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:


Cominform.com[edit]

Resolved: all these articles have been deleted. editor discloses they are a paid editor on their user page. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Unresolved: editor changed username and blanked COI declaration. Brianhe (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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: [1] and [2], which are advertisements for paid Wikipedia editing. The user names on those websites are both "Hilumeoka2000," the same as on Wikipedia. At [3], 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 ([4], [5], [6]). 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)
He did return, has changed username to User:Boskit190 and blanked his userpage. I.e. the COI notice has been removed by the editor in question. Meanwhile the elance profile he claimed ownership of has accepted at least this and this new Wikipedia jobs since Joseph2302's last comment above this one. — Brianhe (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Boskit190 re-created the user page with a brief disclosure. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thought they'd created a new account, I guess changing username is okay, as the history including the deletion of their articles, and the block for harassment and undisclosed paid editing is still attached to the account. However, the disclosure is inadequate, because it should provide a list of all the articles they were paid to create (including the deleted ones), along with information on who their clients are, in accordance with the Wikimedia Terms of Use on paid editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)The user doesn't have a fresh start, just a new name and a fresh user page. The talk page still exists, and the user archived it at User talk:Boskit190/Archive 1
  • Disclosure of deleted paid articles (and any undisclosed articles) seems like a good recommendation. User should absolutely take note that all future paid edits must declare the client.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hroðulf: I realised, and edited my post above (before you posted). Frankly, they're just trying to hide the fact they created bad articles, because that makes them less likely to be accepted by clients. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
So their userpage now says they've retired permanently. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 20 June 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 [7], and has not commented on the SPI casepage. Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the COI tag be removed immediately after disclosure by the COI editor [8][9][10][11], or is this something the rest of the community should take care of when the article is cleaned up? — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

OCEAN Style[edit]

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

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

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

Kaiser Permanente[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Jade_at_Brickell_Bay[edit]

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

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

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

Paul Levine[edit]

I have a disclosed COI as I am the subject of this article. I have thoughts about editing, shortening, removing puffery and otherwise cleaning up the article. But I ask for your suggestions. Please feel free to post on my Talk page or otherwise bring to my attention your concerns. Is there a Wikipedia editor out there who might assist? Thank you. Solomonandlord (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Solomonandlord

Well I've started by removing all of your poorly sourced selective quoting, and some of the blatantly non-neutral language, and all your self-quotes. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I've also cleaned it up a bit. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Badly needs better sourcing. Can't find any third party sources about the person, just a few reviews of the books. Notability is questionable. Does this pass WP:AUTHOR? Send to AfD? Comments? John Nagle (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added find sources templates to facilitate searching.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I certainly question its notability. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I put a "proposed deletion" template on it, and someone took that off. That's not unreasonable; the subject of the article is near the low edge of the notability threshold, but it's hard to decide on which side they fall. John Nagle (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

<snip> (proposed content put here in this dif; cut from here and pasted to the article Talk page in this dif, with Solomonandlord's permission per this dif Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC))

Solomonandlord this should really go on the Talk page of the article. Will you cut this and paste it there, or may I? Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Jytodog, yes, please copy and post wherever appropriate. Obviously, I'm out of my depth here. Solomonandlord (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Solomonandlord
done. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Impersonation by paid editors[edit]

In the past couple of weeks I have been contacted on and off-wiki by users responding to e-mails purporting to be sent by me offering to write articles for the users for a fee. When I asked to see one of these e-mails, it was sent from a Hotmail account by someone saying, "I am a Wikipedian with high privileges, check my user page:" and linking to my user page. When I challenged this individual by e-mail they apologised and promised not to do it again. Just reporting this in case anyone else has received similar messages.--ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See these threads:
*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Highly_relevant_ANI_discussion
*Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Someone_may_be_impersonating_me
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This is related to an issue which has been referred to WMF legal dept by DGG. They should be notified of this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mdennis (WMF): This thread is related to the other impersonations. I also have emails with some ID info. You may want to confer with Guerillero that has some as well. Ukpat please email your info to Maggie (User:Mdennis (WMF)) so that the legal dept may be informed. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Pinging again because I got a name wrong here (sorry). @Ukexpat and FreeRangeFrog: please email Maggie what you have concerning this case. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I reported this via OTRS to legal some time ago. I note a particular Facebook account involved in this was terminated, but I don't know if it had to do with anything Legal did. They never got back to me. I should clarify they did acknowledge my forward, just that I never heard from them again.§FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can get me an IP address, I can CU it --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Unfortunately I have nothing more than the evidence presented in the ANI thread. Perhaps Ukexpat can glean an IP from email headers? I'm not sure Hotmail includes the sender's IP, I know gmail does not. I never actually corresponded with any of them, just people writing to OTRS about them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: and @Ukexpat: If you're using outlook.com, open the message and then click the ••• button on the top menu bar and then "view message source". The sender's IP should be somewhere near the top. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smartse: Not necessarily, as I said Gmail excludes the sender's original IP for privacy reasons. I just don't know if Outlook/Hotmail do the same. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I use Gmail for Wikipedia related e-mail. I did check the message headers and see the IP address 157.55.2.21 if that helps.--ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see your point @FreeRangeFrog: - that IP is a mailserver: [13]. SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Big pain. AN/I and the Wikimedia Foundation are on it. Is there any more action needed here? John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

University of Gibraltar[edit]

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

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

Egress Software Technologies Ltd[edit]

This article appears to fall under Wikipedia's ACTUALCOI guidelines as it appears to be written by an employee of Egress Software based on the offending users username of "RebeccaEgress". 167.21.141.14 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've PRODed it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imsess[edit]

These articles were created by the last checkuser likely group at the above SPI. This is mostly likely undisclosed paid advocacy. Eviscerate away. (I have blocked all accounts involved. All the other spam in the SPI has been reverted and blacklisted.) MER-C 12:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Put a couple up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid Day, Starmus Festival[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible undisclosed paid editor[edit]

This has been noted at their talkpage by @Canuckle:. The website of the Evolve Multimedia describes them as developeing attractive websites, particularly river websites, see [14], [15]. They've been adding unsourced promotional spam to teh Britannia articles, and Mark Angelo- a river conservationist. Also some minor edits on World Rivers Day. Aside from the fact their username is an obvious violation, all these pages need massive cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Panda Games[edit]

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

I just gave it a little cleanup, e.g. removing LinkedIn SPS citation, let's see what happens. The stuff Joseph2302 removed and the SPA restored was a copyvio too [16] so thatxs another problem. Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tagged the talkpage, also LTasc declared a COI here, and Brianhe has told them to post here about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I am doing this reply correctly but my child is a fan of the games and I was just trying to make sure they got represented accurately.I did reference the descriptions on their site but didn't think they were 100% verbatim nor did I realize that would be a copywrite vio.LTasc (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)LTasc
Trimmed the article a bit, took out some of the minor awards, and cleaned up the references. With 40 million installs, some press coverage, and some awards, it's notable, so that's not a problem. Please check. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder about those awards. First of all, many of the citations didn't check. Second, Parents' Choice Award may be legit, but who exactly are National Parenting Publications and TechWithKids.com? Is this one of those things you can pay to get listed? — Brianhe (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine Sachs[edit]

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

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

Kathy Ireland[edit]

Over the years Borntodeal has quite lovingly tended to the Kathy Ireland article. [17] The result is an article largely sourced to press releases that a person connected to Ireland would know about. They've recently started a related Ireland page: Draft:The Sterling Winters Company. Any concerns about this promotional editing or conflict of interest issues are quickly deleted under the guise of "moving". [18] --NeilN talk to me 01:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing the editor I find it is very likely that they are operating with an undisclosed conflict of interest and that they are being financially compensated for promoting Kathy Ireland. It is the typical pattern, adding spam links, add large amounts of puffery to a very narrow range of articles. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Editor was clearly aware of these concerns for at least two years. — Brianhe (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe, can you please briefly explain how the articles/editors you added [19] are related? --NeilN talk to me 03:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Borntodeal-Danny D De Lillo connection is suggested by his uncontested editing of the userpage of editor with same name [20], and his introduction of the failed AfC on De Lillo [21]. The others are simple ownership-style behavior such as [22] at John Kiedis (renamed), and [23] at Victor Drai. There's also off-wiki evidence that links De Lillo and Kathy Ireland to a certain PR firm who they appear to be clients of, and John Kiedis/Blackie Dammett to the same firm as publisher of his autobiography. — Brianhe (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

My concerns are with your editing specifically. And as you delete notices from your talk page without any kind of substantive reply, we're here. --NeilN talk to me 01:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'm satisfied with the evidence that this editor is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. That blanking of the notice without comment is incredibly suspicious along with accusing NeilN of vandalism [24] and continue addition of spam. I propose an indef block, the editor has had over two years to follow disclosure guidelines and edit constructively, but has chosen not to. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Also they have broken 3RR which is grounds for a block as well. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked them. Special:Contributions/JoannaSRobinson needs evaluation in this case as well. As does Special:Contributions/76.195.60.247.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
One look at JoannaSRobinson's twitter [25] reveals she is a paided PR agent for an organization representing Janet Jackson and Kathy Ireland. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
These guys weren't too good at concealing their identity, which was a factor in our favor. I expect the Wikipedia PR cold war to be more difficult in the future with more and more of the clumsy ones getting exposed and losing clients. One thing that might go in our favor is more of the rats turning on themselves, as appeared to happen here with a reintroduction of negative PR against a competitor's client. — Brianhe (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point. At risk of getting off topic, is there anyway we could design the system so that disclosed paid editors are more efficient than undisclosed ones? I'm not sure it is as sneaky promotional content may be more effective and cheaper at promoting something than honesty. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeffed Borntodeal and JoannaSRobinson as undisclosed paid editors.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put on my Wikisleuth hat and dug into the extent of this PR companies activities and it is not pretty. There appear to be one major companies involved here with two minor PR agencies. The major one is LaForce & Stevens, a New York based agency which represents Jackson and Ireland. The minor ones have represented Ireland in the past include ExpoMarketing and Multi Media Productions USA. Pages of interest, and possibly affected include World Business Review, Kathy Ireland, Janet Jackson, Metro Video Productions, and a number of parties listed here especially Perry Ellis and Swarovski. There are possibly lots more, but I need to go to sleep. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There's been some trimming of fluff. The article could use more trimming in the awards, public speaking, and philanthropy sections, and some of the product info probably ought to go. Not finding any major scandals that have been omitted. Doesn't look too bad. Ireland really is notable as a model, in business, and in film/TV; this isn't the usual resume-inflation problem we get here. John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The philanthropy § sees particularly over the top. I'm actually surprised not to find negative stuff off-wiki about her political views, considering her brands' exposure to an activist campaign a la Chik-fil-A. — Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Club W[edit]

articles
drafts
editors

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

Adding four new editors and articles they touched: added the same external site (Best You magazine) to several bio articles as the IP did here. The bio articles look very much like stuff a PR company would be working on. One fine example from Draft:Lon Safko: he is "an American innovator, inventor, entrepreneur, author, trainer, and professional speaker". — Brianhe (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Not a surprise, guess what PR firm represents Best You? JH Public Relations. [26]Brianhe (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Egle_Tvirbutaite[edit]

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

Appears to be a paid sock per [27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Elite SEM etc.[edit]

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

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

looked at some diffs - not good...

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

Tadano Faun[edit]

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

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

Internet Brands[edit]

The article contains a lengthy Controversies section, cited exclusively to primary sources, personal blogs, and The Register, which is a non-reliable tabloid source.[28] I think the section should receive the same immediate deletion we grant to BLPs, without prejudice to some of the content being re-incorporated if there are secondary sources (most of this stuff: dismissed lawsuits for less than $1 million, etc.; it is highly unlikely any quality sources exist or that these are significant at all).

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

Sogeti[edit]

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

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

G2003[edit]

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

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

Seems pretty clear that they are a paid editor, and yet they've failed to actually disclose it properly, and are continuing to do it despite claiming to have stopped. Saying "I've been paid to maintain this article" is insufficient, the Terms of Use specifically require that the client who paid them is disclosed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To be completely clear, his October 2014 promise was to stop paid advertising. Not sure what that's even supposed to mean in terms of our COI policy; is it paid advocacy? Is a list of product "key features" advertising? — Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
They have not done much editing lately. This is a concern though [29]. Maybe a block until issues can be clarified would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block proposed by @Doc James:. Tagged Jessica Huie, MBA Polymers, Jay Mo, Yank Barry, Landbay, Henry Herbert Tailors, DAMAC Properties, Charlotte Fantelli, Shane Zaza with COI notices. The others seem to have had a reasonable amount of non-COI input from other editors, else were already tagged. — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Added some COI-ful userspace drafts to watch in case of future shenanigans. — Brianhe (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block, at least until they're willing to disclose properly, and IMO should be longer than that. Undisclosed paid editing is not acceptable, and undisclosed paid editing after apparently claiming that you'd stop it is even worse. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tagging Yank Barry on the article page flags a moot issue. It's been almost a year since G2003 edited that article, and that dispute, which went all the way to litigation, has since been resolved. I'd suggest taking the COI notices off articles where the edit wasn't recent and has since been undone. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Undid Yank Barry COI notice, thanks for seeing that. What else do you suggest? — Brianhe (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Searchwriter[edit]

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

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

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

Metasonix[edit]

sundry IPs, too morphy to list

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

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

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

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

  • Oh please! Eric Barbour hasn't edited here in nearly six years, yet gets a mention here. In fact, he makes a point of saying he hasn't. I'm barely active on either Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy these days due to work and family commitments. Frankly, this whole affair smacks of shaming through article tagging, and I note that a large number of his detractors have gone over the article in fine detail in the interim years. There's no earthly way the article as it stands reflects any conflicts of interest on the part of Eric. Tagging it so looks just like a petty smear campaign against the man and his business. Ok - i'm out - Alison 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Eric has edited here (he admits as much at WO) and if he hasn't, it's because he's indef blocked, not just because the muse wasn't upon him. This article is still a plug for his company.
I make no comment on the rightness of the COI tag, or the existence of this article. Merely that you, as an active colleague of Eric's at Wikipediocracy, should not be the one removing it.
"Ok - i'm out" – no you're not. The next thing you did was to start edit-warring to remove the tag again. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And again.[30], falsely claiming that this discussion sanctioned her continued yanking off that tag. Oh wait a minute, I think I know what Alison means by "I'm out." It means she's not going to discuss it anymore, and just edit war over it. Discuss it here, that is. I'm sure she'll have plenty to say at her website. Coretheapple (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Alison: I must agree with Andy. Any editor in your position would have an appearance of COI, as editing an article about a friend's business. You are held to an even more strict standard as a WP admin, so IMHO you shouldn't be editing it. — Brianhe (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Andy and Brianhe. This is not the first time Alison has weighed in to help out a Wikipediocracy chum, or to even edit Wikipediocracy itself. It's unseemly. True, our rules aren't very strict, but that doesn't mean that Alison should act like there aren't any. Coretheapple (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
edit warring over COI tags is usually not productive. Alison fwiw in my view you should have reviewed the article for NPOV and sourcing before you pulled the tag. That's all the tag is really for - to signal that an article may be too promotional or denigrating... (which is usually b/c of COI editing, but sometimes fans/haters) and needs somebody independent to review it. I don't know EB nor the company and just reviewed the article and cleaned it up. There was unsourced promo stuff in it. Not so much anymore. Closing this and archiving it so it doesn't become too much dramah Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't close discussions in which you participate. Coretheapple (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I did not participate. I fixedit. There is apparently remaining dramah, in which i will not participate. whatever. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh no, you didn't "fix it." You are not the moderator of the COI board and you don't close discussions because you think they ought to close. This is precisely the kind of problem that people have with you, over and over again. You really need to stop. Coretheapple (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If an editor's only "problem" is ignoring drama and fixing a problematic article, then I hope more come down with that disease. (Redacted) the rest, per request. Tarc (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of fanatical obsession with that website, why did you just say the COI tag on this article's talk page has some connection to that website?[31] That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. There is and should be a COI tag on the article talk page because a significant contributor heads the company that is the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This matter popped up on my watchlist, so I thought I'd take a look. Coretheapple is in the right of it, the removal of the tag and the problematic closure of the discussion here are questionable. Additionally, Tarc's demeanor is uncollegial at best. I say put the tag back on per Andy, Brianhe, and Coretheapple, and discuss further. This situation may call for a larger discussion via an Rfc. Jusdafax 06:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the circumstances (and Coretheapple's involvement as a very enthusiastic follower of all things related to Wikipediocracy), BLP concerns really need to be given more weight. There's no evidence at all that Mr. Barbour has been editing this article, so a tag saying so is essentially an unreferenced claim of wrongdoing. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I see the COI tag more as a swipe at Alison than at someone who has not edited here in 6 years. Editors who should know better around her sometimes treat her as Mata Hari for holding admin roles in both venues. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the target, the effect of the COI template for the reader will be the same. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 15:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a somewhat different take on the issue of notice, I think it's always a service to readers when the fact is present - it's no more a swipe at anybody then a section of a magazine that says 'this section is from . . .' - it is just info the reader should know, and they can ignore it, if they like, but it should be up to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The tag is for exactly this kind of situation. When pals of a COI editor want his contribution concealed from the public it's bad stuff. Should be a Wikipediocracy article on it. Oh never mind. 2600:1017:B415:7A50:C0D9:4884:5811:3A60 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The tag isn't necessarily for readers, it is more for editors in the same way a cleanup or unreferenced tag is. The problem is when what is referred to as "drive-by tagging" occurs, which is what went on here, doubly so when the tagger does not bring legitimate concerns to the talk page, but rather initiates a trolling discussion, it can and should be reverted. If one wishes to note that a Wikipedia editor is connected to the subject, there is a template for that for the article talk page. Btw, the IP6 editor above is the tagger, if that wasn't obvious by now. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • to be clear, the original edit warring was over a COI tag on the article . I cleaned up the article and see no need for that tag anymore. Whether it was warranted in the first place, I don't much care. The posting here brought attention to the article, I went over it and removed puffery and unsourced content which is the content-concern generated by COI editing (I assume others have reviewed what I did to the article, and I have seen no further changes, so it seems that what I did was OK) There is now a different discussion about a {{notable user}} tag referencing EricBarbour on the article Talk page. In my view such a tag is not unreasonable. Not much use since as far as I understand it, that editor hasn't edited here in a long time, but it is not unreasonable. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

  • update. The IP who was edit warring over the COI tag on the article has just said that they see no need for a COI tag on the article anymore. The {{notable user}} tag that was added to the Talk page here seems to be sticking. What open issues are there? Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you've got that crossed up. 2600:1017 is the tagger, 2607:FB90 is different person who reverted 2600's tag and commented on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The tag read “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject”. The main contributors to this article seem to have been Jokestress (talk · contribs), Goldenglove (talk · contribs) and Savagebeautysound (talk · contribs). None of these are sockpuppets of Eric, AFAICS. Eric did make a small number of edits, some of which have been removed. I have a conflict of interest here (I know Eric well), but the facts do not support replacing the tag. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you pay careful attention to the original post you'll see that this isn't about the presence of the tag, but about who should remove it. If Jytdog has looked at the article, decided it's in an appropriate state and then removed it, I'd have no issue with that. If Alison removes it, or an IP, or indeed yourself (the same Wikipediocracy issue) then I see that as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The tag was added in bad-faith by a drive-by IP editor who did not initiate a meaningful talk page discussion on the matter. It was eligible to be removed by anyone for that reason alone. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If all this is about amounts to the wrong sister putting the milk back in the fridge, you sure just created a lot of meaningless drama. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 19:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That sister hangs around with friends I don't much care for, because in the past I've known them to spit in my milk. In a thread that you joined in with. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear on something. The talk page tag (which is the subject of this topic) was there for some years, and then was removed by a drive-by IP[32] reinstated, and then repeatedly removed by editors who left increasingly abrasive edit summaries. The COI issue was raised based on the COI of the editors removing the tag from the talk page, not its addition to the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Popular Front of India[edit]

There is no doubt that this user has joined Wikipedia only to promote Popular Front of India. Simply watching his edit count through xtools gives a clear image that he has links with the organization. His edits are related to remove anything negative about PFI even if it's from a reliable source and add positive words about Popular Front of India from unreliable sources. He is not a new user. He is aware of what is NPOV. Something he is not following at all. even talk page discussion is fruitless. He is not a sympathizer. Most likely he has links with that organization.His other edits are sister organizations of PFI. This is something which makes my doubt more strong. Why he is editing only PFI related articles. I want any administrator/volunteer, who is not from South-East Asia to look into this. Then the neutrality of this COI dispute will be solved. He has made so many edits to these articles, that I can't give all the differences. It will take up huge space and the neutral volunteer will have trouble. Still simply checking his edits will make the case clear. @Human3015: 74.120.221.236 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This matter has been already discussed on ANI [33] and admins there suggested to go for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I will go for arbitration, but still 74.120.221.236 if you have time then open this issue on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, read my comments on ANI here, it will help you. --Human3015 knock knock • 11:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment already under discussion 74.120.221.236 - suggest you create a username so that multiple instances are regulated. If you have noticed, this page has had multiple blank out from numerous IPs. WP Admins have been notified for semi-protection. WP is about absolute facts - 3 parts of this page is see : 1. Facts 2. Works being done. . Allegation that are yet to be proven. Apart from my various edits from Sachin Tendulkar to Ebola, I see the 1 & 2 to be inline with WP. Allegation seems to smear any person or organisation, and that's not constructive -should I be rather doing that?. And you don't need to linked to any group to edit any page. As Human3015 mentions, the opposition is a clear right wing fascist group, I should take that you,74.120.221.236 , are not amongst them. I am for humanity, anti-fascism and alternatives. Suggest you have a username so that things are transparent; my edits are for the scrutiny for any neutral individual any where in this e-world Huhshyeh (talk)

Vestmark[edit]

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

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

Prime Focus Technologies[edit]

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

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

Sofitel Luxury Hotels[edit]

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

I've asked an admin to move the page back to Sofitel- the page was moved from there in 2014 with the edit summary "More in line with the company's name and branding"- not a good reason. Also, the reliable sources call it Sofitel. Removed most of the directory as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Sofitel (at least in Singapore) appears to be represented by Ogilvy Public Relations[34], who, as a CREWE signatory[35], have pledged not to do this sort of thing. I've concluded that one of their independent contractors in Singapore, name withheld due to WP privacy policy, is probably behind at least some of this editing and the recent sub-sub contract. What this means I'll leave up for discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Some details, including name of contractor, have been emailed to functionaries team. — Brianhe (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is a question about Ogilvy being able to fix the problem, or indeed if the question is whether Ogilvy is the problem, then you should not hesitate to email or otherwise contact the listed contact. But please do be extremely polite about this. This should be along the line of "do you know anything about this?" or "Is there anything you can do about this?" along with "Just letting you know that the company's name has come up." I'm pretty sure that they will do the right thing. Smallbones(smalltalk)
CREWE is really just a PR gesture, so I doubt that most of the "signatories" even remember that they "signed." Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Terri Bjerre[edit]

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

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

Simplified COI edit request guide[edit]

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

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

BLP spamming[edit]

This email was recently sent to UCSF staff.

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

Sent to UCSF staff by someone within UCSF's hierarchy, or just someone spamming UCSF employees? If the former, it's serious; if the latter, it's just another spammer. John Nagle (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the ultimate way to solve this type of problem is just to ban paid editing on BLP article pages, with the usual exception for removing libel and similar. If we let people know that BLP paid editing is just not allowed, it will be much much easier dealing with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

M-150 (energy drink)[edit]

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

Irom Chanu Sharmila[edit]

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

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