Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
wl
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 569: Line 569:
* what criteria would we use to say that "X has a COI with respect to this page"?
* what criteria would we use to say that "X has a COI with respect to this page"?
-- [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
-- [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

* Why isn't this section titled "[[User:JzG]] and [[Brian Martin (social scientist)]]"? The [[Ideological bias on Wikipedia]] is just one place of many that this [[WP:BLPCOI]] of JzG has manifested. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 19:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:37, 2 June 2018

"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:A&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Bastion Collective
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:Boku, Inc.
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Martin Casado
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Cyberattack
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Derby della Lanterna
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:EF Education First
    Talk:EMarketer
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Gibson Dunn
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:Roy Hamilton III
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Michael Meldman
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Overseas Development Institute
    Talk:Pacific Equity Partners
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Quarter Pounder
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Marc Rowan
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Diana Senechal
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Stikeman Elliott
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:The Inter Faith Network
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:Union Pacific Railroad
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Bulat Utemuratov
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Romesh Wadhwani
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Wasserman (company)
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Andy Wright (music producer)
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn

    Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

    See article history and talk page. Advocate editor (paid editor on his other account) repeatedly removing tags on the article, on the primary sourcing and on the failures to verify, redlinking extremely unlikely article subjects. Perhaps I have completely misconstrued things, but this appears difficult to distinguish functionally from straight-up promotional whitewashing. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I do not have a conflict of interest on this article. I'm a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence for NIOSH, a U.S. federal government laboratory that performs research on workplace health and safety, and I have a declared alternate account for this. Promoting nanotechnology is not part of that job, and in fact one my goals has been to add reliable information about the hazards of nanotechnology (for example, Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials). I have no relationship whatsoever with the Foresight Institute. All edits to the Feynman Prize article have been in my volunteer capacity.
    Second, David Gerard raised a legitimate issue about the article lacking secondary sources, and as I have been dealing with those concerns through improving the article I have been removing the tags, as is proper. In some cases I've disagreed with David Gerard's interpretation of policy (mainly WP:SELFPUB), but I thought we were discussing this constructively on the talk page. I thoroughly justified each tag removal in the edit comments in order to make my reasoning known so David Gerard and others can respond to them. Other editors such as C-randles, StrayBolt, and Arxiloxos have been involved in discussions and edits to rescue the article as well. I'm happy to have more people involved in the discussion and will accept the outcome of the consensus. I feel that continued discussion on the talk page will resolve these issues and formal conflict resolution is not yet needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    May also belong at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (paid advocacy in fringe field) - cc @Jytdog: @JzG: - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this have to do with fringe theories?? I am genuinely confused. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping. This is a board about conflict of interest; advocacy issues are similar but handled differently. I don't see that anybody has asked the question, so I'll do that.
    User:Antony-22 above you wrote that you have no conflict of interest on this article, but sometimes people make wrong conclusions when they judge things on their own. What we ask folks to do is to disclose any connections they have, and the community determines if there is a COI or not. So - would you please disclose any real world connections you have with the Foresight Institute or this prize? If you have none, please say so. Thanks for your patience working through this. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: I have no connection at all with the Foresight Institute as an institution, and I have no direct connection with the prize itself (haven't won it, wouldn't be eligible for it at this stage of my career). Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your clear answer. I find that credible and it is what i expected.
    In my view there is however some advocacy going on, per WP:ADVOCACY. I don't understand why the prize article exists. It basically just replicates stuff on the Foresight website, and per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a proxy for anybody's website. The lack of secondary sources on this stuff is... glaring. You've been around a long time, and that you are pushing so hard on this is kind of a sign that you are maybe too passionate about nano. Maybe. I plan to nominate it for deletion and my guess is that it will be merged to Foresight page. But we'll see. But please stop using primary/self-sourced references around nano -- the higher you aim with respect to sourcing nano things - giving WEIGHT as reliable, secondary sources give things, the more solid the ground you will be on. Experts are super valuable here, because a) they can generally see where we have holes or UNDUE weight on topics in the field; b) knowing the literature they can put their hands on high quality secondary sources where experts in the field have summarized "accepted knowledge" in the field, at the time, for people in the field. So valuable. I hope that all makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Thanks for your consideration. I will of course accept the outcome of the AfD. Given that all the article prose is now supported by secondary sources, I think the article could possibly survive AfD, but if it is merged with the information intact, I would not consider that a bad outcome. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a COI issue. Could the article in question use more independent sources, sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasmine Directory

    This article was created by the site owner. To be clear, they followed COI requirements perfectly, but seem to have been given poor advice at AFC in that the website is very far from meeting WP:NWEB as it has zero coverage in RS. I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory but 3 editors reappeared from fairly long hiatuses (6 month +) to !vote keep and it was duly non-admin closed. It seems fairly obvious that WP:MEAT occurred, even if it was done in good faith. It should probably be sent back to AFD, but obviously it needs more independent eyes on it and I would prefer not to nominate it myself again. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everybody! First of all, as an editor I am very well aware of WP's standard procedures. I think I was respectful of Wikipedia's policies, never trolled and if I had any doubts I seeked for help in the designated sections. All my edits on various articles I've been improving or the ones I created can backup this belief (please correct me if I'm wrong). My account is open for any sort or verification (please check my edit history as well as WP:SOCK if any administrator with CheckUser rights is willing to - and please place an indef. ban if I have broken any possible policy). As I already stated, (and Smartse highlighted) I followed COI requirements perfectly by disclosing it on all possible pages; the article in question was not created by me, it was draftified, than I have followed the rules e.g.: given here, than it was approved via the AfC process (link). Ever since, I haven't touched the article's content other than the edits permitted by WP:PSCOI. I haven't added any word and anyone can check the diffs. I have never, under any circumstances, pinpointed to any of the existing Wikipedia articles about web directories, even if I do have a vast knowledge in the field. WP:NPOV of the article was also checked a few times. The entry was AfD-ed and the result of the debate was to keep it. As for coverage in RS, I'll name a few sources that I consider quite reliable industry specific publications which can only backup the already published statements in the live article: Search Engine Watch - ([1]), Daily News Egypt - ([2]), The London Economic, TNT (magazine) - ([3]), CifNews, a pupular news portal in China - ([4]), The Good Men Project - ([5]), a self-regulatory association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada [6] conducted a comparison which was published in Internet Information Resource Book - Guide to Search Engines, Directories, Online Archives avalilable here, p. 39. The directory was reviewed several times between 2013-2014, here are some archives: Feb 3013 Review, Jun 2013 Review, Sep 2013 Review, Nov 2013, Review, Mar 2014, Review, Jun 2014, Review, Dec 2014, Review, Sep 2014, Review. A few more: [7], [8], [9] and there are more. Obviously, there is no web directory (that I am aware of) that received full coverage by NyTimes, Forbes nor books dedicated solely to them because they're just a part of how the Internet "came to life" (Web directory) and what it is today. Given the concern that has arisen, I want to stay as neutral as I can, however, I have absolutely nothing against deleting the article without any consensus at all, although an attempt to improve the article is currently underway and I do believe that a few articles about some web directories should be kept. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse:--AFD close vacated and relisted.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyrebird (film)

    The user continues to add information to the article that is unsourced and improperly formatted. After explaining this to them after I reverted their edits, the mentioned in their latest edit summary, "Please note, if Imperative Entertainment is paying a publicist to misrepresent the basis of this film, Imperative Entertainment is in gross breach of contract. Do not revert these changes." This would appear to be a gross conflict of interest as this user is clearly a paid contributor. – BoogerD (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The first step is to seek a block at UAA for promotional/shared user-name in violation of UPOL:) Anyways, watch-listed.... ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave them a SPAMUBLOCK, hard block based on the problem recounted here..-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Marder

    Yet another academic abusing Wikipedia to promote himself.

    Obvious self promotion is obvious. See past discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Michael_Marder. This is so disheartening; even philosophers abuse WP for self-promotion. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Michael Marder notable? scope_creep (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Full professor at a major university, I suppose he is. scope_creep (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit history is a real eye-opener. Several SPAs, but the very earliest revision of the article is not what you might expect. Shritwod (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see. I've not seen before. A complete disregard for the Style guide. I've watched the page. There will be more attempts to expand it out, no doubt. 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

    Dmytro Kremin

    Svetlana Ischenko is apparently Dmytro Kremin's translator, which is an obvious conflict of interest, but I also wonder if it might also qualify her as a paid editor? In any case, this article could do with some attention, if anyone is willing to take a look. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cordless Larry, I can take a look, but as no sources are present regarding his work history, it will takes weeks to sort, with some searching. Emails dont work with the Russian/Ukrainian university folk, as they dont reply. I have added a ref, which disambs on the prize awarded to him, in the lede. He was one of 10 or 20 or so, who were awarded the prize, so WP:PUFF that was presented before, when it said he won a major state prize, has lessened somewhat. It could be full of puff, but Worldcat has multiple book listings written by him, so he is notable. scope_creep (talk)
    Thank you, Scope creep. I don't have any concerns about notability here, just promotionalism. Anything that is unsourced could just be removed until such a time as sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments! I will review my input there. Svetlana Ischenko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    60.234.42.253

    The current version of Vista Outdoor contains extensive content created by an unregistered editor (60.234.42.253). Most of this content was added on 2018-05-09 and 2018-05-09. On 2018-03-02 and 2018-02-27 60.234.42.253 changed, mostly by deleting, information regarding boycott efforts against Vista Outdoor's various brands. Some of this information had been added just minutes prior. Edits on 2018-02-27 devolved into a bit of an edit war with Legacypac.

    60.234.42.253 has been active only since 2018-02-27, with almost all edits being on Vista Outdoor or the associated talk page. Exceptions include three edits to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, relating to the section on "Vista Outdoor and recent mass shooting" section 60.234.42.253 created, two edits to "American Eagle (ammunition brand)" and "Bell Sports," both Vista Outdoor brands. The other two edits by 60.234.42.253 consist of deleting from it's own talk page polite warnings by Slatersteven and Legacypac.

    In 2016 Vista Outdoor required extensive cleanup following a sockpuppet operation by user Lesbianadvocate. Said operation resulted in a SPI which banned Lesbianadvocate and associated accounts. Based on the history of Conflicts of Interest on the Vista Outdoor page, and the focused, one-sided edits by 60.234.42.253 I believe some issue requiring attention above my authority is required, but am unsure as to exactly how to alert administrators of the issue. Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I did notice this was a single purpose account, which is what my warning was about. I also asked if they had a COI, which they did not answer. I think this is a COI editor.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The pro-NRA lobby is very active on Wikipedia. Blocks should be handed out liberally. Anything I added to bring the article toward a neutral rather than purely positive state was well sourced and due weight. Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Vista Outdoor and parent company have a promotional history; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 101. I wouldn't rush to lay it at the feet of any other organization. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First haul of ACPERM evaders

    We have a sockfarm already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brown and Orange 12. MER-C 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    CU uncovered the following additional pages:
    MER-C 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is any of this G11 eligible? I'm thinking specifically of Draft:Alexander Galitsky. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah.....Even our most non-conservative sysops would decline a G11 on this:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Second haul:

    Most of these are up for deletion, which is good news. MER-C 15:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arielsaldana1

    This user came to my attention when they added unsourced additions with Edward Downe Jr. as seen here. I good faith reverted and left them a message about adding reliable sources. Then however they began removing controversial (but sourced) information. This user admits here that Downe requested that his information stay private, meaning they have direct contact with this BLP, however, it is sourced and written pretty neutrally (can probably be tweaked) in my opinion. I am sure I can find more sources to add to it. I had previously left them a welcome message explaining Wikipedia guidelines and I will drop them a COI message as well, although I explained a bit in my edit summary. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They are continuing to censor information despite being informed about COI editing and given a link to this discussion. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Dorothea White

    I removed a section on the "7 Ps of Drawing" from Drawing, which was added by this editor. They appear to be a single-purpose account focused on promoting this artist (since 2009 [10]), adding references to her in WP:UNDUE situations. As a result, I believe they may have an undisclosed conflict of interest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    GISMA Business School

    No incident to report ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all.

    I have just made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page regarding the text for an image of the school. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA.

    Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

    All help is appreciated - MrAttempt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hemp and pharma articles

    I'm pretty active on this topic and don't want to come across as both a content-owner and COI-warrior. Could somebody else have a look, especially this and this and this and this? With the uptick in US interest in the field I'm worried that we'll see (more) promotional editing in this area. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. lots of money to be made and LOTS of sketchy people and companies. I had worked over Medical Marijuana, Inc. in August 2017; quite a history there. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed lots of WP:PUFF, metaphorically and physically from Canopy Growth Corporation. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it :) ☆ Bri (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cash offer and related

    UPE sockfarm at work. Something to do with a spam link report which they have clumsily attempted to quash. More later. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If I see the link again, I will blacklist it. MER-C 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Any templates need to be added to these 2 talk pages?

    I'm not suggesting User:DarrenGarrettDavis has done anything wrong, but should the connected contributor template be added to the Darren G. Davis and TidalWave Productions talk pages? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He's edited articles about himself and his company. It is appropriate and therefore I have added them, as well as notified him of this discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    New general discretionary sanctions on blockchain and crypto

    Thought people here would be interested that this passed, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Thanks to MER-C for getting the ball rolling and proposing it. Also, just a note that anyone is able to make people aware by placing the alert template on an editor's user talk, and that when this is done, the diff should be logged at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#2018_notices. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Professionals

    I think some of this is behind closed doors to me, but it appears that there's reason to believe WP:PAIDLIST entity Wiki Professionals has been active on the articles listed above. You can see from the Firefly Music Festival edit a possible connection between the editor and Delaware. You can see from PAIDLIST/WHOIS a connection between the company and Delaware. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article in The Fashion Law

    See Advertorial Tones and Paid-For Posts: How Are Brands Trying to Game Wikipedia? Fashion industry mag reviews some specific abuses, deletion discussions, and notability requirements in an intelligent manner. Nobody gets all the details or wording correct all the time, but I didn't see any egregious mistakes. Some input from WMF - maybe this is the start of something. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I'm taking that for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ontario_Craft_Brewers

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC) User:Katemasdon12 works for the marketing department of this brewery, and has introduced lots of puffery to the article. I was going to remove the puffery later when I finally decided to make this noticeboard report, so I only applied the COI tag and neutrality disputed tab, which they promptly removed. I warned them on their talk page about business promotion, and linked them to the WP:COI policy, but that has not stopped their editing. I have freshly reverted their edits given their introduction to puffery and non-sense business phrases, but some helping hands/eyes to ensure they do not re-introduce it would be helpful. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A newly-registered editor COSMO1994 jumped in and reverted the article back to its WP:PUFF state. Possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet behaviour at work here now. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and blocked Katemasdon12 as WP:NOTHERE (see the first entry on the list and her first edit summary).
    I'm probably gonna block COSMO1994 pretty soon, too. Adding the article to my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the change of username from Katemasdon12 to Kathy from Paddington School. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BC1278

    I hope I'm in the right place for this kind of request. Would someone have a look at this user page as I think that there are parts that are clearly promotional and the user disagrees here. He has not provided links to his account where he advertises his services as per WP:PAID where it states Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. he has simply indicated on which site he advertises. I don't know if this is really a problem or not I am not an expert hence my posting here. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Really don't think that's a problem - it clearly states that WhiteHatWiki is run by Ed Sussman/BC1278, so asking for a particular account doesn't seem meaningful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as far as I can tell the COI guidelines aren't being violated. It's primarily non-COI issues related to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, WP:IDHT, WP:BLUDGEON, and, today, WP:ASPERSIONS. BC1278 is turning Talk:Nextdoor into a dumpster fire that is reminiscent of the kind of flamewars, paranoia, and hyperbole you find at, well, nextdoor.com. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Bratland: Look, I'm very sorry in retrospect that I followed the guidance of an admin who suggested I handle a redraft request, already submitted, by breaking it into sections that each could be discussed individually. It's way too chaotic now, with too many separate discussions going on at the same time. If I had it to over again, I would make one section proposal at a time, let it resolve, then move on. That is how I handled the RfC about the CEO section there and the discussion was orderly. I asked for admin guidance yesterday as to how handle the most contentious section, Racial Profiling, by placing a one sentence request for more eyes on the NPOV noticeboard. BC1278 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    In general BC1278 is mostly a "good citizen" paid editor - there is lots that is good citizen (which I very much appreciate!) but there are three suboptimal patterns of behavior:
    • On their userpage:
    • i agree that the promotional stuff about himself should be trimmed out.
    • also on their userpage, there is a list of articles there, but it is not clear if that is volunteer work or paid work. Optimally, there should be a list of the pages worked on for clients, clearly labelled as such.
    • Yes, there should be a link to where ever he advertises editing services. That would be optimal good citizen behavior.
    • New pages should go through AfC. Instead BC1278 sometimes (not always) creates new pages in their userspace and then asks individuals to review and move them. (e.g recently here and here to one person, here to another person, here to yet another person and here to another, all for the page that became Mo Koyfman (I reviewed it and moved it). Another set of requests to individuals was this and this and this and this and this about a major revision in their sandbox to How (philosophy). That is less problematic but along the same lines...(how to get people's attention to page revisions proposed by conflicted editors, remains a challenge)
    • The disclosures are always made at talk pages (which is great) but never (that i have seen) with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) template. It would be optimal to use that.
    -- Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. It was more the promotional tone as per WP:UPNOT about his company Buzzr that I was concerned about. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the description of Buzzr, as it was only intended to let Wikipedia editors know subjects I was familiar with, such as open source technologies. But since an editor perceived it as promotional, I removed it. Jytdog has given me more to work through, so I'll make address that comment later. ThanksBC1278 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    @BC1278: Why does your userpage contain your curriculum vitea? Edward Mordake (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify what I meant by "the promotional stuff on your Userpage", what I meant is the autobiography that you have there, which is like a mini WP article. This is not OK per WP:Userpage. Pretty much everything after your name and up to and including "I co-founded Buzzr.com.", really should go.
    So it would just read "My name is Ed Sussman. I also do paid Wikipedia consulting editing. (See full disclosure below.)"
    This has always bugged me as a userpage violation, but I am loathe to bother people about their userpages. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @BC1278: You seem to have forgotten to make the same changes to the userpage of your other account, Edsussman. Edward Mordake (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That alt. account has been dormant since November 2015, but it still has all the COI disclosures since I used it for some paid editing in the past. I abbreviated the bio. It links to BC1278, which I set up for paid editing, so I could separate volunteer work if it ever seems prudent to do so.BC1278 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

    @Jytdog:

    • Trimmed user page
    • Identified articles as paid
    • Added COI template to three articles where I saw it was missing (they already had full COI disclosures in Talk)
    • There was and still is a link to the only website where I advertise my services.BC1278 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    You have left the "I co-founded buzzr.com" despite the recommendations of Jytdog. This is still promoting your off wiki activity and should go IMHO as it is contrary to WP:UP#PROMO which reads Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). (My bolding) Dom from Paris (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really typical for people to say where they currently work on their user pages, don't you think? It's more transparent for a COI editor, especially. There's no description or link to the company. I see people give their educational background, their degrees, and where they work all the time -- it can be very useful for other editors to know if someone has subject matter expertise. That's why it's there. I think I should add back my degrees and academic credentials for the same reason, but none of this is worth more to me than a friendly discussion. BC1278 (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    Thanks for trimming your userpage and doing the other stuff. I am not going to fuss over a few words. Much better now. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there are quite a few pages where people talk about their extra wiki activities but declared paid editors come under extra scrutiny and as you so rightly say on your web site advertising your services that is why you charge more than black hat editors. We expect that paid editors respect scrupulously the policy as you say in the FAQ section of your web site that you do. It says clearly that there should be no commercial links. I would suggest you remove the name of your company and replace it with a simple description. Eg. A PR company based in xxx. Or something of the sort. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fight Network

    Editor's only edits have been to articles related to parent company Anthem Sports & Entertainment. Editor claims "This has been edited by existing staff to remove outdated references, expired deals or channel information, removal of any material written like an advertisement or press release. Updated to reflect up-to-date programming listings, channel information, recent international expansion initiatives.", but also includes edits made to reflect PR (particularly stylization of Impact Wrestling) and removal of pertinent historical information that may be seen as negative from a corporate perspective. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Giuseppe Conte

    Serial reverts (with spurious allegations of COI). 109.145.7.183 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • User Nick.mon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps replacing descriptions of facts with labels or gross oversimplifications. A secondary source or citation cannot replace facts. On the topic of usernames, I was indeed unaware of naming policies for accounts and reacted to comply as per notice. With regards to COI, we both share a well defined, contrasting political preference. Starglide.bcn (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starglide.bcn:, please stop edit war and paid/COI editing, and use talk page Talk:Giuseppe Conte. Matthew_hk tc 23:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew hk: Based on what assumptions you affirm I am paid? COI editing? I am not receiving direct benefits from M5S. I am a volunteer and as per guidelines, affiliation with a topic does not consitute COI. Plus, I am not labelling anyone. Read the talk page please. Starglide.bcn (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starglide.bcn: Yes, it's true, I recieved a barnstar for editing the article about Renzi (as well as Gentiloni), but I would do the same with Conte. Moreover I'm almost the only user to have improved the articles of Luigi Di Maio, Matteo Salvini, Roberto Fico and so on. So if you tried to discredit me for that barnstar, you're on the wrong way.--Nick.mon (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy question/AfC

    As accurately discussed by Jytdog here, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:BC1278, there have been a few instances where I asked someone in a Wikipedia project to review a draft for a new article in my user space. For example, in a proposed new article about a VC, as discussed above, I asked active members of of Wikipedia Finance Task Force to do a review, as I had a COI. I have only been making requests to related subject matter task force members, although perhaps in the past I also asked editors in closely related articles. I looked over the WP: PAID EDITING and it seems clear cut now that new articles should go through AfC. I assume I can still ask subject matter experts to at least give me input, but not move the article to live space? Or could they move the article to live space?BC1278 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

    • Comment I am concerned about your choice of editors to review your articles. You recently asked a relatively inexperienced editor (a little over 1400 edits over half of which are from 2012 and 89 in the last 365 days) and no experience in AFC and no experience in Afd and no experience in pending changes to review a corporate page Alivecor and move it for you into mainspace. I presume you chose him because this person is part of the Wikiproject medicine and has an impressive bio on his user page. I think this shopping for experts to move related pages is not how it should happen especially when they have no reviewing experience. This could be seen as gaming the system. I would very very strongly advise against it as did Jytdog and as a new pages patroller I shall be extra vigilant myself if I come across one of these articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This comments was deleted, perhaps inadvertently?::OK, that makes sense. Yes, I did look at that person's impressive subject matter expertise and the fact that they volunteered themselves to collaborate on articles on a very specific, relevant medical subject. I did look to User Contribs to try to screen out novice editors, but didn't look closely enough here. That's a good rationale to just use AfC.BC1278 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    Hi BC1278. Thanks for taking time to review PAID again. Yes we do look for paid articles to go through AfC. I think it is great to ping people you trust to review things. I do that all the time. But yes new pages should be moved to mainspace (or not) through AfC, with disclosure as you do normally. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editing at Kavita Shah

    Yesterday an IP added some extraordinarily non-neutral text to this article containing gems such as:

    • Drawing upon her cosmopolitan heritage, multilingualism, and extensive research on diverse musical traditions, Shah works in deep engagement with the jazz idiom while also addressing and advancing its global sensibilities.
    • She traces her commitment to jazz to the childhood influence of uptown saxophonist Patience Higgins, a former neighbor whose band she would later join at hallowed Harlem spots like Minton’s and the Lenox Lounge.
    • Shah credits tradition, as embodied in its elders, for grounding her own personal and artistic identity and her vision of music as not just pursuit of virtuosity, but cultural work.

    I reverted these changes accordingly and the editor re-edited the page in a less over-the-top manner, though still containing phrases such as She has been hailed by NPR for possessing an “amazing dexterity with musical languages”.

    Between these two sets of edits the IP posted to their own talk page Why have you undone my edits? This is a member of Kavita Shah's team and my edits to her page have her approval. As they claim to work for the subject of the article I notified them, using a personal message and templates, about WP:PAID and WP:COI, and re-reverted the article changes on the basis of non-disclosed paid edits.

    After this, Amoamorna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created and three minutes later they re-posted the exact same text back into the article, making it clear they are the same editor.

    As my messages about undisclosed paid editing were ignored, could an admin take a look and reinforce them? Dorsetonian (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Hmm.....Despatched to AfD:)~ Winged BladesGodric 06:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    University Canada West

    Hi all.

    I have just made an Edit Request on the University of Canada West (UCW) page regarding an addition to the page's 'Academics' section. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns UCW.

    Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

    All help is appreciated - MrAttempt —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    George Soros

    Meritless personal attack. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Two users appear to be spin doctors for George Soros funding into Ireland. A look at the Amnesty International Ireland pages shows both User:Bastun and User:Ebelular consistently removing any mention to "George Soros" the foreign donor and generally writing the article with as much down-playing and obfuscation as possible. A | look at the edit history of the article involved. On just the 1st page. You'll see many other editors attempting to write the article neutrally, to reflect and summarize the level of WP:NOTABLITY. With User:Barumba's edits getting reverted User:Ruy costa's were reverted User:Claíomh Solais's were reverted, I edited and like it has been for years...it was reverted.

    Before the news broke in Dec 2017 about George Soros/foreign donors attempting to influence domestic elections. Before I even knew who "Soros" was. The 2 editors involved with the campaign of banning other editors. Literally joked about being paid editors. From "Soros". "You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up".

    Boundarylayer (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editors should be aware of Boundarylayer's indefinite topic ban from the subjects of Savita Halappanavar, pregnancy, miscarriage and abortion, broadly construed. This topic ban has recently been violated, including on the Amnesty International Ireland article. He received a warning on this from me, here and admin JzG, here. He is currently attempting to have this lifted. His characterisation of both edits to the Amnesty page and the definition of "neutral" is... original... and there appears to be no functioning sarcasm detector. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 ____Ebelular (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Henry Patterson (entrepreneur)

    This is an obvious case of self-promotion. The article is essentially just puffery and it is entirely written by a long series of single-purpose accounts. I've only listed the ones with an obvious username connection above. Is the subject of this biography notable? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like he is possibly notable; I found WP:RS coverage here and here. I found others but I wasn't confident that they were reliable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He might be, but this article was spam, with a legion of obvious sockpuppets going right back to the original creator. WP:TNT applies i think. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Is there enough evidence for WP:SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not worth it - obvious WP:DUCK job. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Privacy by design

    There have been ongoing content disputes on this article for a while, including editors who I believe may have a conflict of interest in regards to the subject, and themselves are cited in their specific revisions (self-promoting their specific views, and asserting ownership on the article if disputed). Unfortunately, I am forbidden from making specific, certain claims on the matter due to Wikipedia policies. Please inspect the situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fight Network

    Fight Network programming and content has changed since this was last updated years ago. An attempted refresh to the programming sections of this article keeps reverting back to old versions. Any programming amendments can be cross-referenced on the official website - www.fightnetwork.com - these changes were made with the intention of removing any promotional blurbs resembling a press release, and replaced with more generic descriptions. Not every program requires a list of fighters/wrestlers featured on the series. This section was trimmed for both accuracy and ease of layout. If there are particular sections that are being disputed, I can certainly provide additional insight or color, along with references. Reverting this entire change is counter-productive, as the page is being flagged for appearing like an advertisement, nor is the programming overview and carrier information up-to-date. For example, Fight Network is no longer available on D-Smart in Turkey or Telenet in Belgium. These were removed and replaced with updates where applicable -- for example, the channel is available on Turk Telecom. I can go through the updated version and add as many references as possible to corroborate the updates. Thank you. 208.69.13.173 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:username seems to be redirected to User:Example. I have not see that before? scope_creep (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cogewea

    Trentprof has conducted extensive original research on Cogewea, her livelihood as a professor is in part dependent on public understanding of Cogewea. Trentprof declares that she has written this page on her Twitter page, which is publically available. [1] If Trentprof should delete this Tweet, I have a screenshot of it. Part of Trentprof's work on this subject is available online as the Cogewea project. [2] Trentprof did not declare her bias in previous discussions about whether her edits included original research. Relevant Talk page has been used to raise this issue, but the only other editor involved has suggested I raise the issue here, as the user Cordless Larry believes he has a stake in the outcome given his previous disagreements with Trentprof over this page. TrentStudent20 (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://twitter.com/smhumphreys/status/997832288812523523
    2. ^ http://www.philome.la/smhumphreys/the-cogewea-project/play
    Yes, just to expand on the above, I believe that there is an issue with Trentprof trying to use Wikipedia to publish their own original research and hadn't realised until alerted by TrentStudent20 that there were possible COI issues with this, but I would prefer not to get too involved as I've already had a robust debate with Trentprof on the article talk page about the nature of original research, which had WP:NOTGETTINGIT aspects to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have any COI with Cogewea. I do not profit from this project in any way. I am a rhetoric and composition professor, and I have an interest in Mourning Dove's work, but like all academics, I don't profit and am under strict COI rules by the university. Trentprof (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In the spirit of transparency, and because comments have been left on my blog outside of Wikipedia (comments are fine, but not charging me with COI - that's a truly heinous public accusation that should have stayed on Wikipedia talk pages and not my blog), I have submitted a report to the arbitration committee. This has all gone too far, and if I am ruled against, I'll happily shut down my account, and not contribute again. Trentprof (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    TrentProf is taking my words personally, so I just want to note that the following is not meant for her, not meant as an attack on her, and is directed at the Arbitration Committee only. I am not a "sockpuppet" or alternate account of the honourable CordlessLarry, as may have been suggested. I'm new to Wikipedia but would be willing to do anything necessary to prove such. I would hate to see his reputation tarnished. I am unsure how to get into contact with the Arbitration Committee outside of this area of Wikipedia. Thanks. TrentStudent20 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Various articles

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) I have added connected contributor templates regarding myself to the talk page of these articles:[reply]

    I am not a PR representative, journalist or anyone like that, but won't say too much for my own privacy.

    How can I avoid a major conflict of interest without getting into too much trouble, other than just not editing the articles? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Chelston-temp-1, Dont edit the articles in question, directly. Instead, use the WP:EDITREQ Edit Request process, to request updates to the specific articles talk page. EDITREQ is an established process, and works fine. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we give Gigi Hadid full protection temporarily, to prevent edit-warring over the subject? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    GISMA Business School

    No incident to report. Using correct WP processes. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all.

    I have just made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page regarding an addition to the page's 'Acquisition by Global University Systems' section. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the company that owns GISMA.

    Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

    With thanks - MrAttempt (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally you put the COI information at the top of your talk page, and if your paid WP:PAID. And you seem to be using the edit request process as per, which is the correct way.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Elliott-Marc Jones

    This morning Zhanglispain created Elliott-Marc Jones in mainspace via a series of several page swaps, all within his first 25 edits. This article has been repeatedly created by socks/SPAs/UPE editors as Elliott Marc Jones. It seems worth mentioning they knew exactly how to avoid the WP:SALT. There is also significant overlap with past socks at IndieGameStand and elsewhere and I've filed an SPI however the socks appear to be continuing their disruption. Following placement of a G4, a 2 hour old account shows up and removes it, telling me to take it to AfD again. I reverted, they reverted and it was subsequently tagged with maintenance tags, including {{UPE}}. Followed immediately by Taiwanwikiguy removing it. Obvious meat/sock puppetry aside (you can see a very knowledgeable two hour old account discussing this on the talk page of the article in question.) Also worth noting that the second account, created today, is an SPA only editing related articles. This seems like clear COI/UPE editing to me. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And now Taiwanwikiguy is removing completely legitimate factual past AFD tags. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal husbandry anon COI

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if this is in the wrong place, I am fairly new here. I intend to register an account today. I have received a notice that I am the subject of a conflict of interest discussion on this page, but I am having a great deal of trouble finding it to respond in defense of myself. I would like to contend that I have no such conflict of interest, and that in fact the person attacking me over this actually has clear conflict of interest themselves. I will refrain from naming the editor in question, as per the guidelines described above, but their conflict of interest stems from the fact that I edited their poorly referenced contributions. I think an independent third party needs to oversee resolution of this because the person who has had their content edited can't possibly provide impartial assessment of said edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk • contribs)

    • I can find no notice posted to you about a conflict of interest, not on your talk page nor on the talk page or edit comments of the animal husbandry page. I do find a couple of warnings on your talk page, and having seen the edits involved, they were not inappropriate (a Cluebot warning for an addition that placed your criticism of the Wikipedia article and its contributors in the article itself; a somewhat aggressive but not inaccurate warning over deleting sourced material without stating reason in the edit summary; a warning regarding personal attacks.
    • The only time that the topic of "animal husbandry" has appeared on this noticeboard is in this discussion, and that does not appear to be regarding you.
    • As you are editing without an account, it is possible that you had a different IP address hen you got any notice. However, not knowing what address that would be, it is difficult to address.
    • A user does not have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia's use of the term merely from editing your edits on their edits. Some larger outside concern would be required. If you have a disagreement with their edits of your edits, the proper place to raise that would be the article's talk page, and you should be addressing the content of the edits rather than the editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Upwork account

    I found the Upwork profile of a freelancer who landed more than 330 Wikipedia-related jobs (not sure I can display the link publicly). The names of his clients appear on only a handful of jobs but when such is the case, the date of the job is coherent with the creation/editing of those pages:

    This editor always follow the same process: 1) A handful of small edits, sometimes none; 2) A sandbox; 3) Article in main, without displaying the paid editing.

    Also suspected through indirect evidence (accounts this Upwork freelancer used on the French Wikipedia, accounts used to follow up on pages he had created):

    I had created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatongakinsella yesterday. Un historien (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet investigation was unconclusive, so there is only the Upwork profile linking those pages and accounts. Un historien (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Un historien: Can you send me the link please? Special:EmailUser/Smartse. If it is as you say, and combined with the inconclusive CU, then they've almost certainly been blocked before and I'll G5 the articles. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: I never even mentioned the word "inconclusive" in my findings. Quite the opposite: I said the accounts were Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Since I wrote the message he set his profile to private and I was not careful enough to take screenshots. Lesson learned for next time. Un historien (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's obviously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone so G5ing. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm thanks I feel stupid for not having found that page. I don't master EN.WIKIPEDIA very well yet.
    Should I try to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatongakinsella into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone ? I asked a checkuser about it. Un historien (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendra Lust

    I became aware of this issue from a thread here about two weeks ago. The user identified above claims to be her attorney. He states she wants her given name out of the article where it has been, sourced to a weblink to a document he created. He since has changed the primary source, but the reference was replaced with an archive link to the original. Subsequently, another editor added two journalistic links to further verify it. Editor named above, despite repeated warnings to use talk page, continues to edit war, removing reference to her birth name. Latest claim is original source is not valid, because that document no longer exists, and the journalistic sources are not reliable. He has been pointed to the talk page, RSN and OTRS multiple times, but still continues to edit war. IMO, it's time to block him for TOU violation, and down the road, we can semi the article when he starts using IPs to block evade. This is getting really tiresome. John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    But if it's getting tiresome, so should be the insertion by editors of sources that do not support the claim (of the three sources that were there until I edited a few minutes ago, only one made a claim that could be interpreted as stating her "birth name", which was the field being sourced (it referred to her "given name", which can have that interpretation.) The other two may be seen as stating her "real" name, but real/legal name and birth name often differ, particularly for women (i.e., my wife did not have Gertler as part of her name at birth, but she does now.) As such, they were not appropriate sources for such a claim. Additionally, using a databased trademark filing is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, as that is a public document. Do not brush aside legitimate concerns because he has a COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is a perfect example of all that is wrong with porn bios on Wikipedia. It has superficial referenciness, but the sources are:
    • IAFD, which presents wholly in-universe data and also has user submitted data
    • Enfluenz, no evidence it's an RS
    • Creative Loafing Tampa, no evidence it's an RS
    • KenAndAriel.com, fails RS
    • Arch Angel Blog, fails RS
    • NightMoves, no evidence of RS
    • And then: XRentDVD, Mens Mag Daily, Adult DVD Talk, XCritic, AVN, XBIZ, Xtreme, all of which are porn-specific.
    In wrestling, a lot of sources won't break the kayfabe. It's worse in porn. It's a walled garden with little or not intrusion of reality. Films are made on a budget that would not buy you product placement in a mainstream movie, and treated as high art by the industry. I really think we should not have a bio on any adult actor unless there are at least two mainstream sources, because the porn industry actually doesn't care whether a claim is true or not. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. Wikipedia is used by the "actors" and their fans as a means of getting mainstream visibility for a niche market that if it weren't for the army of fans/editors would not have a snowballs hope in hell of surviving a serious Afd. Wrestling is a similar situation. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And why, when we routinely purge virtually all other articles of non-notable industry awards, are we padding out these "biographies" of poeple whose real names ca't be reliably established, with "fan awards" for "best MILF"? This is ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The changes keep being made after repeated attempts to explain that the sources being used did not contain the information. After this was provide many times in the Talk area with no reply, another removal was done then two new provided sources (finally admitting the prior source was not valid) appeared that were both from unreliable sources such as “thesun” and TMZ (used via the Kansas City Star, for which does not provide said information) for neither source provides how they gained the information. As is the case non-verifiable information is not allowed, the sources are not original nor supported, it would appear the very information being provided by Wikipedia is being used to verify the sources provided. This is the typical circle verification that one runs into with non-verifiable information is placed on Wikipedia that is then used by third parties as verification. If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans.. Attorney for Kendra Lust [Jhafke]

    Are you sure you are really her attorney...an attorney at law? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "thesun" is the the UK's biggest newspaper and, let's be honest, this information is clearly verifiable. However WP:BLPNAME is also an important policy and the fact that the subject clearly doesn't want her name widely published should be enough for us to exclude it. – Joe (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the request "If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans," we should just delete the article. Cleaning up standards for porn bios would be a good idea also, but that will take some time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The information is private WP:BLPNAME, is not verifiable, is speculation, and yes.. the full page can be deleted as desired. Attorney at law for Kendra Lust {[Jhafke]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhafke (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would maybe suggest that the above editor go through an WP:OTRS request instead of asking to remove information. I may be wrong but I believe that claims of being the attorney for a subject of a BLP should be verified and not taken as read. Some of what has been written by the above editor gives cause to request verification that they really are the attorney for the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dom from Paris This is a great thought, the ability to verified can be found on all the work my firm has done for Kendra Lust that do not include the Wikipedia issue at hand. Further, understand that if a lawyer such as my self took action for a party whom was not a client, we would lose our ability to practice law. The need to edit this Wikipedia is not worth no longer being able to make a living. Please let me know what needs to be done to verify my status of attorney for Kendra Lust. As of yesterday Kendra confirm ZERO desire to have a page on Wikipedia. Jhafke —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jhafke: having your identity confirmed via OTRS is the first step. Once that is done, you can then confidently requests that changes to the article in question be made at Talk:Kendra Lust. Given some of the comments above, you will likely find common ground with other editors and be able to form some sort of consensus as to what information should be on your client's article. I will, however, note that Wikipedia is not censored (per WP:CENSOR) and your client has no public expectation of informational privacy, so the veracity of your proposals and your ability to form a consensus is key. Alternatively, as an editor you may start a discussion (known as WP:AFD) as to whether or not the article should be deleted outright by the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    California bios and movies

    Seeking second opinion on possibility connected editor/s, WP:MEAT and socking likelihood. The group of articles here looks very walled garden-ish. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Devilishdoll and Weathervane13 have enough article overlap and similarities that I think they could be the same editor. This edit by Weathervane13 has a summary that indicates a switch "...to an italic (Worship Your Devil Dolls)..." indicating what they italicized in parenthesis. Compare to this edit summary by Devilishdoll, "added citation and italics (Goth Girl)" where they have done the same exact thing. Here's another one from Devilishdoll, "...changed to italics (From Bach to Broadway)". Both editors are using bare urls for refs and both are attempting to sign with four tildes in their edit summaries. A check shows that they geolocate to the same city and one is using a desktop/laptop while the other is using a phone.  Possible.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Narciso Contreras

    Not sure if I’m doing this right but this is a new area for me. I created a stub for this award-winning photojournalist a while back, and now it has been greatly expanded by the above user. I believe the subject is notable but as virtually the whole article has been written by someone who is apparently Contreras himself, I thought it warranted some attention. However I am unsure of the next step. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left the editor a COI notice on their talk page, as well as added the autobiography tag to the article and removed some completely unsourced content. Pawnkingthree you should note the guidelines on using this page which clearly state that you are required to notify the editor of this discussion here (in red at the top of this page), which has not yet been done. Melcous (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was doing so when my phone died. Now done. Thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Toastmasters International

    Toastmasters International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This keeps popping up on my watchlist due to the never-ending procession of promotional edits. I just reviewed the article and removed all self-sourced material, apart from the basic statement of who they are. There were no indpeendnt sources, and there still aren't. I suspect that the majority of edits are by members or their PR. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article created in 2002; I like how we've managed to not really meaningfully improve the article since the first revision nearly 16 years ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously a notable org but just how much can you say about? Its a loose collecion of local speaking clubs. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideological bias on Wikipedia

    We generally think about COI with respect to external interests -- things outside of WP.

    COI considerations get pretty house of mirrors crazy, pretty fast, with respect to this kind of navel-gazing page in WP, where it would seem that people who are here to advocate one ideology or another (or to downplay what they see as overemphasis on some ideology in WP) have an "interest" in how this page depicts "ideological bias" in WP.

    The line between considerations of COI per se, and considerations of WP:ADVOCACY, are pretty much obliterated.

    It is rather dismally forseeable that claims of "COI" will be tossed about on this page, now that the community has been through a deletion discussion and there was no consensus to keep it or delete it (AfD discussion), and this page will itself be cited in the context of content disputes.

    Claims of "COI" have already been thrown around with respect to this page, as for example in this Section at Guy's page by User:Netoholic, repeated at ANI in this diff (thread (permalink as it is now).

    (The source under dispute between Netoholic and Guy, was a paper published in a legit journal (doi:10.1177/0894439317715434), in which Australian academic Brian Martin analyzed the editing of Brian Martin (yes, the page about him in WP) and, and for example, described edits to that page by Guy and characterized them as "biased". Brian Martin characterizes criticism of anti-vax pseudoscience as "suppression of dissent" (source, source). The COI there is mindspinning, as is the question of how any editor - especially one who has a dispute with Guy, might want to deploy that paper. Like I said house of mirrors crazy)

    I have no idea how to even begin thinking in any kind of valid, rigorous way to consider COI management in Wikipedia with respect to this page. (COI is not a terrible thing, it just should be disclosed and managed).

    So - I am posting here for thoughts, in the hopes some principles could be established now at least with regard to:

    • is there any valid discussion to be had about "conflict of interest" on this page, and if so
    • what criteria would we use to say that "X has a COI with respect to this page"?

    -- Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=844123713"