Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 83) (bot
Line 741: Line 741:
::: This matter has been brought to [[WP:BLPN|the BLP noticeboard]]. It is no longer relevant at this board. <font color="green">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 21:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
::: This matter has been brought to [[WP:BLPN|the BLP noticeboard]]. It is no longer relevant at this board. <font color="green">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 21:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}

== Rick Shutter - Declare COI and Invite Feedback ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I expect to receive compensation from Rick Shutter, a musician, for writing an encyclopedic Wikipedia article about him. Per the recommendation in the [[Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)|Paid editing (guidance essay)]], I am declaring my COI here. I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing, COIs, BLPs, and the Five Pillars, and I have strived to abide by these policies. I have written a draft on my user space [[User:Kekki1978/Feedback:Rick Shutter|'''here''']], I have disclosed my COI in the edit summary there, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Thank you. [[User:Kekki1978|Kekki1978]] ([[User talk:Kekki1978|talk]]) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:40, 21 May 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:David Adjaye
    User talk:Africatalyst
    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:Bruce D. Broussard
    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:End-user license agreement
    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:Valerie Jarrett
    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:Norwest Venture Partners
    Talk:Obama Foundation
    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:Plinabulin
    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:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    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:Gediminas Žiemelis
    Talk:Alice Zorn


    User:Karlhard

    Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

    These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

    All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Widefox! am marking this resolved; seems all done. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    erm thanks Jytdog but not resolved (commented out resolved). My point is the other accounts aren't blocked, and I can't SPI them as the evidence is in the deleted articles that requires admin rights to access. So without SPI, I've listed here to get some suggestion. Widefox; talk 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, sorry. removed the resolved tag. Harshul88 has not edited since sept 2014; and Carlossilva1971 and Fatkarl27 have not edited since Feb 2015. I can tell you that SPI would not have taken action on them anyway, even if the article still did exist. i had something like this where they wouldn't act when accounts had only been inactive for 2 weeks. We have 2 months of inactivity here. They seem quiet now. The articles are deleted. I don't think there is anything left to do. I understand the desire to prevent future problems but they have probably walked away and forgotten the account names even by now.... Or is there some active problem I am missing? (real question, not sarcastic) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a draft at MfD. Yes, agree about SPI. They can all be blocked NOTHERE, but as dormant accounts is there any motivation from passing admins here?
    kinda doubtful. Smartse might care.... Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I already checked these accounts but they look like throwaways so it's a bit pointless blocking them now. There looks to be some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota/Archive based on the Furvah draft but I can't find any links to active accounts. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We got / asked for any tools to help us out here? A single SPA is one thing, a cluster of SPA /socks is another. A tool to cluster these SPAs so we can flag up a sockfarm. Ultimately, similar to anti-vandal tools. Are there any tools? Catching them during editing rather than after they've given up would improve live articles. Widefox; talk 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really other than detective work, and it might not be so wise to explain here, so email me if you want some tips. Admin rights are very useful too. Is there any reason for you not to have them? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pristine (company)

    Resolved
     – articles cleaned; COI editor no longer with company Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor is an employee of the company who just kindly disclosed his COI. Created the subject article, Pristine (company). I tagged it - it needs review for NPOV if someone wants to do that. I may get it to it first, or not... User also edited two articles. I turned those edits into edit requests on the Talk page, if someone wants to review them. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So it appears that I accepted Pristine (company) from AfC a few days ago, it seemed okay to me then. For this reason, I think it'd be better if someone other than me did the cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it may be that the article is just fine or even GA! it just needs review. I didn't have time to even look it over yet - it was other edits that caught my eye.  :) Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It needs work, but is better than most at this stage coming from coi-editing. Too much of it is based upon primary sources and sources that speculate about possible future success. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing the article and offering input. Ahelsinger (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it makes a difference in this situation, but to let you know for further reference, I'm no longer with Pristine. Ahelsinger (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting us know! Thanks too for being so gracious about this. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Naam yoga

    For over a month Annalynnehurtgen has been puffing up Naam yoga and Joseph Michael Levry (now a redirect), [2] [3], for instance. She's persistently removed referenced information about Levry's activity prior to his founding of Naam yoga without good reasons, e.g. [4] [5], and insists on referencing to the organization's own (prolific) publications, e.g. [6] [7]. She has indicated a connection with the organization a couple of times, [8] [9] and probably [10]. The problems continue [11] despite extensive attempts by several editors to help/advise her (see Talk:Joseph Michael Levry and User talk:Annalynnehurtgen). I'm posting this as an editor: I can't act as an admin as I've extensively edited the articles. I believe there is a very clear COI here and she should be restricted to making change requests on the article's talk page(s).  —SMALLJIM  20:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another heavily promoted, individual's twist/labeling on yoga. Consider deletion. Definitely needs a complete rewrite from far better sources, and such sources might not exist given what this is. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an AfD would be successful, awful though the article still is (Annalynnehurtgen has reworked it and added more primary sources since my last edit). I assume that you agree with me about the COI anyway. Anyone else?  —SMALLJIM  12:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor needs to be restricted to the talk page other than for non-controversial edits.
    I agree that the article appears to meet notability, but only because of publicity stunts and popularity.
    The editing from Annalynnehurtgen has waned recently, so we might not get a response quickly. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your edits to the article. Perhaps she has at last realised she was doing the wrong thing.  —SMALLJIM  22:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston

    The article is being updated only by 2 SPA. Tarik "RVSSIAN" Johnston name suggests they are the person themselves, and Michael Peter Bundi has done most of the editing, and listed it as a B-grade biography (which I edited to C-grade). Just come across this article, but there's already a COI tag on it, and looks like advert tags have been removed as well. Would appreciate other users looking at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I had added those tags and a speedy deletion tag (which another user removed--one of the SPAs). The thing is I don't particularly want to do the afd as even though it meets speedy deletion criteriion, I'm not exactly sure if the sources themselves are reliable. They are surely not diverse. All of the poses, pictures, and wordings are promotional. If you would nominate it I would !vote delete. Tutelary (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So according to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, both users are the same person (which I suspected might be the case), but they claim not to have COI. They're still working on the article, and removing some of the puffery, so I'm currently willing to accept that it could just be a newbie fan. Also, some of the references look okay (Jamaican newspapers), and so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    if they are not him, they are violating "impersonate" whatever that link is... so either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, they ditched that account and made the "Michael Peter Bundi" account instead. It's basically a case of whether you believe them or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so they've started using both accounts simultaneously (and renamed the Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston one), so I've opened up a SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    30+ articles written by Worthywords requiring cleanup

    This editor discloses on their user page that they were paid to write every article above Herakut other than Citizens Rights Watch. Of the articles I've reviewed I've found numerous problems including notability, verification, blp, original research and subtle promotion. These diffs show some of the content I have removed: [12] [13] [14] [15]. The Media Coach section of Alan Stevens (media consultant) was the most concerning as it was completely WP:FAKE and promotional, yet to the reader, apparently reliably sourced. Of other articles that I've glanced at these problems don't appear to unique and I need help to review the others, checking that content is well-sourced and verifiable. I raised my concerns with the user yesterday but although they edited today adding more content to article space, they haven't as yet responded. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There were also meatpuppetry links to this user in this SPI last September after which Worthwords changed username from Georgiasouthernlynn. SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OY, there is a load of work. Thanks for bringing it! Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    listed them; went through them to tag for COI and tag the talk page with COI edit notice and connected contributor. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Jytdog: and @Joseph2302: for your help. Still some way to go and no communication from Worthywords. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    you are welcome! yes ongoing problems seem likely. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They've been online to make a couple of edits today, but have declined to comment. If they continue with these disruptive edits and terrible articles, I'm tempted to take the issue to ANI. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So lots of these articles have now been deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah we're getting there but I just found another completely non-notable article that I've sent to AFD and others that are notable need depuffing still. SmartSE (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found more with this tool which they didn't create themselves. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Lambe

    LisaLambe01 has not specifically identified herself as the actual subject of the Lisa Lambe article, but her editing has indicated that she has a vested interest in the article. She has consistently altered the content to downplay Ms Lambe's involvement with the group Celtic Woman (which she (the article subject) left in 2014). Several attempts at the editor's talk page to have her avoid the obvious conflict of interest have been ignored, so I'm bringing the matter here. Ms Lambe (the editor) clearly wants the article to move past the Celtic Woman phase, but there is not really much evidence of notability outside of that, so if we redact that portion of Lambe's career, the article woudln't meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that User:LisaLambe01 has been sufficiently warned. If she makes any further inappropriate edits at Lisa Lambe, a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: LisaLambe01 has explicitly identified herself as the subject of the article in this edit, where she writes:
    when you google my name in general a box on right hand size of screen comes up like a fact file
    indicating that she is identifying herself as the Lisa Lambe of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Bandier

    SPA edits only Martin Bandier article. Attempted talk page discussion. Still makes changes based on "this edit has come directly from Martin Bandier himself". Maybe someone else needs to talk to him -- I've tried, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks. tagged, and am watching. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    UCW

    Hi – I have recently posted on the talk page of the article for University Canada West. My COI is that I am a communications professional representing the university. The current article lacks important information on the institution’s history, ownership structure and academic activities. I have submitted a draft Summary, History and Academics section to my user space here, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Many thanks BrandDude (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for declaring your coi.
    I'm trying to help with the article, but we certainly could use more. The school recently went through a merger/acquisition (I'm still not clear what happened), and there's much to be updated and reviewed. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edward J. Walsh

    spinfisher has disclosed. misunderstandings drove problems. should be calm going forward Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (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.

    Edward J. Walsh was created on 21 February 2014. Only 3 days later, Spinfisher started editing the article and, so far, over half of his 78 edits have been either to the article, its talk page or otherwise directly related discussions including some deleted images. It's been a while but, as I remember, I became associated because the article when the article creator was having problems with Spinfisher deleting references,[16] substituting references for other sources and generally adding unverifiable content.[17] Some of Spinfisher's edits were no doubt due to inexperience, such as repeatedly restoring a link used as a reference to the "External links" section.[18][19][20] Spinfisher has identified himself as a child of the subject in the images that he has uploaded (all now deleted), even calling one now deleted image "Dad227".[21] I eventually tagged the article with {{COI}},[22] but Spinfisher has persistently been removing the tag.[23][24][25][26] Since tagging the article, he has also removed valid references without explanation,[27] replacing them with others,[28] I had almost forgotten about the article when the tag was again removed today.[29] The last time I edited the article or its talk page was in June last year, so I'm not sure what the best action is here. Should the tag simply be removed? I haven't actually checked the article to see how much of themore contentious edits made by Spinfisher have been removed. Like the original creator, who was told by Spinfisher to "stop needlessly editing the Edward Walsh page",[30] I had abandoned it until today. My concern with Spinfisher is that he still doesn't consider that he has a conflict of interest editing his father's article. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Something that puzzled me was Spinfisher's persistent replacement of the Washington Post reference with one from The Oregonian. I have just noticed that the image in the Oregonian article is credited to Edward J. Walsh's wife (I'll leave it to the reader to work out the relationship to Spinfisher). I can't see any other reason for the swap. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for bringing this; you have been really patient with them, thanks for that. i have left a message for the user and added a COI editnotice to the talk page and am watching it, so will start to work with you to keep the article on track. i removed the COI tag b/c right now the article is OK. we should put it back again, if they keep trying to edit directly. it will be ANI time soon if they keep editing in ways that violate policy. let's hope they come around. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    this is all good now via discussion at spinfisher's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (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.

    Paul Levine

    This account, named after two of his main characters, seems to be either Levine himself or somebody acting on his behalf. It adds him to alumni lists, articles tangentially related to his works, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Glyphosate/Monsanto

    COI not likely. WP:Advocacy is an issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2015 (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.

    In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people.[1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.

    References

    1. ^ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No: BC 578 942
    • also today, SageRad posted a request to have examiner.com unblocked from the spamlist - examiner.com is essentially a wiki, and the class action lawyers posted a story (a press release, actually) there about the litigation. That "story" is linked from the main page of the class action website, which is here.
    • also added to the article about PCBs negative content about Monsanto's actions and liabilities in litigation over PCBs
    • i have asked SageRad if they have some relationship to this litigation here. I provided notice of this discussion here.
    • i will also add that I work a lot on articles related to GMO, including Monsanto and glyphosate, and so have been aware of SageRad's edits since they started and please note that the articles are all currently fine (i have not reviewed the changes to Large intestine as I don't watch that article). I have tried to work - and extensively so- with SageRad to teach him/her how Wikipedia works (see User_talk:SageRad), and we have tangled a bit over content as well as what Wikipedia is and is not, so I am stepping out of this, and will leave it to others to follow up on this with regard to getting a clear yes/no on relationship to the litigation. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can speak here, right? Let me simply speak my side or my case, as the case may be. I have nothing at all to do with the lawsuit against Monsanto that i noted in a news story last month and then edited into relevant locations at glyphosate where there is a section on legal things to do with the herbicide, and also Monsanto legal cases, which is a compendium of legal cases having to do with Monsanto. I noted the case a month ago when i did a news search for "glyphosate" as i have been doing lately, and then when in noticed a section in the glyphosate article relating to legal cases, i thought it would be appropriate there. I do think the lawsuit is clever and i think it's a great idea, but i have no part in it nor do i know anyone involved directly with it. All i know is it's been the subject of a lot of talk and it's pending. I did try to cite the news story that described it instead of the legal filing itself, but i found that the website was blacklisted on WP and i have made a special whitelist request for that specific page so that perhaps we could cite a news article instead of a filing document, but i like the filing document nonetheless, as a reference.
    • As for the sort of background characterization that Jytdog makes about me here, i would take issue with just about every single aspect of it and i don't like the way this feels.
    • I am human being on the Earth, and i care about the Earth, and i care about people. Is that a conflict of interest? Isn't that enough to explain the fact that i am curious about Monsanto's actions and history and products? I care enough to be watchful and inquisitive and to use my mind to understand the world, and because i view Wikipedia as a great location where people can create their own knowledge base, i have come to it also with an eye to editing in such a way as to make it more useful and comprehensive to people in general. Like anyone, i come with my values and my own frame of reference, but it's nothing at all that could even be construed as a special interest or a vested interest other than the basic valuation of the ecology of the Earth, and the well-being of people, and of integrity and openness and transparency in the world.
    • Is there anything i ought to do relating to this COI investigation / accusation / notice or whatever the noun for this is?
    • Any questions you need answered? SageRad (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you can speak here SageRad. As for me, I am willing to accept that there might just be WP:ADVOCACY here not financial COI but it will be for others to determine, not me. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I care about the Earth and i care about people, and that guides many of my actions. If that constitutes advocacy, then i suspect that nearly all people would qualify for that categorization. I care about accuracy and transparency and that knowledge is shared as widely as possible to all humans who want access to it, which i think is in line with the mission of Wikipedia. I do have a historical and sociological knowledge base that informs me that sometimes people do bad things, to the detriment of others, and i do wish to reduce that as much as possible through getting appropriate knowledge more widely known, and making sure histories are accurate and facts are accurate. That's about it, though. I do focus my actions appropriately to my values, and so i don't just go and work on fact-checking hairstyles ogf the 19th century very often, but i do edit other articles that are less controversial and happen to be in my wheel-house, and did so before i bothered to sign up with a user account. For example, i've edited a few articles on microbial ecology that had nothing to do with Monsanto or the whole big ag industry, but more of a special-knowledge thing, where i had a good grounding to edit an article here and there. I also love Wikipedia and spend a huge amount of time here learning about the world, and so i really am happy to have the chance to improve it when i can. Some topics are just controversial, i guess, and probably always will be because they embody some basic conflicts in society itself. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see Jytdog's concern, but don't really see a compelling case for a financial COI here if SageRed denies it. The level of insistence that he shows on the talk page with respect to his POV is a little troubling, as is the very narrow focus of his editing. (I would add that he seems very polite, which is a nice thing.) Sage, my suggestion is that you read the WP:ADVOCACY essay carefully, avoid WP:IDHT, and avoid focusing narrowly on glyphosate/Monsanto-related articles, especially as a new editor. Its good to make it clear to people that you are here to build an encyclopedia, and not just to use a platform built by others as a WP:SOAPBOX. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Formerly. I try to be polite though i can get a little worked up. I'm working on keeping the calmness. As for my focus, i happen to be the kind of person who focuses intensively on a topic for a while, and for the last couple of months, it's been learning all about glyphosate, and that's why i've been focused on the glyphosate and EPSP Synthase articles as well as gut microbiome and Monsanto as a company, to place it all in history. I also have personal experience with the PCBs pollution as i grew up near to the Hudson and Housatonic rivers, both of which are polluted with the products. So, this is the source of my focus, and i hope that's ok. Everyone writes what they know. I have read about 100 research articles and hundreds of abstracts on glyphosate and related biology and ecology in the last couple of months, and so my knowledge on this topic is currently at the forefront of my mind, and so when i returned to some of the Wikipedia articles that i'd seen a few months ago, i found myself wanting to update them a bit with some fact checks and something on the effects of glyphosate on microbes. I am very curious as to whether glyphosate has an effect on the human gut microbiome, but i am not weaving a synthesis into the article. I do wish that false facts get corrected, and i wish that some of the dynamics of glyphosate related to microbes is updated and strengthened. This is what i would have wished to have seen a few months ago when i first started to learn about glyphosate and arrived at that page. I hope this helps to explain my perspective and focus. SageRad (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see obvious COI at all in this case, but defintiely strong advocacy-like behavior to the degree this editor keeps trying to insert content about gut microbiota in somewhat tangential articles to the point it becomes undue weight. I've been watching conversations at articles and especially on their user talk page where it doesn't seem like they are hearing the problem with undue weight or advocacy-like behavior. New editors get some slack, but we might be reaching the point whether we need to ask is SageRad is WP:HERE based on the editing history. I highly suggest SageRad takes the advice they've been given to heed. Otherwise, this isn't the place to discuss next steps or actions if that doesn't occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like a witch hunt. There is good reason that everyone brings different things to the table, and you seem to not like what i'm bringing to the table and then calling me an "advocate" because i have been studying glyphosate in relation to the gut microbiome and i want to include facts relevant to my subject of interest and recent study. Isn't this how a great encyclopedia gets built, one like no other, where hundreds of people can contribute to each article what is closest to their experience and their passion? You want to label me an "advocate" because i am watchful for the health of the planet and the people? You want to label me an "advocate" because i wanted to make sure that the incident in Japan where PCBs got into rice bran oil and thousands of people got sick and hundreds of people died stayed in the article about PCBs, whereas it was summarily removed by Jytdog for the reason that it was supposedly unsourced, whereas it actually contained a link to another Wikipedia article that sourced it extremely well, and i was able to find a relevant source in 1 minute of Googling? As if that sort of thing is somehow ok but my wish to include that part of the PCBs story back into the article with a suitable source, or wanting to include information about what Monsanto knew and when, in regard to PCBs, is somehow a part of a bigger picture in which i am some sort of nefarious actor who is motivated by ... i don't know, maybe working for "Big Organic" or exhibiting "activist tendencies" (as if wanting a better world is a bad thing) or some other character flaw that makes me so passionate to include information about glyphosate on effects on microbes... i don't know what's going on here but i get the feeling of a witch hunt, and i'm really serious about that. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Whatever happened to diversity of opinions, and checks and balances, and balancing out different opinions about what is relevant, and what the focus should be on... No, just bring the person in for a "conflict of interest" and then insinuate that they're an "advocate" because they have a particular interest. I noted that lawsuit because i am interested in the topic of glyphosate, not the other way around. I note that bacteria are sensitive to glyphosate because i'm interested in the way that glyphosate works and the effects it has in the real world, in the soil of the field and in plants' endophytic bacteria, and in the gut bacteria. I am a microbial ecologist and this is what i have studied and worked with in the real world, and i am here to use my experience and passion to improve Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an actual COI or not? Because if there isn't (and currently there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that there is), then this isn't the place for this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Joseph2302 - I presented the facts I had at hand. SageRad has responded. Some folks have weighed in. It is up to you or someone else to step up and make a determination and close this. I know I usually do that but I cannot do it here. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh to heck with it, I will close it. No clear COI here. Just advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2015 (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.

    RfC on COI for alt-med practitioners

    Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Footwearspecialist

    Footwearspecialist's linkspam addition to Bata Shoes. His creation Creative Recreation is WP:ADMASQ low quality press releases, inquirer.com, digitaljournal.com, etc. -- pretty transparent COI editing. Footwearspecialist has not responded to COI notice on talkpage (actually, has not used talkpage).

    Baaleditor appears to have collaborated with Footwearspecialist on The Alice app, so listed here too, though not as clear cut. Baaleditor also created CarePlus which was virtually all sourced to press releases. Both editors are focused on commercial/bio articles of the type to attract PR type editing. — Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not spam in Bata shoe. please check my edits. I used refill application to fix the references in the article. I don't have any connection with Baaleditor. I was trying to learn the process of uploading copyright logo in article and found The Alice app from recent changes and uploaded the logo in the article. I disclose that I have interest in designing, specially shoe designing. I welcome other editors to edit in the articles I created and make them encyclopedic. Thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwearspecialist (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 May 2015‎

    Creative Recreation was a labor of love? Please state that you're not being compensated for any of this. Or the converse. — Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse Cutler

    I have resubmitted the article on Jesse Cutler attempting to follow Wiki guidelines. Anyone that has any ideas that may help me get this published would be greatly appreciated.


    Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)surfsupjoe125[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List article

    I have a COI with McKinsey & Company; the article about them is currently in the GA review queue.

    Through the process of improving that article, a sub-page was created called List of McKinsey & Company people and offices as a place for the directory-type list information that was previously on the company page.

    I did not support the creation of this sub-article, but so long as it exists, I'd like to correct/update the job titles of everyone listed, add sources, remove those I can't find sources for, add others I can find sources for, etc. It's all extremely tedious, boring work that will take many many hours of going through it one name at a time.

    Perhaps I lack imagination, but I have a hard time seeing what COI problem could possibly exist, or what meaningful feedback someone could offer through a Request Edit process, so I'm asking if it's appropriate for me to work on it the normal way. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @CorporateM: I don't see how a simple sourced list of people and places would be a COI issue. I don't know if someone disagrees with me, but I have no problem with you editing it. Especially if you remove all those redlinks... §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorporateM: Seems fine to me- looking at it's current state, your edits can only be a positive thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Redlink names should not exist in the list, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Brianhe (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Harvey Jason

    Edit summary here shows a COI, the text they were adding was clearly promotional and had only non-reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple article COI

    On Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#An audacious and preposterous assumption of knowledge, they listed all these parties as their clients. Some are up for AfD, looks like they haven't actually edited any of them though. They've also got a draft article on the go, but doesn't look like it'll pass WP:GNG anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The only corrections that I have been made were ones of a factual basis. I will give you an example. The UTFO page stated that Doctor Ice and Kangol Kid met as dancers for group Whodini. That is incorrect. Doc and Kangol met in high school and were a dance duo called The Keystone Dancers before becoming dancers for Whodini.

    This type of correction is all I am doing or have done. Correcting incorrect information of a factual nature. After all, isn't wikipedia supposed to be a citable encyclopedia with Factual information ?Lion126 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not so much COI as it is bullshit. Chuck D. is, and has been for a long time, managed by Walter Leaphart. See [31] and [32]. Sir Mix-A-Lot is managed by Richard De La Font. Anyone who comes around claiming "I manage Chuck D, so I'm important" is full of shit. I'd believe nothing this guy says from now on. --Jayron32 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that would make sense with just about everything else I've seen them write on here. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Unfair comment, I apologise. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call! Only I never...NEVER...stated that I MANAGED either of them. I have talked about handling publicity and protection duties and I didn't specify which role I worked in with ANY of the artists mentioned, other than Kangol and UTFO. This whole issue has gone beyond ridiculous. Lion126 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, Lion never did say he managed them. He said they were clients. The logical assumption from what he said and they way he said it was that he managed them, and it takes investigation to see that he runs some sort of close protection and publicity organisation rather than artist management. That does not remove the fact that he has a conflict of interest, though I suspect their management would not appreciate the way he has handled it. This whole unfortunate episode may affect his business. Google has a long memory, something we would all do well to remember in our daily doings online.
    A decent by-product is that articles which needed attention have now come to attention and may be improved because of it. AFD may not be cleanup, but it does well at provoking it. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User is now indef-blocked for a legal threat, after intervention by the S1W. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree good is going to come out of this, either the articles will get deleted, or they'll get improved- both of which are good for the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User is now unblocked, so this COI still applies. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cominform.com

    I'm concerned that @Hilumeoka2000: may be making paid edits to Wikipedia without disclosing that they are doing so, in violation of WP:COI. This came to my attention because I nominated Cominform.com, and Hilumeoka2000 responded quickly by adding articles hosted on Cominform's own website. @NukeThePukes: noticed the same thing, so I began looking into it further. Searching Google, I found these two sites: [33] and [34], which are advertisements for paid Wikipedia editing. The user names on those websites are both "Hilumeoka2000," the same as on Wikipedia. At [35], Hilumeoka2000 notes some Wikipedia pages that they have "created for some organizations." The three articles listed there, Newfield Resources Limited, Garbage Concern Welfare Society, and Mawano Kambeu, are all articles that Wikipedia user Hilumeoka2000 created ([36], [37], [38]). Obviously, undisclosed paid editing is a problem. I will leave it to the admins to determine how to handle this issue. Agtx (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, the evidence appears to suggest an undisclosed paid editor. If this is the case, I believe that administrative attention is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I do not think that this posting violates WP:OUTING, both because the policy allows for postings related to accounts on other websites, and because the external links refer to Wikipedia specifically (making them effectively Wikipedia related). If someone thinks it does though, I will not be offended if this gets oversighted. Agtx (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Joseph2302 and Agtx.. But please hear my story first..

    I'll be very sincere with you. I have been a full time article writer, blogger and web content writer. I also earn a living from that. I work on freelancer.com, Elance.com and odesk.com..


    Here's my public profile on freelancer.com - https://www.freelancer.com/u/hilumeoka2000.html

    Here's my public profile on Elance.com - https://www.elance.com/s/hilumeoka2000/

    You can also search "hilumeoka2000" in Odesk to get my details there.Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Now, I use to see clients post jobs about "Write a Wikipedia page" or "Create a Wikipedia page" on all the freelancer platforms. In fact, it seems as if everyone wants to be on wikipedia probably because of the high page ranking and traffic that comes from the resource.


    As a freelancer interested in research, I use to get useful materials from Wikipedia and other sources to write some of my articles. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a great resource.


    Sometime in 2002, I created an account on wikipedia to see if I can meet the demands of the clients who request for wiki job on freelance platforms. To be frank, I didn't understand how to use wikipedia as at then. Hence, I abandoned the urge to write wikipedia articles and continued with my normal web content development and article writing career.


    Now, sometime in April this year, I decided to start placing bids on wikipedia jobs via freelancer.com. This is because, wiki jobs are always available but there are few people who actually know how to write them.


    I made a decision to learn about wikipedia writing and what it entails. I started reading all the wiki tutorials I could see on wikipedia. I started learning and indeed, it's quite interesting. It was not easy initially, but, I vowed to know more.


    So, I placed my first bid on freelancer.com. A client wanted me to write on "Joshua Letcher" . I accepted. I used this particular topic to learn some facts about wiki policies. I created and submitted it for review. It was rejected but I was told what to do to make it acceptable. I took some days to make some researches about "Joshua Letcher" I discovered, there are no media secondary resources.. That was the reason the article was deleted.


    Now, the same client also contracted me to write about thier company "Newfield Resources Ltd. I did my research to get some secondary resources. I succeeded and created the article. It was allowed to stay.


    So, I got excited. I really became very happy that I can now write wikipedia articles. So, I went for more. I always focused more on maintaining neutrality and using secondary sources. I also follow the rules on referencing and formatting having taken enough time to learn them.


    Now, as a freelancer, I kept getting alerts about new Wikipedia creation jobs. I go ahead to place my bids. I really got selected by some clients to help them put up a wikipedia page. I also get paid for doing so as a freelancer. I turn down jobs that do not have media coverage or jobs that are meant to promote or advertise since they are against wiki rules.


    So far, I've created the following pages via the jobs I won through freelancer.com and Elance.com.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_Direct

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Kumar_Kalotee

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfield_Resources_Limited

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_Concern_Welfare_Society

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawano_Kambeu


    I made sure each of the pages is neutral and properly cited. I'm also working on few more pages right now. I don't get involved in vandalism or supporting stands to make a page stay on wikipedia. My main focus is to create new pages.


    To be very sincere with you, I've never heard about the issue of disclosing paid identity on Wikipedia until now. I thought that I'm free to create articles as a freelancer and get paid.

    I noticed one thing about most of my clients. They don't know how to create articles on wikipedia. Some of them have tried but failed. Hence, they look for an expert who will help them.


    So please, I'll like to know if I'm contravening wiki rules by creating articles for clients through freelancer.com. I don't really know. There are lots of policies on wikipedia. I learn most of them as I create articles. I learn virtually on daily basis.


    Do I need to declare myself as a Paid editor or something? Do I need to stop creating articles for clients?

    I'll like to get clarifications.

    Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: All these pages have been put up for AfD deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Lemelson, Lemelson Capital Management

    User has said they have COI, so this discussion doesn't need to happen here. Seems it's gone to ANI instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (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.

    Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year, Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else to Wikipedia. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

    A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions. Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused, do you actually have a COI or not? Because if there isn't a COI, then it's not relevant to this noticeboard. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no conflict of interest at all. Let me see if I can find a more appropriate place for it. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing this thread, as the text above has gone to WP:ANI now, and the user has claimed they don't have COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (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.

    Medtronic related users

    I have concerns that these users are related to Medtronic

    Have blocked both of them due to repeated copyright violations and have clean up much of the issues in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doc James: According to the revision history of Medtronic here, neither of these users has edited that page. Wrong page linked perhaps? Or some adminy thing to hide all the copyright vios from the history? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They are editing articles about Medtronic's products rather than Medtronic itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, makes sense. I knew there was a logical reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    kangol kid

    Assuming I am doing this correctly, I am declaring my COI and intent to edit the Kangol Kid article. While I am Kangol's publicist and sometimes bodyguard, I can assure you that all edits will be handled only in a very neutral way. They will solely be an effort to correct misinformation, such as his place of birth. Nothing will be done with the intent to "cast in a better light" Lion126 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The easiest way to do that is to only add new information when you can cite mainstream academic or journalistic sources to support said information. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that this editor cannot be trusted to be neutral in his editing, and that he therefore follow the steps laid out in WP:COI. He should not edit the article directly, but should make suggestions on the talk page and allow other non-conflicted editors to implement them.
    Also, his notice should be on the article talk page, and on the editor's talk page. This page is not the place people will look to determine if the editor has a COI. BMK (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Majid Al Futtaim Group

    Tbenazoun is a fully-disclosed COI, who isn't editing the page, and is making edit requests. However, a new account Jbenoite accepted these requests, despite the fact I'd indicated on the talkpage that I believed they shouldn't be done. Jbenoite has no other edits apart from on Talk:Majid Al Futtaim Group and Majid Al Futtaim Group, so appears to be a SPA, quite possibly also with a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Teddy Sagi

    I've posted on the talk page of Teddy Sagi – there are one or two things that need clarification, most notably the ownership of Camden Market as he's not actually the owner but the majority shareholder of the holding company. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Teddy Sagi is my client. Please see my user page for more info. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nautilus Productions

    A few weeks ago, I approved the AFC draft of Nautilus Productions, contributed by Caprockranger. It was always clear the user operates a single purpose account with edits relating to the underwater videography of archaeological sites by Nautilus. I don't recall a discussion of possible COI at the time. However, since then, the user has made a couple of promotional edits, such as [39], and opted not to answer questions about promotion, sourcing or COI such as [40]. Although I think the connected articles are currently free of bias, and there is no obligation to answer talk page posts as long as you stay out of edit wars, I think this pattern of editing justifies the {{connected contributor}} banner on the article talk page. Is this an appropriate response? Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dyn (company)

    The foundation of this article is created by User:Beaulieualex. It appears the this major contributor has a close connection with the article subject, as as most of the user's edits has been directly or indirectly related to Dyn. domesticenginerd 05:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Hitchcock

    The user listed above is the major contributor of this article (edits by other users seem to be copyediting and categorizing). It appears that this major contributor has a close connection with the article subject, as most of the user's edits have been about Dyn (company) or related articles (such as this one, which is about the CEO/founder of the company). -- domesticenginerd 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Friends of Coal

    Headley declared himself the "official representative" of the organization, and made an extensive edit. Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aricent

    Disclosed paid editor, disclosed here. They haven't been directly editing, but it's still good for other people to be aware. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They're also repeatedly suggesting the same edits, not discussing properly, and removed my talkpage comments. Can some other users get in on this please? The article is currently fine, but they're threatening to edit on 20 May. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chauntry Cup

    Resolved
     – The page is deleted after an AfD, Dartman1001 was a legit new account of Lichfield, but got blocked after declaring their only interest on Wiki was to promote this Cup. They had a sock too, who also got indeffed. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This page was created by LichfieldCC (now softblocked for username vio), and is being maintained by SPA Dartman1001. I've made my views on the article clear, but would like other users to look over the article- note I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chauntry Cup What do you mean by a conflict of interest? I personally have nothing to gain by editing The Chauntry Cup page. I have only ever been to one cricket match in my life and I'm 53 years old. I am not a member of any club and never have been, and have no interest in the game. I think the Chauntry Cup should be recognised. That is my only wish. I have no interest other than that. Dartman1001 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing

    Djhuff has not disclosed a financial connection to writing any articles but the pattern of editing strongly suggests she has done so since 2011. I invited her to disclose, today. There is persuasive off-wiki evidence that connects a certain industrial marketing concern to this editor, who wrote in a 2012 advertisement "I’ve had the opportunity to write a few more Wikipedia pages". Brianhe (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor acknowledged paid status and claims that this out-of-order unsigned comment on her talkpage posted in 2014 suffices as disclosure. I leave it up to this noticeboard to reply. — Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Brianhe. I put a COI warning on djhuff's talk page and he/she has started to go through and make declarations on the relevant pages. I've tagged the articles and their talk pages. Thanks again - nice looking out. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a Disclosure notice to all pages listed above. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we be deleting all of their edits before this disclosure, when they were an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on paid editing? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweak. Great news Djhuff. Please add the following code to the talk page banners you added: |editedhere=yes --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So I did some copyediting on these articles, removed puffery/unsourced claims etc, put a couple up for deletion. Still don't think the COI tags should come off though, all the articles seem to have been written almost exclusively be this COI editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph2302 i put the COI tag on, if I don't have time to review the article, so that others know it needs reviewing. an article shouldn't be deleted only because of its creator's COI or lack thereof - it needs to be on the merits. paid editors sometimes create acceptable articles (sometimes); sometimes partly acceptable articles (more common), and sometimes, yes, complete garbage. But each needs to be judged on its own merits. yes? Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they've all had at least a bit that needed removing but I've been removing/copyediting text based on Wikipedia guidelines, not assuming they're all rubbish. But a couple of them only needed about 10 lines removed, whilst others needed about 80% of the text removed, and ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    great - and about your comment above about deleting all their edits prior to disclosure due to ToU violations... that is problematic in my view. I don't do that. The edits need to stand or fall on NPOV/VERIFY/OR (the content policies). Arbcom has said that they do not view ToU as policy so I believe (but I could be wrong) that removing edits due to ToU violations would - if you did that on issues that came before Arbcom - be viewed as disruptive behavior on your part. I think. Or, if the editor is a sock of a blocked user, you can revert based on WP:REVERTBAN. that's all we can do, i think. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, I didn't do that, although I think we should have been allowed to. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

    • I don't think that is the only way to view policy+guidelines+ToU. Here is my contrasting suggestion. Arbcom doesn't arbitrate content, so if there was a consensus to blank 100% of an article, that would be ok, regardless of whether it meets NPOV/VERIFY/OR. Arbcom has said that they won't take Terms of Use into account when arbitrating - AFAIK it didn't comment on whether we should encourage or assist other editors in complying with ToU. Finally, since we are very clear that it is almost impossible for a paid editor to write for the enemy (because of human nature) if we find say 50% of an editor's contributions require deletion : then it is sensible damage limitation and efficient use of resources to delete/blank 100% of that editor's work. We have consensus that paid advocacy is "very strongly discouraged" and 100% revert would be one way to provide that discouragement. en.wiki takes a damage limitation approach for copyvio, and there is no concern of disruption.
    • IMHO we are far too gentle with paid advocacy editors, because such editors have been helping us write policy + guidelines, and we should treat them as firmly as we treat other editors who don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. (It is not just my opinion, the wider Wikimedia community, and the wider world, have told us so on many occasions. When newspapers get caught doing things like this, people get fired. Yet at English Wikipedia, some people want to say: we'll fix your articles for free when we get round to it, and meanwhile carry on editing.)
    • Joseph2302, was there any particular work prior to the Feb 2014 disclosure that should be cause for concern?
    --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    did some updating. some of these articles still need review. Jytdog (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Neelix just worked over Social Media Examiner Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nordstrom

    Just come across this, the name suggests obvious COI. Haven't had time to look at article though. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup, Evans clearly works for their PR department. I've posted the "connected contributor" info on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone backed out that PR already. I also noted an uncited but prominent section about the Nordstrom Employee Handbook being 75 words. CBS News debunked that, and the real 12-page employee handbook is on line on Nordstrom's own site.[41]. Article revised and cited accordingly. John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Xenophon

    Username implies they work for Xenophon, repeatedly removing sourced content without explanation. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthias Hentze

    Several SPAs created and are maintaining this article. Article is a BLP that looks like a CV. It has one reference, to a German library catalog. Princessella123 appaears to have access to digital images from subject of the article's place of employment. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BiH paid editing?

    Over at SPI, clerk User:Vanjagenije has just endorsed investigation of user BiH with the comment "This might be some kind of paid editing ring...". I've compiled a list of about 50 articles to investigate at User:Brianhe/COIbox2 – all created by BiH at a prodigious rate, nearly all about PR-seeking companies and celebrities. Just the last 5 are listed above as a representative sample.

    BiH did not respond to my question about suspicious editing on his talkpage [42], and has not commented on the SPI casepage. Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had a quick look, removed some unverified promotional text, and put a couple up for AfD. If they've been socking and undisclosed paid editing, my opinion is they should be indeffed. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Note, the list on my page was non-exhaustive; I just stopped when I got back to May 2014. And I probably missed some stuff mixed in with his newpage patrol edits. — Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's paid editing going on, the clients should get their money back. BMK (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A good find. And unfortunately another paid editor that somehow acquired autopatrolled rights (I've removed them). There are some links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sibtain_007 e.g. with BiH editing Laura_Sullivan_(composer) (which one of those socks started) and creating Eric Sullivan who is completely NN. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A correction to my note that BiH did not reply to me about questionable editing. This explanation was posted on my talkpage. Sorry, I'd forgotten it was there. I did ask him to post at the SPI, however. — Brianhe (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    socialworkhelper.com

    I happened across a user whose only contributions involve additions of content referenced to socialworkhelper.com and I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done so I'm just bringing to the attention of this noticeboard. The edits all appear constructive, but it may be promotional as well. Based on the username, Swhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), there appears to be a connection to the website and a possible conflict of interest. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That bears watching. "socialworkhelper.com" has some good content, and some promoted content, and both look the same. The site comes up in Google only in its own PR (Facebook, Pinterest, etc.) I'd suggest that the editor involved refrain from adding more links to "socialworkhelper.com". It's starting to look like linkspam. John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trend in spam - replacing dead external links with links to spam sites

    Hello. For the past few months I have seen more spam accounts which search for dead external links on Wikipedia and then replace them with links to unrelated or semi-related spam websites. This happens in a range of articles. I have seen this in medicine, public policy, low-traffic articles about products, and I think in a biography.

    In my opinion this is an intolerable sort of vandalism because I can imagine no way for any user to do this without being completely aware that they are intending to circumvent detection and that they are doing nothing useful for Wikipedia. Only entirely corrupt advertisers could think of doing this.

    I wanted to alert people here. If there is more conversation about this somewhere, or if others have seen this, then I would like to know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bluerasberry: See this. There's a couple of others. It's actually quite the cottage industry as far as I know. There was a flood of these after that moron published the article, most of which were obviously new accounts that had no other contributions, and most were blocked. I'd say if you see that going on, examine the account(s) and report them to ANI or even AIV (if we consider this to be a form of vandalism). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any receny diffs? It sounds like a job for an WP:EDITFILTER if it's continuing a while after that was written. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: Unfortunately not. There were a couple of threads over at ANI but I can't find them. Stupidly, they used exactly the same edit summary as recommended in the article, so those were easy to spot, but I'd wager they wised up to that so any effective filter would have to probably be a combination of a low edit count/new account, the delta from the {{dead link}} text and the insertion of a URL. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: Found one. Apparently a filter was requested but I don't see that it was implemented. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This strategy has apparently become very popular in SEO circles. Find a dead link, replace it with a link you want to promote, and claim you're improving Wikipedia. Some actually find a copy of the original content from Wayback Machine or elsewhere, copy that content to their own website, and then claim they are simply repairing a dead link. Somewhere there was discussion about creating an edit filter to flag any edit that removes {{deadlink}}, but I'm not sure where that discussion was or whether is was ever implemented or not. Deli nk (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    emgx fs

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jekaterina.bogdanova85 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Hello! Can you please tell me why I cant post my article? This article is about company EMGX FS. This is just information, not advertasing! Its the same like Avon, coca-cola or other companys info. Here will be my article:[reply]

    "EMGX F.S. is the informative analytical portal about gold. The latest and most relevant information regarding gold in the market: demand, prices, investment, will be published in articles and news on this website. The website has a section on the current gold prices.

    The informative analytical portal EMGX F.S. will also publish information regarding the whole history, qualities and properties of this precious metal. The group of experts of this portal provide articles and news which are the outcome of a very exhaustive analysis of the information and advice published through a range of different media. The idea of starting this news portal was born out of an initiative to provide the most up-to-date information to people worldwide.

    The access to this information is available to every user interested in this topic.

    Main topics of the EMGX F.S. News portal:

    Changes in gold prices; spot gold price; culture and history of gold; technology, science and different fields in which gold is utilized; how to earn with gold; gold companies; opinions and forecasts of gold experts; gold trends; gold coins; gold bars; gold jewelry; etc."

    best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekaterina.bogdanova85 (talk • contribs)

    Why was it deleted? "(A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))" That blog does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Basically, you can't use Wikipedia for promotion. Please read WP:CORP, WP:AD, and WP:NOTE. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Iranian Americans

    As here, the user continues to edit what appears to be people who bear the same last name as his user name, or entries relating to them, suggesting an apparent COI. As reflected here, he has been warned for COI editing in the past. All of his other edits have been erased, and all related to a "Hassibi". --Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A heads up for those who might not be watching

    Per here it appears people are trying to buy established Wikipedia accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been kicked off of Elance. See comments at link above. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gorski

    per WP:BLP policy, SageRad should not edit about Gorski due to external dispute. No longer a matter for this board. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (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.

    Well, here's the story. I have been interested in glyphosate, and i read a lot about it. I made my way to David Gorski's web-blog called "Science-Based Medicine" in my various searches for information about glyphosate, and there i read some things that i disagreed with, and like hundreds of other people, i commented below the article about what i disagreed with, citing scientific articles and making some points about glyphosate that contradicted what he had written in the article itself. Standard thing for people to do, i think. Then some other people there attacked me with name-calling, and i responded, trying to be civil but they kept attacking with names and taunting and then i responded with a bit of name-calling of my own, and then suddenly David Gorski banned me from any further commenting on his web-blog, and yet he did not ban any of the people who taunted and attacked and provoked me first.
    So, i found another place where David Gorski commented on some other blog. This is in Disqus, where it's easy to see a person's commenting history, and a lot of people do see what other people are commenting on. It's pretty much a main function of Disqus, so please don't think i was "stalking" him. I just didn't want a dialogue to end with me being banned and people not knowing i was banned so it would seem like i had no answer to the open questions, etc. I found a place where i could respond to him (because he'd blocked me on his blog) and then i said that he'd blocked me, so that people would know why i hadn't replied back on his own blog, and i told my story, simply that i was commenting with evidence to explain why i disagreed with his article on glyphosate, on some key points. I also have another friend who was blocked by Gorski in a similar way.
    Well, a month or two later, i saw his article on Wikipedia and i saw a statement in there to the effect that David Gorski claims that another group had tried to prevent him from blogging by asking the college where he teaches to stop him from doing so. This statement was sourced to Gorski's own blog. I then edited the article to say that Gorski sometimes bans people from commenting on his blog when he disagrees with them.

    Now, another user has cited me for "COI" on the basis that i have an external relationship with Gorski. Now, the extent of my relationship is that i have commented on his blog, and he banned me from commenting, and then i commented on that at another place in response to his comment. So, it's a couple of text exchanges in public forums on the internet, during which we disagreed (rather vehemently) but that is it. Now i am listed on the page about him as having declared a conflict of interest regarding him. So, my question is, is this true? Does this constitute a true conflict of interest? Thanks for your time and sorry to spend your time on this stuff. I guess that's why you're here. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @SageRad: Yes, that constitutes a conflict of interest. Your purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to air your own gripe with Gorski, rather than to maintain the neutrality for which Wikipedia strives. And COI aside, your addition probably lacks reliable sources (i.e. no reliable source has reported on the fact that Gorski has blocked commenters he disagrees with), so it really has no place in a biography anyway. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as to the relevance, i would argue that it's relevant, especially when he's claiming to be the victim of attempted censorship himself.
    As to the sourcing, sure, it's self-reported information from me, not from some external source, but on the other hand, his claim of attempted censorship against himself is sourced to his own web-blog as well. Wouldn't that also suffer from the same exact sourcing issue?
    As to conflict of interest, ok, i hear your opinion that it is a conflict of interest. However, in reading over the COI guideline, i see much more focus on economic self-interest. Consider an example in which someone has a gripe against Monsanto because they made a chemical that poisoned the rivers near his house, Monsanto didn't disclose very critical information that they knew about its danger to humans and ecology. Would that person be unable to edit anything about Monsanto because they have a gripe with Monsanto, and so that someone could say, "Your purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to air your own gripe with [Gorski]"? To put it another way, what if i said that my purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to include a relevant fact that he engages in censorship even while he contends that he's a victim of attempted censorship, so that people who read the article would know this about him and his blog, and take this information into account when they do read his blog? They could then know that the blog comments are censored to some extent, and not trust that everything is quite as it seems.
    To put it another way, perhaps, imagine that i wrote an article about the Soviet newspaper Pravda and i wrote something to the extent that as a newspaper, its content was subject to some level of censorship. Would that statement in the article be a conflict of interest if i had been a citizen of the USSR, because i had a "gripe" with Pravda for its censorship?
    I am being totally serious.
    Where do we draw the line and distinguish between a "gripe" and a "useful piece of information"?
    I personally don't care about Gorski, but i care about people having good information about sources that they read about things that matter.
    Period.
    Lastly, does COI apply to this kind of relationship generally? What if i once wrote an email to Noam Chomsky and he replied to me. (That is true.) Would i be disallowed from ever contributing to the article about Noam Chomsky?
    SageRad (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noam Chomsky. Meh. There is a video on YouTube addressing me by Deepak Chopra. Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 19:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The basic problem is that the only way you know that Gorski engages in censorship is because you yourself were the victim of the censorship, so your reporting about it here at Wikipedia is not coming from an unbiased source. If the hypothetical Soviet citizen writing about Pravda were citing reliable sources for their claims about that publication's censorship activities, that would be fine. If said Soviet citizen were writing based on their own personal experience of censorship ("They wouldn't publish my letter to the editor..."), that would be a COI. And no, if you had once received an email from Mr Chomsky, that would not prevent you from writing about Mr Chomsky here at Wikipedia. That is a rather hyperbolic stretch of the imagination.
    I can't speak to the sources the Gorski article uses presently, as I have not evaluated the article. I am merely responding to the facts you have presented in this discussion.
    The COI guidelines are mainly aimed at the prevention of self-promotion, but the larger issue is the preservation of neutrality, whether to prevent self-promotion, or to prevent using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to air one's gripes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiDan61, i understand that COI is mainly about prevention of favoritism in terms of economic or other nepotistic interests (like promoting your son's talents or something). I understand that a real personal grudge would not be a valid thing, but this is not a personal grudge. I'm not hoping to "get back at" my Uncle Tom for shooting me in the foot. I'm actually concerned about people being properly informed about the character of David Gorski, as he is seen as a source by some of reliable information, and a person who will enforce a censorship based on viewpoint is not, in my opinion, a reliable source of information about controversial topics. It's public interest. It is not a personal grudge. Words were exchanged but i hold no personal grudge. It's an issue of his role in the world and the information about him from Wikipedia being accurate. If i do contribute to a page on Monsanto, to use the analogy again, from a place of dislike for their past actions, that is acceptable, i think, as long as it's in the interest of public knowledge, and not for the purpose of some vendetta type of thing. If i remain vigilant of people or entities who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in the past, that is a sensible thing, and if i want their untrustworthiness to be known to the public, if that is indeed a reliable claim, then i think that is also worthy. It's a matter of public interest. And no, it's not "saving the world" but it is transparency, and giving people the ability to make their own decisions based on complete information.SageRad (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sage -- the problem here is that there is not a reliable source that says that this is the "character of David Gorski", there is only you saying this, based on your own bad experiences with him. So, not only is it an issue of COI, but it is an issue of valid sourcing, which we place an extra premium on when it comes to negative information about living people. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI guideline talks about having external relationships that could effect your neutrality here. Getting into arguments with Gorski on two diferent sites and getting banned from both sites one of them is much more of an external relationship than swapping an email with someone. Common sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Not common sense to me. In fact it's against common sense to me. I'm very genuine in what i am saying. What if when i wrote to Chomsky, he had offhand mentioned that he wears false teeth, and if that were somehow relevant to anyone, and then if i found some other source about it. Then i could include it, i assume. Even if Chomsky had been irked about me and had called me names and i called him names back. (That was not what happened. He explained that he was too busy working on issues surrounding Iraq to contribute a quote to me about the situation in Nepal, which i was working on.) SageRad (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... as far as recalled it was one site, his own site, that i got banned from. SageRad (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, misread. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is really odd, Jytdog, because on further consideration, i recall that i was banned from some other stupid blog, some "Skeptoid" blog or some such thing, and i can't remember if it was due to an exchange with Gorski but i think it was. So you seem to have had more information about me than i have stated on Wikipedia, which would imply a very strange thing. SageRad (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't go looking for trouble where there isn't any, Sage. You mentioned two conflicts; Jytdog merely misread as two bans, rather than one ban an one simple conflict. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, probably. SageRad (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a problem with primarily WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX off-site bleeding over into Wikipedia that has also become something of a real-life conflict of interest. There's a lot going on over at SageRad's talk page about their behavior in general too. Messy indeed, so I'm not sure what course of action is best at this point or if this is even the most relevant board. For the time being though, I do agree this is a conflict of interest based on how involved SageRad is in this if we would call it that from a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective. Whether one wants to call it strong advocacy or actual COI, best for them to disengage from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So Sage, was the disagreement with Gorski about glyphosate and the microbiome? If so, it would appear that every edit you have made here could be interpreted as a strike against Gorski by editing his bio and attempting to put your POV (which Gorski did not allow on his website) here on an even more prominent website. Its great to contribute, and everyone has a POV but you really need to be here to build an encyclopedia and not to retaliate against those you've disagreed with on other websites or engage in some sort of self-vindication. Because if that is what you are doing, you're using a pedestal that was built by others to pursue your own interests. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have many interests, but right now my main focus of intellectual pursuit is glyphosate. I focus on one thing at a time as a habit and for productivity. I have many other interests, though, and this one would not be dominating my time on Wikipedia if there were not a huge backlash anytime i modified anything to have a more accurate representation of reality. I am here to build a useful people's encyclopedia. Take it or leave it, but that's the truth. It's gets extremely tiring to get this level of backlash for any move i make. It becomes not an intellectual pursuit so much as a chess game, then. I mean, when i edited the article on hoes -- the tool, you know? -- i got some backlash and a revert and then i explained what i was doing, and why the term "hula hoe" deserved to be mentioned as common name for the stirrup or action or oscillating or hoop hoe (all those names being used for the same thing). Then the other user actually saw that this is true, and i gave a patent as a reliable source for this terminology, and we agreed to change the page back. And now we're friendly, and improving that page further.
    However, when i go to improve the page on PCBs or on glyphosate, it's as if i have woken up a hornet's nest and people come at me with legalism, and a level of paper-cuts that i have never seen, even at inspectional services when i went to get a building permit. I am serious, this is not normal. This is so strange to me. I look forward to a time when glyphosate is not on the forefront of my mind and i'm back to some topic where some major power centers have no vested interest, and so it's not "controversial" as it's called, and so it's not under the microscope like this. I mean, it's good to be careful, but it's not good to absolutely stultify things with this exaggerated legalism (in my reckoning that's what it is). It's odd, and weird, and not very human.
    Everyone has a point of view on many things. And on some things, there are real conflicts of interest. That's life. There are some people who want to hide some information and others who want to expose it. That doesn't mean either one is correct or wrong. It doesn't mean that the one who wants to expose some information is doing some unethical advocacy or has some conflict of interest. It may simply mean that they care about the public interest, and they love the Earth and people, and want people to know what happened in the past so that they can be careful not to let it happen again.
    That is not wrong, and that does not conflict with the mission of Wikipedia.
    If Gorski does censor people on his web blog, which is mentioned prominently in the article about him, then i want people to know. That makes sense to me.
    You can legalize on me all day long and i still think that it's good to have good information in the public view.
    I know that sourcing is important and reliability is important, because we can't have crazy theories being presented as facts. But, on balance, i reckon that there is a pretty remarkable bias in the level of resistance given to a claim that a company knew about the danger of PCBs while they continued to sell them, and to the claim that Gorski censors comments on his web blog. He's being presented as an objective voice against pseudoscience, in the article about him. Well, it's relevant, then, that he would censor countering views that present evidence with sources to the contrary of some of his claims. That's not very "Science-Based". I believe the article about him is rather biased. Perhaps i could address that point in some other way. But now, i seem to be not allowed to partake in the editing of that page, as i am being claimed to have a conflict of interest with Gorski. I don't think i do, other than the actual conflict of our ethics, apparently, and that's not unusual in the world. This may be a little more than usual and i may be more stubborn than most people, but it's on a continuum of what is true about everyone and everything, to some degree. SageRad (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    please read this case: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Sugar_Mountain_Farm two editor who have been battling forever over an article about a farm. turned out that one of them is the farmer who owns the farm, and the other, a neighboring farmer. the two have been arguing in real life for ever, and brought that right over into WP. Or look at this comment by an editor who added a bunch of negative stuff to the Novartis article, and who ended up disclosing on Talk that she is suing Novartis. Having a dispute with X outside of Wikipedia, is a relationship with X that can bias your editing here. It is a conflict of interest. Don't carry your grudges into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, this is not a COI issue. It's a WP:BLP issue. That policy explicitly prohibits the importation of off-wiki grudges to a Wikipedia biography. The policy also states that an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person. So SageRad is blatantly violating WP:BLP by trying to shoehorn a personal grudge into a Wikipedia biography. Insofar as we ostensibly take WP:BLP seriously, that should raise significant concern, and he shouldn't be pursuing this nonsense anywhere on Wikipedia.

    Separately, I'm trying to think of a polite way to tell SageRad to grow up. And a polite way to explain that he clearly has no idea what "censorship" entails. I suppose that on some level I envy people who live in such an impenetrable bubble of cluelessness and entitlement that they view being unable to comment on someone's personal website as a free-speech violation. But I'm not sure how to say that politely. Maybe someone else can help, or maybe it's not that important. MastCell Talk 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @MastCell: I think you've said it, politely or not. No need for any of the rest of us to pretty it up for you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy, is that really the case? Are you trying to figure out a way to tell me to "grow up" because i wish the public to have access to accurate representations of reality? What insults are being slung here. It's pretty sick. I take serious exception to the entire comment by MastCell. I think you are the one who needs to grow up, if you wish to put it that way. I feel your slime all over me. I need to bathe. Holy cow. Censorship is a simple thing. It's the blocking of speech in a forum where freedom of speech is reasonably expected, and another layer is that when censorship is being employed, but its employ is not known commonly to many readers, then the point of view portrayed in the forum is biased but appears to be "balanced" or at least open to dissent, and that is the most insidious form of censorship because it's the most powerful at presenting a version of reality that may not be accurate.

    You are actually defending censorship and attacking my desire to include in the article about a person that focuses on this website, the fact that censorship occurs there. That is really not very admirable. So, this is still open, and i would love to see the opinions of others. Like i said, this is not a personal grudge. This is a particular thing that i know, and not many others do know, and that i think is important for the public to know. I'm not "pushing an agenda" but i am using my specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia, for the public use and for the functioning of a healthy civil society. Keep on shooting yourselves in the foot. It's useful. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (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.

    David Gorski

    per WP:BLP policy, SageRad should not edit about Gorski due to external dispute.Therefore, this is an issue for WP:BLPN, not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2015 (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.

    By what process did the above entry about David Gorski and myself COI get a final "verdict" and then get hatted? And now i am prevented from working on that article? I'd like to know what the process here is and how long it may take and whether i can request some third-party opinions? Because honestly, i do not think the dialogue above was acceptable. It seems as if the other participants barely registered and responded to the things that i wrote, and it seems that it is deemed acceptable to just tell me to "grow up" and then close the case? By one particular editor who seems to have it out for me, of all thing? Really, what's the process and how can i get a fair hearing? Please do read the above hatted case, and think about it for yourself. There are some serious issues in there, which would prevent people from working on articles about people or entities or information sources that censor people, in effect, extending that censorship to Wikipedia itself, which i do not think is what we (most of us in civil society) want. SageRad (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Notice also the timeline. Seems like a kangaroo court. Open and shut ASAP. SageRad (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Read Wikipedia:Free speech. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for you to engage in a petty personal dispute with David Gorski. If he chose to ban you from his blog, that is no concern of ours. Nobody anywhere has the 'right' to post on someone else's website - not Gorski's blog, and not here either. And no, there are no 'serious issues' here. Just someone complaining because their trivial spats don't merit encyclopaedic coverage. We don't care. Get used to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this was closed because it's a WP:BLP issue, not a WP:COI issue, as was written above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter has been brought to the BLP noticeboard. It is no longer relevant at this board. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:47, 20 May 2015 (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.

    Rick Shutter - Declare COI and Invite Feedback

    I expect to receive compensation from Rick Shutter, a musician, for writing an encyclopedic Wikipedia article about him. Per the recommendation in the Paid editing (guidance essay), I am declaring my COI here. I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing, COIs, BLPs, and the Five Pillars, and I have strived to abide by these policies. I have written a draft on my user space here, I have disclosed my COI in the edit summary there, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=663418225"