Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:06, 19 April 2016 editDonnie Park (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,254 edits →Jpop73← Previous edit Revision as of 13:11, 19 April 2016 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Abolitionism (bioethics): rNext edit →
Line 639: Line 639:
* I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for well over 10 years. Other individuals listed here are also longtime contributors. I do have an interest in effective altruism (as I declare in my ), but I think it's clear that this by itself doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no canvassing for any of the articles listed above, though I'm happy to be corrected if presented with the relevant evidence. ] (]) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC) * I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for well over 10 years. Other individuals listed here are also longtime contributors. I do have an interest in effective altruism (as I declare in my ), but I think it's clear that this by itself doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no canvassing for any of the articles listed above, though I'm happy to be corrected if presented with the relevant evidence. ] (]) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
**https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ ] (]) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC) **https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ ] (]) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::The post by Davidcpearce is a violation of ] and is in my view, a post that calls for an indefinite block or TBAN. Blatant violation. ] (]) 13:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


== Purple WiFi == == Purple WiFi ==

Revision as of 13:11, 19 April 2016

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Benjamin Wey Article

    Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Benjamin_Wey

    http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/ 75.137.237.5 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    Luly Yang

    I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

    I requested for the information on the user's talk page. Let's see if the user responds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if the user is deliberately not responding or cannot understand the instructions. Regardless, I don't think the article is suitable for moving to the mainspace any time soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    myfundnow.com

    Resolved – User has been blocked indefinitely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.

    They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

    I should also draw attention to this edit posted back on March 28 which affords some insight into the COI issues here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    This account is still being used to add material along the same lines: here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is time to indefinitely ban this user; they are here solely to promote myfundnow.com Please see their contribs and their lack of responsiveness at their talk page. The person uses this username on external websites in relation to this site. See:
    • I've blocked them from editing. It'd take an awful lot for them to get unblocked, given their edit history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Coupa

    Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    The article looks rather like an ad now. I had to trim it back a bit. I also added a section on "Misappropriation of trade secrets", covering the admitted use of competitor Ariba's trade secrets and IP. There's also a redlink reference to "Spend management", which may be a newly coined term. "Accounts Payable" and "Financial Supply Chain Management" are closer to being standard terms. We need to either create a "spend management" article or use an existing term. John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Here, here! on the "awards". There are a gazillion of these "Top n" type articles, and I think those should be declared to not be "awards". They aren't any more authoritative than the various top ten lists that mainly function as click bait. Then there are the "send us your entry and we'll give you an award" sites, e.g. Stevie Awards, and local Emmy awards. I'd be willing to contribute to a list if one were begun. Even if we can't create a binary yes/no it would be helpful to add more information that would speak to potential notability. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    A great starting point would be an award has to be issued by a notable organization, as established by an enduring Misplaced Pages article on the org. I think this came up before in the context of media industry (film etc.) awards. Probably for this business awards we'd need additional criteria, such as scope, i.e. non-local, and selectivity, i.e. not a "top 1000" type list. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for your help, Nagle and Brianhe.

    As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.

    • For "Coupa has partnerships with international advisory firms. On April 10, 2013, the company announced a formal partnership with KPMG. It also has partnerships with Deloitte, Accenture and IBM Emptoris Commerce."—
    • For the "Funding" text removed in this diff—Series G and $169 million total raised, Series F, and Series E.

    I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.

    As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.

    And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.

    Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    References

    1. Fineberg, Seth (10 April 2013). "KPMG Forms Alliance to Drive Procurement Services". Accounting Today. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    2. Busch, Jason (3 June 2015). "Coupa Inspire Dispatch: Musing on Partnerships, Accenture and More". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    3. Kase, Thomas; Busch, Jason (14 May 2015). "Does IBM Emptoris, Coupa Announcement Raise More Partnership Questions Than Answers?". Spend Matters. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    4. Hesseldahl, Arik (1 June 2015). "Cloud Startup Coupa Lands $80 Million Round at $1 Billion-Plus Valuation". Re/code. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    5. Gage, Deborah (20 March 2014). "Coupa Raises $40M For Cloud Procurement Software, Takes On SAP". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
    6. Nusca, Andrew (10 May 2012). "Coupa raises $22 million to manage your company's expenses". ZDNet. Retrieved 13 April 2016.

    KORE Wireless

    I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. – Brianhe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    Jpop73

    TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.

    It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.

    Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

    I've had a quick check of some of these articles and share your concerns. I'm seeing unverifiable, promotional content about barely (or not) notable subjects which are hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Thanks for bringing it here - it needs a lot of clean up work. I'm tempted to block them now, but it would be good to hear explanation. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    This group of articles/editors came up here before back in 2010. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Misplaced Pages pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    I should have made clear that the uncredited info appears in the Levy article prior to the publication of the HuffPost piece. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    @LaMona: I get what you are trying to imply. You might wish to see this as well, where the user states "In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created". I'm afraid we cannot go any further without violating WP:OUTING. At the moment I think it would be better to ask the user for clarifications about the accounts. If all the accounts belong to the same person, then it needs to be noted. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Misplaced Pages page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.

    Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Misplaced Pages profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Misplaced Pages pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Misplaced Pages page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Misplaced Pages and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Jpop73: Could you let us know if any of these accounts (Zootrainer/zooaction/Zookeeper4u) are/were operated by you or anyone known to you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help?Jpop73 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    I found something additional which is most probably COI though perhaps not related to Jpop73. User:Eatyler did 4 edits in 2013 to Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. The list of staff mentions "...entered into a mentorship under our then Director of Sales and Marketing, Ethan Tyler". Mentioning it for record, although it seems the concerned person is no longer associated with the center. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Concerns about sending COI articles to AfD

    • I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Misplaced Pages than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Kevin Gorman: I don't dispute that this was done in good faith but that doesn't change the fact that many of the subjects are not notable. It's true that our attention was drawn by the disclosure to look at their other articles but if they aren't notable it is only a matter of time before they are noticed as was the case back in 2010 when Zooaction (which Jpop73 has indirectly admitted was him e.g. ) made similar edits. What are we supposed to do, ignore problems we find because they made a disclosure? Surely the point of the disclosure is to allow us to scrutinise potentially problematic articles? SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    • More of the AFD'ed articles are notable than are not notable, it just takes searching sources thoroughly. Unless a comprehensive search of sources was done here (and I intend to do what I can as these AFD's run, and already have enough sources to significantly exceed notability requirements on at least several of them - and I have done far from a comprehensive search,) then AFDing pretty much all articles not created for pay without doing a thorough search of available sources, including newspaper archives and offline sources, because someone actually followed our TOS is actively promoting blackhat paid editing. User:Kevin Gorman | 02:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked onJpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal.Jpop73 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to meJpop73 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Jpop73: First of all, let me thank you for cooperating and being transparent. We appreciate that a lot. It is of immense help to us when editors tell us about a conflict of interest. I would like to let you know that article are nominated for AfD not just because there is a COI. There have been multiple articles involving COI editing and yet the articles were not send to AfD, but they were just edited to remove any overtly promotional content. I had a look at some of the articles you have written and (as far as I saw), there was nothing overtly promotional in them. Once again, this is something I appreciate a lot.
    However, the problem with some of your articles is that the article subject may not satisfy the notability guidelines. For example, if you see Sandra Dee Robinson, you will notice that the article contains just 3 references, none of which could be counted as a third party reliable source. One way to find an article subject is notable is to see if they have multiple references in independent sources (which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). In this case, you might wish to evaluate yourself (see WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR) if the article subject is indeed notable. I would be happy to hear your feedback. Please rest assured that we are not sending these articles to AfD (or undoing your edits) as a form of vengeance or punishment. AfD is a mechanism to seek community input whether an article subject is notable or not. If by chance someone sends it to AfD and the subject is indeed notable, you will find that other editors will vote keep. I hope it clarifies your queries. In addition, nothing prevents you from contributing to Misplaced Pages even now. Apart from the articles with which you have a COI, you are welcome to contribute to other articles. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dear (talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Misplaced Pages because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. SincerelyJpop73 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    • Here's the question that I have, which I will state as a hypothetical. Let's say that someone is a writer for a newspaper or magazine, or even a book. In the course of their writing they obviously run into interesting people and subjects, and they decide to create (or edit) Misplaced Pages articles for some of them, in part using research that they've done for their writing. That doesn't seem to be a problem. Now let's add to the hypothetical that as part of writing the article the writer creates (or edits) a Misplaced Pages page for the subject of the article, and links to that in the article. This case seems more fraught to me. Is the Misplaced Pages article being used to 1) validate the subject of the journal article? 2) promote the subject of the journal article? 3) make the subject of the journal article seem more important? or 4) is it none of these, and therefore is not considered promotional? The gist of this question is: if you are doing paid-for work and you create or edit Misplaced Pages articles related to that work coincident with the work, is that COI, and is it considered promotional? I realize that this reads like splitting hairs, but I think it is a real question. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Misplaced Pages article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Misplaced Pages entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Misplaced Pages article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questionsJpop73 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks, Jpop73. I don't think I mentioned "paid", but that's ok. I think that the question of COI is extremely complex, and that there probably are very few articles on WP that haven't benefited from a kind of interest that might show some conflict. Most of us have areas of our life that bleed over into WP in ways that we cannot easily define. In this case I'm convinced of Good Faith, and that we're seeing Interest that I couldn't confidently call Conflict of Interest. I also looked at the articles and some look like reasonable candidates for AfD. That said, most times when my attention is drawn to a group of articles, at least some portion turn out to need work or to be AfD-able. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks againJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    • I have unearthed three more that I've listed above. I've noticed there is an in-common within; most of these are those their late-40s to mid-50s, its like if he is acquainted with them. I doubt highly that he would do articles about 20-year olds. Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    An unsourced portion of Jefery Levy I removed got reverted by 2605:E000:849C:5300:81AF:9809:C827:7570 (presumably a COI user hiding behind a private network), just saying because this user could be one of those, considering there have been no recent editors other than that concerned. Donnie Park (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Just to let you know, this user is trying to engage in a revert war over this article. Donnie Park (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Misplaced Pages. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Misplaced Pages and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

    As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    First of all, am I upset about your edits? No, the problem is why did you create a duplicate article when one already exists, just admit it some new editors make this mistake as well except you were a few years in. Did I say I treat you like a "malicious criminal", obviously not, you just bring this to yourself by repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Compared to what you edited, tell you what, in that years of editing as yours, I had 27 WP:DYK and counting, recently been listed in WP:DYKLIST, never had one article successfully deleted except one that was merged which was one of my first and why, because I follow guidelines and play by the rule. Plus unlike you, I have never been paid to do any of the edits. On a footnote, Unscintillating, LaMona and other are totally spot on about you, the problem with you is your attitude, you come off as some guy who is so arrogant that he is unwilling to learn from mistakes. Donnie Park (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Cont. Dear Donnie, Again, thank you. Jef Levy and me and none of my friends, colleagues, organizations, etc. which are subjects of articles that are deemed a conflict of interest because of my misuse and understanding of policy are not trying to abuse or take advantage of Misplaced Pages. In fact, after personally apologizing to many of them for placing their pages in jeopardy, by accident, many of them are indifferent some are uninterested and some want to be removed altogether. You and some other editors have correctly identified that my articles (and probably all of them) contain a conflict of interest, for which I have apologized repeatedly. The only articles I write about are things or people that I know about. I clearly misunderstood how articles get written and by whom. I had no idea that it is a crime to write about subjects I know personally and I also didn't know that cross promomotion was prohibited. Furthermore, this wikipedia crisis all came about because I was honest about being paid for some articles that I created. I thought getting paid was the only issue that was relavant to a conflict of interest and I thought I handled it correctly. Instead, I have been publicly accused of intentionally violating policy, I have been humiliated in public discussions and treated like a malicious person, an outcast and labled a COI editor, as if I was operating under some contingent of underground evildoers. In addition, my own page, which I carefully worked on with an editor for two years following its acceptance has also been proposed for deletion. I don't know what else to say. Again, I have tried to be cooperative and helpful and you insist on trying to make defamatory remarks about me. I would ask you again to please stop the negative commentary.thank youJpop73 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    What negative commentary, I'm just being blunt. To cut this short, I won't waste my time arguing with you but I'll leave you in the hands of other editors and your clients to sort this out. Also please refer to Wiki-PR editing of Misplaced Pages and Orangemoody editing of Misplaced Pages, now you could say you've done no worse. By an editor who've been branded a troll and after failing miserably to get Jimmy Wales to get me banned via Twitter, he had a change.org petition made to get me banned (in November) just because I've nominated his article for AfD. Donnie Park (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Dear Donny, this is jpop73 responding from my phone that I'm not logged into. I'm sorry if I come off at all arogant. Im not arrogant. I have trouble following certain written and oral directions because I have Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It is not intentional that I dismiss things, it is part of continual battle with a neurodevelopmental condition. You are welcome to read my story about it it the Huffington Post. It is a disability, but it does not excuse all behavior, but it does lead to misunderstandings. I'm sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:B9E1:5466:643D:FAF7:916F (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    I think there's a wider question raised by this case about what to do when an editor is communicating and cooperatively working with a COI investigation. First, just my evaluation of this particular case, Jpop73 has been cooperative. Second, to the wider question, should we treat articles they created any differently than a concealed, uncooperative editor or even a non-COI editor? For myself I haven't sorted all this out in my mind, but I do know that any deletion debates must be policy-based and don't need to include the editor's history unless it supports a pattern of clear advocacy, in which case the advocacy content is a valid part of the deletion debate. In no case should deletion be punitive or reactionary. Maybe there's a case to be made in separating editors doing the investigation from those proposing follow-up action, just to avoid this kind of appearance of bias against the COI editor. – Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, I have to say that Jpop73 has been cooperative and has responded to all queries. Personally, I quite appreciate this and I would like Jpop73 to continue contributing productively to Misplaced Pages (except perhaps for the articles in which there is a possible COI). As for the question about deletion debates, I personally nominate articles for AfD only when I am convinced that it doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines, regardless of any COI editing on the article. I do mention in brief about the COI (particularly if paid), but this is just for the record. Other editors can then respond to the AfD and decide if it is worth keeping based on policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Jpop73: Hi, I thought to respond to your queries again. Firstly, according to the COI policy, a conflict of interest need not be paid: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.. Additionally, it is also stated that Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
    Regarding the concerns about sending your articles for deletion, let me reassure you that the articles have been sent only because someone doubted the notability of the subject. The articles are not being sent to AfD because there was COI editing. (In many cases of COI editing, the article is just edited to return to a Neutral Point of View. However, this is only when the article subject itself is notable). I would also like to state that you are not being "targeted". Any article which doesn't satisfy notability is sent to AfD. Let me bring your attention to this comment you made at the AfD of Jordan Schaul. You correctly identified the fact that the article subject was not notable. You will notice that other editors have already sent it to AfD. I hope you understand that you are not being specifically "targeted". Any article, not notable will be sent to AfD once it comes to the notice of editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Lemongirl942 Thank you very much for repeating. I have Asperger's Syndrome/ High functioning autism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-schaul/i-cant-fake-it-till-i-make-it-im-autistic_b_8583670.html) and sometimes need things repeated. I also as mentioned above sometimes have difficulty following direction. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. As far as notability regarding my article, my only reference or basis for reference is from what some other editors have stated. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others marginally notable, others have said it is within the criteria of notability. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective on Misplaced Pages and I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions.thanksJpop73 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    John Currie, etc.

    Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Misplaced Pages. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Misplaced Pages and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

    As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not sure a COI is that hard to understand. Let's say I'm writing an article about my wife, who is reasonably well known within a certain circles. Now, I might think, as she's my wife, that she could benefit from a wikipedia page. I might, therefore, find it difficult to assess her notability independently (because I believe it is in her, and my, interest to have a wikipedia page) and I might get rather angry when others try to edit the page I've written about her or suggest that she's not notable. Clearly she is notable and important to me, but that doesn't mean she is really notable to the rest of the world who read wikipedia. In fact, in a purely objective world, I wouldn't write about my wife at all on wikipedia and would instead allow those who are uninvolved and/or knowledgeable about the field decide whether she deserves a page or not. I could say similar things about myself, my employer and so on. Generally speaking, humans find it pretty damn hard to be objective about things and people we are that close to, so WP:COI states clearly that COI edits are highly discouraged. Because it just ends up with silly emotional arguments and because in general it tends to make shitty pages.
    Paid edits are a type of COI which, to my mind, are hard to untangle. The main problem is as above: a financial relationship with the subject makes it hard - or near on impossible - to be objective. But there are degrees of financial involvement in a subject as shown by the fact that Wikipedian in residence exist. As far as I understand those guidelines, one can write about the content of (for example) a museum but there might be a problem with a page about the finances of that museum if one was actually the finance director of it,
    In terms of what you've said above, if your friend asked you to write a wikipedia page about him, the first COI question is whether you'd be able to write objectively about him. Would you be able to write about anyone who disagreed with something he said? Would you be able to write about any conflicts or crises he has been involved with if that could jeopardise your relationship with him? On a fundamental level, are you able to make a judgement about whether he honestly meets the WP:GNG in the borderline cases? Personally, I wouldn't ever write about a friend who asked me to write his wikipedia page. Because who cares what I think about him? JMWt (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies

    editors

    An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).

    • This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.
    • FP1 Strategies was employed by Quico Canseco in his 2012 congressional race. At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in writing negative information about his challenger, Pete Gallego.
    • Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis . At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)
    • FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” )

    In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

    The combination of Positive writing on FP1's clients, negative writing on their client's opponents, as well as the specific timing involved (when FP1 took them on etc) quack loudly to me. This combination of pro/negative editing was pointed out in 2012 by an editor who subsequently was banned for socking. However it does show that the editing pattern is a long-term issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by LA. (shortening the user name); the documentation for the image says it is owned by F1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often. LA never directly edited the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud.
    • Here are the relevant edits at Kyle McCarter mentioned in the first bullet, which are very negative. Not mentioned, the edit-warring to retain them here then here then here; no talk page discussion.
    • this set of edits to the Pete Gallego article are not so blatantly POV, but see this immediately next edit by LA, removing information that LA had just added with edit note "On reflection this is not appropriate". The first edit didn't add strongly negative information (although depending on your politics it might be upsetting, e.g abortion bill) but did remove a bunch of unsourced positive content. Overall did make the person less attractive to people in the other party.
    A connection with FP1 seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Regarding this does anyone know what timezone Twitter uses? Was that Twitter post made before or after this edit ? And what was the outside impetus for this--something that Paul Ryan said? Geogene (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    I also will add that I find this dialogue interesting: . I'm seeing some overlapping personality traits that may be grounds for a SPI here. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks so much, Jytdog, for looking into this. It's such a relief to finally get this into the open.
    I agree that IntermittentGardener sounds a lot like the enraged, policy-scolding tone I've gotten very familiar with from LA; I don't know if that means it's the same person, or just FP1's official policy to try to bully and shout down users who question their edits. Just at a glance I can see that IG and LA have edited several of the same obscure articles: Vocativ, Airlines for America, Robert S Rivkin, and Lenovo. IG and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot also overlap on both PJ Media and Terry Nelson. It would be extraordinary if this was coincidence. Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place? What are the next steps here? Thanks everybody. EllenMcGill (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Added Terry Nelson (political consultant) to case. Back to back favorable editing by eds Intermittentgardener & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot . Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".
    Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown opinions"). Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG). It seems increasingly likely given various similarities in apparent motive, argument style and writing habits, that the three accounts named here may be operated by a single person. - Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Geogene: Re twitter times see this - the time displayed depends on your user settings, but that tweet was posted after the edit was made.
    @EllenMcGill: "Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place?" WP:SPI is the place to find that out but checkusers will only be able to compare User:Lesbianadvocate and User:Intermittentgardener because User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot hasn't edited in almost a year and there isn't a great deal of cross over between those two: . SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    More correspondences noted. There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors if not outright socking.
    Correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.
    Correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (permlink) (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Misplaced Pages, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener. - Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    great. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    @SmartSE: I may need to add to the SPI case, but I can't see deleted pages; could you or another admin check if User:Lesbianadvocate/sandbox is a recreation of Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data whose original author appears to be Reills78? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Brianhe: You're pinging the wrong me again ;) I've had a look and no, there's no similarity between them. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Darn it, I have to get out of the habit of c&p your signature. Anyway, thanks for checking. Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    Evidence from Commons

    I've nominated File:TerryNelson.jpg for deletion on Commons because I see no indication in the file page or in the related OTRS ticket that permission has been granted by the copyright owner shown in the EXIF data, Michael Temchine. The file was uploaded by Lesbianadvocate and FP1 Strategies is listed as source and as author. I note that a licence was added to the page by Iliketoeatpotatoesalot; I'm very curious to know how that user – who was not the uploader and (I believe) is not an OTRS agent – was able to determine what licence to add. Neither Lesbianadvocate nor Iliketoeatpotatoesalot has edited any other Commons page.

    Taken with the other evidence presented above, this is enough to convince me beyond doubt that there has been collusion (at the very least) between these two editors and that there is every likelihood of a connection to the company. I'm going to add the paragraph above to the SPI too in case that helps. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Further evidence at PJ Media

    I just noticed that Iliketoeatpotatoesalot and Intermittentgardener have both been editing the article PJ Media. I looked up online and found this link at the official website of PJ Media, which clearly states For Media Inquiries please contact:FP1 Strategies. I'm adding it to the list of pages above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Tabish q

    Tabish q (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for your notice. I tried. We'll see how that goes. I appreciate your desire to retain Tabish! Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Ssa1990

    Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.

    Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    The use of the term "find us" as you noticed here and the linking to PWQ and nothing else strongly suggests a COI I believe. Perhaps reverting all of the user's additions as promotional spam would be appropriate? They only appear to be tangentially related at best. Elaenia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits and use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review. Brianhe (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Well, apparently there's enough going on that I could have posted this almost anywhere and it would have been appropriate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?

    This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

    It's a good question but the efficacy is debated. Do a web search for "Misplaced Pages off-page SEO" for some of the answers. It's my sense that reputation management is more important these days; see my essay for details and feel free to follow up on the essay talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Loubna Berrada

    The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits and . Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    It looks like this is a BLP issue. I didn't find any biographical information about her in the sources listed, and even checked the wayback machine for the staff page of the organization, but she's not there. I don't think she should be editing this page in the way that she has done, but I must say that the article does sound inflammatory. There's now a delete request on it, and I think that may be the best route. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found
    • These are some (possibly) reliable sources about her , (web archive copy of Elsevier (magazine)) which show that she was involved with the VVD as well as a founding member of the committee of ex-muslims. quotes her as a cofounder as well.
    • She also removed the information that she was a candidate of Libertas Netherlands in 2009 (see List of Libertas list candidates at the 2009 European Parliament elections) although her name was in the candidate list (see the Dutch Electoral Council website ) and there was a biography of her on Eline van den Broke's website (see ).
    • Article at NRC Handelsblad where it says , she left the ex-muslim council.
    • Opinion piece which (possibly) says she is an ex-Muslim .
    • Not sure if opinion or news article, but implies that she left the council after some disagreements
    • An opinion piece about her which should be read with care as it seems to be written by someone who has a beef with her (POV).
    • Unable to understand the translation here . Would be glad if someone could help.
    I'll try to ask her to reply here so that we can look at what she is trying to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    Since this is a BLP issue as well, I am not reverting her edits until this is clarified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    I removed the coi tag on this because there was no problematic content. I've also sent it to AFD per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE since the subject is barely notable and they are obviously (and understandably) not happy with our portrayal of her. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc

    User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see ]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    There is no conflict of interest- this matter was deemed accepted by other users that is accurate, further more it was objective and not promotional in any way. Furthermore I am not involved with organization its just information I have knowledge about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMCKINNON (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)
    Hi SMCKINNON. So your username is very, very close to that of Steve McKinnon, and you have written a great deal about Steve McKinnon. So one thing at a time, and that has to do with your relationship with Steve McKinnon. There are only two possibilities here. You are not him, but are impersonating him. This makes your account name a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE and we would need to block your account. The other option is that you have an unambiguous COI here and you need to acknowledge that and work with us to manage your COI. So please clarify which it is. There are other issues here, but that is the primary one, as it has to do with the existence of your account. So please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

    I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

    2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem.SMCKINNON (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON

    Thanks for clarifying what is going on with the account, that is helpful. It would be really helpful if you stopped making declarations and just talked with us a bit and explained the relationships you and your company have; this whole thing is here at COIN so the community can look at what is going on and make determinations. OK, so you are CEO of Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc, and what your company does, is put on help others put on events, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do , is we help put on events that contract us to do it.SMCKINNON (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON

    As an FYI, Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc has been re-sent to AfC review with virtually no changes, and still contains statements like "one of the co-owners started to have personal life crisis" "one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else". Much of the article is still unreferenced. I will take a pass, but it's going to be serious work, and I am reluctant to do so if the COI issue isn't resolved. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    OK, I did a big edit, taking it down from 19K to 12K, removed lots of unref'd and a lot of redundancy. It still needs work. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    LAMONA I noticed a big edit, I appreciate it , some of the material such as Letter Patent and Change in ownership can only be validated by the Business License and the Articles of Incorporation. I did some work on the article and made it netural. Some of the references are there in respect to the various items have been done.SMCKINNON (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON

    SMCKINNON, the purpose of this COI noticeboard entry is not to facilitate the editing of the article in question. You have been asked to appropriately declare your conflict of interest, as per the COI policies here. Should this article be accepted at AfC, an editor with a conflict of interest is asked not to make any further direct edits to the article, but to describe requested edits on the talk page of the article. That way, other editors without a COI can make (or not make, depending on their judgment) edits with particular attention to neutral point of view. I do not believe that we have your agreement on following the policy on COI editing. I would appreciate if you would comply. The page Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest gives instructions about COI and how to make the necessary declarations. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    CAcert.org

    First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.

    I believe that Neoeinstein (talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.

    How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Misplaced Pages account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    You should drop the matter imho. (Adding - and be very careful you don't fall foul of WP:OUTING) -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Alright… thanks —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
    Note: the previous discussion has now been archived here. —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Charles Saatchi

    Hi – I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox (here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    J. Ralph

    Last month I attempted mediation on this article where the editor has insisted on reverting it to a version he has deemed acceptable. Previous version were removed for copyright infringement. From a struck-out edit on 16 December 2010 by a possible sock User:Eldoradoclinton the content was referred to as 'this is the approved bio from j. Ralph'. Since then the editor has engaged in WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm unable to comment on the COI aspect at the moment, but there does seem to be a lot of puffery in the article. I have opened a new section on the talk page for resolving the dispute. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. Appreciate your input. Parts of the previous content is included on the official J. Ralph biography page here - pointing to a possible WP:COI. Karst (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

    Wormyseas1

    Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    NetApp

    Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents NetApp, and I've proposed some updates to the article on its Talk page, here. This includes major revamping of two sections (including the lead, which is currently flagged as inadequate) and some other minor factual updates—all itemized and formatted for review and straightforward implementation. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and I would greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    I was looking at NetApp the other day but all they gave me was a load of WAFL.
    I'll get my coat.
    Guy (Help!) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    Seems innocuous enough. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    thank you Guy, I needed a laugh.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    Close. Request answered. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Starfire glass

    Hello,

    Any help would be appreciated in helping to edit this page, which is currently an orphaned, stub article with low quality citations. The information on low-iron glass is incomplete and the name “Starfire” glass is a trademark violation of Starphire low-iron glass from PPG. Should it be considered for deletion for any of those reasons?

    If the editing community feels that the topic does meet a Notability Requirement, reorganization may help improve the quality of article—perhaps it could merge into a new page titled Low-iron glass or a section on the Glass page to provide more complete information to the general public. Low-iron Starphire glass (or, Starfire, as it is inaccurately labeled on this page), has numerous applications aside from aquariums. In fact, the world’s first low-iron formulation of glass was used by Frank Lloyd Wright at his famous masterpiece, Fallingwater.

    As a PR representative of PPG, I am declaring COI and will remain transparent and forthcoming while providing objective, verifiable, and reliable content throughout this process. For more information on my COI, please visit my user page and feel free to post to my Talk page.

    Some detail on this COI: In 1991, PPG trademarked Starphire glass, an ultra-clear low-iron glass formulation that was based on the aforementioned formulation of glass used by Wright. Since then, numerous manufacturers and distributors of low-iron/high clarity glasses have co-opted the trademark by changing the spelling of Starphire to “Starfire.” I have hyperlinked to some third-party news sources above. Bkorman PG (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

    Trademark violation is generally not a reason for article deletion. To my not-a-lawyerly understanding, Misplaced Pages is not violating the trademark for the simple reason that we are not doing trade under it. If it is the term commonly used, even if that use is against your trademarks, than that is likely the name that will be given to the article, and we have plenty of articles under names that were once trademarked and even those that remained trademarked in some areas (such as aspirin.)
    None of this prevents notability from being a consideration; I have not yet searched to see if there is sufficient coverage for notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's notable. Added some finds from a quick Google Books search at Talk:Starfire glass#Sources. - Brianhe (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    The generic term seems to be "low-iron glass". See this Google search: Guardian Industries calls it "Ultrawhite". Pilkington calls it "Optiwhite". Spancraft calls it "Starlite". PPG calls it "Starphire". Other brand names include "Krystal Klear", "Diamant" and "Eurowhite". Suggest moving the article to "low-iron glass" and building it up based on references from that search. Any objections to that move? John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Nagle: Great research, I support your proposal enthusiastically. Brianhe (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    OK, renamed article, added appropriate references, added info about low-iron silica sand sources from USGS and glass composition from an academic article. Removed link to aquarium company. This should resolve COI/promotional issues. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Tang Huawei

    It seems like an attempt by a certain "LYYF Visual Art Center" to promote an artist. They had earlier created the article Huawei Tang which was speedy deleted twice. Later they created Tang Huawei. I tried to ask Lyyf2015 about a COI but got no response. I have sent Tang Huawei to AfD since I am not convinced about the notability. No action is required at the moment, but I am posting this just so that we have a record in case of any subsequent attempts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

    Mboland.phideltatheta adding unsourced promotional edits for Phi Delta Theta

    Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    "silly" comment
    This is silly. TimothyJosephWood 01:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -PROUD MEMBER OF THE WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT FRATERNITY

    Major League Fishing

    The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber□ 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    This was a single-purpose account that only appeared to edit for a few days then disappeared about a month ago. They have been advised of our COI guideline. If they return maybe further action will be reconsidered but it looks like there's nothing more to do for now. - Brianhe (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Paul Wager/ Eleesa Dadiani

    User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    "I wrote the article, therefore I can edit it" , now graciously offering to allow it to be deleted because it doesn't present the subject to this editor's liking. Oy (channeling jytdog). Where did the idea get spread that Misplaced Pages is an open platform for client promotion? HappyValleyEditor, you're right. — Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    "we're having Paul Wager's solo exhibition at my gallery, Dadiani Fine Art, on the 14th of April (in less than a week) and we really must have this information out there before the exhibition opens." At least the COI aspect is clear from this. Putting aside the COI though, I have doubts if the article subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    With some effort I was able to find only this and this, possibly not enough for notability. Unfortunately, his own web page here doesn't have much content, either biographical or links to reviews. Perhaps someone has better access to arts magazines? I'll list these sources on the talk page to make them available. LaMona (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    Based on the four huge public sculptures that have been on the Loughborough campus for a few decades, I figured he was notable. However there's next to nothing available in terms of references. I would tend to say notable and keep, despite the delte request, as the four sculptures are public, permanent and part of a public collection. I think he was probably very notable in the 70's, but things trailed off after that. Of course, notability is not temporary. Also, thanks for the support. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Shaun Gladwell et al

    And here we have a nice little garden of articles on Shaun Gladwell, his exhibition publication Patafunctions, his "masterpiece" video work Storm Sequence and Barbara Polla. By my count, the account User:Gladderz has logged 250 diligent edits on solely these three articles. Images of Gladwell's work added to the pages are mostly credited as "own work". It might be the artist in question editing the pages, or the gallery/dealer as suggested on the Gladwell talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Gladderz may have (inadvertently?) outed himself by in this diff and per his contributions to commons. Mduvekot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    Nice catch! Seems obvious that we are dealing with the artist. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Mduvekot:: At least User:Gladderz is amusing. From his/her user page: "An escalation in my activity has aroused COI suspicions from very capable and astute wikipedians. Suspicion is called for due to my unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, including artistic output, hardware, correspondence (both personal and professional) and itinerary etc."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hi, HappyValleyEditor and Mduvekot Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically on Gladwell and associated work with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for advice on NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio and editing out puffery? Apologies for distraction. Should I just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?

    additionally: User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whiteley et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! Gladderz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Gladderz, a couple of things. First, please do actually sign your posts with four tildas like this ~~~~. This isn't done for amusement nor aesethetics - we actually use the date stamps for stuff. If you don't sign, there is a bot that will come and auto-sign for you. Please don't delete that if it happens. Second, it is clear that you are here representing the artist. Would you please acknowledge that, and acknowledge that this creates a conflict of interest for you with regard to editing about him in Misplaced Pages? We can walk you through how to manage that but the first step is that we agree that the relationship creates a COI here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Trans Studio Bandung

    Here we have a bevy of SPA's devoted to adding and reverting long long long lists of commercial tenants, replete with a spam-farm of inline links, to this possible notable, possible not notable shopping mall/tourist area. Maybe Socks? Not sure.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Economist article

    Need help from the community in deciding whether to list the SPA author of this article. The article itself had many indicators of promotionalism (see this revision before I started cleanup), including a 2014 fake award from the so-called WorldRenownedExperts.com organization, which now has a dead website. Brianhe (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    The editor has stated that this was an "academic task". AGF I will presume this was some kind of course assignment and have reported to Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Bernardo Florencio Javalquinto-Lagos so they can be provided appropriate guidance. - Brianhe (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Winterschild11

    Editor says here that he is placing content on behalf of a celebrity. He never responded to Joseph2302's January 2016 COI warning here. - Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Brianhe: I took a look at the article... it's a masterpiece of nauseating obfuscation. It's like a pyramid built from a billion trivial ocurrences. I did manage to slice 10 or 20% off of the pyramid though. Not sure if that helps on the COI front, but it might rustle the bushes.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Ah, and here is your answer on Winterschild and Jack Mackenroth... they met on Twitter.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    What Every Science Student Should Know

    Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of the book What Every Science Student Should Know and User:Azureick5 was the creator and editor on the article. I took the article to AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know and notified Azureick5 of COI on 14 April after they commented on the AfD: User_talk:Science1guy1#Conflict_of_Interest. I pinged user again on the 16th. User changed their name to User:Science1guy1 (without a redirect) on April 16. User Science1guy1 then removed their own comment and my reply giving their username from the AfD discussion: diff. Warning was given on April 17: User_talk:Science1guy1#April_2016. The name change is listed as: (Céréales Killer moved page User talk:Azureick5 to User talk:Science1guy1 without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Azureick5" to " editor there. Science1guy1 has removed the AfC discussion of that from their user talk page. It looks to me like this person is trying to hide COI evidence that it exists. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    @ LaMona: I cleaned up my talk page because they are old notifications that I've read. I changed my username because it was too similar to the author's name for the book page and do not want to be associated. Please discontinue referring to my old username. Too many notifications. I'll discontinue editing on Misplaced Pages as you are very fixed on my account recently. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    So what you are saying is that the similarity between username Azureick5 and author Andrew H. Zureick was a coincidence? Listen, being an interested party on Misplaced Pages is not a crime - we are all interested parties in some way or another. The purpose of the COI guidelines is to encourage transparency so that we can all work well together. I'm not "out to get you." Your contributions here are valuable. All that COI requires is that you be transparent about any direct affiliations so that other editors understand with whom they are working on an article. With an editor with COI we look a bit more carefully at the neutrality of their writing. We also encourage folks to work on articles throughout Misplaced Pages, contributing where they can. You do not need to leave Misplaced Pages, you merely need to engage with us here regarding the policies that exist. There are many long-time editors here who have a COI in one area and edit intensively in others. We do not hold that against them, we just ask that they declare their COI and avoid direct editing of those articles where they have an involvement that makes their view less than neutral. If you declare your COI and stop editing certain articles, this problem is solved. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    @ LaMona: Thank you for this explanation. I have declared my conflict of interest with the article on both the AfD talk page and the article's talk page, and will continue to work within the policies of Misplaced Pages, but will refrain from editing that page specifically going forward. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you! I hope you find lots of science articles to edit -- there are lots that need it. And Misplaced Pages needs scientists, there's no question about that. LaMona (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    Of course there's a question! And it will only be properly resolved if we set up two Wikipedise, one with scientists, and a control version without scientists. And then after getting some doubly-blind users to evaluate them, we... oh, never mind. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    And here I thought we were aiming at The Library of Babel as our goal. :-) LaMona (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    User:Snehilsharma

    More articles in contribution history, the above are the recent ones.

    Has been a longstanding PR editing account, with a lot of such articles and deletions in 2011/2012 including blocks for disruptive editing in this PR venture. I've just warned about COI editing and disclosure, but a deep look is required and possibly more articles have to be nominated for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Some kind of collaboration apparent at Saksham - everyone is capable & Snehil Sharma (director), re-created Snehil Sharma.
    Nominated Snehil Sharma (director) for speedy deletion per repost criteria (g4). — Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    I missed that connection, SPI at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Snehilsharma‎, the IPs in the two SPIs are in the same range so it's the same PR agent. —SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Ramy El-Batrawi

    The two users mentioned above seem to be in charge of maintiaining and reverting changes to the nauseating "ego-torial" article on Ramy El-Batrawi. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Abolitionism (bioethics)

    It looks like there are several newly created or newly active WP:SPA accounts posting to a recent series of deletion discussions, centered around the topic of effective altruism (though not on that article itself). Some searches on Facebook have provided evidence of canvassing by involved organizations, to try and get people to prevent deletion. As I'm also involved in the discussions, I'll declare upfront that I have no COI with respect to any of these articles. NeatGrey (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    • I have been involved in the effective altruist community. I became aware of the abolitionism discussion through Facebook. However, I've been pushing for stricter standards of Misplaced Pages publishing and trying to prevent advocacy among effective altruists. I've been the one who wants many of these articles deleted, shortened, or made more neutral. 02:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)
    Huh. Did Brian Tomasik create any of these articles? Can you link the relevant diffs? NeatGrey (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    He made many edits to wild animal suffering, which cited his self-published essays heavily. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    FWIW, none of my edits involved my own writings. I also agree it could be good to remove the footnotes to my writings from the article. Brian Tomasik (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I became aware of the effective altruists on Facebook subsequent to becoming interested in this topic in the last few weeks, but have never met any of them in person. One member of Animal Charity Evaluators approached me on Facebook to talk about the views I expressed in the deletion discussions, subsequent to my voting. I am not personally connected to any of the individuals or ideas which these articles concern, and I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of effective altruism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the Facebook discussions you are referring to? Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I would prefer not to. The discussion occurred about an hour ago in Facebook messenger. This was after all my comments, I believe. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    There are some FB links at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abolitionism (bioethics). Some have called them canvassing. - Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Hmmmm, it looks like Animal Charity Evaluators is a non-profit whose article was deleted a few months ago (link). It seemed like there was some kind of off-wiki fight about Animal Charity Evaluators, which was bleeding over into the deletion discussions (link). Could someone explain what that was about? Thanks. NeatGrey (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know if there is an off-wiki fight about it, but most of the people above are connected to Animal Charity Evaluators. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Although I have been involved with Animal Charity Evaluators and the effective altruism movement, I have had no conflict of interest on these articles. I have never edited any of these articles. I am also not a "new account"; I have been on wikipedia since 2004. I have been active ONLY in the AfD discussion on these articles, and for good reason: because I am familiar with what the articles are talking about. This does not constitute a conflict of interest. I am merely an editor who knows about the topic and is explaining why the article should not be deleted on the related AfD page. I do not think it is appropriate to label me as having a conflict of interest here when the only edits I have made are to the AfD discussion page. — Eric Herboso 03:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the OP just indiscriminately listed everyone involved in the discussion. I wouldn't take it personally. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm also involved with the effective altruism movement and feel I can contribute in a similar way as Eric. I am a new account, but I've been looking over Misplaced Pages's standards thoroughly to try to make sure they're applied fairly. I think this is important because there seems to be a fair bit of misinformation going around and at least one user who is trying to delete articles due to their ideological views rather than Misplaced Pages standards. (Not mentioning who it is because of WP:HA concerns.) Tempo mage (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Tempo mage: You're referring to me. And no, I'm not trying to delete articles based on my ideological views. What I wrote on Facebook was about my opinion of ACE and its "wild animal suffering" concept. It does not pertain to why I voted to delete those articles. The reasons for that were, respectively, the complete lack of independent sources for ACE, and the fact that "wild animal suffering" is not notable as a coherent subject in the academic literature and the article was a coatrack for a fringe idea about eradicating all suffering through either transhumanism or the destruction of nature; although some people are also concerned about "virtual animals" which exist in future computer simulations, extraterrestrial alien suffering, and the suffering of fundamental physics, a notion I will not bother to explain. It's true that also I think this is BS, and am of the opinion that it's bad for an animal rights charity evaluator to be involved in it. You can call that an "ideological view" if you like, but it wasn't the reason why I voted the way I did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    It's hard for me to believe that the alignment of your ideological views and your editing views that seem to clearly deviate from Misplaced Pages standards happens to be a coincidence, but I appreciate you sharing that. I hope you'll do your best to keep the two separate. Tempo mage (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It is unclear to me what apparent COI has been identified here; no conversations have been opened with any individual here, on their talk pages. Is the concern about actual COI (and if so, with what company or organization?), or this about advocacy? Neatguy, please do explain. Thanks. 05:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. To use an analogy which I think is a good fit for this situation, suppose politician Bob Jones has a Misplaced Pages article. Bob Jones wants to look good, so he writes to the volunteer group Friends of Bob Jones, and asks them to all come to the article and write nice things about Jones. In your view, would this count as a COI, since the writers have a conflict between their interest in helping Jones, and their interest in improving Misplaced Pages? Or would it be advocacy? Or both?
    Or, to use another analogy, suppose there's a website at www.instantcure.com which sells Dr. Quack's Snake Oil (the issue here isn't medical content, but I think some of it qualifies as WP:FRINGE; see discussion here). John Brown is not himself Dr. Quack, but he really likes Dr. Quack and thinks it cured his cancer, so Brown goes to Misplaced Pages and writes an article about how Dr. Quack's Snake Oil cures everything. Is this COI, since John Brown is a member of the group "Dr. Quack adherents", and is conflicted when editing articles about "Dr. Quack adherents"? Or is it advocacy, since Brown is not himself Dr. Quack? NeatGrey (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for replying! In your first example, these editors are part of an organization that supports Bob Jones so yes, they have COIs with regard to the organization and Bob Jones. They have an interest in a person or an organization. In the latter John Brown is an advocate - a "fan, a "believer." I run into that all the time when I ask people if they have some connection to B. Plenty - maybe 25%, say "no, but I love B". Then I pivot the conversation to advocacy, explain how it creates problems and giving examples of other kinds of advocacy (something simple like a vegetarian who thinks eating meat is evil and comes here writing about how great vegetarianism is and how bad factory farming is, etc). COI and advocacy are distinct issues in Misplaced Pages. COI is a subset of advocacy, but a pretty well-defined one. Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, cool. So, there are probably several issues here, but I'll start with the most obvious one. As far as I can tell, the article Abolitionism (bioethics) is really about the theories of David Pearce, although there's some window dressing to make it look like it's not just Pearce. Pearce, who openly edits Misplaced Pages as the account User:Davidcpearce, also runs a public Facebook group called "The Hedonistic Imperative" (link), which he started in order to spread and organize support for his ideas. When Abolitionism (bioethics) was put up for deletion, Pearce posted it to this group (link), with a direct link to the deletion discussion. This link was then re-posted to similar groups on Facebook, such as "Abolitionist Transhumanism" and "Transpolitica". From your explanation, it seems that if a user came to the deletion discussion this way, they would have a COI with respect to David Pearce, since they are trying to keep a separate article on Pearce's ideas in Misplaced Pages while being a member of a group that advocates for Pearce's ideas. NeatGrey (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    I would point out, btw, that Davidcpearce, who is an active and experienced Wikipedian, has edited perfectly well around this topic, and IMO has done nothing even slightly wrong here. This is not so much a clear COI problem as a call-to-action problem. Many of the new/very-occasional contributors are contesting basic Misplaced Pages sourcing rules, for example - so they're entirely open and sincere, just approaching this in an unproductive way - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • There's a distinction between having an interest in, and having a conflict of interest. Someone who writes extensively about, say, free-living animal suffering is clearly likely to be interested in the topic, but (s)he also has a conflict of interest only if (s)he has undisclosed shareholdings in a firm manufacturing veterinary anaesthetics (etc). I don't think this is the case here. Advocates of the status quo who believe that e.g. humans shouldn’t be tampering with the wisdom of Nature - or simply that humans have an unlimited capacity to screw things up even further - are unlikely to believe that wild animal suffering merits a Misplaced Pages entry in the first place. Critics will disagree. And so it goes on. In the case of (use whatever label your prefer) abolitionist bioethics, if I were writing or contributing to the entry, I’d give pride of place to the largely unknown Lewis Mancini (note the date of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2189064) for any discussion of scientific (or purportedly scientific) approaches. --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I've been a Misplaced Pages editor for well over 10 years. Other individuals listed here are also longtime contributors. I do have an interest in effective altruism (as I declare in my homepage), but I think it's clear that this by itself doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no canvassing for any of the articles listed above, though I'm happy to be corrected if presented with the relevant evidence. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    The post by Davidcpearce is a violation of WP:MEAT and is in my view, a post that calls for an indefinite block or TBAN. Blatant violation. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Purple WiFi

    A hyper-slick advertorial for a company called purple Wifi. Editor declares no COI-- yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    It is concerning that the very first link I checked is about a regional industry award, issued by an industry publication, citing the same publication. This has been noted as a hallmark of WP:PROMO articles about businesses. - Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    Probably worth widening this to TuneCore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) & Carnimsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has interests overlapping with User:Meyasal --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Domenick Nati / NatiCelebs.com

    I noticed this after I saw it at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Titleblacklist_addition_request. The user JellyfishFilms seemed to have created multiple sockpuppets to vote at AfDs and recreate articles multiple times (with variant spellings). I am reasonably sure that "Nati Celebrity Services" is the one behind this. The strongest evidence is this twitter account of the CEO Domenick Nati, which contains a link to the deleted Misplaced Pages article Domenick Nati. The profile pic is incidentally a screenshot of the Misplaced Pages page. Bobo Norco seems to be linked to NatiCelebs as well. It would be great if others could keep a look out for any more sockpuppets/promotional articles by this agency. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Categories: