything that isn't independent. If the publisher or the author of the article isn't objective and independent, then we generally do not use them. Same thing goes for company connections: The use of the company Stripe in her article is no good as it is either her company or her employer. Keep to independent sources that are in reliable publications. Thins also have to be very neutral in order to not be seen as promotional. I wish you good editing and hope that this bureaucratic machinery has not discouraged you too much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this information. I tried to look for sources and references that would work. The television show in New Zealand here [2] shows her all throughout the Episodes and Series. Something that was clearly notable, being on a popular TV channel in New Zealand. I have however asked to delete the article Rachel Hart as this was just going around in circles and was quite upsetting. Thanks again for your help. --Media Edit NZ (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take it personally... you have to have a thick skin in here. The AFD will determine notability in an orderly way, if it is not deleted before then by your author's deletion request.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed my mind on this one, I don't believe this is good faith editing after looking at the user's contribs. It is all connected to one company, and it is also very slick editing that is not by a newbie editor. And it is all editing solely connected to the products of a single tv production company. Highly experienced volunteer editor suddenly decides to start promoting a single company's products. There are zero contribs outside of that subject area. There is a similar account over at Wikimedia Commons that also makes uploads for the same purposes: MediaSpyNZ. An SPI or checkuser might be in order. So in sum, I think the original UPE tag might be in order. WP:DUCK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - we are not a company, no. hmmm. Hydromania (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the accounts mentioned above (MediaEditNZ, MediaCheckNZ) are socks and were blocked. MediaEditNZ did have a pretty convincing routine though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridge Back to Life

    Hello. Please refer to [3] and [4]. This is a recreation of a salted article under a different name. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I cut it from 17K to 4.3K. I am not really sure what is goign on there-- the article was a coatrack to discredit the DR. mentioned, or a promotional vehicle? I would have nominated it for Afd, but it has a few good refs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent to AFD. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Seeing is believing. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scytl

    This user appears to have, starting soon after their first edit, exclusively editing the Scytl Wikipedia page in a manner flattering to Scytl. For context, Scytl is an evoting company which has been in the spotlight after numerous security flaws were found in its product. See, e.g.,[1], [2].

    References

    1. ^ https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1109908811697946624
    2. ^ https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1112776403823419392

    I believe that given this pattern an apparent CoI exists.

    Disclosure: Although I do not know any person involved in this matter, Ms. Lewis, who is one of the security researchers who discovered these issues, did inform the public (and thus me) of this apparent CoI via Twitter. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fernando Perdomo

    Need I say more? User has been editing this page for a while. has also added his name to other articles here and here Hydromania (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like an artist doing their promotional duty! It was all unsourcd, so I restored it to the earlier version before they came along.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a bid hasty IMHO. You also reverted some formatting fixes which I've re-added. As the article is all written in the same tone and format, I wouldn't be surprised if the earlier edits were also COI editors.Hydromania (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about my missing your improvements. I did search for the typo check and could not find it, but missed the other improvements you noted. Apologies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also informed the user about WP:IMPERSONATE as it's relevant here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If they return to editing without either verifying or changing it, please report to WP:UAA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:GPV International A/S

    Draft:GPV International A/S (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    CCS Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Erolatccsgroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    User’s only edits were first acquiring Wikipedia experience, then on CCS Group. Now that CCS Group has been acquired by GPV International, their edits are intended to create an article about GPV International. My inquiry about conflict of interest was not answered, but the following inquiry on my talk page is written in the first person plural and is typical of corporate editing: s://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=89 Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To start, looks like a violation of the shared username policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. It is perfectly ok to use <name> at <organization> as that clearly represents an individual. That being said, this is pretty clearly WP:PAID. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I was reading CCS group as a user account. I corrected the order above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And as they seemed to completely either ignore or not understand attempt to clarify how this works (they actually had to change their username once already and were warned about COI 2 years ago) I've issued an indef block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention the edit-warring to remove the COI tag from the article. Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCS Group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Udit Raj

    Editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article has completely rewritten it in a non-neutral way. Reverted with explanation and reinstated: Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I cleaned it up a bit (removed improper bold, added proper sections). It seems like it may have been adapted from an essay, given the section headings It had previously. It's far too dense for me to figure out what is going on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a bit of an edit war going on at this page, between the eponymous editor and a number of good faith editors. I've warned Dr.uditraj at his talk page, but he seems to be headed for a block.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alessio Pasquinelli

    More brand skipped

    I don't like to use external source, but the user keen on maintaining the list of sponsored teams in the sport wear articles to include "current" teams only (removing the expired sponsorship without really providing any reason) and without disclosing his source to verify . Googling his name "Alessio Pasquinelli" in linkedin shown his past position as "SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT", "SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER" and current position as "Pasquinelli Work Advertising". Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?

    At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here I asked the question "Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?" More input on that question would be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Per that RfC, no, being an acupuncturist does not create a COI for acupuncture (and so on for other alt-meds). But yes, I'd say it's as impossible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acu as it is for a psychologist to have one for psychology, isn't it? As the RfC closers noted, WP doesn't recognize COI for "broad areas of interest or general competence. Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."
    I am about to ask the RfC closers for clarification, and I hope this won't take up any more (nor any less) time than it needs to. Happy editing. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC); added to quote 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC); update: closing admins notified [5] (one is on vacation and won't be able to comment for awhile) 01:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • no it is not impossible. However a change in policy is not necessary. Guidelines such as WP:COISOURCE provide advice for editing contributions, which may originate from from biased editors. If an editor cherry picks RS to push unduly positive info then that’s biased/POV editing. If an editor inserts links which promote specific practices or products then this is COI editing. A good example from my experience is having to shoot down the addition of fairly innocuous pieces of text which are sourced from obvious commercial sites in the article on interior design. These are added by editors who use link spam to describe interior design using arguably encyclopedic text while employing dubious sourcing techniques. Anyone frequently exhibiting this kind of behavior ought to be declaring a COI as their commercial aims are influencing their editing practices. This ought not to be mandatory however. I am an interior designer and wouldn’t dream of adding my company’s website address into the encyclopedia. Discretion is advised and current policies and guidelines would seem to be sufficient in this case. Edaham (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree with the spirit of your comment, but it's based on a common misconception of COI. Promotional/biased edits don't cause COI; off-wiki connections do: see WP:COINOTBIAS. It has to do with how closely/specifically an editor is connected to the topic, so e.g. you'd have a COI for an article about your own business but not interior design generally -- no matter how you edited. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you didn't read what I wrote. I specifically highlighted the difference between bias and COI. Someone with the inclination and/or motivation to use the encyclopedia for promotional purposes because of their affiliation with an off-wiki entity has a COI on any article where their off-wiki objectives might influence their editing practices. If I, as an employee of foo-software add content to an article on foo-software, I have a COI. If I add link spam directing people to foo-software on an article about software in general, I have a COI. The differentiation between COI, bias and advocacy doesn't place any limitation on which areas of the encyclopedia the issue occurs, be it an article about foo or the subject to which your foo belongs. Edaham (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edaham: I believe you're right; I was thrown by your opening sentence. If you mean that one can have a COI for one's foo but not the non-foo aspects of their field, fully agree with that and the rest of what you said. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 17:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a former employee of Mattel, and I still consult for pretty much all of the major toy manufacturers. I have a COI, and do not edit the Mattel page. It turns out that engineers who have hands-on experience with producing electronics product at a rate of over 100,000 per hour 24/7 are hard to find. If I make each one a penny cheaper or more expensive that's $24,000 a day.
    Not only do I not edit the Mattel page or the pages of any toy manufacturers I have worked for, if -- as is the case with Middle 8's and acupuncture -- our article on Toys said things that would lead a reasonable person to never buy a toy again, I would not edit that page, and I certainly would not edit the page to portray toys more favorably. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Specific edits for examples of such edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy M: I understand your point about financial connection, but I don't think you're taking into account that such connections can be tenuous enough to not rise to the level of a Wikipedia COI (potential conflict being a continuum, unlike say pregnancy). Ernst thinks that the financial COI for alt-meders tends to be small, and substantially outweighed by what he calls "quasi-evangelical convictions" that amount to a sort of idealogical COI, which of course on WP we call TE, advocacy et cetera.
    Like your argument, that point was made in the pertinent RfC (see my !vote for example, and comment starting with the words "Ernst's concept"). Lots of arguments were made, and as you know, the "No" arguments prevailed, and I don't understand why you're making the "Yes" ones again when they're not specific to my case. You should be trying to argue why I have a greater financial interest than alt-meders in general, since the latter was already considered by the RfC. Are you going to do that, or just keep repeating general alt-med criticisms at the wrong forum for this? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 17:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not quite sure why have the RfC closers singled out, we do not have any special knowledge which would be useful here. The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner. They could still have a million of other reasons to have COI, or edit disruptively without having COI. (Not to be interpreted as judgement on the specific case, which I did not look into).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ymblanter -- that's helpful. Since Guy Macon wanted input from "admins" I figured you three were good choices to interpret your own RfC closing statement. :-)
    Two more questions if I may:
    1) I think it follows that if an alt-med practitioner somehow does have a COI for content in their field, it's not because of their simply being an acupuncturist. Do you agree? (This is actually not obvious to all editors.)
    2) Some are arguing that the RfC's finding is only a "general" one, and that just being an alt-med practitioner is still reason to accuse specific editors of COI. (Some are even justifying this stance with arguments that didn't prevail in the RfC, e.g. that alt-med practitioners should be singled out and treated differently). This strikes me as inappropriate -- effectively an attempt to bypass/ignore the RfC -- but what do you think?
    Thanks again, Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 08:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but I do not think I can say more than what I have already said.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we'll wait for others to comment. I'll add here that if, somehow, something besides having a profession can cause a COI for acupuncture or anything else, I stand corrected. My bigger concerns are those in my preceding comment, esp. bullet point #2. This thread should really be called "does Middle 6 have a COI" since Guy Macon is attempting to use AN/I to settle that [6] when this (if anywhere) is the proper place.--Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC); added last sentence 09:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC); ce 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted this discussion to be about ""does Middle 8 have a COI" you should have made the claim that you have no COI. You did not. You claimed "it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture".[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I claim I have no COI, because of the "No" finding of the RfC you started because of me. As one of the closers put it above, "An alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner." Unless Aristotle was wrong, that major premise extends to acupuncturists, and hence to me. So I do not have a COI for acupuncture, (unless there's some other way to have one for a whole field, which I honestly can't imagine, can you? The same goes for any other acu'ist, but as much as you're focused on that "not possible" soundbite, it's rather a red herring.)
    It shouldn't take multiple noticeboards and even ArbCom to grok this logic, should it?
    Still waiting for you to explain why I might/should be an exception to that RFC. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor add'n 02:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC), clarify improbable hypothetical 05:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Guy M or anyone else said that you were an exception. This whole discussion came about because you removed the COI note from the Acupuncture talk page, and then asserted that it's not possible for an acupuncturist to have a COI in the area - I think this discussion is aimed at clarifying that point.
    The RFC concluded that alt med practitioners don't automatically have a COI covering their field, but the closing statement also said that Existing policy, including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COI are sufficient to handle disruptive editing in this topic (emphasis mine) - so, the closers explicitly accepted that COI policy is relevant in this topic area. They went on to remind editors that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged. - so, COI may be a particular concern in this area. It is not the case that an acupuncturist will always have a COI with regards to all areas of acupuncture, but it is possible that they may have one in particular areas, and so should be cautious when editing about their field. It seems to me that the COI banner on the talk page is appropriate, in the light of the RfC closure.
    My own professions (I've had two) create the potential for conflicts of interest. As a geophysicist, I used to work for a company that develops high-resolution 3D imaging sonars, competing with underwater video systems and diver inspections. I would feel quite comfortable contributing material to sonar articles in general, but I would stay well away from writing about the relative efficacy of sonar systems compared to other methodologies - I have a clear COI in that area. These days as a teacher, I work in an independent school - I wouldn't be worried about contributing to articles on education in general, but I would definitely avoid writing about any potential benefits of private versus state-funded education, no matter how reliable my sourcing was, because I recognise that I have a conflict of interest in that particular area. I think that would apply to anyone - including, but certainly not limited to, alt med practitioners - if your livelihood depends on people trusting in the efficacy of anything, I can't see how you could avoid having a conflict of interest when writing about that efficacy. GirthSummit (blether) 10:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott Shaw

    This is from an ancient SPI from 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West/Archive that was never cleaned up after. I found it today via this post on r/wikipedia (reddit). Most of these articles are films that Scott Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had an involvement in that do not appear to meet WP:NFILM. I haven't been able to determine whether Shaw meets WP:CREATIVE.

    I'm also concerned that Chinanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a still-active sock of the same master. The account was created at a similar time and has edited many of the same articles: [8]. SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    UPE cluster

    articles

    See Special:Diff/891222663. - Bri.public (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI pending: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gghenn2. MER-C 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing blocked Holbornassets who created Holborn Assets Limited and was blocked 4 August 2015. Not saying he's part of the current sockfarm.
    Expecting to see the creator of City Express Money Transfer turn up in the SPI. - Bri.public (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Venous leak

    Despite Orangelioncat has declared conflicts of interests that they are associated with Geng Long Hsu, Orangelioncat has been inserting links to Geng Long Hsu's article on the Encyclopedia of Reproduction into on assertions that are not supported by the sources at all. For example, "Vascular Surgery for Erectile Dysfunction" is cited in Venous leak three times yet none of the assertions can be supported by it. Considering that Orangelioncat has prominently mentioned Hsu's contribution that does not exist in the source (e.g. [9], [10]), I found it difficult to believe that those edits are to "disseminate the verifiable knowledge". Mys_721tx (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The COI has also been noted by User:Flyer22 Reborn in January. -Mys_721tx (talk) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Orangelioncat has a clear COI. And I alerted WP:Med to it. Doc James edited the Venous leak article a bit after I noted the COI stuff. I've been over matters with Orangelioncat on my talk page. But today, I see that the editor is still spamming penile articles with Geng Long Hsu material and that there is a Genglonghsu (talk · contribs) account adding Geng Long Hsu material. I can be seen reverting that account here, for example, stating "Revert WP:COI material. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Penile articles. Get it published in independent sources first." I noted on my talk page that the "os analog" aspect typically isn't mentioned in the human penis literature. I wanted to point out that anatomy literature can differ and we need to take care in such cases. When something is only or mostly being stated by one researcher, it is likely best to use WP:In-text attribution and note that it's that researcher (or that researcher and his group) stating that. It's that case for other subjects as well, not just anatomy. This is where the WP:Due weight policy is useful. I told Orangelioncat that I wouldn't object to Orangelioncat adding that Long Hsu (or someone else) states so and so about the os analog. I also noted that, as for Long Hsu's expertise, I do see that in the Wikipedia article Orangelioncat created on him, it states that he claimed to "know the penis more than anyone else in the world." He can claim that, but we shouldn't just go by his word on penile matters. The rest of the literature should be in agreement with him if we are to take everything he states as fact. Otherwise, if he states something that conflicts with the rest of the literature, we should give the matter in-text attribution. I don't like going by single studies for anything. Studies with results that that have been replicated are more reliable. I also pointed Orangelioncat to WP:MEDRS. A source can be WP:MEDRS-compliant and still out of step with what the literature generally reports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits mentioned are definitely UNDUE, and Geng Long Hsu certainly has a COI for citing their own work. Whether Orangelioncat has a close enough connection to Geng Long Hsu to create a COI isn't clear to me (but if not, non-COI protocols should be adequate AFAIK). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mys_721tx

    Yes, as stated in my conversation with Flyer22 Reborn, I respect the consensus and rules in the Wiki community. It's my pleasure to engage in this discussion. On my part, the extent of COI, although minor, is present, and it's stated at the beginning.

    Here, I do try to use as many secondary sources as possible, and that's why the Encyclopedia of Reproduction is applied. Otherwise, there are indeed some news articles that can be used, but some of them need to be translated. The aim is definitely not to spam these articles. Those references, directly or indirectly, serve as support to the statements. In examination over the comments made here, I would re-visit and modify in accordance with what's considered appropriate.

    In regard to the questioning over the belief to distribute "verifiable knowledge," I wish to talk a bit more about the images themselves that were used. Of course, I also make edits on other topics, but with respect to GL and penile anatomy, the verifiable knowledge is the presence of more than the DDV between the Buck's and the tunica albuginea, and the elaboration of the 3-D structure of the tunica albuginea.

    The associated diagram was published long before the Encyclopedia of Reproduction, although a version of it was shared with the publisher. The right to the images is released by the right-holder to the Wiki Commons, not any other third-party.

    Flyer22 Reborn stated prior to my involvement in the project that there's a lack of information on the male reproductive system, and I am glad to have made some contribution.

    Orangelioncat (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed some images uploaded by User:Genglonghsu are marked for deletion. For right issue with respect to the images, consider this:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2164/jandrol.109.008532 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289991483_Penile_venous_surgery_for_treating_erectile_dysfunction_Past_present_and_future_perspectives_with_regard_to_new_insights_in_venous_anatomy

    Four years ago, the right to a similar version of the image was already released under CC, and even prior to that, the original creator of the image gave permission for publication in a journal. Mys_721tx, anatomical knowledge is verifiable.

    Orangelioncat (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Citing the source on assertions that cannot be supported by the source is extremely inappropriate. Unless the assertion is very generic, there will not be a source that magically supports all existing claims in an article. Furthermore, Journal of Andrology is a subscription-based journal and upon publication the authors have transferred copyright to the American Society of Andrology. You cannot release figures under CC license when it is not yours anymore. -Mys_721tx (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin review

    Okay so we are looking at this edit by User:Orangelioncat.[11]

    They cited this source to support the following text:

    "Common complaints include a chronic soft erection insufficient for sexual intercourse, position-dependent erectile rigidity, difficulty achieving erections, difficulty maintaining erections without constant manual stimulation, loss of penile length and girth, and a soft glans of the penis during erection that is not fully engorged."

    Orange can you provide below the exact text within the publication that you feel supports this? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The text should come from p.390 in the chapter "Male Reproductive Tract - Erection Abnormality." That could be found here: [12]- "...symptoms include insufficient rigidity, early detumescence, loss of morning erection, position dependent impotence, soft glans syndrome and gradual onset of early ejaculation." I do agree that citation needs to be precise. The medref box states that more medical references are needed, and I made my edits under the impression that the more the better without citing the exact texts and sources. My mistake. Thank you for point it out.
    Orangelioncat (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangelioncat, I want to know if you understand what I mean by being cautious of something that is only or mostly being stated by one researcher and that "we shouldn't just go by his word on penile matters," and "if he states something that conflicts with the rest of the literature, we should give the matter in-text attribution." WP:MEDRS is not the only thing to follow; so is WP:Due weight. Like I noted on my talk page to you, we, for example, give different reports on the urogenital diaphragm in the Urogenital diaphragm article because the literature is not consistent on it. We mention the dispute regarding the limbic system in the Limbic system article. I was concerned that you were prioritizing Long Hsu's and his colleagues' work over what the literature generally states. And I see that you and the Genglonghsu account are doing just that. You are only concerned with adding work and images by that researcher and his team. So you are definitely a WP:Single purpose account. You are not looking at what the rest of the literature might state on the matter. For example, what other source or sources state what Doc James cited above? If you don't see any other source stating that, it is best to directly attribute that text to the specific researcher(s) you are citing. And by that, I mean WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Flyer22 Reborn, Doc James, Mys_721tx,

    I receive no financial or academic benefit from doing all these. Since my first edit's (which was one or two months ago, the issue of COI was already concluded), my edits were reactive in regard to the penile articles and GL. The GL page was inserted with an orphan tag, then considering your comment on the In-Text attribution, I then applied that policy to the article, by making links to that page. Also, the med ref box stated that more reference was needed. Then, I tried to put the the references (although some of them turned out to be inaccurate). Not just GL, I have also made citation on Culley C Carson's prosthesis article.

    I will stop my editing on the penile articles for now, but I do demand fairness and respect, especially to those (including myself) new to Wikipedia editing. And Flyer22 Reborn: yes, your in-text attribution came from the issue of the "os analog." Albeit that it really just refers to the hard structure inside the glans, and which contributes to the rigidity and shape of an erect penis. It's not a theory but just a fact. If, like many other literature states, penile erection only relies on only the erectile tissue, sexual intercourse would not have been achieved so easily - the pointed and relatively hard structure/ the end of the distal ligament is important, and that has a great resemblance to the os penis (found in most other species but not us). Why make the conveyance of such a concept so difficult? Putting this consensus thing aside, Flyer22 Reborn, I am contributing to the content in this area, and a lack of that was supposed to be an issue to resolve?

    Of the copy-right issue, I am aware that GL has declared on his website that all those images are licensed under CC. Just scroll down to the the very end of the page: [13].

    As far as I know, the concept of the erection-related veins was first reported in a world meeting in Japan, and it's done by GL. The identification of those veins was mentioned in an Asian journal that no longer existed (called the New Taipei something), but that journal did not have all those detailed diagrams from GL's website. Also, the corresponding author knew little about the research, and became that because of his position in the institute; which is really not the point here. There was even fabrication on the date of reception.

    I do not know if GL and others signed the right-release agreement to that ghost publisher. It's gone now anyway, so who does the right to that knowledge belong? If one can sort this out, I'm sure it'd be easier to know where to ask for permission if we are to disseminate this knowledge. If Hsu Androlgy can put all those images on their website and claims that their rights are released under CC, perhaps they already had it sorted out? If there is any issue, should you not direct the question to them, but not to this meow meow.

    The Andrology article is an outcome report on the surgery, but not the anatomical concept, and the later mentioned article is not the original article/speech on the anatomical concept, either. With the open access journal (and for many other journals now), right is not as strict a matter, as sharing can be done when permission is granted, or when significant modification is done on an image.

    I will stay away on the penile matter and GL, but keep an eye on how things develop.

    Thanks so much.

    Orangelioncat (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Orbitless drives COI

    There is a person named Leo Stocco, who is apparently the CTO and Founder of Orbitless_drives, he is also an author of some of the papers mentioned as sources in the article. Now The problem is in the user page of the wiki user, please have a look. Daiyusha (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, there is definitely a COI. I've sent the article to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rudy Takala

    I'm requesting independent review of this BLP article, which contains a great deal of apparently unsourced information.

    The three SPA editors are all inactive. Together, they've written 90% of the current content. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential COI editing by several (related) IPs

    These IPs have recently been making several edits to New Zealand and Pacific Island-related pages, mostly to add a reference to a single recently-published book. At first glance (not having read the book), the reference appears to be at least somewhat relevant, but it seems likely that the IP editors are closely associated with the book in some way - e.g., its author or publisher. I have left a note about this on each of the IPs' Talk pages, but they have not responded. Ross Finlayson (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP:
    Ross Finlayson (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost every article that these 3 IPs have been editing They're too numerous too list. Ross Finlayson (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mathieu Chantelois

    I think User:Blipblip88 is Mathieu himself.

    In Aug 2018 Mathieu sanitizes his page under his own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathieu_Chantelois&type=revision&diff=853283903&oldid=845679634

    It's reverted, for COI reasons. Almost immediately after, and then continuously, we see edits from User:Blipblip88 doing nothing but positive edits.

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mathieu_Chantelois.jpg is a selfie, uploaded by Blipblip88.

    All of his edits are on Mathieu's article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blipblip88

    Exilewhat (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Mover

    Bonzofreak is a single-purpose account, with all 12 years of his edits closely connected to the rock drummer Jonathan Mover. The problem here is that Bonzofreak has been repeatedly adding promotional stuff to the Mover biography, especially stuff about Mover's minor business ventures, about which nothing has been written in the press.[14][15][16] Peacock wording is frequently inserted, such as "fantastic bassist"[17] and "drummer extraordinaire".[18] Bonzofreak has been warned repeatedly against such promotion but has never used a talk page, and has never communicated with other editors. Recently he has engaged in a slow motion edit war to keep promotional text in the Mover biography, reverted by myself and Rodericksilly. Something needs to be done to get his attention and stop the disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Binksternet: Any edit warring or other disruptive behavior (including an unwillngness to communicate with others) probably would be better off dealt with at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. The lead and the magazine section were each just big paragraphs of name dropping and other unsourced claims, so I went and removed most of that, but the article still has some sourcing problems per WP:BLPSOURCES. Content about Mover's involvement with Drumhead can likely be re-added if supported by citations to reliable secondary sources and written in a more encyclopedic tone, but simply linking to the magazine's homepage is not going to be good enough per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:BLPSELFPUB, especally since the magazine doesn't appear to be Wikipedia notable in it's own right and simply redirects to the article about Mover.
      FWIW, Bonzofreak does seem to edit in spurts which might explain the lack of interaction with other editors. They seem to make a bunch of edits, disappear for awhile, and then come back a few months later. There's also no record of them making any article talk posts or user talk page posts in twelve years of editing which could be seen a pretty good indication of WP:NOTHERE more than anything else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of interaction with other users is difficult to explain given that both Binskernet and I have left messages on his Talk page and he has continued to make the same edits. He's just not interested in dialogue. Rodericksilly (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that no history of interacting with others is not a good indication of WP:HERE and this might be something worth discussing at ANI; however, not interacting with others isn't really something which can be dealt with here at COIN. There's already a {{Connected contributor}} template added to the article's talk page which includes a link to what might be seen as a possible COI declaration ("he gave me the license...") made way back in December 2007, but WP:DISCLOSE is not mandatory except for WP:PAID. The editor was advised about COI back in January 2019 after a brief editing spurt and then warned yesterday about edit warring. If they continue on as before without any response, then ANI or AN3 are probably better ways than COIN to try and stop the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside In (organization)


    • The user just updated his user page on 6 Aug 2006 which included inserting "Clinic Shifts at Outside In and NHC6 Aug 2006
    • Series of edits involving substantial contents change between 26 May 2011 and 1 June 2011 between accounts Travis.Thurston, Oivolunteer and IP 98.142.37.50 that occurred around here. To be on the safe side of WP:OUTING policy, I would not elaborate the data found however to those familiar, there's a sufficient indication to show that signed edit occurred at the organization. The user name OIVolunteer is quite obvious and self-explanatory.
    • Edits by 209.63.132.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 19 Feb 2016, and at the time of occurrence, there's a good likelihood of correlation between the organization and the edit source. Didn't post notice on that IP's talk, because there's a newer edit to it and there's likely no correlation between organization and that IP now. diff
    • Relatively recent edit by JayHedegard on 12 Oct 2018. For privacy policy, specifics are omitted but this edit appears to have been done for the organization.

    An editor who is currently engaged with editing expressed discontent with the COI tag remaining on the page and wants it gone and he's asking what contents should be changed for the tag to go away. I'm uncertain about the accepted norm here regarding how long they should remain on. I expressed my view that my concern isn't necessarily the sourcing. My concern is that since the article was built from the ground up by someone likely acting on behalf of the organization likely with substantial input and possibly under the direction and supervision of the organization, the outline of categories and contents on which contents are expanded upon may contain deeply entrenched bias that tends to define what contents to include and not include. A comment was inserted by yet another IP editor relating to unionization. This content was removed by an account which I have a good reason to believe it is related to the organization. That account has only been used for edits relating to this organization and the edit summary for removing unionization was that it's "inaccurate". This occurred within the last 6 months. I have researched the contents that was removed and the information appears to be accurate. I believe that current COI still exists after observing that edit on the union matter that seems to indicate PR engagement by organization to manage contents about the organization. I think resolving it is a little more than complicated than simply improving contents. As long as the outline of the original apge creation remains, there's likely an implicit bias that moderates what contents get built up or contents remaining that would not have been entered without any input from involved editors. The COI concern will remain as long as organization continues to monitor and actively engage in contents management. Graywalls (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I attempted to remove some of the primary sourcing, among other edits, but my work was reverted by Graywalls. I think this should just be reduced to an appropriate stub, if NPOV is a concern. Let's not make this more work than needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you care so much now to clear the tag expeditiously but didn't even bat an eye about the COI editing itself. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Undisclosed COI editing can be concerning, but I'm more focused on getting the current article's contents Wikipedia-compliant, instead of focusing who added what and when. I'd like to see editors remove problematic content so the tag can be removed, what's wrong with that? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These two points in time makes a great example of a deeply entrenched bias. This content was originally inserted, unsourced, from the organization's IP. initially. The statement became referenced through sources coalescing around the statement inserted by the organization's IP. Despite having the appearance of being well sourced, bias was introduced from someone at the organization inserting what wants to be presented in the article on them. Suspected edits originating at the organization or accounts associated with it occurred in August 2006, Jay-June 2011, Feb 2016 and most recently (that I am aware of) in October 2018. I argue that this is one of the articles that needs to be on a long term watch and it's not just a matter of neutralizing it now and be done with due to sufficient evidence of chronic undisclosed, direct PR engagement from the organization. The most recent suspected COI editor responded and commented he was not compensated or was directed by the organization; although evidence supports the account was essentially SPA, and other edits on this organization clearly shows there's a pattern of edits being made to article about them from their IP. Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have an objection with this specific edit but it's interesting that this content whose inclusion decision was made by an Outside In connected contributor was brought back up soon after it was removed. When the article subject takes the initiative to insert contents, contents can coagulate around the outline or contents left in edit history. Analogously, I tore off the pavement that wasn't supposed to be put in the first place. It was paved, but paving followed the shadows left behind, thus retaining the planning bias (caused by connected contributor that chose where to freshly lay the roads). Hopefully this helps explain the concern I have expressed about the issue of deep entrenched COI that becomes woven into the fabric of an article. Graywalls (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from JayHedegard

    As it appears on his talk page: Graywalls (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Drm310. Sorry, I'm not sure if I am replying to this correctly. I have not been compensated in any way for the edits I made to the Outside In page nor was I directed to do so by the organization. Thanks. Jay

    Allen Blakemore (political consultant) ‎

    I noticed that the user Redwhiteandboujee was inserting the following (unsourced) sentence into a number of articles: "...works with Allen Blakemore to effectively plan and execute political strategy." See, for example, here and here. When I looked into the user's contribution history, I noticed they had created the article Allen Blakemore (political consultant). This looks like a probable case of self-promotion. Marquardtika (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd guess that it's WP:UPE. Regardless, it's blatant promotion. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Etherweave

    Etherweave is a business offering "services include marketing strategy, Web design and development, copywriting, editorial services, integrated e-mail campaigns and a range of other services" [19]. All of the authors listed above are or were clients of theirs. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    VentureBeat

    This user's only editing has been to add content from VentureBeat to other articles, usually written in a somewhat promotional style. Have reverted many of the recent additions, but they are extensive, and there may be other accounts involved. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Inquiry on current best practice

    As background, please read the note I left on the talk page of Yana Peel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Yana is a friend who very keenly wishes that all proper procedure at Wikipedia be followed, and who is also keen to see some updates to her Wikipedia entry. Her page was tagged a few years ago with a conflict of interest editing tag - I don't have any direct knowledge of whether that was correct, but I think we can assume that it was correct at the time.

    It is a common thing that someone edits Wikipedia with a COI, but more or less innocently just trying to help. Even in cases where the edits are a bit too promotional, I believe that this is also often (but not always) "innocent" in the sense that people are naturally prone to speak in a positive way about things they've achieved or done in their lives.

    When something like this happens, the result is often an extended "punishment" (although nothing in Wikipedia should ever be punishment!) of a tag on the top of an article which languishes for years.

    So here's my inquiry: what is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?

    I'm well aware that there are persistently annoying people who exhaust our patience with repeated efforts to "puff" their entries. That's also an interesting case, but it's not the sort of case I'm asking about right now! I'm talking about nice people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimbo Wales: I would suggest it is you who have the conflict of interest. As you are aware, there is no punishment on Wikipedia, only prevention. Those COI tags help prevent disruptive editing and, for that reason, should remain there forever. We also don't have rules that apply to "persistently annoying people" but not "nice people". Such value judgments are subjective and suspect. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI tags help warn readers of problems with the neutrality of the article. If they want changes made, they should submit them on the talkpage thru the edit request system. COI punishments are preventative because they prevent the article from becoming promotional. We don’t give exceptions to the rules for “nice people”. End of discussion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard procedure is to use the talk page and propose changes. As for when 'removal' of a COI tag is warranted, it's when a consensus of editors agree that the current version of the page is fair and balanced, and that the edits from the person who was suspected to have a COI were reviewed as non-problematic, or when the problematic parts of those edits were expunged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend that editor begin a discussion in the article's Talk page. If no one responds, post a note in the Talk page of one or more relevant Wikiprojects. If that doesn't work, drop a note here.
    The template shouldn't be used as a badge of shame or punishment; if another editor has reviewed the edits and made the appropriate changes - perhaps none - then the template should be removed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Before we rush to do favors for "nice people", could someone please look into whether the following editors were coordinating their efforts to promote content related to Yana Peel?
    • User:Serpentine_gallery_press_dept (pre-dates Peel's tenure, but establishes a pattern)
    • User:Newcombe45 (seems keenly interested in Mr. and Mrs. Peel and Intelligence Squared, the company she helped purchase, which is headquartered in Newcombe House, at 45 Notting Hill Gate)
    • User:Outset.uk (edits only about Outset Contemporary Art Fund, co-founded by Yana Peel)
    • User:JLMLand (edits only about the artistic director under Yana Peel at Serpentine Galleries)
    • User:Vennietweek (edits only about Para Site, co-chaired by Yana Peel from 2010 to 2015)
    • User:Varez33 (edits only about Stephen Peel)
    • User:Natalia_Cherenkova (strangely only edits about an art collector, Faberge art, and TPG Capital -- Mr. Peel's firm)
    And lastly, there is this. Does the fact that the Peels have donated at least $10,000 (perhaps $30,000) to the Wikimedia Foundation influence whether Wikipedians do a favor and remove from her biography a conflict of interest notice to readers and other editors? If so, which way does that influence go? Considering the various mysterious editors above, are we certain there is no further risk in seeing conflict of interest on the biographical article? - Wacomshera (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the donation matters, unless they get preferential treatment. And they are not getting preferential treatment, as is seen in the article. All Jimbo is asking is if someone can explain the current policy, and a request edit on the talk page. Seems pretty free of influence to me. People are allowed to have friends. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (arbitrary break)

    Jimbo, thanks for asking the question here. It doesn't seem like you got a succinct reply. I think the answer is "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved...", from Template:COI#When to remove. That textbook answer does seem to be aligned with my experience of how things work. Hope this helps. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per Bri's comment, and as a completely uninvolved party here in my living room far from the art world or Wiki headquarters, I made a dozen or so edits to reduce the promotional nature of the article. The tags are still there as they are valid. The article is still promotional and could use the eye of a more experienced editor. I don't see an issue with fixing an article in order to remove a tag and improve wiki qaulity, assuming notability, irregardless of where the request comes from.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'm wondering about sort of the same thing. Unlike other noticeboards, I see a lot of entries left open and hanging. A case I created , Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Outside_In_(organization) involves an organization that shows signs of a long-term (over a period of years), direct PR engagement by people with affiliation. I'm not sure how long the COI template should remain, but even after neutralization, I feel like this is one of those where something needs to remain on the long term. The latest edit was a reference to unionization being removed by an account that appears to be related to the organization even though the account owner said he was not "paid" or "directed" to make the edit. Basically, I think employees/interns/volunteers who edit on the company's computer or making the edits with consent of management ought to be considered "work related" activity and ought to subject to mandatory disclosure. If the edits are made by salaried staff, it's all too easy to claim they weren't paid "for editing wikipedia" but if that conduct is deemed acceptable work related use of time, then it would be within part of their job. Graywalls (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but we are not here to punish system abusers; we're here to build a good encyclopedia. If a tagged article can be turned into a good, neutral article by editing, that is the optimal outcome. Think of any family or organization. Sh*t happens, but you move towards the main goal of your family or organization; you don't spend years punishing the kids or your employees. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If article subject company has a tendency to do direct PR editing over a long time, a notice would serve to help readers informed to check edit history and be advised that changes made by the organization itself may continue to occur. It isn't "punishing" the organization. It's keeping readers informed. Graywalls (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone in your family has a history of violating your family's rules, sometimes an honest intervention is helpful before you naively accept an endorsement from their "friend" that they (and their spouse and their corporations that have also been violating the family's rules) are a "nice person" now. - Wacomshera (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point but watchlists do that in the background. PR edits, we revert. Leaving tags on purpose for months or years and focusing on the abusers rather than article improvement is counterproductive. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Are you, or have you ever been, paid by anyone to edit wikipedia? Thanks! 199.247.44.10 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Ohio! The answer is no and no. Did you forget to log in?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope! Ohio, huh. Man, I get around. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maya Stovall

    The article was a stub a few days ago when I created it. A very savvy editor with a new account showed up and added many, many refs (in one case they had ten refs in a row). And I just noticed that new savvy editors marks all edits as "m" for minor. Seems like obvious COI and/or UPE editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, they are helping to improve the article by adding reference links, and you're calling notice to this as a problem? - Wacomshera (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly professional paid editing or COI-- only pros mark all the edits "M" to try to hide them. The account's first edit added ten properly formatted references with cite web, marked "minor". Does that not sound fishy to you? Calling out such obvious COI or UPE is appropriate here to alert the editor that we are suspicious of their neutrality. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=892416337"