Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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}}.
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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

BiH paid editing?[edit]

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 [1], and has not commented on the SPI casepage. Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
If there's paid editing going on, the clients should get their money back. BMK (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)

Some more evidence of sandbox interactions with other editors on software company and plastic surgeon articles is here: User:Brianhe/COIbox5Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So the SPI concluded that BiH isn't socking but from the articles I've looked at there are numerous problems and they continue to be created: Klaus Solberg Søilen. Just bumping this up again in case any one else gets a chance to review more. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This is clearly a paid editor. i just tried to open a discussion with them too. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
BiH started talking back at their talk page and has promised to complete the disclosure of articles they edited for pay. Fulfillment of that promise hasn't happened yet and I just followed up with them. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We now have a COI list at User:BiH#COI but some problems ... first of all, it has no explanation at all, so will not serve as a legitimate declaration for people unfamiliar with this conversation. Second, it appears to be a lightly redacted copy of User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and I'd bet is missing at least several entries including corp profiles for Code Rebel, Pet Circle, and DGM Services. It shouldn't be up to us to ferret this out if the person claiming disclosure is acting in good faith. — Brianhe (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── yep i agree - I am hopeful that they will reply and complete it. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I used your list for a reference, but there were some articles that I created without any COI, while some are just redirects or renames. I do not understand what you want as an "explanation". Please share more details so that I could fill that up as well. I will check the listed 3 though. --BiH (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@BiH: Well, the Wikimedia terms of use specify that for each article, you need to "disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". Also, the section COI is misleading, as editors who haven't seen this page won't know that means "I was paid to create these articles". Frankly, I think you should be blocked for undisclosed paid editing in blatant violation of Wikimedia's terms of use. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I believe I showed reasonable amount of cooperation with the community, in comparison with other "problematic" editors you encounter each day, so I expect some good will. Unlike others, I use single account and I am OK with disclosing everything if the TOS say so. I am aware that I am not popular here, but I am also aware that I am not a destructive editor, and I try to give something back to the community as much as I can. I have explained myself to User:Jytdog in a private email, because I believed it should be done. If someone else wants the same explanation (privately), please let me know how we can get in touch. Cheers! --BiH (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@BiH: I personally don't see taking a month to disclose some of the things you've been paid to create as overly-cooperative. And a violation of the terms of service is a violation, regardless of whether or not you knew about it (although how could an experienced editor not have known they had to declare paid contributions??) Personally I think you should stop editing other things, focus on clearing up all this continued confusion- it seems the only way to actually get you to focus on disclosing would be to block you. Give me one reason why I shouldn't report you to WP:ANI for undisclosed paid editing? By the sounds of it, some of your paid editing is still undisclosed. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have gave it a thought and decided to share my, pretty much, private story, which I already shared with User:Jytdog. Here it is, as follows:

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "I just wanted to explain a few things, and I feel it would be much more easier for me afterwards. Back in 2005, I was on of the founders of BS Wikipedia (Bosnian) I served as and admin, bureaucrat and checkuser. I, above all, believed that Wikipedia should be a volunteer work. I was often ridiculed by other people due to my attitude. I was just entering college at that time. During college, I was pretty much busy with learning, so I was not active on Wikipedia, both BS and EN. After my graduation and after I got a degree in mechanical engineering, I could not find any job (Google: "employment in Bosnia" and everything will be clear). As my mother is unemployed as well, I had to find a source of income. A friend offered me to help him with some article for money (as he knew I was "good at it"), and the rest is history, and I got involved into it somehow. Now, I got the (first) job in the capital of Bosnia (I had to move from my home town). However, since I have no experience in my field, I work for 300 euro per months (as an intern), which is not even close to what I need for the living.

To be short, necessity made me do what I do. However, I still tend not to do disruptive editing and promotion of non-notable individuals or companies - some might got passed that criterion, I must admit. All this time, I want that community somehow acknowledge that, to see my good will. Since I was feeling bad for what I do, I was taking time to do some new page patrol from time to time and I think I did some massive work in that field. None wants this to stop more than me, but I will simply have to do it until I get myself a decent pay. Due to all the things that happened, I have been ashamed, but I understand your scrutiny over me and I respect it."

I really hope you understand my position. Thank you for helping. If you have any questions about the above said, please do not hesitate to ask me." --BiH (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

BiH thanks for sharing your story here. What really matters is that you get your paid editing disclosure finished and with a proper heading on your User page. That more than anything will go a very long way toward gaining trust. Please take care of that as soon as you can. If people look at your contribs they can see the admin-like work you are doing, but what folks here at COIN care about the most, is the getting the paid editing disclosed and reviewed. So please do that. Please don't wait any longer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog, from a COI perspective, Wikipedia needs a full disclosure as soon as possible, so we can start checking it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, @Joseph2302:: I suppose I have to elaborate myself in the COI section on my user page. Can you tell me specifically what needs to be done or give me an example of disclosed list. I really want this to be done already, but I am a bit confused by your demands - I do not know what to write to meet all TOC requirements. Jytdog said I need to write a COI section heading, but I need to know what is expected from me. Please note that I am willing to cooperate, otherwise all this would not happen. So, we have a rough list, I will go through it once more as there might be some articles that were not in COI (article renames or my new page patrol edits), while I might missed to include some or deleted them from the list by mistake. With that completed, I will add "connected contributor" tags on all pages that are in COI, as I already began. Is that OK? In the end, I will need a bit of your help to complete any other requirements. I hope you all agree. --BiH (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Should the COI tag be removed immediately after disclosure by the COI editor [2][3][4][5], or is this something the rest of the community should take care of when the article is cleaned up? — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OCEAN Style[edit]

Resolved: article deletion at AfD here. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This was an elance job [6] that takes just a little work to detect. I've done some cleanup but would appreciate another set of eyes for adherence to policy and, in particular, to determine if the subject is notable. Brianhe (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 AfDed it. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente[edit]

User:vggolla (self-described on the KP talk page as 'Vince from KP', which I take as a FCoI notice) complained about the section “Grossly Inadequate Mental Health Care”, and Jytdog, who has, IMHO, worked hard to avoid more explicit bans in wikipedia policy on FCoI/ Paid Advocacy Editing, removed it. I requested and was hoping User:Jytdog would comment on their edit and suggest a solution, rather than engage in ad hominem attack on a Kaiser union, which is how I see the response to my request. Seems, furthermore, that my statement was glossed over: Seems hard to see the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser for not providing adequate health care to its customers" and a strike over the care failures as entirely unworthy of mention- since I mentioned a strike (which was noted in the whitewashed content), obviously I was aware of the labor dispute. I'm challenged as to how to get the imposition and unappealed payment of "a $4 million fine against Kaiser ... mentioned in the article again. Because it's the largest fine in DMHC history, it is surely encyclopedic, and about gross shortcomings, not mere union posturing about minor delays. The WP:DR POLICY states, for example, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral." Wholesale deletion at the behest of a user with a clear FCoI seems a clear violation of the letter and spirit of our policies. I would ask that the material be restored by User:Jytdog who can then add balancing material or make the wording more neutral --Elvey(tc) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elvey. What is your evidence that I have a conflict of interest with regard to Kaiser? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
btw the dif that I reverted due to POV not to mention removal of sourced content was this. and the source relied on for much of the added material was this, an opinion piece by the head of the union. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I took was useful out of that POV content and FIXEDIT here. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
by the way, sorry for this. I thought i self-reverted right away but i didn't. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Your edit summary made it seem quite clearly intentional; it wasn't? I'll assume you changed your mind and meant to self revert, but didn't. --Elvey(tc) 02:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
yeah i thought you had put that stuff into WP:COI not here. and then i as i said i thought i self-reverted. two mistakes. sorry Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Glad I was able to keep my cool even after that and what I saw as you edit warring at H2 antagonist too. <Pats self on back.> Glad to see you reverted both edits after User_talk:Jytdog#June_2015. --Elvey(tc) 09:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I was going to say Please address my concerns. And I did @$#^@$%& discuss it first on the talk page. I expand my concerns here and you haven't addressed those, and you still haven't even addressed the concern expressed on the article talk page yet. but it sounds like maybe you've now addressed my concerns (based on your edits i conflicted with). Will review follow up. Thanks. --Elvey(tc) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Elvey you need to address your claim that I have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanante. Please present your case or withdraw the claim. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog : "COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article". "There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request..." I await the outcome and one of the three appropriate actions. You need to address your claim that I claim that you have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanante. Do you? You need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim. (IIRC you made a blanket statement a while back about having no COIs with respect to any edits or topics on wikipedia, but I can't find such a statement.) --Elvey(tc) 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Elvey, when you posted here at COIN and listed my username, you raised a concern that I have a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente. And no, I do not. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog:Again, you need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim. IIRC you made a blanket statement a while back about having no COIs with respect to any edits or topics on wikipedia, but I can't find such a statement. Do you recall making one?--Elvey(tc) 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── this doesn't appear to be serious. I will not be responding here further. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is becoming harassment now. Elvey tagged the Kaiser article for COI which I have reverted. This thread needs attention of independent voices and I am looking for at least a trout to Elvey for bringing an unserious case to COIN - You can see above that they are not even owning the claim that I have a COI, yet they posted here and have tagged the article. Pinging admins SlimVirgin, Smartse, OrangeMike and FreeRangeFrog who are active here at times. Please review and comment, and act or close this, as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(Following 2 comments moved from my talk page (and later expanded here). Please continue discussion here. -Elvey)
You have made no serious case at COIN. Do not throw that around lightly. Get serious. If you continue being casual about this I will bring you to ASI for harassment. Make a serious case or walk away. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is not about mere suspicion of COI based on POV pushing. There's an admitted financial conflict of interest; from my opening post to COIN: 'Vince from KP', which I take as a FCoI notice. Jytdog later said at COIN that he would not comment further. But that was UNTRUE : he did comment further - above and on my talk page. Threw down an accusation against me and when I asked for a quote or diff to back it up, you refused to provide one. That feels like harassment to me. After the recent edit warring that I warned Jytdog about - on multiple articles - Jytdog wisely stopped and even self reverted in one case. Now Jytdog has done it again, removing the {{COI}} I placed. (diff) Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Jytdog, go away or come back to COIN and KP and stop violating policy or you'll end up on "ASI". As my edit summary noted when I placed the COI notice, ("Per Talk:Kaiser_Permanente#Whitewashing ") the problem IS explained on the article's talk page.--Elvey(tc) 17:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
AGAIN: It seems hard to see tens of billions of dollars in reserves as entirely unworthy of mention in the article. Please comment ON THAT. Anyone dispute that the COI tag should be restored until the whitewashing has been addressed? What's the policy on removing an appropriately placed COI tag? Jytdog has been violating policy left and right lately; I warned about deleting other users comments and have yet to warn about failing to provide required notifications. Pinging admins SlimVirgin, etc - boomerang? --Elvey(tc) 17:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reviewed Jytdog's edits and can't see anything that sets off my COI alarm bells and this is just a bog-standard content dispute. Jytdog's removed a lot of very poorly sourced content including promotional content such as this. I've certainly never seen a conflicted editor do that before! If Elvey thinks that there is something omitted from the article that can be sourced, then they should fix it themselves rather than making empty accusations. SmartSE (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, what empty accusations, SmartSE? For the umpteenth time, where did I claim that Jytdog has a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente? Not here. I say to you as I said to him after he demanded much the same from me: "You need to provide a quote showing I did so or withdraw the claim." Do you deny that the fact that KP has tens of billions of dollars in reserves was removed from the article? That an editor with a FCoI who works for KP asked for negative information to be removed? Yes, he removed promotional content. Good for him. What part of I'm not claiming that Jytdog has a COI with respect to Kaiser Permanente do you not understand? There's an admitted FCoI, unaddressed whitewashing and yet the COI tag keeps being removed, though Template:COI#When_to_remove says "This tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." Also, I just noticed curiously-named [User:PermanenteJ] has made but one small edit, but a FCoI is likely. Jytdog frequently edit wars when users try to fix things themselves - diff, diff - see whole section. --Elvey(tc) 20:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Elvey asked me to comment here. Jytdog, I can't see where he accused you of COI. He is drawing attention to the acknowledged COI of User:Vggolla. As for the content, I haven't looked at it, but given Vggolla's statement and Elvey's concern, Vggolla's removal of criticism should be rolled back, so long as there are reliable sources for each point that he removed. Sarah (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please look at the usernames listed at the top of this thread. There are two ways to interpret that. Elvey made a mistake, or Elvey is raising a concern about COI with regard to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's sad that Jytdog insists that he has to interpret that incorrectly. Jytdog, I wish you could open your mind to all that there is to learn and discover. --Elvey(tc) 01:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I see Vvgolla didn't edit the article, but complained about certain things, so this is more complex than I thought it was. I'll try to find time to look at the edits, but can't promise. Sarah (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, AFAIK, Vvgolla didn't edit the article directly. Thanks in advance, Sarah. --Elvey(tc) 23:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Resolved: article deleted, spammed site blacklisted Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

the problem is that I have discovered a spammer hiding, it's person keeps changing user names. I request some help preventing this consistent undoing onepoint (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

watching the article. listed the site at the spam blacklist. looks like the article should be PRODed. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
PRODed by Joseph here. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no extensive coverage available as far as I can tell. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
my nomination of the site for spam blacklist was accepted, and the PROD just resulted in deletion today. so this is done. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

University of Gibraltar[edit]

Resolved: User:The University of Gibraltar indeffed, all other users stale, article is tagged and cleaned up. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Just come across University of Gibraltar, and seems like it's been a target for puffery and promotion for months. Both these accounts, and the 2 IPs have been adding promotional material to the page. User:The University of Gibraltar has been reported to WP:UAA for username violation, but I'd like some more eyes on the page. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid Day, Starmus Festival[edit]

Heads up on some unusual edits related to the Starmus Festival and Asteroid Day articles, and biographies of people involved in those areas. Doesn't seem to be particularly effective. Geogene (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, looks like a good faith confirmation of probable COI, paid editing, maybe socking on my talkpage here. I don't think they're aware of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking for input - Greenfacts and its no-longer-involved Founder[edit]

Hi all. Jacques (who discloses his RW identity on his "Deselliers" Userpage above) founded an organization called GreenFacts in 2001, ran it til May 2007, and was Vice-Chairman until 2009. He says (and have no reason not to believe him) that he has no connection to the organization now. GreenFacts is a nonprofit science-writing organization.

Does he have a COI with regard to GreenFacts, and should he refrain from directly editing that article? CorporateM says no, Jacques says no (all civil and good, no big conflict here), and I say "I think so". Jacques wants to directly edit the article. What do folks here think? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor has a diverse editing history and has not been affiliated with the org for 5+ years. It's only natural for editors to show an interest in their former employers. I think this applies equally to routine employees as it does to higher-level ones. I continue to AGF the case and see no reason for sanctions. I continue to be surprised by how often I remind editors of our founding principles. We're the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We assume editors are trying to do the right thing. We have no firm rules. This is not the type of case (hired spin-doctors and advocates) the Bright Line was intended for. All indications are that this can be handled through normal, civil discussion, not regulations and sanctions. The editor has not been editing article-space recently anyway and the article is heading towards the trash-bin at AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 20:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, CorporateM. But again, I'd like repeat that my four edits that you reverted on the GreenFacts article (subject of our discussion) have nothing to do with any possible form COI. They are purely updates of obsolete links and, in one edit, of a sentence quoted from the GreenFacts website, in order to improve the quality of the article. I really don't understand why they should cause any problem, and why this point was never addressed in any of the replies in the GreenFacts talk page or on my talk page. Could someone kindly address this point? Jacques de Selliers (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM please don't describe making edit requests instead of editing directly as a "sanction" - that's terrible. It is just managing COI, that's all. Yes it is a bit clunkier but we have gotten great contributions that way. It is the only real means we have to manage COI outside of actual sanctions like topic bans. Now all three of us have said what we think here - let's see what others think on the questions. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A former association, especially one that has cooled-off, should not necessarily imply an on-going conflict of interest. Generally speaking, there can be associations to other parties (close friends, family, current employer, prospective employer, etc.) that could cause conflict if they have associations with the organization. There's neither evidence nor disclaimer of such associations here. I would hope that, again in general, Wikipedia won't have to deal with Enron-level obfuscation of associations, although I suppose it could happen. Back to this case, if edits are promotional, not notable, don't cite reliable sources, form a pattern of such or whatever, they can be dealt with on those bases. Meanwhile, conflicts can end. --Unready (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editor[edit]

This has been noted at their talkpage by @Canuckle:. The website of the Evolve Multimedia describes them as developeing attractive websites, particularly river websites, see [7], [8]. They've been adding unsourced promotional spam to teh Britannia articles, and Mark Angelo- a river conservationist. Also some minor edits on World Rivers Day. Aside from the fact their username is an obvious violation, all these pages need massive cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly undisclosed paid editing, in contravention of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under Section4). The username also indicates a corporate account, contrary to WP:CORPNAME. The account needs to be blocked, but I will wait a day to give them a chance to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What started as a few questions has led to an attack on the pages and questions of the ethics of my work. Mark's page was started and largely written by someone other than myself. I have assisted the updates of these pages out of interest and I have volunteered time to complete these pages. I used my real name and business in the spirit of good digital citizenship. If you need to terminate the account because it uses my business account, that is fine but first let me know if you plan to delete my content. I understand the reasons for not allowing advertisement but do you really expect the average person to be able to edit in wikipedia? What if there are people who wish to contribute and cannot because the editor is intimidating and the review is even worse? I am concerned that this medium is becoming exclusive to an elite few who understand the rules and who can judge the proper intent, format and content for pages. In some ways this smacks of digital facism and the trial system is even worse, guilty until proven innocent or responds appropriately as judged by the few judges engaged at the moment. The proces is arbitrary and random....bit like a kangaroo court with little explanation of the rules when the account is set up and an ever changing list of do's and don'ts that seem to vary from reviewer to reviewer. My concern is for the pages. Requests were made to change, cite and update the pages and this was done for each request. Despite this fact, reviewers are keen to find 'obvious violations' and demand 'massive clean-ups' without explanation or inquiry into history or intent. Hardly in the spirit of a collaborative, open, participatory and fair system that is a resource for all. As for the promotional accusation, how are events, history and actions to be added so that they are not perceived as an advertisement? Is it the adjectives, the lack of a negative element, the format? What, in your defintion is a neutral tone? Provide a link, a resource and some assistance if you want to improve this rather than accusations, judgement and condemnation or you may find your contributor and interaction diminish to a select few in years to come. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (strike per intent of this dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC))
The evidence is clear. What normal editor would use a company name, of a company that specialises in writing articles about rivers? It's such a duck that there's a company involvement here. And you've pumped the articles so full of promotional praise for Mark Angelo it's ridiculous. Wikipedia is a collaboration, which is why all the other editors are working hard to clear up your promotional spam mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (removed, as possibly a bit harsh) Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
What a ridiculous statement Joseph. What normal person would accuse and assume the worst intent without inquiring first? If you want to talk about neutral tone, why not try one in your review and accusation of editors? I did not know that there was an issue with using a company name, it seemed far more insiduous to present oneself falsely and without identity. What promotional spam mess? The page in question is a biography of one man and the other pages are stories of a cleanup on a river and a global event about rivers? I understood this resource to be open to editing by everyone and that eveyone is an editor and the system to be supportive and educational. What a joke. I looked at the section referred to by John and I am not sure how my business, which is never mentioned on any page beyond the editing list at the bottom, which was not in my opinion of any import, was promoted by any content I added here. This dialogue and the process here is childish, punishing and unprofessional. I will delete my account myself and reconsider my payment to and support of this resource, which has been significant and steadfast over the past decade --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
One last statement before I delete my own account. This account has existed for over 5 years with no issue. I have interacted with numerous wikipedia editors over the last several months, none of whom indicated that there was an issue with my name and none who have been as viperous as Joseph. In each case where an issue was indicated, I followed up and made the best attempt to change, edit or update the pages in question. No other individual has identified it as a promotional page or noted any other issues with tone or content. To me, this recent series of comments and tags is thus suspect and indicative of issues beyond any legitimate problems with the page(s). Here in this forum and on my own talk page, I have asked several times for examples and for direction on how to correct the page and have recieved no constructive response. From another source,Jytdog that is outside this communication, I have received helpful advice on how to deal with the name issue and for that I am grateful and will follow their instructions for ending the account and association with a business name. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC) (strike per intent of this dif Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC))
I'd like to point out that it wasn't me who tagged all the articles as COI and advertising, and it wasn't me that found the evidence to accuse you of being an (obvious) undisclosed paid editor. I've done nothing wrong but collate the facts of other people into one place here. Also, @JohnCD: seems to agree that all the evidence shows you're an undisclosed paid editor, so I clearly can't just be talking rubbish, like you suggest. Talking of which, JohnCD please can you block them, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hey Evolve Multimedia. I have not looked at the content - am just dealing with the COI issues here. First, I know it can be hard to have a spotlight thrown on you like this. And I am sorry that Joseph is a bit harsh - he deals with the flood of conflicted editors we get here all day long, many of whom get very nasty, and it makes him be too short sometimes. But he is coming from a good place. I am sorry again for the harshness. But please step back and consider the Big Picture a bit.
I hope you can understand that Wikipedia is trusted by the public (for the most part) and one reason for that, is that we try to manage conflict of interest here. It is important. Please think about it - if this place were a garbage dump of promotional articles and so nobody every read Wikipedia, you would have no desire to edit here, right? You wouldn't waste your time. Think of Wikipedia like any public good - like a river. Editors with a conflict of interest are like factories dumping pollution into it. They want to use Wikipedia for whatever is important to them. They often think their outside interest is super important. That's fine, but not when it causes them to edit in a way that violates our policies.
So we try to manage COI here. What does that mean? Two things. We ask editors who have a COI to disclose it on their userpage, and on the talk pages of articles that interest them. And we ask them not to edit articles directly - and instead to propose content changes on the article Talk page, so that independent editors can review the content to make sure it is neutral per NPOV and well sourced. We have gotten some really great contributions that way. It is just like academia, really. Disclosure and peer review.
This doesn't have to be ugly and combative. It isn't "fascism". It is just a sound way to preserve the integrity of the public good, that is Wikipedia. I hope that all makes sense.
So please take a deep breath and think a bit before you reply. Will you please, simply, disclose any conflicts of interest you have (including, per the Terms of Use, any editing you have done for pay)? We can work with you to get that disclosure made complete and appropriately done. Also will you agree to not directly edit articles where you have a conflict of interest, and instead, offer suggestions on the Talk page? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
PS - as you noted, I tagged your account for a username violation. People edit Wikipedia, not companies. Would you please request a change to your username so that it reflects a single person, and please have just a single person use it going forward? You can't actually "delete" an account here - you can request a change to the name, which is better anyway. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted many of my comments here. Leave it to say that I did not percieve edits made to a page on behalf of someone who could not make the edits a conflict of interest. My work was voluntary and out of interest and assistance to another. I was also not aware that a business name was an issue. This account is over 5 years old and no one, in a number of interactions has asked me about the name or made any comment to suggest I should change it. For every change requested, I have done what was asked and was happy to comply with the wikipedia code. As previously requested, you may delete the name. I will not ask for a name change as I am not keen to continue editing or participating in this forum. It is a bit like quicksand and a miss step leads to a very difficult exchange. Out of deference for the efforts to everyone here, whether I found them pleasant or not, the content is deleted (as well as I can do so) and I hope the edits are made soon to the pages in question so that the tags are removed and these pages remain a resource for others. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reinstated the comments, as you aren't allowed to remove them, as it disrupts the talkpage. Also, it wasn't me who tagged you as a paid editor, the whole point of this board is to determine if you have a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I struck them, which was the appropriate way to achieve their intent, per WP:REDACT Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I have read through the above and will do the following: 1)request a name change as suggested by Jytdog; (2) I have given my time and supported updates to the pages in assistance to another who could not do so. While the pages do not promote me or my work, they do refer to organisations and individuals for whom I have worked in the past. The organisations are part of the context of the page and these seem to be listed as references and partners of the projects rather than a promotion of the organisations themselves and certainly provide no benefit to me. I understand that I may not do editing for pay and I agree to not directly edit articles where I have a conflict of interest (which includes any association with an organisation or individual). In future, if I were to participate in wikipdia, I would offer suggestions on the Talk page only. Its distressing that prior to the decision being made here, edits and deletions to the pages and my contributions are already being deleted some of which remove part of the history and context for changes to river management and health (Britannia Creek). (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Evolve Multimedia so here at COIN, we look for clear and simple disclosure. some simple questions, to make it easier for you to be clear:

  • have you ever edited WP for pay (for example someone hired you or Evolve to edit or create an article about them)? (that's a yes/no, please answer directly)
  • you have mentioned a couple of times that you made edits to a page "on behalf of someone". Can you say more about that relationship? (COI is about external relationships) Which pages do you make edits to, for that person?
  • Several editors here have said your edits were very promotional. Can you see their point? (Not asking if you agree, just if you can see what they mean)

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

well the above is pointless, as EvolveMedia has said they are leaving the project, per this. All that is left to resolve this is clean up the articles. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
For the cleanup, I'm concerned that Britannia Creek and Britannia Beach are very similar, with some of the relevant sources on each page. For example, Britannia Creek#History = Britannia Beach#Copper mine (1900-1974), and Britannia Creek#Treatment = Britannia Beach#Britannia Creek pollution. Would people complain if I merged Britannia Creek into Britannia Beach, as the extra information and sources would benefit that section. If no-one's complained by the time I get up, I'll be bold and do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, As I said above, I have volunteered my time for wikipedia and so the answer is no, for this I have not been paid. It seemed a simple and easy way to get involved and I have assisted another who cannot edit in this forum and who wished to add their own thoughts. I am happy to help with the cleanup but understand, given the comments and complaints, that given my association with the pages, I may not do so directly. If Joseph wishes to blend the two pages, that is fine with me as long as the new content and story in the Britannia Creek is included. As I said in earlier comments, this discussion is a lot of work and now that my ethics and contributions are at stake, I will stay in the conversation until it is resolved. If you think the content is promotional, then edit it. I did not start the Mark Angelo page and much of what is there existed prior to my involvement but I understand that there are issues and that there is an issue with the promotional tone of the page. For a story or issue, it would be easier to discern promotional where for an individual who has done these things, it is a bit harder. I welcome your input and suggestions but am not sure if I should participate in the actual editing. --Evolve Multimedia (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Evolve Multimedia: (seems like you're blocked but I'll post anyway) I'm sorry if I was harsh yesterday, but all the evidence did point towards an undisclosed paid editor, although I'm willing to accept that you're not. Having looked closer, it wasn't just you adding the content on these pages, so I'm sorry for wholly blaming you for it. Th issue I have with Britannia Creek and Britannia Beach is that lots of the content isn't supported by reliable sources, and so counts as original research- the basic principle on Wikipedia is that everything must be supported by a reliable source. My thought was merging them together would keep all the good content from both articles, so instead of having 2 articles, both with half the reliable sources, there would instead be 1 article that's pretty good. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A new editor claiming to be Mark Angelo has posted lots of sources here. I don't have time to go through them at the moment, but they look useful for cleaning up these pages. Added them to the COI users here, will tag the talkpages. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Panda Games[edit]

Been created by a SPA, and edited by some more. I tried cleaning it up, and got reverted by the last SPA, who also removed all the maintenance tags. A worse version of the article also existed at TribePlay (old name), which was created in 2012 by SPA Sir logance, and only edited by TribePlay and LTasc. Feel like it might be worth an SPA maybe- I've now redirected this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just gave it a little cleanup, e.g. removing LinkedIn SPS citation, let's see what happens. The stuff Joseph2302 removed and the SPA restored was a copyvio too [9] so thatxs another problem. Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the talkpage, also LTasc declared a COI here, and Brianhe has told them to post here about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I am doing this reply correctly but my child is a fan of the games and I was just trying to make sure they got represented accurately.I did reference the descriptions on their site but didn't think they were 100% verbatim nor did I realize that would be a copywrite vio.LTasc (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)LTasc
Trimmed the article a bit, took out some of the minor awards, and cleaned up the references. With 40 million installs, some press coverage, and some awards, it's notable, so that's not a problem. Please check. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder about those awards. First of all, many of the citations didn't check. Second, Parents' Choice Award may be legit, but who exactly are National Parenting Publications and Is this one of those things you can pay to get listed? — Brianhe (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine Sachs[edit]

I guess I'll go ahead and start this overdue conversation. The Signpost newsroom sums it up best -- another PR firm twiddling Wikipedia articles. Several editors self-disclosed six days ago; however, none disclosed the specific articles they worked on, and I found at least one IP from the organization who has not disclosed at all. Looking at edits close to the IP's reveal some other suspicious editors who have not disclosed. — Brianhe (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Note to other editors: I suspect another bunch of editors with COI around Armed Forces Foundation and Patricia Driscoll (business executive); a sockpuppet investigation concerning this was rejected in 2010. It doesn't immediately appear that they are related. Brianhe (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should applaud their acknowledgment of their mistakes and not (overly, overtly)penalize them, but not let them off the hook either. I'll suggest that somebody e-mail them (is this possible?) explain everything they have to do now to come into compliance, and suggest that they sign up for Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms. Careful on the last part - otherwise it might be read as arm-twisting or even extortion. And finally, we should thank them for fessing up! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Brianhe and Smallbones. I did send an email to this effect by email to Alexdltb (via a known address, not the email form) on Monday. I have not yet had any response. Here's the text of my email:
-Pete (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Ireland[edit]

Over the years Borntodeal has quite lovingly tended to the Kathy Ireland article. [10] The result is an article largely sourced to press releases that a person connected to Ireland would know about. They've recently started a related Ireland page: Draft:The Sterling Winters Company. Any concerns about this promotional editing or conflict of interest issues are quickly deleted under the guise of "moving". [11] --NeilN talk to me 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the editor I find it is very likely that they are operating with an undisclosed conflict of interest and that they are being financially compensated for promoting Kathy Ireland. It is the typical pattern, adding spam links, add large amounts of puffery to a very narrow range of articles. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Editor was clearly aware of these concerns for at least two years. — Brianhe (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe, can you please briefly explain how the articles/editors you added [12] are related? --NeilN talk to me 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Borntodeal-Danny D De Lillo connection is suggested by his uncontested editing of the userpage of editor with same name [13], and his introduction of the failed AfC on De Lillo [14]. The others are simple ownership-style behavior such as [15] at John Kiedis (renamed), and [16] at Victor Drai. There's also off-wiki evidence that links De Lillo and Kathy Ireland to a certain PR firm who they appear to be clients of, and John Kiedis/Blackie Dammett to the same firm as publisher of his autobiography. — Brianhe (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not engage in unsubstantiated rumor and speculation. And more importantly, stop vandalizing hours of research and hard work. Take your concerns to the Talk page and allow the community to provide constructive input.

You have a history of doing this to others as is evidenced by your own Talk page. Kindly refrain, engage in a nice way and work with the others who donate time to this platform.

Being rude, accusatory and making false statements is a serious matter. Kindly stop now.

Borntodeal (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are with your editing specifically. And as you delete notices from your talk page without any kind of substantive reply, we're here. --NeilN talk to me 01:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'm satisfied with the evidence that this editor is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. That blanking of the notice without comment is incredibly suspicious along with accusing NeilN of vandalism [17] and continue addition of spam. I propose an indef block, the editor has had over two years to follow disclosure guidelines and edit constructively, but has chosen not to. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Also they have broken 3RR which is grounds for a block as well. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked them. Special:Contributions/JoannaSRobinson needs evaluation in this case as well. As does Special:Contributions/
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
One look at JoannaSRobinson's twitter [18] reveals she is a paided PR agent for an organization representing Janet Jackson and Kathy Ireland. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
These guys weren't too good at concealing their identity, which was a factor in our favor. I expect the Wikipedia PR cold war to be more difficult in the future with more and more of the clumsy ones getting exposed and losing clients. One thing that might go in our favor is more of the rats turning on themselves, as appeared to happen here with a reintroduction of negative PR against a competitor's client. — Brianhe (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. At risk of getting off topic, is there anyway we could design the system so that disclosed paid editors are more efficient than undisclosed ones? I'm not sure it is as sneaky promotional content may be more effective and cheaper at promoting something than honesty. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeffed Borntodeal and JoannaSRobinson as undisclosed paid editors.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put on my Wikisleuth hat and dug into the extent of this PR companies activities and it is not pretty. There appear to be one major companies involved here with two minor PR agencies. The major one is LaForce & Stevens, a New York based agency which represents Jackson and Ireland. The minor ones have represented Ireland in the past include ExpoMarketing and Multi Media Productions USA. Pages of interest, and possibly affected include World Business Review, Kathy Ireland, Janet Jackson, Metro Video Productions, and a number of parties listed here especially Perry Ellis and Swarovski. There are possibly lots more, but I need to go to sleep. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There's been some trimming of fluff. The article could use more trimming in the awards, public speaking, and philanthropy sections, and some of the product info probably ought to go. Not finding any major scandals that have been omitted. Doesn't look too bad. Ireland really is notable as a model, in business, and in film/TV; this isn't the usual resume-inflation problem we get here. John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The philanthropy § sees particularly over the top. I'm actually surprised not to find negative stuff off-wiki about her political views, considering her brands' exposure to an activist campaign a la Chik-fil-A. — Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Club W[edit]


I first noticed this IP user had reintroduced some promotional stuff on One97 Communications, which was the creation of a self-declared paid editor who's been discussed here before. Now the IP has created this draft for a wine company. There's also an involved brand-new user that vanished. It looks weird. Proxy? Brianhe (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding four new editors and articles they touched: added the same external site (Best You magazine) to several bio articles as the IP did here. The bio articles look very much like stuff a PR company would be working on. One fine example from Draft:Lon Safko: he is "an American innovator, inventor, entrepreneur, author, trainer, and professional speaker". — Brianhe (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Not a surprise, guess what PR firm represents Best You? JH Public Relations. [19]Brianhe (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Have deleted one of this users other articles, Dr. Michael Mazaheri, as it was basically spam. Wondering what peoples thoughts are on this one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be a paid sock per [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Elite SEM etc.[edit]

User:Tonyeny states on his user page that he works at He created and has recently been editing the articles for Elite SEM and Ben Kirshner CEO of Elite SEM Inc. The rest of this user's edits probably should have a close look taken for COI since the user page makes mention of wiki-specific SEO work and the two pages above show a significant COI.Dialectric (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for the COI, I did not realize this. However, if you look at my activity on Wikipedia I have a solid contribution record. I'm not on here for self promotion or promotion of others. My contributions are for notable persons and companies, all which have high authority citations and references. I have updated pages mostly related to the industry I work in as that is what I'm most Knowledgeable about.
Thank you
Tonyeny (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Good thing you're here to "optimize" Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

looked at some diffs - not good...

Elite SEM speedied by Brianhe; speedy declined; AfD nominated by User:Tokyogirl79. Ben Kirshner PRODed by User:Joseph2302; dePROD by User:Tonyeny; de-dePROD by User:Jytdog (is this OK?). Other articles tagged for issues including notability but not currently slated for action. — Brianhe (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that we should at least give him a chance to edit within policy. Tonyeny, here's the COI deal: you need to put your COI on your userpage. Nothing flashy, just that you will occasionally edit on articles with a COI. If you can list these articles, that's going to be a big help. I'd also recommend that for the time being you only use AfC for any future COI article creations, since that would enable a second, uninvolved editor to look over the page. (This is good since if they were to approve an article before it's ready, the onus is on them to explain themselves - not you.) If you get particularly used to editing, sourcing, and showing notability you can forego this step, but I'd recommend that you only do that after a couple of years of hard core editing. If at any point you feel uncomfortable about pressure that's being put on you by your clients, let an admin know. It's not an easy path, being a COI editor. Heck, I volunteer at a state library and while they've never asked me to do anything bad, I've had to let them know that a couple of their pages are in serious risk of being deleted. It's not a good feeling and there is a moment of tenseness there. If at any point you do feel that a page needs to be looked at or deleted and you feel like your client can't take no for an answer, let an admin know - you should be able to e-mail any of us privately. You can also write in to Wikipedia and let them know as well.
I think that this is a good overview of what you'll need to do as a whole. There's more to this and I highly recommend that you read over WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Going through Wikipedia:Adventure or one of the other training modules is also highly recommended since it'll give you a brief overview of things. Now if you are interested in editing as a hobby (ie, on non-work related objects) then you may want to look into a separate account for that. If you do decide to do this, make sure that this is very, very clearly labled on both accounts that these are for the same person and very clearly label what each account is for. For example, I make edits under a separate account for the Library of Virginia via the account User:Tokyogirl79LVA - my manager decided that it'd be good to have the edits separated since that way it'd be easier for them, myself, and Wikipedia to track. (Not to mention that sometimes I'll edit on subjects that are clearly not history related, which can lend to confusion.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will read over the recommended guidelines. Tonyeny (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tonyeny: In case you missed it, here's the minimum request: you need to put your COI on your userpage. Nothing flashy, just that you will occasionally edit on articles with a COI. If you can list these articles, that's going to be a big help. — Brianhe (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I have updated my userpage accordingly.Tonyeny (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Tadano Faun[edit]

There's an editor called TADANO FAUN GmbH (talk · contribs) whose only edits are to our article on Tadano Faun GmbH. (The GmbH means a type of corporation, not an individual). Their edits are a little promotional, but not exceptionally so compared to other reports on this noticeboard. What's the best way forward? bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest reporting it on the Usernames for Admin Attention noticeboard. Geogene (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Internet Brands[edit]

The article contains a lengthy Controversies section, cited exclusively to primary sources, personal blogs, and The Register, which is a non-reliable tabloid source.[21] I think the section should receive the same immediate deletion we grant to BLPs, without prejudice to some of the content being re-incorporated if there are secondary sources (most of this stuff: dismissed lawsuits for less than $1 million, etc.; it is highly unlikely any quality sources exist or that these are significant at all).

I am not affiliated with this company and came across the article by chance, but I do have a possible, fairly remote COI, which is why I came here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Reporting myself since today I accepted a job offer from Sogeti. I made some edits to the page a month ago, which were done without a COI (I was preparing for a job interview there, and decided to make interview preparation more useful by using the research to improve their page), and do not plan to edit the page anymore. Also planning to stay away from articles on their clients/competitors. Tagged the article talkpage and declared it on my userpage per the COI procedure, but figured this was the best way for people to check the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Looks fine to me; I made a few tweaks. It's up to you, but IMO I would not disclose your COI in this case. As an example, you may not want your employer knowing that you are the one that added a Controversy section to their page. One of the reasons we operate on an anonymous model is to protect employees from real-world repercussions of their employers knowing about their editing. CorporateM (Talk) 03:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed Removed the COI from talkpage. I figured it was best for people to be aware, but if people are happy for me to not disclose COI, then that's obviously better for me. Like I said, I don't plan to edit about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the growing and largely unchecked prevalence of blatant astroturfing has resulted in some excess caution in the area of COI. From my perspective, you never had, nor do you currently, have a COI, which is defined based on the motivations of the editor. Current/former clients/employees are exactly the types of editors we would expect to edit company pages. You are probably the most likely editor in all of Wikipedia to take an interest in this page and make quality contributions to it, but now that you have chosen to abstain, the article is unlikely to improve. That's a shame, a loss for Wikipedia and something worth the community reflecting on. OTOH, if you worked in marketing and your boss instructed you to edit, that would naturally be a very different case. (*steps off soapbox) CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
to be clear, joseph is 100% correct that he should not directly articles about his employer. he should feel very free to offer suggestions on the Talk page - we sometimes get great contributions that way and Joseph's proposal would likely be easy to implement, based on his experience and the extra vigilance he would apply to the proposals he would make. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I'm not working in marketing for them, and wouldn't want to use Wikipedia to soapbox anyway (I'm a software tester, starting next month). Also, I ran out of English sources about them, so only someone fluent in French, German or Dutch would actually be able to expand the article further, and I don't tend to edit articles about companies much anyway. And I do personally disagree about the COI, I think that anyone editing the Wiki page about their company does have a COI, even if it's done in good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for disclosing and agreeing not to direct edit for them. Congrats on the job! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


declared COI
undeclared COI articles (chronological order)
botched(?) COI
drafts to watch

G2003 hasn't come clean as a paid editor per agreement at ANI (see archive 859). Background: has been active for years now. Notified of COI in early 2013 and denied in mid 2014 then admitted in late 2014 with a promise to stop. Never explicitly enumerated paid connection(s). My investigation of articles edited shows big discrepancy between declared COI and the remainder. Brianhe (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that they are a paid editor, and yet they've failed to actually disclose it properly, and are continuing to do it despite claiming to have stopped. Saying "I've been paid to maintain this article" is insufficient, the Terms of Use specifically require that the client who paid them is disclosed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To be completely clear, his October 2014 promise was to stop paid advertising. Not sure what that's even supposed to mean in terms of our COI policy; is it paid advocacy? Is a list of product "key features" advertising? — Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
They have not done much editing lately. This is a concern though [22]. Maybe a block until issues can be clarified would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block proposed by @Doc James:. Tagged Jessica Huie, MBA Polymers, Jay Mo, Yank Barry, Landbay, Henry Herbert Tailors, DAMAC Properties, Charlotte Fantelli, Shane Zaza with COI notices. The others seem to have had a reasonable amount of non-COI input from other editors, else were already tagged. — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Added some COI-ful userspace drafts to watch in case of future shenanigans. — Brianhe (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block, at least until they're willing to disclose properly, and IMO should be longer than that. Undisclosed paid editing is not acceptable, and undisclosed paid editing after apparently claiming that you'd stop it is even worse. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tagging Yank Barry on the article page flags a moot issue. It's been almost a year since G2003 edited that article, and that dispute, which went all the way to litigation, has since been resolved. I'd suggest taking the COI notices off articles where the edit wasn't recent and has since been undone. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Undid Yank Barry COI notice, thanks for seeing that. What else do you suggest? — Brianhe (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Also useful to note that there are numerous article that G2003 created that were subsequently deleted for failing a range of guidelines and policies (admins can take a look at their long list of deleted contributions). One deleted article was a hoax, although it does appear that G2003 himself was hoaxed (the subject also managed to get similar stuff onto Fox News Asia's site) rather than him having any malicious intent – however it does show the perils of such an approach. Number 57 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Resolved: seems like not a big deal Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a follow up to the ANI about Seattleditor, who had 2 sock accounts and ran SearchWrite, an SEO firm, and seattle24x7, a directory of Seattle businesses and stuff. In the ANI I said I was going to post their client list here and review them for COI activity, since it would not be surprising had they worked on others. I removed big clients like Microsoft and apple because pointless. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

removed redlink clutter Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
just checked them all, seems OK. looks like seattle editor wasn't that damaging after all. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


sundry IPs, too morphy to list

Should a COI tag be removed by an off-wiki friend of the article subject?

This is an article on Metasonix, a minor electronics firm. As far as I know, this is also a very small company, little more than a one-man band. The one man in question is EricBarbour, indeffed here in 2009 but who maintains a keen interest in WP through his very busy activities at Wikipediocracy. These raise significant COI issues – Wikipediocracy and Eric Barbour's activities there are far from "GF" towards Wikipedia, as evidenced by his regular calls to "hasten the day" (which can only be assumed to be some sort of eschatological call for the collapse of Wikipedia).

A COI tag has appeared here today, within a flurry of IP edits and claims of socking by (the indeffed) Eric Barbour. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_apparently_from_Eric_Barbour_and_Wikipediocracy.

The COI tag has just been removed by WP admin Alison. However Alison is also very active at Wikipediocracy, to the point where she can only be seen as a friend of Eric Barbour and certainly far too closely involved to be removing COI tags on such an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh please! Eric Barbour hasn't edited here in nearly six years, yet gets a mention here. In fact, he makes a point of saying he hasn't. I'm barely active on either Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy these days due to work and family commitments. Frankly, this whole affair smacks of shaming through article tagging, and I note that a large number of his detractors have gone over the article in fine detail in the interim years. There's no earthly way the article as it stands reflects any conflicts of interest on the part of Eric. Tagging it so looks just like a petty smear campaign against the man and his business. Ok - i'm out - Alison 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Eric has edited here (he admits as much at WO) and if he hasn't, it's because he's indef blocked, not just because the muse wasn't upon him. This article is still a plug for his company.
I make no comment on the rightness of the COI tag, or the existence of this article. Merely that you, as an active colleague of Eric's at Wikipediocracy, should not be the one removing it.
"Ok - i'm out" – no you're not. The next thing you did was to start edit-warring to remove the tag again. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And again.[23], falsely claiming that this discussion sanctioned her continued yanking off that tag. Oh wait a minute, I think I know what Alison means by "I'm out." It means she's not going to discuss it anymore, and just edit war over it. Discuss it here, that is. I'm sure she'll have plenty to say at her website. Coretheapple (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alison: I must agree with Andy. Any editor in your position would have an appearance of COI, as editing an article about a friend's business. You are held to an even more strict standard as a WP admin, so IMHO you shouldn't be editing it. — Brianhe (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Andy and Brianhe. This is not the first time Alison has weighed in to help out a Wikipediocracy chum, or to even edit Wikipediocracy itself. It's unseemly. True, our rules aren't very strict, but that doesn't mean that Alison should act like there aren't any. Coretheapple (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
edit warring over COI tags is usually not productive. Alison fwiw in my view you should have reviewed the article for NPOV and sourcing before you pulled the tag. That's all the tag is really for - to signal that an article may be too promotional or denigrating... (which is usually b/c of COI editing, but sometimes fans/haters) and needs somebody independent to review it. I don't know EB nor the company and just reviewed the article and cleaned it up. There was unsourced promo stuff in it. Not so much anymore. Closing this and archiving it so it doesn't become too much dramah Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't close discussions in which you participate. Coretheapple (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not participate. I fixedit. There is apparently remaining dramah, in which i will not participate. whatever. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh no, you didn't "fix it." You are not the moderator of the COI board and you don't close discussions because you think they ought to close. This is precisely the kind of problem that people have with you, over and over again. You really need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If an editor's only "problem" is ignoring drama and fixing a problematic article, then I hope more come down with that disease. (Redacted) the rest, per request. Tarc (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of fanatical obsession with that website, why did you just say the COI tag on this article's talk page has some connection to that website?[24] That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. There is and should be a COI tag on the article talk page because a significant contributor heads the company that is the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This matter popped up on my watchlist, so I thought I'd take a look. Coretheapple is in the right of it, the removal of the tag and the problematic closure of the discussion here are questionable. Additionally, Tarc's demeanor is uncollegial at best. I say put the tag back on per Andy, Brianhe, and Coretheapple, and discuss further. This situation may call for a larger discussion via an Rfc. Jusdafax 06:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the circumstances (and Coretheapple's involvement as a very enthusiastic follower of all things related to Wikipediocracy), BLP concerns really need to be given more weight. There's no evidence at all that Mr. Barbour has been editing this article, so a tag saying so is essentially an unreferenced claim of wrongdoing. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I see the COI tag more as a swipe at Alison than at someone who has not edited here in 6 years. Editors who should know better around her sometimes treat her as Mata Hari for holding admin roles in both venues. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the target, the effect of the COI template for the reader will be the same. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 15:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a somewhat different take on the issue of notice, I think it's always a service to readers when the fact is present - it's no more a swipe at anybody then a section of a magazine that says 'this section is from . . .' - it is just info the reader should know, and they can ignore it, if they like, but it should be up to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The tag is for exactly this kind of situation. When pals of a COI editor want his contribution concealed from the public it's bad stuff. Should be a Wikipediocracy article on it. Oh never mind. 2600:1017:B415:7A50:C0D9:4884:5811:3A60 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The tag isn't necessarily for readers, it is more for editors in the same way a cleanup or unreferenced tag is. The problem is when what is referred to as "drive-by tagging" occurs, which is what went on here, doubly so when the tagger does not bring legitimate concerns to the talk page, but rather initiates a trolling discussion, it can and should be reverted. If one wishes to note that a Wikipedia editor is connected to the subject, there is a template for that for the article talk page. Btw, the IP6 editor above is the tagger, if that wasn't obvious by now. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • to be clear, the original edit warring was over a COI tag on the article . I cleaned up the article and see no need for that tag anymore. Whether it was warranted in the first place, I don't much care. The posting here brought attention to the article, I went over it and removed puffery and unsourced content which is the content-concern generated by COI editing (I assume others have reviewed what I did to the article, and I have seen no further changes, so it seems that what I did was OK) There is now a different discussion about a {{notable user}} tag referencing EricBarbour on the article Talk page. In my view such a tag is not unreasonable. Not much use since as far as I understand it, that editor hasn't edited here in a long time, but it is not unreasonable. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I came here from the WO thread. That said, going through the history since 2009 indicates no COI editing since Eric was blocked. I see no reason why the tag should remain. KonveyorBelt 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • update. The IP who was edit warring over the COI tag on the article has just said that they see no need for a COI tag on the article anymore. The {{notable user}} tag that was added to the Talk page here seems to be sticking. What open issues are there? Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you've got that crossed up. 2600:1017 is the tagger, 2607:FB90 is different person who reverted 2600's tag and commented on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The tag read “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject”. The main contributors to this article seem to have been Jokestress (talk · contribs), Goldenglove (talk · contribs) and Savagebeautysound (talk · contribs). None of these are sockpuppets of Eric, AFAICS. Eric did make a small number of edits, some of which have been removed. I have a conflict of interest here (I know Eric well), but the facts do not support replacing the tag. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you pay careful attention to the original post you'll see that this isn't about the presence of the tag, but about who should remove it. If Jytdog has looked at the article, decided it's in an appropriate state and then removed it, I'd have no issue with that. If Alison removes it, or an IP, or indeed yourself (the same Wikipediocracy issue) then I see that as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The tag was added in bad-faith by a drive-by IP editor who did not initiate a meaningful talk page discussion on the matter. It was eligible to be removed by anyone for that reason alone. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If all this is about amounts to the wrong sister putting the milk back in the fridge, you sure just created a lot of meaningless drama. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That sister hangs around with friends I don't much care for, because in the past I've known them to spit in my milk. In a thread that you joined in with. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear on something. The talk page tag (which is the subject of this topic) was there for some years, and then was removed by a drive-by IP[25] reinstated, and then repeatedly removed by editors who left increasingly abrasive edit summaries. The COI issue was raised based on the COI of the editors removing the tag from the talk page, not its addition to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Popular Front of India[edit]

There is no doubt that this user has joined Wikipedia only to promote Popular Front of India. Simply watching his edit count through xtools gives a clear image that he has links with the organization. His edits are related to remove anything negative about PFI even if it's from a reliable source and add positive words about Popular Front of India from unreliable sources. He is not a new user. He is aware of what is NPOV. Something he is not following at all. even talk page discussion is fruitless. He is not a sympathizer. Most likely he has links with that organization.His other edits are sister organizations of PFI. This is something which makes my doubt more strong. Why he is editing only PFI related articles. I want any administrator/volunteer, who is not from South-East Asia to look into this. Then the neutrality of this COI dispute will be solved. He has made so many edits to these articles, that I can't give all the differences. It will take up huge space and the neutral volunteer will have trouble. Still simply checking his edits will make the case clear. @Human3015: (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This matter has been already discussed on ANI [26] and admins there suggested to go for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I will go for arbitration, but still if you have time then open this issue on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, read my comments on ANI here, it will help you. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment already under discussion - suggest you create a username so that multiple instances are regulated. If you have noticed, this page has had multiple blank out from numerous IPs. WP Admins have been notified for semi-protection. WP is about absolute facts - 3 parts of this page is see : 1. Facts 2. Works being done. . Allegation that are yet to be proven. Apart from my various edits from Sachin Tendulkar to Ebola, I see the 1 & 2 to be inline with WP. Allegation seems to smear any person or organisation, and that's not constructive -should I be rather doing that?. And you don't need to linked to any group to edit any page. As Human3015 mentions, the opposition is a clear right wing fascist group, I should take that you, , are not amongst them. I am for humanity, anti-fascism and alternatives. Suggest you have a username so that things are transparent; my edits are for the scrutiny for any neutral individual any where in this e-world Huhshyeh (talk)


I'm a long term editor on wikipedia, mostly contributing images, and doing copyedits. I started work for a company called Vestmark last year, but they don't have a Wikipedia page. Is it an automatic conflict of interest if I started an article on Vestmark? I don't want to get in trouble. There's already a red link to it from Managed account. Faolin42 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Please go through WP:AFC. — Brianhe (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Since there's an automatic conflict of interest, I won't create the article. Faolin42 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Faolin42: You can request an article to be made on them by someone without COI at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be smart to include your relationship with Vestmark on your userpage too, to avoid future problems. — Brianhe (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Surely if their company doesn't have a Wikipedia page, then a COI declaration is unnecessary? Think that was the outcome of a discussion above involving me and COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just thinking über defensively, if Faolin42 wants to be covered for any future accusation of an undeclared COI, a pre-emptive declaration on his userpage would work. He's in an especially vulnerable position, having given his real-world name and place of residence on his userpage, and declaring a COI here. But of course, reviewing his edit history, it doesn't appear to be necessary at this time so I'll leave it up to him to decide what's right for him. — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just about everyone works for somebody. It would be silly if everyone had to declare their employer on their user page because someone thinks they might at some unspecified future time edit an employer's article. Feel free to tell me that the COI policy means everyone must declare their employer, unless they're unemployed, but I warn you that you have an uphill battle, and I'm pretty sure that's not the meaning of the policy. --Unready (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Joseph and Unready on this. Seems silly to disclose all associations. We all have them, obviously. WP:TOS considers stating such associations on the relevant edit summaries if and when any COI is apparent. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Prime Focus Technologies[edit]

Editor listed above created article with the suffix apparently because the un-suffixed title has been protected after speedy deletion as PROMO thrice. Brianhe (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted, account blocked. There's actually a rather long history behind this, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eli786 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kdzrules. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your explanation helped me find some more probable socks. - Brianhe (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I knew I'd seen Prime Focus Technologies recently, seems that I reviewed that draft a couple of weeks ago. I've put the draft up for G5, obvious block evasion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the draft. As to the other two accounts, perhaps re-opening the SPI would make this more transparent. I have a feeling these are part of a large for-pay editing ring that deals mainly with entertainment topics in India. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richa101091, I've been convinced for quite some time that these are all part of a huge meat farm as FreeRangeFrog states. So large, in fact, that it calls into question the entirety of the India Films section on the English wiki. Unfortunately, the number of socks created, and the way they are used makes it difficult to provide substantial enough behavioral evidence to endorse a check user, or definitively block accounts. I've now taken to simply monitoring known target pages for recreations as the only way to catch new socks, and hopefully have them checked for sleeper accounts. I still feel like we are just cutting many heads off the hydra, rather than attacking the body, but not sure what else to do at this point. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sofitel Luxury Hotels[edit]

Off-wiki evidence suggests this was just hired out by XXXX PR to a banned user for "review" and "monitoring". Article is a mess of promotion and directory of locations. I've listed an SPA who uploaded a logo and did some stuff there, they may be with the contracting PR firm, suspect other redlinked usernames in the article history. — Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to move the page back to Sofitel- the page was moved from there in 2014 with the edit summary "More in line with the company's name and branding"- not a good reason. Also, the reliable sources call it Sofitel. Removed most of the directory as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Sofitel (at least in Singapore) appears to be represented by Ogilvy Public Relations[27], who, as a CREWE signatory[28], have pledged not to do this sort of thing. I've concluded that one of their independent contractors in Singapore, name withheld due to WP privacy policy, is probably behind at least some of this editing and the recent sub-sub contract. What this means I'll leave up for discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Some details, including name of contractor, have been emailed to functionaries team. — Brianhe (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is a question about Ogilvy being able to fix the problem, or indeed if the question is whether Ogilvy is the problem, then you should not hesitate to email or otherwise contact the listed contact. But please do be extremely polite about this. This should be along the line of "do you know anything about this?" or "Is there anything you can do about this?" along with "Just letting you know that the company's name has come up." I'm pretty sure that they will do the right thing. Smallbones(smalltalk)
CREWE is really just a PR gesture, so I doubt that most of the "signatories" even remember that they "signed." Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Terri Bjerre[edit]

The primary author of the article appears to be the subject of the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I PRODed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Lycheerecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Katfal36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appear to be WP:SPA, although have not edited for years. Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Simplified COI edit request guide[edit]

Hi all - I made Wikipedia:Simple COI request (aka WP:COIREQ), because WP:EDITREQ is just too long and confusing to newbie users. Any improvements and feedback are of course welcome. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also a friendly reminder to the COI experts here to look at Category:Requested edits, the regular edit request backlog is quite minimal but this one is three months behind. Let's try to help out the COI editors who aren't cheating the system. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP spamming[edit]

This email was recently sent to UCSF staff.

Thus we need to keep our eyes out for this sort of stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sent to UCSF staff by someone within UCSF's hierarchy, or just someone spamming UCSF employees? If the former, it's serious; if the latter, it's just another spammer. John Nagle (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the ultimate way to solve this type of problem is just to ban paid editing on BLP article pages, with the usual exception for removing libel and similar. If we let people know that BLP paid editing is just not allowed, it will be much much easier dealing with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Their website doesn't work but if you look at godaddy, their domain is owned by this SEO company. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually google gives a cached version of their website and it's clear that they are knowingly violating our rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

M-150 (energy drink)[edit]

This elance job to "enhance the brand image" of "a brand I'm trying to promote" and "help business people around the world researching our company/brand to gain confidence in us" just might have something to do with the recent flurry of activity on M-150 (energy drink). Noting for COI patrollers who might want to keep an eye out for new spammy contribs to any energy drink articles. Not listing any particular contributor at this time but a strongly worded defense of the article has been made on its talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Data point -- of all the independents listed at {{Energy drinks}}, M-150 (energy drink) had over 20 edits, Red Bull had about a dozen, and the rest had between zero and four edits in June. — Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

nice catch! Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There was also a string of promotional edits by Com2go (talk · contribs) at Shark Energy (owned by the same parent company). SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Irom Chanu Sharmila[edit]

Mr Coutinho is the subject's fiancee and also claims to be her spokesperson. When he has posted worthwhile information I have re-worded and referenced it properly. However most of his edits are aimed at persuing vendettas against activist groups and Sharmila's family, including the person reliable sources say is her official spokesperson. Many of his edits contain information that I can't verify anywhere(ie original research). He has repeatedly been told of the policies on original research and conflicts of interest, but often responds with personal abuse. He has recently found the "undo" button and has been using it to add unencyclopediac misleading original research. -- haminoon (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have supplied a reference from the Times of Assam which backs what I have been saying which Mr Haminoon deleted but has now allowed on the talk page. I supplied a reference from an NDTV 11 minute interview regarding the honor killing threat against Sharmila the diversion of funds by so called supporters. But Mr Haminoon deleted that. He also deleted the references to the two currrent trials for reasons best known to himself. He also deleted an Indian Express reference to continued hijacking of support against Sharmila. There is no point in providing references if you allow rogue editors to write out of wiki observable facts. I can provide references to both to my own 77 days incarceration with torture protecting Sharmila's life I have never pursued a vendetta against any group in Manipur. If they cease from activities designed to secure her premature death I have no problem with them. Mr Haminoon has produced a vague attack mentioning a vendetta but he doesn't state which groups he wishes to support. The honor killing threat made by Sharmila's brother against her is well documented now. What most Indian groups now say is that this is a personal famliy matter. Honor killing is not a big deal in India. I can provide more references for the distancing of Sharmila from her brother but will you allow them to stay. I suggest you set up a controversies section for Irom Sharmila and allow both views to be documented. Obviously there is a network of human rights agencies NGOs and CSOs that Mr Haminoon has backed as gospel. But there are many other view points. Manipur is a third world police State. Sharmila is campaigning for the return of hte rule of law. He claims reliable sources back another spokesman. But in making that claim withour producing any references he is indulging in what he claims I do. I am asking for another well documented view to be published on wiki because it's published elsewhere. I found this site because it is first listing on google search past 24 hours Irom Sharmila. So I respond now. The reference Mr haminoon had given on my talk page did not bring me here. Please check and confirm the references I have given and if Mr Haminoon wants to provide references behind the policy he seems to accept will cause her death in 7-20 days can he provide them. They can then be put alongside with rebuttals. Would that not be better editing than simply allowing one side to hold sway because of petty bullying and vandalism.DesmondCoutinho (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks pretty complicated, I'll make 3 suggestions:
  • @DesmondCoutinho: does have a COI and should limit his contributions to the talk page of the article
  • @Haminoon: has made his point, but seems to be pursuing it with excessive zeal. Voluntarily recusing yourself from the article would calm things down and help a lot.
  • The rest of us can look at User:DesmondCoutinho's referenced suggestions on the talk page and decide whether to include them. There's a holiday weekend coming up so please be patient. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Smallbones: I am unsure eaxctly what you mean by excessive zeal, but I will refrain from editing the article until after the American weekend with the exception of removing defamatory statements from articlespace. Speaking of which, the above statement accusing a man of threatening to kill his sister is clearly defamatory. Obviously most of the things Mr Coutinho has said about myself and other editors are incorrect. Feel free to ask me for clarification on any of it. Re a "controversies" section: There probably should be a section talking about the schisms between her supporters and the honour killing threat(s). However it is very difficult as one of the main figures in the arguments sends abuse to anyone editing the page. I'm certainly not going to write that section of her biography. -- haminoon (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am copying this exchange to send to Irom Sharmila Chanu who has little say on what goes on in her life, there is authenticity in her having no say in what is written about her by your club. Your club guidelines are quite clear. This is about collusion in the accidental death of another Indian Political Prisoner. You have a small part to play, but we all got small parts. She is on trial today in Imphal 4th July. That's not for wiki. I'll send her this exchange. Now it depends on how the crowd behaves. Looks like you have a fight on your hands and given wiki is a club I don't think anybody wants to fall out with other club members. The question is do you value wiki above not falling out with wiki colleauges. <redact>DesmondCoutinho (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Morgan James Publishing and related articles[edit]

User:TriJenn has a COI on their userpage saying they "sometimes work on client articles". They've been repeatedly adding unsourced content to Morgan James Publishing, and adding Morgan James Publishing as book publishers on the other articles (despite the fact no other book publishers are listed on them). This strongly suggests that Morgan James Publishing are paying this user to edit/spam, especially as Morgan James Publishing previously paid User:BiH to create the article about them. I've asked them about COI and specific disclosure on their talkpage, but they aren't responding, but continue to edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
They also previously created Randy Gage via WP:AFC, disclosing him as a "previous client" (not an adequate disclosure).Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have copied my response to Joseph2302 from my User Talk page:
First, Morgan James Publishing is a past client. I am not currently receiving compensation from them, nor do I expect to do so for this editing work. Frankly, I can not figure out how to add this information to my USER PAGE. I would appreciate instructions to help me do that. I assume this is the place to do that. If not, please let me know. (Yes, I see that I made edits to this page before. However, I truly can not figure out how to do it.)
I noticed that their page was marked as AfD and I wanted to help by linking to notable authors. I believe it is good policy to add sources to author pages such as books they have written, who the publisher was, and ISBN numbers. This is what I was doing. I hardly think this is spam.
Further, isn’t adding notable, credible information what is supposed to be done when an article is marked as AfD? If I know that information, shouldn’t I share it?
As to your point that my information was unsourced, the very definition of sourcing - based on the article you referenced - is to cite the publisher.
Definition of a source[edit]
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
As for “not responding” to you, with all due respect, I responded quickly as soon as I saw your notice. It takes a few minutes to generate a thoughtful, researched response to concerns such as yours.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriJenn (talkcontribs) 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Copied my response:

With respect, the issue is that you aren't adding sourced content, you're adding completely unsourced content, as it's not being accompanied by reliable sources- saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Also, you weren't responding to me and were continuing to edit hence my complaint. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@TriJenn: You can edit your userpage by going through this link: Special:Mypage. — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Thanks very much. I will take care of that.TriJenn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I also wanted to let you know that I had written out my detailed response, thought I saved it, and only later did I see that it was not saved at all. So, I had to completely rewrite it. It all took some time. TriJenn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Your link took me to my User page. I have no trouble finding the page. I just can't figure out how to edit it. I see no "edit" option, like on other pages. I have done extensive searches inside and outside of Wikipedia. I feel pretty stupid as I am sure this is quite simple. However, I can't figure it out. TriJenn (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The edit button is in the same place as anywhere else on Wikipedia. Also, you still need to stop ignoring the bit where I said "due to your COI, you are discouraged from directly editing these articles, use the article talkpage instead". Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jason Rapert[edit]

This user either is the politician in question or is an aide or other close relation. In October 2013, once in June, and now today, this user has attempted to whitewash the article by deleting some details that aren't flattering to the subject. The most recent edit summary was "Information has been removed from the page that was written by political opponents to injure the reputation of Sen. Rapert. Any additions using the Arkansas Times as a reference is suspect - that is an online blog, not a news source." Arkansas Times is a WP:RS. I ask that this user be blocked from editing the page in question due to WP:COI and an unwillingness to engage in discussion despite attempts on the user's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Watching the article, as are others, and I left a message for them on their Talk page... Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Mitchell House & Museum[edit]

User adding information to this article, using themself as a resource. They claim I am the founder, former board chair and Executive Director Emeritus of the Margaret Mitchell House and Museum (1990-2004). I am adding to the history of the House. Repeated attempts to reason with user and explain our policies have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps others will be more successful. Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, Earthwave, WP:SELFCITE, Gabor B. Racz[edit]

Incorrect application of a 2014 policy to 2011 edits; not even the current ToU requires extirpation of all edits related to a COI. The conflict of interest was declared at the time of the edits. The appropriate action is to objectively review the applicable links from the perspective of current external link policy and remove or retain as appropriate. Note that this is an updated and corrected close. Risker (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Original close at 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

I left a version of the message below at Atsme's Talk page here, which she archived seconds later I've changed the pronouns to 3rd person from 2nd person for posting here, so folks don't have to click over there.

Way back in Sept 2011 Atsme started here by adding a bunch of links to Earthwave Society and edit warring over them...

And was posted for spam blacklisting but was for some reason not acted on.

Atsme soon went to WP:ELN where she disclosed the following:

I added an external link from Wiki's sturgeon page to Earthwave Society's sturgeon page in an effort to enhance the Wiki resource. I serve as Exec. Director of Earthwave Society (EWS), and had authority to do so. I did the same for the Wiki gar page, and paddlefish page by adding external links to corresponding species pages at the EWS website. Over the years, EWS has accumulated valuable information and rare footage on some of the primitive fishes. I produced several of the first video documentaries ever produced on gar, the 7 North American species of sturgeon, and the paddlefish. PBS initially aired several of the primitive species documentaries, and received excellent ratings. We also allowed the public to come in and view the documentaries at our Texas location. Of course, not everyone can travel to Texas to watch the programs, so we made them available at the EWS website for a small donation which includes the cost of duplication, shipping & handling. There are also several reviews and testimonials at the EWS website from students, teachers, and researchers who appreciate the excellent resources at the EWS website.

That whole thread is here. There is no consensus in that thread to include those links, per WhatamIdoing's last remark, which Atsme seemed to accept at that time.

Atsme left for a while between Oct 2011 and Jan 2014 and when she came back, she worked over many of those articles she had originally edited, and went right back and added a bunch of cites to earthwave. She didn't re-disclose her relationship with earthwave this time.

Today there are 21 links to Earthwave in Wikipedia, some on talk and other pages. Here are the instances in article space:

As Atsme is the executive director of Earthwave and is citing herself, this is all undisclosed COI editing. There are some among us who think self-citation should be banned in WP. That is not my stance, but it is not good that she went ahead and added all those citations to Earthwave after folks said "no" at ELN.

I don't know what the relationship is between Gabor B. Racz and Atsme or Earthwave, but for some reason there is a posting on the earthwave facebook page that his WP article is complete, which Atsme worked on quite a bit. Perhaps he is on the Board of Directors?

I provided Atsme with the formal notice of our COI guideline, and tagged the articles listed above and their Talk pages where Atsme has edited with a COI.

Note - Atsme went around after me and removed the COI tags herself:

  • here on alligator gar
  • here on american paddlefish
  • here on paddlefish
  • here on sturgeon
  • here on Gabor B. Racz}

In my original message to her, I asked Atsme to do the following:

  • To add a disclosure of her relationship with Earthwave on her Userpage
  • To refrain from citing Earthwave and herself going forward
  • To disclose the relationship with Gabor B. Racz

She and I have a difficult past. I tried talking to her directly. Since that failed, I am posting here, and will recuse myself going forward. I have notified Atsme of this discussion. Hopefully the community can help her manage her COI with little drama. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am currently preparing a case for ANI so there is no need for me to respond in both places. This isn't about a COI, this is about a serious case of hounding and harassment by Jytdog. Atsme📞📧 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes agree this is a COI and we need clear disclosure from User:Atsme Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to add something. Besides WP:SELFCITE and WP:PROMO there are probably issues with WP:SPS with regard to using atsme's writings on earthwave's website as sources in articles. Just realized that. And I guess I'll just also say that this is all just sad and ironic in light of all the fuss around the advocacy essay and its predecessor. COI is just a subset (an especially virulent subset for sure) of the larger problem of advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What you are doing now is "outing" and with it is there will be some heavy penalties. Atsme📞📧 00:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll respond to that. You disclosed your RW relationship with Earthwave here in WP as described above. I thought about WP:OUTING carefully in writing this, as I always do when I work on COI issues here, and you have no case under OUTING. None. Instead of escalating and creating drama, it would just be great if you responded to the three things I requested and we could all move on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Atsme: Do you have evidence that Jytdog discussed any real-world particulars about you prior to your 2011 self-disclosure? A baseless accusation of WP:OUTING is also a pretty serious violation of community norms. Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's right here, Brian. He is doing it right here. Any mention of a potential relationship with EWS was supposed to have been removed. I have the original email correspondence requesting its removal. He also added templates at all the articles. Atsme📞📧 00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:OUTING starts with this sentence: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Seems like the exceptional clause applies in this case. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't removed. What you are basically saying now Atsme is that not only did you edit with a COI and promote your organization despite community consensus, but you wanted to edit under an undisclosed COI. You are making things worse for yourself. Again, if you would just deal with the three requests, that would be great - and please do explain why there is a posting about Gabor B. Racz on the Earthwave facebook page - what is the relationship? Thanks. OK, I will step out of this again. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the listed uses of a reference to Earthwave was not due to User:Atsme. This diff[29] shows it was I that included the reference - not sure how many other purported COI edits listed by Jytdog might be inaccurate.DrChrissy (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't list that article above. You are right that I tagged that article wrongly; atsme didn't edit it. I realized that after I tagged it and before i posted here. have removed the tags from the article and noted that you added the link above. I'll leave aside the issue of why you chose to use that particular source - there is enough drama here already. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I think you did list that article - see here.[30] I hope you are not attempting to mislead editors. Moreover, I very much dislike the snipey way you suggested I might have used a source for anything other than simply providing a RS. I consider such aspersions to be WP:uncivil and I am sure I do not need to remind you that you have already been warned about uncivility toward me[31] - please strike that offending comment.DrChrissy (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
when I say "list" i mean the list of articles at the top of this posting. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You listed Ambush predator as an article containing Earthwatch as a source. If this article was not edited by Atsme, why did you include it - it has absolutely no relevance to this claim of COIN? Now let's return to your aspersion that my use of the Earthwatch source was anything other than simply using it as a RS. This is a clear public questioning of my motivations for editing. I repeat - please strike you uncivil suggestion.DrChrissy (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to know what proof exists of any ties Gabor B. Racz, and why he was included. AlbinoFerret 01:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no OUTING here. Once an editor comes under scrutiny for COI editing, everything they've substantially contributed to comes under scrutiny. The Racz article is problematic, particularly in the medical device and procedure sections which aren't MEDRS sourced. This is a GA so I don't know whether it needs to be re-reviewed or it can be fixed. Ca2james (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That may be, but out of all the articles she has edited, why is this one singled out? I see no earthwave link on it.AlbinoFerret 01:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
an update was posted on the Earthwave facebook page on April 14 saying that the Wikipedia article on the doctor was complete. Why is that there? (it is a real question). I wrote about that above. (Atsme created the article and finished a run of edits on April 12, btw) Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All I'm going to say is that you have made some pretty bold assumptions. Ca2james sent me a private email a while back advising me of the possible connection to my RW identity so this all makes sense to me now. The combination of the attacks on Gabor Racz by Alexbrn which was followed up by you. The notice here which is "outing" regardless of your claims because I requested the information be removed, but be that as it may, you should not have broadcast that information without first consulting me to make sure it wasn't inadvertent. I advised you that I thought it had been removed but you continued and here we are with you carrying on like you've made some incredible find to finally get me blocked. Seriously - don't you have anything better to do? Why are you spending so much time on WP as a "volunteer"? I'm retired, but you aren't. I want a job like yours especially when we look at the time you spend on WP. I wonder if it's even humanly possible. Regardless, you should have sent me a private email first and not just trampled into the room like a rogue elephant thinking you accomplished some major victory. The timing of your exposé is not coincidental, either. It coincides perfectly with the timing of my AE appeal and AN review of that appeal and the potential exposure you face when it all comes out in the wash, not to mention the heat you're experiencing at your GMO articles. It will be very interesting to see how this is all going to end up at ARBCOM. I can imagine you would be in a panic about now considering the diffs I've provided, and the fact that I am asking admins to take the time to review them. This ridiculous COI proves that WP has a major problem. You know, Jytdog, a simple, ethical private email to me would have sufficed. But no, you had to bring it here and humiliate yourself. You also could have simply removed the sources you felt were not RS. You didn't have to create all this drama. It's like Alexbrn adding two templates to the Gabor Racz article over a single short sentence that needed nothing more than a [citation needed] template. You did this for a specific reason and I will present those reasons with the relevant diffs at ARBCOM. For you to assume a retired, volunteer WP editor has a COI with a volunteer organization much less a close relationship with several species of ancestral fishes, or some doctor I learned about by chance is pretty ridiculous, and quite frankly makes you look like an incompetent goofus, but who am I to say? What I do know is that I have emails dating back to 2011 & 2014 wherein I requested removal of personal information I was unaware existed, much less that it could result in personal information being revealed to editors like you who have shown ill-will toward me. It will be an interesting ARBCOM, indeed. Atsme📞📧 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh atsme. Instead of getting all conspiracy theory-y - (I have no communication with ca2james outside WP and have no knowledge that he had emailed you nor what, and I had never looked at the Racz article until today when it came up when I was looking at the Earthwave stuff) - if you would just deal with the three requests, we could all get on with our WP lives. I treated you like I treat any editor with a COI - I addressed you clearly and politely on your Talk page, and when that didn't get anywhere, I posted here. All respecting OUTING. You'e been editing with a COI, so please just deal with it.
I have no desire - at all - to get you blocked. People edit with a COI all the time; have it brought to their attention, do the right thing by disclosing and agreeing to abide by COI going forward, and there is no blocking or drama. It is only when conflicted editors create drama instead of following COI that bad things like blocks happen. So really, if you just deal with the three requests, there is no need for any kind of blocks or other sanctions. But you will do as you will, as always. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Accusing others as a way or deflecting the attention on you is not ok. Casting aspersions in this way is absolutely not ok. I did not OUT you, and I ask that you redact your comment. I sent you an email because I saw a name linked to something. I had no idea whether or not that was your name or anyone else's name but I let you know about it privately, via email, so that you could handle it. And then I let it go. I contacted no one else, I've said nothing to anyone about this, I've done nothing that would link you to that name, and your accusation is absolutely unfounded. You outed yourself through your own posts and behaviour, and there's nothing wrong with it being posted here after you ignored an earlier attempt to talk to you. Ca2james (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the COI, there appear to be problems with this editors conduct. Accusations of outing are very serious, additionally the personal attacks, such as calling him an "incompetent goofus", threats of administrator and/or Arbcom involvement, and general attempts to making this about Jytdog's behavior instead of your own are highly uncivil. The fact that Jytdog has not taken you to ANI for your conduct shows extreme patience. I suggest you keep that in mind when you discuss this here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Things aren't always what they seem, Winner 42, so try not to be misled. I've made it known countless times that I'm retired. There was no COI regarding the fish articles I wrote because it was all volunteer work not unlike what I do on WP so the allegations were unwarranted and obviously made in BF based on Jytdog's prior interactions with me. If the community believes there's a problem with my editing fish articles, I will honor that decision, but as far as Jytdog is concerned, I don't want him discussing anything about me or interacting with me in any way because of his repeated incivility toward me and other editors in the past as demonstrated here: [32], [33], [34], [35] - and that doesn't even begin to address the problem. I was not aware EWS was on the spam list - better comb that list to see if maybe the Nature Conservancy, PBS, Discovery, Virginia Tech, and other reputable conservation organizations and academia ended up there. Any editor who believes the sources I cited are problematic could have simply added a citation needed template instead of creating all the drama that Jytdog just created. I don't sell fish for a living, I don't market them, I don't charge admission to see them, but I do fish so does that create a COI? I'm a retired writer/producer/publisher who used to do volunteer work in cooperation with various state resource agencies and the USF&WS and am still involved in various philanthropic ventures, including WP. Does that create a COI? I did volunteer work for Earthwave Society the same way I do volunteer work for WP, and not too unlike what Doc James does for WMF so does that mean we have a COI? If there was a problem sourcing information to any nonprofit organization I did volunteer work for, then do whatever has to be done to challenge the sources, not the editor and while you're at it, review the COI guidelines because all I'm seeing now is a lame attempt to cast doubt on my credibility. My goodness - did I whitewash the article about paddlefish, or alligator gar to increase my revenues? Pah-lease. It appears some of us may have our priorities mixed up. Those articles went through DYK and GA reviews and one went through an FA review and no problems were mentioned about the sources. Why all of a sudden is there a problem after all these months? Jytdog's motivations are pretty transparent. There was no basis whatsoever to accuse me of a COI over Gabor Racz, or Ambush predators, either. All I can say is I'm not the one with the problem. Atsme📞📧 05:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • [36] This gets mentioned here and then it gets deleted. [37] A google search shows that it existed and pretty much verifies the above. Gabor B Racz has no apparent link to the Earthwave society. The only conclusion that can be drawn reasonably is that someone in the Earthwave Society created an article on Racz. There's really nothing suggesting any kind of COI in relation to Racz and Atsme.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho - here is the dif that created the Racz article; and as I noted above, the facebook posting happened on April 14, 2 days after Atsme finished a big run of editing. Atsme pretty much tracked her WP editing only on topics related to Earthwave on the Earthwave Facebook page. That is why I raised the COI question. It is a question - a not unreasonable one, in my view. I ~guessed~ Racz might be on their Board of DIrectors, for which I couldn't find a list, but that is just a guess. The answer may be that there is no COI, but the pattern is weighted against that. That is why I asked - why the facebook posting? Jytdog (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have contacted the OS admins who helped delete the early mistakes of my RL identity. Apparently, they didn't get all of them. Jytdog I have made you aware that it was inadvertent and until I can get those admins to respond to me to delete that information, you need to stop broadcasting it by adding templates connecting me to Earthwave. Is that understood? The fact the information is out there now doesn't mean you have a right to spread it all over the encyclopedia. It is not supposed to be out there. Atsme📞📧 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, the reason why we ask editors with a COI to disclose it, is that knowing that an editor has a COI means that they might have a bias or a promotional goal, and edits are looked at differently. If you had disclosed that you are Executive Director of Earthwave and that a prior discussion at ELN had resulted in a community decision not to use links to Earthwave, then folks might have thought twice about those articles when they were reviewed. Disclosure and review are the foundations of any and every organization's approach to managing COI. (The concern here is WP:SELFCITE and the links to Earthwave's videos, which promote Earthwave. I am sorry to have to explain that to you. The COI is not with regard to the fish, but to the sources and ELs. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Am trying not to post here. I will answer any direct questions going forward, and otherwise will restrain myself. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I simply pointed out that there is no apparent COI between Racz and Atsme. The pattern is not weighted against this. The most likely scenario is that if Atsme is the executive what ever of earthwave (as evidence suggests) then she made the post about Racz on Facebook. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The word interest refers here to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from. - do you understand what that means, Jytdog? I had no "stake" in Earthwave Society, and I certainly didn't stand to benefit from my volunteer work there. WP readers are the only ones who stood to benefit from the articles I wrote, not me. The project benefitted from my contributions, not me. My stake in it was being able to give something back. My User Page defines my purpose. Do you consider yourself as having a stake in WP or that you stand to benefit from your work here? That's the real question, Jytdog - what do you stand to benefit from all the hours you put into WP as a volunteer - and why are you so entrenched in the GMO, GMF, Monsanto, and various insecticide articles? You are the only person on the planet earth I know who spends hours upon hours on WP for "free" as a volunteer. I find that rather curious. Atsme📞📧 06:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
You asked me two questions. I understand you have asked admins/oversight to remove your self-disclosure. I hope that when you asked them to do that, you told them there was an open COIN case about that information. Did you? As to your second posting, I have no COI and no interest as you refer to above with regard to any topics I edit. This thread, however, is about your COI. Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also have no COI so you need to remove those tags that link the outside world to my personal information and step back until the OS admins advise otherwise. Atsme📞📧 07:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Kevmin has reverted my edits and replaced the outing templates. I have asked him to self-revert but he gave me a ridiculous argument. Since you started this mess, you might want to advise him to self-revert because he is only adding fuel to the fire. [38] Atsme📞📧 07:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you going to get to OS team to delete your comments here where you provide evidence that you do have a COI and also admit to volunteering with Earthwave society?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first time that Atsme has been advised that she has a COI with respect to Earthwave: in the 2011 ELN discussion, Atsme was advised of this COI and told that should not be adding links to the organization at all. Atsme may believe that she has no COI but according to Wikipedia's definitions, it's there. Adding: she also received a COI notice on her Talk page around that time. Ca2james (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In that ELN discussion, Atsme was not actually prohibited from doing anything. She was "advised" that making a request on the talk page would be preferable. As is typical for that board, the result was "no consensus to include", which is different from "a consensus to not include". And, seriously, that was four years ago, when she was a new editor. Do you remember every single thing you were told you when you were new to Wikipedia? I certainly don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I do hear that. She didn't disclose and seek consensus when she came back. People look at things differently when COI is disclosed; that is why people are obligated to disclose it. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that she was prohibited from adding the links but that she was informed that she had a COI at that time. That ELN discussion was but one part of the overall kerfuffle that happened after Atsme attempted to add earthwave as an EL to articles. There were posts and other discussions on editor Talk pages,[39][40][41][42][43] at least one email sent out because a reply was posted,[44] and a block [45] for publishing arb emails [46] that was later revoked.[47] Then the discussion on ELN started. The whole thing was so heated and drama-filled that I'd remember what happened if it were me. Of course it's possible she genuinely doesn't remember that she was informed of the COI in addition to the multiple discussions regarding the external links - or that she genuinely doesn't remember any of it since she added earthwave as an external link to articles when she returned to editing. Ca2james (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear what Atsme disclosed is that she is Executive Director. Here at COIN we have generally said that people in that position should not be editing directly about their organization. In Atsme's case that would mean not citing the organization's website as a source WP:SELFCITE and not posting links to their videos and other information in ELs. As a nonprofit that runs on primarily on donations and an occasional grant, there is a financial interest in increasing exposure via Wikipedia. This is not the first nonprofit that has done this; it happens all the time. Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Gabor B Racz article is exceedingly promotional. It also appears to contain copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? Well I used the David Gorski article to pattern it. Perhaps you would be kind enough to help resolve those issues at both articles in a GF collaborative effort. Atsme📞📧 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal I've emailed with Atsme a bit and now understand now why she doesn't want to disclose the relationship here in WP. If disclosure is not an option, then the COI is not manageable; disclosure is the foundation of any approach to managing COI. COIs that are not manageable, have to be eliminated via recusal. (This is common practice everywhere, and it is described in option 1 of this section of the COI guideline.) Again - in this context where Atsme is saying that disclosure is not an option - here is what I propose to resolve the COI:
    • Atsme promises to not edit on topics where she has a COI going forward - no more citing or ELing Earthwave, and whatever the COI may be at the Racz article, she agrees to not edit that article going forward.
    • We remove all citations and ELs to Earthwave (including youtube videos) and blacklist the Earthwave sites
    • All mention of the connection between Atsme and Earthwave is revdelled. That would take the consent of others who have commented here, I imagine. I'll say now that if Atsme accepts this approach, i will agree to having what I wrote revdelled.
      • I'll add that if Atsme is really interested in protecting her RW identity here in WP, she should take down the pictures of herself from her userpage, and take down the Earthwave facebook postings about her editing here. She keeps making these connections, which is puzzling in light of her concern to protect her RW identity. But that is another ball of wax.

This is really a garden variety COI and not worthy of all this drama, but as I said, I understand why Atsme is concerned with disclosure, and all I am after here is to address the COI. If she will disclose and abide by COI going forward that is great; if not, the proposal is an option. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no COI at Racz. There's no reason for her to agree to stop editing there. You should stick to the fish articles.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
If the community sees no COI there I will let that go, for sure. What about the rest? Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
So concensus is now a popularity contest? You haven't provided any evidence in relation to Racz and Atsme that even remotely suggests a COI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it really being seriously suggested that "We remove all citations and ELs to Earthwave (including youtube videos) and blacklist the Earthwave sites" because a single editor may have a COI for these? I am absolutely gob-smacked this might be a real proposal!DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Question: is the relationship you're referring to a relationship to Racz, a relationship to Earthwave, or both? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Serialjoepsycho. The evidence is: a) Atsme has disclosed that she is Executive Director of Earthwave. b) the Earthwave facebook page has tracked Atsme's WP editing relevant to Earthwave - not all her WP editing (not by far). c) The completion of Atsme's editing of the Racz article was posted on the Earthwave facebook page. d) The Racz article is very promotional. Those are the things that suggest some kind of relationship between Earthwave and Racz. That is exactly the kind of pattern that we use here to identify COI editing, and why I raised the question. The situation on the Racz article is complicated by Atsme's refusal to acknowledge the extent of her relationship with Earthwave at all, much less the COI that relationship causes, even where it is very clear with the SELFCITE and ELs. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Atsme already disclosed who she was. It's in all of the evidence provided here. Your evidence shows only that after the article was created that it was promoted on the Earthwave society facebook page. It does not even remotely suggest a COI. It instead suggests that Atsme has used Earthwave facebook to promote some of what she has done here on wikipedia. Now there's a legitimate conflict of interest over at the primitive fish articles. Unless we are being vindictive can we leave the half ass vendettas off of wikipedia?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
SerialJoe, really, this is not personal, and please do not depict it as such. The 4 pieces of evidence I provided above are the kind of thing we do all the time here. I understand that you don't see any possibilty of COI on the Racz article; folks can disagree in good faith. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • COI has been determined for certain here. The Earthwave websites ought to be removed wherever it appears, as it has been spammed into the encyclopedia, and Atsme should never add such links again. Nor should Atsme revert any good faith edits made other editors in articles that have a connection to Earthwave. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Should the youtube links of earthwave videos be removed as well? Ca2james (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This type of action is absolutely outrageous. If an editor has a COIN then sure, delete their edits all day long. However, in a knee-jerk reaction, User:Binksternet has gone over to Ambush predator and removed a reference indicating this was a spammed link. This was my edit and the edit summary is indicating I did not give due diligence to my editing. This must be wrong! Treat each edit on its own merits surely!DrChrissy (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, I didn't target you. I targeted the link. In any case, your addition to the article was not composed 100% by you; instead, you copied much of what Atsme put into the Alligator gar article. Compare the two texts:
  • Alligator gars are relatively passive, seemingly sluggish solitary fish, but voracious ambush predators. They are opportunistic night predators and are primarily piscivores, but they will also ambush and eat water fowl and small mammals that may be floating on the surface. Their method of ambush is to float a few feet below the surface, and wait for unsuspecting prey to swim within reach. They lunge forward, and with a sweeping motion grab their prey, impaling it on their double rows of sharp teeth.

  • Alligator gars (Atractosteus spatula) are relatively passive, seemingly sluggish solitary fish, but voracious ambush predators. They are opportunistic night predators and are primarily piscivores, but they will also ambush and eat water fowl and small mammals that may be floating on the surface. Their method of ambush is to float a few feet below the surface, and wait for unsuspecting prey to swim within reach. They lunge forward, and with a sweeping motion grab their prey, impaling it on their double rows of sharp teeth.

The first quote is from Atsme, which you copied nearly verbatim. So you can see I was not working against any text that you composed, or a link which you provided. Instead, I was working against Atsme who has demonstrated beyond a doubt her conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
i kind of thought that something like that happened. Thanks for pointing that out. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Binksternet You left an edit summary that stated the reference was a spammed link. This ES is now permanently linked to my name as an editor. Atsme may have spammed this reference in, but I did not - I act entirely independently and I check my sources. Your immediate knee-jerk reaction to this thread was to delete some of my editing and leave an ES that suggests my editing is in some way sub-standard. How do you wish to proceed with this?DrChrissy (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, come on. My edit summary targeted the link, not you. I'm sure your reputation will survive this microscopic affront. There's nothing I intend to do about it. If you are so concerned about my edit summary tarring your reputation then I suggest you link to this COIN discussion in the summary of a null-edit, once the COIN discussion has been archived to a permanent link. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet you have demonstrated ill-will toward me in the past which I proved were false allegations during the RfC-U. Your input here is biased and again shows ill-will. There is nothing in our PAGs that support such a ludicrous suggestion. Atsme📞📧 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to remove DrChrissy's posting of this really. If it's thought that the source is unreliable take it to RSN and if you want the source blacklisted then actually go get it blacklisted. Edit warring really is just going to make this nonsense worse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The attacks on all the WP articles is unwarranted. The substance of the COI has been challenged by an admin, [48] and the outing has been brought to the attention of OS. I strongly advise those editors who are involved in this very disruptive beehive behavior to revert the damage you are doing to perfectly good articles or you may find yourselves looking at blocks for disruptive editing. Even if it is determined that a COI might exist, it doesn't give anyone the right to start deleting. This discussion isn't even over, yet. Atsme📞📧 21:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment For what it is worth, I have known (on WP) Atsme for just a few months. Outing of a WP User is, in my mind, an extremely uncivil thing to do. In my world, Atsme has been outed as a direct consequence of this thread. I think someone should be held accountable for this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Atsme outed herself; don't lose track of that. Her conflict of interest has been demonstrated with finality. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What I am saying is that I was not aware of Atsme's RW identity until this thread was started and editors left links/diffs making her RW identity easily found. I really feel this thread is extremely damaging to the reputation of the project in general. Oh, and as an aside, I presume that the reason behind COIN is to prevent organisations getting free advertising or exposure. I doubt Earthwave could afford the free advertising/exposure they will have got from the drama raised by this thread.DrChrissy (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

SCOAP et al[edit]

New user who per this, has completed the SCOAP training, and per this "I want employers to see what my SCOAP Certification and training (delivered by this foundation) means". Editor is a WP:SPA for all things related to SCOAP.

This is being discussed at ANI in this thread posting here so we have a record of this in the archives and so editors here can review the articles. I have tagged the articles and nominated each of them for speedy per PROMO.Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog, for following up on this. I hesitated to nominate these for speedy deletion, but the rationale that these are all connected as promotional vehicles looks to be sound. 2601:188:0:ABE6:99FD:4E02:9E12:4A31 (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not, as first suspected, paid editing by an employee or agent, but a new user who has been on the course and is keen to tell the world about it. It is still entirely proper to raise it here to get more uninvolved eyes on the articles. While it is unlikely that all these subjects are notable, it is possible that there is material here for one or two articles. The book, for instance, is held in 284 libraries. I am pleased to see from his talk page that DGG is taking an interest; he is the best person to advise on issues of academic notability. JohnCD (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that - except from what she wrote it is clear that she created the articles to make herself appear yet more credible. I speedied all of them to a quick pass of what is keep-able and then we can review the rest. This is really neuro-hype. I doubt there will be much to keep. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
As for Graue, a Professorship at the University of Bern, , then Zurich then s President of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, with several impt. academic books is unquestionably notable, and the article is not promotional. There is no need for someone like this to make themselves "appear more notable" We go by content, not promotional intent -- I declined the speedy, since the article was straight descriptive. Promotional intent if it can be proven is relevant at afd, but not as a sole deciding factor. It is not relevant for WP:CSD G11. What G11 is for is promotional content, when it can not be easily fixed & there is nothing else worth saving, and it doesn't matter if the article was written with the utmost good faith, but ends up being promotional-- for example because the ed. seeing so much of it at WP, thinks it's the appropriate style. It is often impossible to judge intent -- about 10% of the self-written academic bios are over-modest--I'm trying to deal with one on my talk p. now. Enthusiastic students can be a problem, but they can often be distinguished by writing the wrong things altogether; (e.g., they talk about how wonderful a teacher the person is.) At the moment, there is no formal rule that someone with a non-paid COI must declare themselves, though it is usually a good idea.
Of course, writing too many articles on the same subject--e.g. a persona and their theory and their books, is promotional writing. If the person of subject is notable, it is best dealt with by merging; I generally merge to the person, both because it's easier to organize bios than other types of articles, and because there are likely to be additional works and therefore a chance for the article to grow.
The article on Ghadiri was not promotional. He may or may not be notable, but that's for afd. The problem with merging the book into this is that there are several coauthors. Peters & Habermacher are also not promotional articles, but descriptive. I will need to check their CVs to judge importance . I am very likely to undelete them all, and add some material, unless there are objections, in which case I will take them to deletion review. Judging by promotional intent for speedy puts a premium on failure to disclose, which is counterproductive --and would require a significant change in WP:Deletion policy. The place to propose it is WT:CSD. If proposed, I will oppose it as being harmful in eliminating promotional content. DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User Sparkzilla promoting his for-profit product[edit]

Resolved: user indeffed Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User Sparkzilla leaving promotional spam material on my talk page, and has a history of adding spam links in AfD discussions promoting his for-profit website, and baiting and harassing users by mocking them for trying to keep their articles undeleted.

I'm happy to take this to WP:AN/I

-- Aronzak (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aronzak thanks for posting here. There are admins who pay mind here and this ~sounds~ like conflicted and disruptive WP:NOTHERE behavior. Can you provide diffs? Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Aronzak is reacting because I voted to delete Victoria Taylor for lack of notability (no baiting and harassing at all, as you will see from the AfD). He has added a large number of news links to the page in an attempt to force notability. To help him understand the difference between newsworthiness and notability and the difference between and encyclopedia and a news archive I posted an explanatory message to his talk page, and included a link to my site for comparison. Perhaps knowing that news is not the same as notability, this user would perhaps not waste other Wikipedia users' time by posting a multitude of news-based links in an attempt to force notability on a minor person. Like this user, many people on Wikipedia would benefit from knowing the difference between content that is encyclopedic and notable, and newsworthy but not notable. In any case, after having him add four messages to my talk page and reporting me, instead of simply deleting the message, all this reminds me is that Wikipedia is somewhat toxic environment, so to save myself, and the good people here any trouble, I will not attempt this kind of "education" again. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

since you have opened discussion at a higher board, as it were (ANI is way more trafficked than COIN) I will not respond further here. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
for the record, this has been discussed there, and Sparkzilla has promised not to add links to his site. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Dennis Brown indef blocked Sparkzilla. BMK (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

well, that's that. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Parallels, Inc.[edit]

The single purpose user @Giorgio.bonuccelli: has a close association with 2X Software, a company which has been acquired by Parallels, Inc.. The user has since transferred their attention to the Parallels article, adding promotional content and recreating content that was previously deleted] as unambiguous promotion under a new name: Parallels Remote Application Server. This user was previously notified here by @FreeRangeFrog: of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Note that Parallels, Inc. also contains copyright violations from here and perhaps elsewhere. Vrac (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vrac: The page Parallels Remote Application Server is not a promotional article since i used as template the page of the closest competitor Citrix Xenapp. However i noticed the page Xenapp Citrix was changed and redirect as well. I'll remove the page straight away. Thanks for the support— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
  • I assumed these links were meant to be pings to Vrac. Also, they used IP address, so I added that to the COI list. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The idea that your promotional article is not promotional because it's based on another promotional article (on a substantially more significant subject) is self-evidently false. And don't try to snowstorm us because some of us actually work in the industry: I know exactly how significant your product is compared with XenApp.
Did you seriously think this was appropriate?
2X MDM - formerly known as [[3CX Phone System|3CX]] Mobile Device Manager - was acquired by 2X on 12 June 2014 from 3CX.<ref>{{cite web|url= |title= 2X Software New Website with Product Features Enhanced | author= Giorgio Bonuccelli | publisher= |date= 2014-06-23|accessdate= 2014-06-23}}</ref>
Citing your own PR written by you on your company website? Seriously? Citing Mike Laverick, is fine. I know Mike. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Naveed.sukuk has disclosed that he owns the Islamic Finance and Sukuk Company and its domains, and He is an WP:EXPERT on islamic finance. All those things are great and we need more experts in this topic. However, the discussion on their Talk page has gone south with regard to his using his two websites as sources in articles. I've been trying to explain that this is something he should avoid, and he is insisting that there is no problem. Besides WP:SELFCITE the other issue is WP:SPS, but we have not reached that far yet. I told Naveed that I would bring this to COIN for the community to discuss with him whether it is appropriate for him to cite his own website or not. I will leave it for you all to discuss with him, and will step away from this now. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has done a great job in twisting what I have wrote on my talk page, I attempted to take the conversation North, but Jytdog drove in South with false accusations. I have declared my interest in my sites on my Wiki page, and all updates made are factual and beyond dispute, and all editing has reference my real name, which matches my Wiki account (first name). I first updated the Sukuk page in 2008, there is no track record of self promotion or SPAM. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Naveed.sukuk
Naveed the only relevant question here is whether it is OK for you to site your websites or not. That is what this discussion should focus on. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the alternative? Create a fake account with an alias and edit and link to sites which are authoritative? Or create an account using your real name, which is easily traceable to the referenced not for profit sites as someone who is involved in them, put the COI on your Wiki page, and illustrate the first edit was made 7 years ago? Either you do things the right way or the wrong way? The fact is the World Bank and IMF reference and, the sites are authoritative and respected and all edits made are factual and not self promotional, I mean for the last edit in Sukuk, either Hong Kong issued two Sukuk or not - factually it has issued two, stating this and linking to a source which backs this up is fair play. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The alternative is to follow our policies and help us build a better encyclopedia: Don't use your websites as sources, find better ones instead. Identify authorities and authoritative sources that we can agree upon. Back your statements with sources. If you feel your websites are reliable sources, make a case rather based upon sources rather than assertions. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't facts and I have no doubt it is factually accurate. I also believe that this information is available in multiple places (does provide this information, just curious?) I think you can see the problem by imagining your competitors come to Wikipedia and replaced all references to your site with references to their site. The information could be factually identical but we don't want to have sourcing battles here, nor do we want to prefer or favor one commercial site over another especially over facts that are readily available from multiple sources including the issuer such as Turkey. --DHeyward (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)