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)
Shortcuts:
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:


Pristine (company)[edit]

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

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

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

30+ articles written by Worthywords requiring cleanup[edit]

This editor discloses on their user page that they were paid to write every article above Herakut other than Citizens Rights Watch. Of the articles I've reviewed I've found numerous problems including notability, verification, blp, original research and subtle promotion. These diffs show some of the content I have removed: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Media Coach section of Alan Stevens (media consultant) was the most concerning as it was completely WP:FAKE and promotional, yet to the reader, apparently reliably sourced. Of other articles that I've glanced at these problems don't appear to unique and I need help to review the others, checking that content is well-sourced and verifiable. I raised my concerns with the user yesterday but although they edited today adding more content to article space, they haven't as yet responded. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lisa Lambe[edit]

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Added User:Uncletomscottage, as they're making similar edits to LisaLambe01- removing the image, replacing surname with firstname. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Edward J. Walsh[edit]

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

Edward J. Walsh was created on 21 February 2014. Only 3 days later, Spinfisher started editing the article and, so far, over half of his 78 edits have been either to the article, its talk page or otherwise directly related discussions including some deleted images. It's been a while but, as I remember, I became associated because the article when the article creator was having problems with Spinfisher deleting references,[5] substituting references for other sources and generally adding unverifiable content.[6] Some of Spinfisher's edits were no doubt due to inexperience, such as repeatedly restoring a link used as a reference to the "External links" section.[7][8][9] Spinfisher has identified himself as a child of the subject in the images that he has uploaded (all now deleted), even calling one now deleted image "Dad227".[10] I eventually tagged the article with {{COI}},[11] but Spinfisher has persistently been removing the tag.[12][13][14][15] Since tagging the article, he has also removed valid references without explanation,[16] replacing them with others,[17] I had almost forgotten about the article when the tag was again removed today.[18] The last time I edited the article or its talk page was in June last year, so I'm not sure what the best action is here. Should the tag simply be removed? I haven't actually checked the article to see how much of themore contentious edits made by Spinfisher have been removed. Like the original creator, who was told by Spinfisher to "stop needlessly editing the Edward Walsh page",[19] I had abandoned it until today. My concern with Spinfisher is that he still doesn't consider that he has a conflict of interest editing his father's article. --AussieLegend () 02:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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


Jesse Cutler[edit]

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


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

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

List article[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey Jason[edit]

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

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

Cominform.com[edit]

I'm concerned that @Hilumeoka2000: may be making paid edits to Wikipedia without disclosing that they are doing so, in violation of WP:COI. This came to my attention because I nominated Cominform.com, and Hilumeoka2000 responded quickly by adding articles hosted on Cominform's own website. @NukeThePukes: noticed the same thing, so I began looking into it further. Searching Google, I found these two sites: [20] and [21], which are advertisements for paid Wikipedia editing. The user names on those websites are both "Hilumeoka2000," the same as on Wikipedia. At [22], Hilumeoka2000 notes some Wikipedia pages that they have "created for some organizations." The three articles listed there, Newfield Resources Limited, Garbage Concern Welfare Society, and Mawano Kambeu, are all articles that Wikipedia user Hilumeoka2000 created ([23], [24], [25]). Obviously, undisclosed paid editing is a problem. I will leave it to the admins to determine how to handle this issue. Agtx (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

I'll like to get clarifications.

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

Note: All these pages have been put up for AfD deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: All of these pages have been deleted under AfD processes. The user doesn't appear to have returned to Wikipedia after their block for undisclosed paid editing and harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic related users[edit]

I have concerns that these users are related to Medtronic

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

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

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

kangol kid[edit]

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

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

Majid Al Futtaim Group[edit]

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

Teddy Sagi[edit]

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

Nautilus Productions[edit]

A few weeks ago, I approved the AFC draft of Nautilus Productions, contributed by Caprockranger. It was always clear the user operates a single purpose account with edits relating to the underwater videography of archaeological sites by Nautilus. I don't recall a discussion of possible COI at the time. However, since then, the user has made a couple of promotional edits, such as [26], and opted not to answer questions about promotion, sourcing or COI such as [27]. Although I think the connected articles are currently free of bias, and there is no obligation to answer talk page posts as long as you stay out of edit wars, I think this pattern of editing justifies the {{connected contributor}} banner on the article talk page. Is this an appropriate response? Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Dyn (company)[edit]

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

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

Jeremy Hitchcock[edit]

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

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

Friends of Coal[edit]

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

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

Aricent[edit]

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

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

The Chauntry Cup[edit]

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

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

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

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

UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing[edit]

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

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

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

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

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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

Nordstrom[edit]

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

Yup, Evans clearly works for their PR department. I've posted the "connected contributor" info on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone backed out that PR already. I also noted an uncited but prominent section about the Nordstrom Employee Handbook being 75 words. CBS News debunked that, and the real 12-page employee handbook is on line on Nordstrom's own site.[28]. Article revised and cited accordingly. John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon[edit]

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

Matthias Hentze[edit]

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

Princessella123 declared at Wikimedia Commons here that she is the subject's personal assistant. — Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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 [29], 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)

socialworkhelper.com[edit]

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

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

I had responded on the Edgeweyes talk page, and there will be no more links added. Our intent is not to be linkspam. User SWHelper is an editor with Social Work Helper, and it was not our intention to hide this fact. The links that have been added actually covers the span for a couple of years because very few updates have been made to main social work pages. All the links important for us to reference have been added. However, I would note Social Work Helper is the leading authority for the social work profession which helps to elevate the platform of social work professionals and social work topics. Wikipedia editors are not crediting contributions of social work professionals or social work contributions on topics. Social Work Helper should not be judged solely because other magazines or newspapers are not providing publicity to Social Work Helper. Newspapers and magazines rarely provide publicity on social workers or credit social workers contributions to public discourse, but it should not alleviate its importance. Google "Celebrity Social Workers", if it had not been for Social Work Helper, many people would not know Sam Jackson, John Amos, Martin Short, Dr. Steve Perry (who doesn't have a Wikipedia page at all) Alice Walker, and Winnie Mandela to name a few were social workers. To be fair, topic not being covered should not be the only impetus for inclusion, rather than identify whether authoritative figures are utilizing and contribution to Social Work Helper in order to reach the social work community at large. Social Work Helper is the first social work media platform to get press credentials to a White House Event and attend a White House Briefing on another occasion as well as being owned by an African-American woman. Social Work Helper is also a Google News site. Who exactly is going to document this other than someone interested in documenting this piece of history? Any advice would be appreciated for me to pass along.Swhelper (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Trend in spam - replacing dead external links with links to spam sites[edit]

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

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

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

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

emgx fs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekaterina.bogdanova85 (talkcontribs)

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

List of Iranian Americans[edit]

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

A heads up for those who might not be watching[edit]

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

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

David Gorski[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Don't go looking for trouble where there isn't any, Sage. You mentioned two conflicts; Jytdog merely misread as two bans, rather than one ban an one simple conflict. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah, probably. SageRad (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@MastCell: I think you've said it, politely or not. No need for any of the rest of us to pretty it up for you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh boy, is that really the case? Are you trying to figure out a way to tell me to "grow up" because i wish the public to have access to accurate representations of reality? What insults are being slung here. It's pretty sick. I take serious exception to the entire comment by MastCell. I think you are the one who needs to grow up, if you wish to put it that way. I feel your slime all over me. I need to bathe. Holy cow. Censorship is a simple thing. It's the blocking of speech in a forum where freedom of speech is reasonably expected, and another layer is that when censorship is being employed, but its employ is not known commonly to many readers, then the point of view portrayed in the forum is biased but appears to be "balanced" or at least open to dissent, and that is the most insidious form of censorship because it's the most powerful at presenting a version of reality that may not be accurate. You are actually defending censorship and attacking my desire to include in the article about a person that focuses on this website, the fact that censorship occurs there. That is really not very admirable. So, this is still open, and i would love to see the opinions of others. Like i said, this is not a personal grudge. This is a particular thing that i know, and not many others do know, and that i think is important for the public to know. I'm not "pushing an agenda" but i am using my specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia, for the public use and for the functioning of a healthy civil society. Keep on shooting yourselves in the foot. It's useful. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


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


David Gorski 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


Rick Shutter - Declare COI and Invite Feedback[edit]

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

Thank you for the examination of the user-space draft. The first reader offered constructive feedback, which was quite helpful. The second nominated the draft for speedy deletion, and the third deleted it.Kekki1978 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:NOTADVERTISING was certainly applicable (I was #2 person by the way). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx[edit]

Could we get some extra eyes on Alexander Cornell du Houx, please? @Fin108: seems very keen to pile up lots of praise in this biography, teetering on rather slender sources. However, a bigger problem is that they insist on adding links to Alexander Cornell du Houx's Youtube page, which contains copyright violations (ie. copies of news articles that briefly mention the subject of the article). I have tried to remove these links, per WP:ELNEVER, but they keep coming back, and I am losing patience. Other editors have suggested that there's a COI problem, and I agree. Could a more patient editor help out, one way or another? bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil Rackham[edit]

All SPAs adding promotional content to this biography. I've reverted to the page before all the content was added, but this probably needs more eyes. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Cellular automaton[edit]

Lev Kalmykov insists on including his own newly-published original research into cellular automaton, and has edit-warred to keep it in after I removed it: original insertion restoration #1 after removal restoration #2. More eyes on this, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Dear Colleagues,

I have a problem with a possible misunderstanding.

My contribution is not about "original research". The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

My contribution also cannot be considered as "spam and advertising": Latest revision as of 17:28, 22 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by Lev Kalmykov (talk): Remove spam and advertising. (TW)).

My contribution is appropriate and accurate. It's not about my biography, my personality and it does not contain anything other than a title of the article published in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.231 which is indexing in 27 bibliographic bases and another title of the article published by 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.503 which is indexing in 7 bibliographic bases.

Re-posting was caused by the insufficiently correct deletion of this adequate contribution by David Eppstein.

In more details:

The first removal of my contribution “16:01, 21 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undo WP:REFSPAM, WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this is of any significance)” looked biased because I provided a referenced link to the peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2015) A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata Acta Biotheoretica:1-19 doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9) and it is already indexed in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25980478. Within a month, it is expected that the article will be indexed in all 27 bases. Besides, this contribution directly corresponds to the title of the published article and Wikipedia's section.

The second removal of the contribution “15:31, 22 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undid revision 663513765 by Lev Kalmykov (talk) same reason. Primary source with absolutely no citations on Google scholar.)” also looked biased because Acta Biotheoretica has Impact Factor 1.231 and indexed in Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, CAB International, Academic OneFile, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CSA Environmental Sciences, Current Contents/ Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Elsevier Biobase, EMBiology, Gale, Geobase, Global Health, INIS Atomindex, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, The Philosopher's Index, Zoological Record.

I also provided a link to another peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2013) Verification and reformulation of the competitive exclusion principle Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 56:124-131 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2013.07.006). It was published in 2013. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals has Impact Factor:1.503. This journal is indexed Science Citation Index; Scopus; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Mathematical Reviews; Research Alert; SCISEARCH; Zentralblatt MATH

This contribution also directly corresponds to the title of the article and Wikipedia's section.

Verification of the competitive exclusion principle and biodiversity paradox were the long-standing problems in theoretical ecology.

I am a novice at Wiki and I need more correct and understandable arguments. May I cite these articles using their titles and referenced links (as I did in these cases) for example after a month when our article from Acta Biotheoretica will be indexed in all 27 bibliographic bases?

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely,

Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Eppstein, although my subject knowledge is limited- they look to be edit warring to keep their own research in the article. I'm choosing to reply here rather than on my talkpage where the message above was also posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Independently from David Eppstein I noticed that Lev Kalmykov has added multiple references to his own work on the Complex system lemma, see here, which I think is not ok. I was planning to add a Template:COI tag to the article (or remove the reference) when I saw this discussion, and decided to comment here first. -- Mdd (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Lev Kalmykov please understand that Wikipedia has been around a long time, and you are not the first scientist who has wanted to cite his own work here. The community has figured out ways to deal with this. Would you please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and then reply here, showing us that you've read that and understand it? Please don't think that we don't want experts to work in Wikipedia -- we do, very much! Please do read WP:EXPERT which is an essay written to help folks like you understand Wikipedia.... please also see the last bullet which again circles back to the COI issues being discussed here. If you have any questions or want to talk through this more, please let us know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I was the one to report this I should probably note that I have in the past also added references to my own publications to articles. But (1) it's a tiny fraction of my edits, (2) I will not restore such references if someone else disagrees with the addition, and (3) I usually make an effort to include a comment about the COI and about not restoring if there's disagreement in the edit summary. Where the present situation crosses the line for me is not so much the addition, but the edit-warring to keep the addition in. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
good on you, david eppstein. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Gableman[edit]

For the past several days 165.219.245.62 has been edit warring the Michael Gableman article in an effort to add promotional material and to whitewash incidents in which the Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice has been involved. The IP address 165.219.245.62 is registered to the Wisconsin Court System (http://wicourts.gov/). It appears that 165.219.245.62 is an insider there who is trying to spin the justice's article. 165.219.245.62 has been warned about conflict of interest, to no avail. I suggest a topic ban for 165.219.245.62 for all Wisconsin court and judiciary-related articles. 32.218.42.167 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Very interesting. Can confirm that the IP backtraces to Circuit Court Automation Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --PureRED (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like the COI was also brought up yesterday. PureRED (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

This user has only just declared they are a paid editor at their userpage, User:TGCJKS197276. The articles look really spammy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I had only published the Daniel Ritchie article a few minutes before I wrote the discloser. The Cody Sipe article is only a couple of days old. I was unaware of the disclosure policy as I am new to Wikipedia. As soon as the policy was kindly pointed out to me, I made the disclosure. It was not my intention to hide the fact that I was writing as a paid editor, nor was it my intention to be "spammy". Both men are notable in the physical fitness and functional aging sectors and that was my reason for writing the pages. I intentionally did not link to their personal websites in the articles, nor did I promote any products that they have for sale. I'm new to the Wikipedia world and understand that my style may not be perfect yet. I did, in good faith, attempt to write the articles from a neutral point of view. If they need modification, then I am willing to do so and also welcome the assistance of other editors. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't need modifying, they need deleting. Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable individuals to use as advertising space, see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:CSD#A7, [[WP:CSD#G11]. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
one of the problems of paid editing is the temptation to create articles on marginal topics. The way for a paid editor to establish a good reputation here as a responsible contributor is to limit themselves to subjects where there is clear notability, and make certain that the article fully shows it,and contains no extraneous promotional material. In some fields, judging notability has proven difficult, and for these, a sensible editor, paid or unpaid, ought to check the fate of similar submissions and see what comments are made at relevant AfDs. Doing good work here takes effort. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette[edit]

In March 2015, Kim became President of DADAFO, as KIm discloses here. (My attention was called to COI issues when I read Zad's remark here) On the relevant articles, Kim has edited as follows:

  • So what is DADAFO?
  • You can read Kim's description here.
  • here is their website in Danish,
  • Here is their website through google translate.
  • there is not a lot on English on them, but from (badly done google-translated) stuff like this on their site, they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. I believe he has a COI due to his position as president of an advocacy organization.
  • I brought this up at Kim's Talk page here and suggested that he not edit the articles directly anymore. He replied here, and as I was not satisfied with his answer, I told him I would post here.
  • I was involved in the e-cig articles in the past (I haven't edited them for a long time other than to pop in on RfCs), so I will recuse myself from doing any thing more than posting this. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (note - fixed link above, under "stuff like this")
Query to User:Jytdog: What particular item on the DADAFO site are you referring to with the comment "stuff like this"? This refers me to our frontpage, and not to a particular article. If you are in doubt on any Danish item, i will be helpfull in translating it :) --Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it. it was the link to the google-translate version of the Jeg kan ikke lide e-cigaretter article. Please let us know if my description of DADAFO's advocacy positions is not accurate. I looked at several things on the website and my summary above is based on all that, not just the one page.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article that you are referring to is filed under "articles/media/foreign media" - it does not represent our stance (albeit that we agree with a lot of it), and is presented as an opinion article. The original version of that article (in english) can be found here[30] --Kim D. Petersen 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken, the postion that DADAFO has on e-cigarettes, mirror Public Health Englands positions[32]. With regards to regulations, we as an organization have been advocation for regulations since 2013, not against. We have advocated against the current proposal for legislation because it is draconian - not because of it being regulation in and of itself. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that DADAFO was opposed to all regulation. What I said was "they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. " Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well then you are wrong. We are not taking any stance on whether vaping is safe (no one knows that), in fact i stated in national TV that (from memory) "you are putting something down your lungs that does not naturally belong there, is that healthy? Common sense tells us: It is not. But what we can say is that it is less dangerous than smoking, which will kill you" Which reflects DADAFO's stance rather clearly. E-cigs are a product to stop smoking! It is not a health remedy, and we would strongly caution any user who isn't already smoking, from using them. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I provided my understanding of DADAFO's positions. So that this is properly teed up and others can better think through the COI issues here, please provide clear statements on DADAFO's stances on the following issues:
  • safety of inhaled vapor to vapers
  • safety of exhaled vapor to bystanders
  • role of e-cigs in helping people quit smoking
  • risk of e-cigs in promoting nicotine addiction
  • whether e-cigs and liquid should be regulated like medical devices/drugs
Others may have other questions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Safer than smoking. Unsafe for non-smokers.
  • We are currently in the stages of creating a test on this with The Danish Technological Institute. Since Burstyn et al. and german research indicate that the emissions fall within the envelope for safe working environment. So currently we are taking the stance that it lies well within the Threshold limit values for a safe work environment. Note that Public Health England states the same on page 14[33]:

Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke so the well-documented effects of passive exposure of others to cigarette smoke[9, 10] are clearly not relevant. Exposure of nonsmokers to electronic cigarette vapour poses a concern, though laboratory work suggests that electronic cigarette use in an enclosed space exposes others to nicotine at levels about one tenth generated by a cigarette, but little else[78]. The health risks of passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour are therefore likely to be extremely low.

  • Electronic cigarettes should be considered when NRT's fail to work.
  • This question is only relevant if you are adressing non-smokers - and we strongly discourage non-smokers to use e-cigs. (and fortunately research and surveys shows that they do not - we follow the British The Smokers Toolkit[34] developments on this, and have adviced our government that they should start up a similar program here in Denmark)
  • This is an irrelevant question since the EU has deemed that they are consumer products via the Tobacco products directive (TPD). EU Directive 2014/40/EU, article 20[35]. It is not something that an EU member state has influence on.
I welcome all questions. --Kim D. Petersen 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I will let others take it from here. I appreciate your graciousness in cooperating with this being aired. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I will let others weigh in in an official manner. It appears that these organizations are pushing to allow e-cigs in the work environment. I would have concerns from a public health perspective that the re exposure of those who have previously quit smoking to nicotine may increase their risk of resuming smoking.[36]
This ref says "Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions" [37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: That is an incorrect assessment. In Denmark vaping in the workplace is already legal, thus we do not "push to allow it". I mentioned TLVs because they are an objective measure of exposure, which already is incorporated in law here in Denmark and the EU. If e-cigs have a TLV higher than legal, then it should be banned in the working area - which is why were working with Teknologisk Institut to measure it in a climate-chamber under real workconditions, and for 8 cumulative hours (5 vapers within a limited space (30m²), vaping for 8 cumulative hours (typical workday in Denmark), with constant airmeasurements, and with equipment that verifies that they are using their normal "vaping patterns". Air samples will be tested by the Fraunhofer institute (best in Europe for these kinds of measurements), and will hopefully be part of the scientific literature once finished), to figure out where the emissions lie in relation to TLV's, and the indoor climate recommendations (significantly lower than TLV). DADAFO is evidence, not advocacy, driven. --Kim D. Petersen 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a COI. From the material above Kim has a clear COI in respect of e-cigs (no matter what DADAFO's precise positions are). Frankly, I'm amazed there's even any push-back on this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, clear COI Working for an NGO involving e-cigs is a definite COI on e-cig articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here is not whether there is a COI, i'm aware that there is one, which is why i have a statement on my user front[38], just as policy advices, but to what extent the COI limits my editing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Nb: with regards to COI, shouldn't editors who are involved with the article be disclosing that information when commenting here?

That is a good clarification, Kim. Thanks for making it. For others, I had requested that Kim refrain from directly editing articles related to electronic cigarettes and instead limit himself to talk page discussion; he did not find that reasonable. That is the question here. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Want to add here, that Europe has indeed passed special regulation for tobacco-based products that includes e-cigs, known as the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). What that means exactly is being fought over both at the EU level and at the member state level. (See Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes#Europe. Totally Wicked challenged recent EU decisions on the application of TPD to e-cigs and that case will be worked out in court starting this year; and Denmark recently floated regulations to implement TPD that were vehemently opposed by many vapers (see here for some discussion of that.). So some more questions for KimDabelsteinPetersen:
  • Has DADAFO been advocating on the EU level on how TPD should apply to e-cigs and is it participating in the court challenge in any way?
  • Did DADAFO take a stance on the recent Danish proposal to implement TPD?
  • Is DADAFO advocating for specific provisions in the Danish implementation of TPD?
I am asking these questions again because these are cases where public opinion matters, and therefore what Wikipedia says matters, so folks can think through whether it makes sense for you to directly edit the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here are my responses to your questions - which all seem to be policy issues:
  • DADAFO was indirectly involved in the TPD discussions [sending briefings to local MEP's as well as the Danish government]
  • DADAFO was invited by the Danish government to partake in the hearing process on the new law. (our hearing response can be found here).
  • DADAFO strongly supported the age-restrictions, warning measurements (toxic, keep away from children, do not use if pregnant etc). We adviced that e-liquid with nicotine should not be sold over the counter at supermarkets and other such non-specialized retailers, since these aren't capable of educating new users or giving sufficient warnings. Objected to the cost of putting a product on the market, as well as pointed out that the economic calculations significantly underestimated the market. Pointed out that while the law required emission and liquid testing, there was no description on what such testing should include, as well as how it should be done [this is what we're involved in the CEN standardization process figuring out]. As well as numerous other issues. [it should be noted that DADAFO roughly a month before the law-proposal mentioned was floated, proposed a similar but less draconian implementation of the TPD to the Danish lawmakers (found here)]
As i already stated: The place that i won't edit is within the policy aspects (particular the Danish ones) of electronic cigarettes, since this is the primary aspect of DADAFO's work.
Within the health region we're taking a pure evidence based approach. I was instrumental in making sure that DADAFO used Wikipedia WP:MEDRS reviews in our approach to health aspects, and not make the same mistake as other NGO's, by using individual studies as basis, but instead use what reviews state. --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is clearly a COI in relation to electronic cigarettes. The guideline says of campaigning:

"Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Similarly, editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest."

The guideline strongly discourages COI editing ("COI editing is strongly discouraged"), and I hope Kim will respect that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course i will (and have) respect(ed) that. I will never on Wikipedia rely on my personal opinion on issues, no matter if i have a COI or not. Our pillars are inviolable. This issue is about how restrictive WP:COI should be interpreted. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen, SlimVirgin is an administrator who works on COI issues, generally at the guideline level, and as far as I know has not been involved in the e-cig article. Joseph2302 works on COI issues a lot on the ground (you see him posting everywhere on this board) and as far as I know he has also not edited e-cigs. Both of them are advising you not to edit the articles directly going forward. I work this board a lot too, and I am advising you the same. ( I understand that you may see me as biased, which is I brought this here) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog i do not see you as biased. As i've said before: DADAFO's interests lie in the political aspects of electronic cigarettes in Denmark and the EU, as well as on the European standard for electronic cigarettes - and thus i have a clear and present COI for these particular area. As for electronic cigarettes in general - we do not promote their usage, nor in any other way have advocacy issues. Thus i will (as i've already explained on my talk page) refrain from editing these particular areas. But a complete editban for the whole topic area is not in line with our COI guidelines - since my position does not involve taking a stance on these. I have no predetermined biases towards whether electronic cigarettes are healthy or not, that is for the medical and scientific literature to determine. Nor do i have predetermined views on any other aspect of the topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, as the COI guideline explains, COI has nothing to do with bias or lack thereof. It has to do with external roles and relationships. See WP:EXTERNALREL, WP:COIBIAS and WP:COI#What is wrong with conflict of interest?. That you have a conflict in a contentious area means you should not edit articles in that area, and should probably also avoid RfCs and similar, or else make your COI known in those discussions. If you had only made a few edits to those articles, it would matter less, but you've been focusing on them for a while, so it's a problem. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct, but it does have something to do with vested interest. And i have no vested interests in other subtopics of electronic cigarettes outside of Danish and EU policy on the area. My COI is less than for instance health professionals, or researchers within this topic area, and editors from those areas are not considered as having COI. What you essentially translate COI into is: If you have an interest or knowledge within an area, you should not edit it. Which is contrary to Wikipedia's pillars. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a large academic literature on COI, and our guideline follows it. It doesn't mean that if you know or believe something about an area, you have a COI. Please read the guideline, starting from WP:COI#What is conflict of interest?. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, i have read it, just as i've read our policies in general (why do you think i disclosed my position?). And nothing in COI states that i should not edit or contribute as long as i'm careful and stick to a strict adherence to our policies (here i would presume WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are the main aspects). I've disclosed my COI long before this thread, and i've stayed away from problem areas, and i've also mainly contributed to the talk-pages. If you can find any edits or comments that are problematic, then i'd like to hear it - especially since i follow WP policies to the letter. If there are any particular behavioral issues then i would also like to hear them. I'm not involved in any sort of WP:ADVOCACY (or in "getting the word out") --Kim D. Petersen 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen, you made edits to the Safety of electronic cigarettes. I provided some diffs on your talk page. See User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive_2015#Query.
The RfC resulted in keeping the sources. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_3#RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content?.
See here on your talk page. You had a discussion with User:Bishonen. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
QG as usual you are only telling half of the story. I did not "edit", i reverted back to the last consensus version before the RfC, while the RfC was running, and because the RfC was running. The problem there was that you wanted to pre-empt the RfC. And that you keep repeating this particular instance, in various forums, is rather more of an indication of problems with your editing patterns than mine - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


I have to say, as someone with a "former" COI here, when I worked for Cancer Research UK, I don't find Kim's fairly few edits to the article - a tiny fraction of the torrent - really part of the undoubted problem on that page. Mostly he edits the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look at his contribs, he edits several articles about electronic cigarettes. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I have in fact only edited the main article since my appointment. And my contributions have been very limited even there. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And I also watch some of the other articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no COI: Whether a person has a COI or not ultimately rests on the nature of their relationship with the subject at hand. The revelant guideline at WP:COI states: "An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse." In other words, if Kim were to edit DADAFO articles, that would be a COI because he is directly related to the organization. Electronic cigarette seems to be a much broader topic, and though it might be closely related to the DADAFO, I do not consider Kim to have a direct relationship with this topic area. On the other hand, he definitely has a COI when it comes to the DADAFO organization itself. Just like how alt. med practitioners (probably) do not have a COI for alt med. articles, but only for their own organizations. -A1candidate 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A1candidate, i disagree, i most certainly have a strong COI when it comes to Danish and EU politics with regards to electronic cigarettes, since that is the area that DADAFO is a part of. We have a direct impact on Danish politics on this area, and are part of the political process in implementing the TPD (EU tobacco directive) in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • COI exists. The DADAFO pretty clearly appears to be an advocacy group on e-cigs in general based on the above. Because of that broad involvement in the topic (regardless of the group's actual stances or country of political involement), that would mean Kim should not be editing articles related to e-cigs. Per our standard approach to COI editors, they should only make edit requests. If advocacy-like behavior does become apparent and a problem on talk pages, that's a topic for a different venue (not commenting on if it is currently a problem). However, they should take precautionary measures in talk conversations to not appear like an advocate since this COI could create that appearance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Do please explain how DADAFO is an advocacy group on e-cigs in general. We are involved in the political process as a consumer protection organization - not as a promoter, advertiser or advocate on anything other than how to implement e-cigs in Danish legislature (and general consumer rights within the market). That such organizations such us DADAFO exists is perhaps a Danish thing, but we are the consumer arm within the market. You may liken us to a Labour union, which within the workspace represents the workers.
Thus within political aspects of e-cigs, particularly for Denmark and the EU, i have a strong COI. --Kim D. Petersen 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Your group's website supports e-cigarettes. An editor working for tobacco-industry lobbyists would be expected not to edit articles about smoking. It wouldn't matter that she had been tasked to lobby just one government. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Bingo with Sarah here. My "in general" comment was with respect to the fact that the group closely works with the topic of e-cigs, regardless of the actual stance they take (pro, anti, in between measured response, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We work within the topic of electronic cigarette legislature and no other aspect or topic of e-cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thats a strange stance, since there is definite difference between producers and consumers. Producers are economically dependent on a product. And we aren't lobbyists either. We are not economically dependent on anything. Consumer rights != Industry lobbying. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, it's common for advocates to lobby in the name of consumer rights. The tobacco, pharmaceutical, alcohol and junk-food industries are known for it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Sarah. That would be Astroturfing. And i hope that you aren't implying anything with that? --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I'm not implying astroturfing in the sense that something's fake. It's just that buyer and seller desires cohere in cases like this, and when the product is one that buyers are addicted to, advancing their rights isn't obviously in their interests.

Then there are the interests of the non-consumer or former consumer. Buyers want to use the product with minimal restrictions, even if it negatively affects people who are not addicted or are fighting the addiction, which may include the buyers' future selves. It is all very difficult ethically. I think getting involved in those articles with a COI just makes things too fraught. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Sarah, with regards to addiction: The EU TPD (tobacco products directive) from 2014 makes sure that nicotine containing e-cig products for the forseeable future will be available to customers - so that is not a factor in consumer protection at all. In fact customer protection within the EU now, is to make sure that the products are as safe as can be for the consumers. It seems to me that you are entering more into a personal or US centric view here. Your second point is (just as the former really) a political one, and e-cig policy (as here vape bans) is one of the areas that i've said several times that i have a strong COI towards. But the electronic cigarette topical area is much more than policy issues. --Kim D. Petersen 08:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I think you misunderstood my post. Also, I don't know what the US-centric view is, and I'm not from the US. The point I was making is that representing the rights of addicted people to obtain more of the substance they're addicted to, especially in a way that affects other people (including former addicts), is ethically very challenging. For example, the needs of consumer X in 2015 when he is addicted ("please let me vape at work") may change in 2016 when he has quit ("please don't let people vape at work").
You're arguably adding to that ethical burden by editing Wikipedia in a way that suits your position, but without alerting readers that the article is being edited by someone with an external interest. Readers expect WP articles to be written independently of external interests. Just as you feel a responsibility toward consumer protection in your area, we have a responsibility toward our consumers to keep COI editing out of those articles. You have that same responsibility as a Wikipedian. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but i have not ever removed or argued against any material concerning second-hand vaping as far as i know. The only way that we can add or remove material concerning such an issue is if the general WP:WEIGHT in the literature indicates that it should be or not be there. I object very strongly to the claim that i'm "arguably ... editing... in a way that suits [my] position". (first of all because i doubt that you understand my position - since you seem to assert that i would want vaping in the workspace at all costs - definitely: No. This issue of workspace vaping, should depend entirely on evidential material not someones opinions (except for the employer in case he wants to ban it locally - which is always his right no matter the legal state)) --Kim D. Petersen 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC) [ie. whether you can vape in the workspace, is determined by local laws (which is evidence driven) or by the employer - it cannot and never will be the employee's decision! --Kim D. Petersen 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)]
Sorry, that misses the points I was making, but I don't know how to rephrase them. I don't want to delve into workplace vaping, but it seems self-evident that if someone is trying to stop smoking or vaping, being surrounded by it at work would not be helpful, in terms of exposure to nicotine, the rituals, smells, normalization of it, etc. It would be like forcing recovering alcoholics to work in bars. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's make one thing clear here. COI discourages coi editing but Nowhere does it state one is not allowed to edit an article nor does it forbid commenting on article's talk pages (and that would include RFCs which are decided by argument, not vote). There are clear restrictions on how to edit and so far, no one here has even tried to show how Kim's editing style is against policy. If you keep on behaving like this, you'll be left with less to none COI disclosure by editors (which there are already plenty of on WP). Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Generally we don't allow anything but extremely minor and uncontroversial edits on the article from a COI editor. That's been the practice for at least the past few years. The talk page is generally open for them, but we also acknowledge that COI editors whether paid or just coming from more of an advocate position can tend to swamp out other volunteer and generally less engaged editors at the page. While not discussed too often, that can lead to the COI editor getting less attention on the talk page or weight in determining consensus if that becomes an issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume that this originates in the rather defunct system in the US, where one cannot differentiate between grassroots, astroturfs, advisors, consultants and experts. It seems to be a general creep within the WP system that subject matter experts are discouraged from contributing. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a "general creep" but seemingly only a general creep for certain types of subject matter experts. I'm pretty sure that there are double standards going on here. Anyhow, I have seen quite a bit of KDP's editing and in my experience they are one of the most policy-focused, neutral editors that I have collaborated with. Of course they have a COI. But eliminating them from the subject area will be a net loss to the project just as eliminating a medical doctor or public health official would be.Levelledout (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43. Re. the first part of your comment: If true, this practice was/is against policy. Actually true is the latter of your post: They get more restricted and/or more harsh measures can be taken, if it becomes a problem that is. We do not restrict further than laid out in policy; that would be a punitive preemptive measure.--TMCk (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@TMCk The COI guideline is clear that editors with a COI should not directly edit articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The basic fact here Jytdog is that i do not have a stake in or stands to benefit from any other area within electronic cigarettes, than the ones that i've mentioned. My intention here, as with any other area of Wikipedia that i've edited, is to make Wikipedia better, and to provide the best overview of the topic that fits the weight of the literature... I am and have always been a wikipedia editor first and foremost - ironically wiki has a more profound influence on what i do in my role at DADAFO, than it could conceivably ever have the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you have talked here. One of the things about COI, is that folks who have one, often think they are doing just fine. Others can see the problem, and truly clueful editors listen to them and do what they should do. So while i understand the position you are taking, I don't agree and nor do most folks talking here that work regularly on COI issues. You will do as you will. If you decide to ignore us and continue to edit directly, I will likely bring an ANI case against you, combining your COI with your role at DADAFO, with diffs showing a pattern of POV editing that reflects the advocacy agenda of DADAFO, and will seek to have the community impose a topic ban. That is what the community does, when editors don't do on their own, what they should do. Administrators may of course decide to take action directly. We'll see what happens. That's all I have to say. I thank you again for talking; others of course may have a desire to talk further with you. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
These "diffs showing a pattern of POV editing". Can you show them please? --Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why would I build a case before you have demonstrated that you will not abide by the COI guideline? Like everybody here I am busy and do not have time to waste; every editor with a clear COI whom I have advised of the COI guideline, has agreed to follow it or has not cared about Wikipedia to the point where they were indeffed for other reasons. With regard to your editing, it would be very surprising (but not impossible of course) to find that you have edited the article in a way that is actually opposed to DADAFO's interests or aims; I don't reckon that building the case will be hard, should I need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TMCk, the way that Jytdog is going about this is the wrong way. To try and get someone to stop editing by saying that an ANI case will be brought against them and that there will be evidence based purely on assumptions is not right. Surely what should be being said is that POV editing is against the rules and KDP should be particularly careful with regards to this and WP:COI in general in order to avoid sanctions that may be imposed if there is evidence.Levelledout (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I no where made that definitive of a statement. You are misreading what i wrote. I am also sorry that you do not understand COI. It is one of the rare issues in Wikipedia that is about contributor, not content. Please do read the guideline again, with that in mind. When editors have a COI we advise them of what the guideline says. If editors abide by that, generally there are no problems. If editors choose to ignore the advice, they very likely will end up in hot water one way or another, but most often with regard to NPOV. That is what COI is all about - its tendency to drive editing that is biased in favor of the conflicted editor's external interests. Like I said, if Kim decides to keep directly editing and I bring a case, I will be very surprised to find any edits or discussion by him that are actually opposed to the stances that DADAFO advocates - for instance, I would be very surprised if -- if I go looking - that I will find Kim has made edits explaining the possibility of risks of exhaled vapor to other people, or supported content about that on the Talk page - I expect I will find the opposite - him downplaying the possibility of risks to others in his edits and advocating against discussion of that on the Talk page. And i would be very surprised if he has supported content about efforts to regulate e-cigs as medical devices - I expect to find advocacy for minimal regulation. That is how COI works. In any case, he has been advised, and he will do, what he will do. As will I, and as will others in the community. the e-cig articles are contentious enough without conflicted editors advocating. I would not be surprised if any admins overwatching the general sanctions take action to restrict him to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The assumption of bad faith is strong with this one.... --Kim D. Petersen 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
you are missing of the point. You have a COI - everybody including you agrees on that. You are not taking the next step and working with the community to manage it. That is too bad. And the sniping is not helping you. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think i missed that particular point. You made some very definite statements that assumes bad faith, and you advocated for preemptive measurements without actually looking at my contribution history. You also incidentally assumed that specific views that you appear to have are equivalent to the weight of the literature. It is one thing to warn against, and quite another to assume what will happen. --Kim D. Petersen 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite: people with COIs engaging in conflicted editing are almost never acting in bad faith. They edit in good faith but are oblivious to the damage they are doing. That is why our guidelines are against people with COIs editing in topics for which they have a conflict. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not particularly disagree with your sentiment Alexbrn, what i object against is the assumption of bad faith before the fact. Editors with strong views, generally have this problem - it is not limited to people with COI.--Kim D. Petersen 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, please actually read the COI guideline, and perhaps the books used as references. COI creates a tendency towards bias. Acknowledging that is not assuming bad faith. You really are missing the point. But as I said, you will do what you will do. good luck ( i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you did quite a bit more than "acknowledge" here. You made specific accusations/predictions without knowledge... you went above and beyond. Despite your insistance on being unbiased, you turned out to be biased - which was actually rather sad to see. --Kim D. Petersen 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems this is a case of COIN fulfilling its purpose (I wish more people would do this rather than sniping / casting aspersions about potential COI at articles). The community here has determined there is a COI and general consensus is that the editor should not edit in this topic. Unless someone who hasn't commented here wants to formally close this RfC style, there doesn't seem to be much more to be said here. Either Kim heeds the decision from COIN, or the consensus is cited at ANI in the form of a previous warning if the question of a topic ban comes up. I'd prefer the former, but given the way Kim is behaving above with regards on how to move forward, the latter might need to be pursued if issues keep coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You removed a 2014 systematic review that said no conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs because of poor studies (in part caused by COI). [41] In the same diff you removed a quote from the World Lung Foundation that many e-cigarettes "contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives." You removed this another three times, along with a statement from the UK's National Health Service and something about reports to the FDA, and you added the POV tag. [42][43][44]
On the talk page you argued that position statements from the World Medical Association and World Lung Foundation are either tertiary or primary sources, [45][46] and that we should use only secondary sources, though MEDRS allows these kinds of position statements. Another problem with COI editing can be the time other editors have to spend on talk dealing with the issues. I'm sorry, Kim, but this seems like a very clear case overall. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I mistyped the ping, so repinging KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all Sarah, this was before my appointment - but i will respond to it anyways :)
Re: Your first item: First of all this was not about the usability of the source in general - but about where it was used. The source is of course reliable, and was already in use on Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. The discussion (which was long, and which resulted in an RfC) was about whether the safety article should use the tertiary position statements or purely rely on WP:MEDRS reviews. I have never argued against using that source, but merely against the placement. If that is POV - then we have serious problems on all of Wikipedia's articles. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it has to be used.. Correct?
As a note: The Pisinger review as far as i can tell was an unintended removal, that originated from a revert of a mass-insert of material that was under active discussion on the talk page. I would not (and didn't at the time either) object to the Pisinger source. I in fact know Dr. Pisinger (Danish researcher) quite well, and she is one of the researchers that DADAFO is working with on our workspace emission analysis.
The second issue - the reverts back to pre-RfC while the RfC is running - should be self-explanatory. The POV tag was iirc in fact consensus at the time - fortunately it was resolved later. POV goes both ways Sarah, and mostly the issues were based on WP:WEIGHT.
The third item is really the same (just the talk-page equivalent), and was resolved by an RfC[47]. Are you saying that editors cannot disagree on what level of reliability (primary, secondary, tertiary) that is appropriate for particular subtopics? In my understanding (as well as other editors understanding) there was a general consensus at the time to only use secondary WP:MEDRS review articles - which is the highest standard that is possible within the medical field. Unfortunately we chose to lower our sourcing standards with that RfC. Are you saying that this is a COI problem? That we should use the best medical articles available? --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, the arguments miss the point. (Also, that this was just before your appointment probably isn't relevant, because you must have been involved with this group before the appointment.) Imagine an editor who removes from Fruitarianism MEDRS sources that state its health risks, keeps reverting, and ties editors up on talk with arguments about source quality, POV tags, not adding things during RfCs, and so on. Others try to persuade that person that they're editing against policy and consensus. So far, so normal.
Then imagine we learn that the editor is president of the World Fruitarian Association. It changes everything, because it means we know this situation will continue. This person will not be persuaded, because he has a strong external interest and a tendency to bias inherent in that position. We also know from scholarly studies that people with COI underestimate their own bias and wrongly believe they can act neutrally, so what the COI editor sees is not what others see. The question then becomes how much volunteer time should be spent dealing with the conflicted person, and whether it's fair to expect people to do that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sarah actually the appointment time does have COI influence, i candidated for a board position, got it, and was afterwards appointed chairman/president. I'm also member of the Kræftens Bekæmpelse (the Danish Cancer institute), as are roughly a half a million other Danes. ~10% of all Danes) So that would by your assertion mean that i have another COI there? Perhaps even oppositely directed? How many of our current editors are members of the American Heart Association? Or similar grouping?
You would have a point Sarah, if the removal of the Pisinger source (the only MEDRS review being talked about) had been deliberate, or if i had argued against the Pisinger source. The question on whether a source is more appropriate in one subtopic article or in another - is not a removal. If i had removed the position statements from the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes (where the source is obviously spot on), then it would be different. I'm btw. curious as to why you would think that i'd have an interest in removing such a source. Just curious.
You would also have a point about the RfC based reverts, if i A) Had been the only editor with this view B) That i reverted against the status quo C) If i was trying to pre-empt the RfC D) Wasn't part of the discussion. - unfortunately none of these is correct. The trouble with the e-cig articles is not removals (of which there are very few), but the piling up of additions to the brink of overflowing.
I do see your point - but i find that the specifics are cherry-picked without considering the context. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I believe uninvolved editors would see a problem with your edits, and the COI means the situation won't change, so the best thing would be for you to withdraw voluntarily. Re: membership of a large group, that rarely means there's a COI. If the group is a small one and is campaigning for something the editor is writing about on WP, it would be a COI, as would holding a position in a similar group of any size. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So I.e. members of ISIS wouldn't be considered to have a COI on certain articles?--TMCk (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a quite serious meant comparison Sarah opened the door to argue for!--TMCk (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mispinged again: KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but a number of reviews were deleted and there never was any consensus to use only secondary WP:MEDRS review articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=658964452#Discussion_on_positions. Before the RfC User:Yobol wrote "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS."[48] QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
QG: Relying on your own assertions in a diff, is not really an argument is it. Yobol also disagreed, but lots of other editors agreed with me. Thus there was the RfC - and now a new consensus on sourcing. Just as WP should work. --Kim D. Petersen 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deakin University[edit]

User:Ahladita has recently made a number of edits to the Deakin University article, mainly updating trivial numbers and the like. However:

Just wondering whether it's just me, or whether a COI exists?

-- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - one of Ahladita's edit notes said the edit to the Hollander article was authorized by Hollander - that is a clear tell of an external relationship. I have opened a discussion with Ahladita on their talk page, and have tagged the articles. Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Global Football Family (Football Agency) and Tom Davies (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

Username clearly shows COI to GFF. Tom Davies is a client of them (his article did mention the agency, but I deleted it as not relevant). Their response to my COI concerns was for them to basically tell me to fix the article immediately here. GFF is almost certainly going to get deleted (an agency with 4 clients isn't notable), but the player is notable per WP:NFOOTY. More eyes appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sawdust Art Festival[edit]

Promotional language that apparently cannot be removed, repeated removal of COI tag, no disclosures so far from the 3 SPAs that I can see. The topic is probably notable given existing sourcing, but still written largely as a brochure. Would probably benefit from some c/e by an unconnected editor, but I'm primarily worried about the lack of disclosure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyck Turgeon[edit]

Was written by a paid editor from Fiverr. Account was written by one of dozens of this persons socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Socks include:
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Have posted here at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Girlishkim Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

agents[edit]

I'm not sure of a better place to ask this, so: why do we permit (and even soucourage by having a line in the infobox listing the agents for a model; the information would be of use only to someone who wanted to hire the person and is thus promotional. (eg [49]? DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't belong in the infobox and unreffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
you are not the first to ask that (that link is at the Template talk page); this post there claims that what agency a model belongs to, is important for their career. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if knowing this information about a model were the equivalent of knowing whether a professional athlete plays in the major leagues or the minor leagues. Deli nk (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto legal cases[edit]

Looking at a fringey blog I see the following: Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout. When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed. Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.[50]

This looks to be an attempt by a lawyer to use Wikipedia as advertising. The article in question is Monsanto legal cases. There is some discussion on the article talk page and at RSN, but consensus seems to be that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to make the case notable. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Rockland Center for the Arts[edit]

On their talkpage, have said they work for the company- adding unsourced text that seems to be half-copied from the official website. Then proceeded to demand reinstation of their text, despite the fact I've told them about WP:VERIFY and WP:COPYVIO. Needs some eyes/more help please. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Election judge and COI[edit]

In an effort to make sure I do not have a COI in a specific area I am asking this question. I have mentioned that I am an election judge in the US during elections in more than one place on wikipedia. I do not campaign for anyone, but I have declared my party as part of the requirements for being an election judge (Democrat). The duties are basically processing people to vote by making sure they are registered and making sure that all the rules for an election are followed. While I am 90% sure this would not be a COI, I would rather be more sure. If there is, which areas would be a good idea to stay away from? Thanks. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Analog Devices[edit]

Hi all, I've proposed several updates/additions to Analog Devices, here - some minor factual updates and a few expansions of basic information in the article. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)