Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 101

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 95←Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103→Archive 105

Richard Sokoloski

User has admitted on my talk page that they are an RA to this professor, representing an obvious COI issue. Jodamaster (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Marek Glezerman

Strightforward COI editing of autobiography, with reverts and deletion tag removals. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

yep, nice catched. i noted your PRODing above. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This could be closed now, I think. LaMona did a nice job bringing it up to snuff.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the article is ok at this point, but I don't see evidence of complying with COI as the user has not responded. Should we continue to try to have a conversation? LaMona (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Cavendish School, Camden

article draftified; editor very reasonable, complying with PAID and COI Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User is creating a page whose name shares their username. Jodamaster (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that bad? I can change my username if that would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecavendishschool (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Thecavendishschool; your username violates our username policy. I will leave a note on your talk page about that, which will have a link to fix that. In addition, you need to follow the WP:PAID policy, and please also follow the WP:COI guideline. I leave you a note on your talk page about that too! (But short story is, especially after you change your account name, you need to disclose your connection to the school (I assume you are an employee?) and now that the article exists, you should offer changes on the Talk page for peer review, instead of making them directly; that way the integrity of Wikipedia is protected from the conflict of interest. Jytdog (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Note - they changed their username and consented to draftifying it, so of course they can work on it there. Almost done working through COI management with them... Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia 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)
  • Edit: Added User:Ruairí Donnelly, as he created one of the articles involved (although that was several years ago), and appears to have a COI from being the head of the organization which is the subject of the article (per some quick Googling). NeatGrey (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Brian Tomasik is involved in the same way, although neither of them has participated in the deletion discussions so I'm not sure it's relevant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia standards. (Not mentioning who it is because of WP:HA concerns.) Tempo mage (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 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 Wikipedia 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) (strike comment by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 23 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. Jytdog (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) Withdrawn this. Blatant meatpuppetry from Davidcpearce at Facebook here - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 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 Wikipedia 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. [I'd argue just as strongly in favour of a “Keep” if we were discussing the Flat-Earth Society. Cover the arguments of its proponents - Wikipedia would be poorer for their absence - but the Comments/Criticism section should make absolutely clear that their core tenet of belief is not consensus wisdom in the scientific community.] --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been a Wikipedia 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)
Meatpuppetry and a personal attack! Lovely. (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Sigh, sometimes I wonder... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
That is not a response that is helpful to you. This piece of this probably needs to be escalated to ANI. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If you can go through the procedure for this, I'd be most pleased to co-sign - David Gerard (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. It is here. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Curiously, the proposer under her normal Wikipedia editing handle seems to be a long-standing member of the FB group...Abolitionist Transhumanism. So I'm confused.--Davidcpearce (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Humanity protecting party

The user created an article, Humanity Protecting Party Sri Lanka, an article on a Sri Lankan political party, which I tagged for speedy. He went on and created Humanity protecting party, a recreation of the first article, and messaged me on my talk page at User_talk:Optakeover#speedy_deletion_of_humanity_protecting_party saying he is the general secretary of the party, and requesting that the article not be speedily deleted. I am making this report as this is the first time I'm dealing with what I see as a COI issue, with a user directly associated with an organisation creating and editing an article of his/her organisation. Request for comment and/or action, thank you. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 14:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor Dumindu111222 has already been blocked for making legal threats (here ). I suggest everyone to keep a look out for page recreation/socking activity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Boy, that escalated quickly. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 15:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Breakage of the Sunflower: pain of a war correspondent, diaries, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Iraq (Documentary_Literature)

I just have a hunch that this is not the nost objective editing possible as there is astrong promotional tone to these articles. The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you HappyValleyeditor for pointing this out as it will promote me to revise the content carefully. In fact, all these articles were originally written in Arabic and translated to English. Indeed, I am interested in providing an idea about this writer and his work especially with all the wars going on in our area. However, that does not mean that it should be with promotional tone, rather it should be written and received objectively. I will spend time revising and I would be grateful if you can point out what is meant, for example, by "The novel pages both list/listed a list of other works by the author".
thanks again..
--Katib-mo (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Katib-mo: Hi, thank you for replying here. What HappyValleyEditor means is that an article about a book should not contain "a list of books by the same author". An article about an author can have a list of books. I would also like to ask you a question. Are you by any chance related to Jamal Hussein Ali (for example, friend/family/employee/publisher etc). Please let us know here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Added another book, has same section with list of author's works. Under-referenced. LaMona (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you much Lemongirl942 not only for pointing out to me that lists of publications of an author shouldn't be included in a book page, but also fixing it. I actually didn't know that. I will go now to the Arabic pages and fix accordingly. As someone new here and despite intensive time in educating myself about Wikipedia rules, it seems there is always something new to know. so thanks for people like you who help in that regard. In terms of any relationship with the author, I don't know him in person and he is not a relative or a friend or a colleague. I wrote about him as someone who is interested in the situation in the middle east (wars and human tragedies), he is a known writer that I found his work and publications unique in terms of his approach to what is facing this area. thanks again for your help. I will actually go back to all the posts in few days time to look at them with a fresh eye. let me know if I can do anything to make them better please. Katib-mo (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona, do you mean the list of books published by the author, as it has been removed by another editor thankfully (please see my response to Lemongirl942 above)?. If there is are other remarks, kindly share with me. Thank you. Katib-mo (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Katib-mo - yes, that is what I mean. I saw in the Arabic WP that those lists of books were included and that seems to be ok there. English WP uses different article styles so those don't work here. It's good that others are doing edits - the style/content norms here are hard to explain in words, but are fairly obvious when we look at articles. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Watson (entrepreneur)

This article was just created by a new account and has all signs of a paid job: the new account made a number of inconsequential edits to a bunch of random articles and then created this article in just 5 edits. It has a grand total of 24 (!) references, but a quick check shows that it's the usual: either very minor coverage, unreliable sources, or really absolutely trivial stuff ([http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2014/09/02/denver-business-journal-names-2014-power-book.html?page=all "In September 2014, Watson was included in the list of Denver Business Journal Power Book finalists"). I have currently no time to look into this in more detail, perhaps somebody here can have a look and see whether I am just being paranoid... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Your paranoia seems justified. Note how they mention Shawn McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in their edit summaries of that draft - that was created by Happywriter101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a very similar editing pattern. Probably worth an SPI. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree, this one needs an SPI. I get a feeling that there could be paid editing involved. The edit summaries are highly unusual. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I managed to shave off 2100 bytes of puffery using my patented puffTrim™ human algorithm. COI aside, definitely notable.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I spotted this one on Upwork, and yes, it was a paid editing job, by an editor blocked some time ago for running a large paid-editing sock farm. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bilby: Are you allowed to say which sockfarm? - Brianhe (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said that. It is User:Mamadoutadioukone. I've blocked Iamhuman9925. The Happywriter101 account is also interesting - Shawn McNulty was in all likelihood a paid editing job as well, as it was advertised on Elance before it was taken over by Upwork. So it seems very likely that Happywriter101 is connected. - Bilby (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Has it been noted before that the master kept a "portfolio" in his sandbox ? Also de.wiki and fr.wiki with a different username. Neither appears to be blocked. The sandbox stuff leads me to IronFX and User:Andrew Condie who is blocked but there seems to be a team at work there. I'm sure there's more if we go looking. - Brianhe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
More accounts likely involved in sockfarm, via interwiki connections:
These all created/expanded IronFX on the es.wiki and interesting stuff on en.wiki. - I can't see deleted articles, but an admin might find more connections at Crossinvest (Asia). - Brianhe (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'll follow it up. IronFX is an interesting case, as it was before he was identified as running a sock farm (but was a paid job through Elance). Since Elance was taken over by Upwork a lot of the old connections are hard to make. But hopefully we can do something. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
More above. See global contribs for continuity. It's apparent we have a long-term sockfarm at play. - Brianhe (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pali Road

Hello. I'm not sure if this applies, and I don't know exactly how to initiate conversation if it does, so please forgive me if I'm out of my lane. A large number of edits to this article, which is about a film, seem to be made by the film's director, who is registered but whose user page hasn't been created. If this user is the director, is this a conflict of interest (is a creative work a "company?"), and if it is a COI, should I create the user page and seek clarification? Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mitchell k dwyer: Thank you for posting this. This is surely a COI, assuming of course that the user account belongs to the director. The user in question has also been uploading images whose copyright status will need to be verified. I have tried to initiate a conversation on the talk page. Let's wait for a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And thanks for your example in how to deal with this situation. I'm filing it away for reference and will keep an eye on the discussion. <3 Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Jon Lindquist

Something fishy going on with the above accounts. The two pages mentioned are connected, as, I believe, are the editors. Looking at the references used in one of the pages, I was able to establish that ahasalone probably has a strong conflict and is behind the engineering/creation of references that support the notability for these page. USer aliciadewi only leaves the edit comment "Improved article and references" or "improved article", regardless of what was done. Strange. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, a COI is probable in this case. I looked over the edit logs, the "Improved article" is suspicious. User:ahasalone definitely has a COI. User:aliciadewi might work in an advertising company, due to not just making COI edits on one page or related pages. I left a message on User:aliciadewi's page about her edit summaries. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Randykitty and Drmies:: an admin might want to take a close look at user ahasalone and the first reference on the The Honorifics for an apparent very active and deceptive COI.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
All you have to look at is the band members. It's really easy when COI editors use their real names or some approximation of it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It's worse than that if you look closely! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Bearing in mind that the data in TejaswaChaudhary is somewhat old, the two accounts are Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
KLAV added to page list.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, company promotion, want to make money, bogus-looking products. I found it, User:HappyValleyEditor. I also don't think the accounts are related, but that article should be deleted as fast as possible. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Reid

this appears to have been resolved. article has settled Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

IP is repeatedly removing significant chunks of referenced material from the article, doing so once with the edit summary I like it this way if you change it I will change it back and this is the way amanda wants it. Unsure if genuine CoI or just a fan? Gricehead (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked them for now, and left a message on their talk page. Let's see what happens. Graham87 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
And I've semi-protected the article. Graham87 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately these good measures have not stopped the vandalism. A registered account has taken up the cause. I've requested mosre stringent page protection, and issued a final warning to the account. I'd also suggest a sock puppet investigation. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if, considering bizarre claims like this , this conversation ought to be moved to ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hang on, let me try to have a discussion first. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Lemongirl942, they've responded to you on their talk page, claiming to be a friend. But their username is the same as an online account used elsewhere by Ms. Reid. I'm trying not to out this user, but the vehemence with which they've attacked the article, and the claims that have been made re: life and death consequences, probably merit more eyes at ANI. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is outside the EU, there are a number of google-eu blocked results on searches related to Amanda Reid and under her previous name. Someone might want to take a look (I would but I cant really get around the EU block at my current location) - I only noticed it as I did an idle search for reasons why she might have changed her name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If someone wants all knowledge of her former identity linking to current removing from the internet, they need to try harder, as there is still a google-cache of the Australian Paralympic team page showing both her names. I'm now intrigued as to what user:Only in death was searching for... Gricehead (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Just general fishing in case there was a legitimate personal harm issue for the name change. Close relative being a famous mass murderer for example. There are currently still swim Australia documents online with her old name so if she is seeking to scrub it for some reason - not doing a great job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The account has indicated that there is a personal harm issue. (See discussion on talk page). Unfortunately I cannot verify if this is true. I have asked them to go through WP:RFO as they are probably better equipped to deal with this. If anyone else has any other suggestions, please feel free to post here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg: Could you help us understand what's going on here? Brianhe (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've admin deleted content on the user talk page which is relevant, but cant do or say much more at the moment, except to say that I know who the editor is, that the underlying problem is legitimate, and I am talking with people closer to the subject to better understand the underlying problem myself so I can determine whether it calls for WP:RFO or not. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

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

West Los Angeles VA Medical Center et al

VA IP's:

something else

I noticed the very tidy and professional-sounding page for the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center in the new pages feed. Page created by Katomin, who interestingly has an edit on his/her user page for "PM&R Mnemonics" by 152.132.10.197. In whois, 152.132.10.197 and the similar Ip's above resolve to the "Department of Veterans Affairs" near Pasadena California. 152.132.10.197 has done 28 edits to the UCLA/VA Multicampus PM&R Residency Program since 2007. There are other potentially connected pages in the histories. Given the promotional edits to the pages of certain doctors and the rsidency program, I thought this was the work of bored medical students at first, but the network of edits to VA-related hospitals might be a more professional effort. I asked Katomin about potential conflicts but no answer as of yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

these SoCal med schools are really really self-promotional. for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
added 2nd user above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikijan2016, Bellevue Education

sent to ANI here Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Wikijan2016 has three times removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education.

Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. This specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made. It appears to be an attempt to confuse any reader who may have heard of the allegation (as if the ownership structure wasn't complicated enough already).

Wikijan2016's other substantive contributions so far are all on the articles of other Bellevue schools etc. These edits may generally be described as puffery, relying on the websites of the organizations themselves.

Wikijan2016 has been warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information" and "The last sentences refers to a discredited and illegal blog, and is as such not a trusted source that can be used. This will be reported to wikipedia.".

I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page despite being invited to do so. Instead, they have for the third time removed the allegations and their reference, though this time without the legal threats. (I also notice some minor changes in this diff that may in fact be marginal improvements to the article.)

I suggest that this is the pattern of an editor with a serious conflict of interest. I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this. Hunc (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted Wikijan2016's edits, which were mainly deletions, to Hunc's "last best version" earlier today, following unsuccessful attempts to establish communication with Wikijan2016 by way both of their talk page, and the talk page for the article. While I have to say that I am not experienced in these matters, and must also declare that I was the editor that Wikijan2016 made a formal complaint of edit warring against as referred to above, I share Hunc's suspicion. I suppose that in practical terms we must wait and see whther or not Wikijan2016 returns to remove material again. If that were to happen, I would have thought there is a dispute. It would be very helpful if some other editors were to have a look at the history and talk page, and say what they think.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
So far Wikijan's only communication with the community has been filing this ANEW report. It looks like a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. Brianhe (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunk (talk) and Daithidebara (talk)have been seriously edit warring on the talk page for a while now, which is shocking and quite aggressive. I'd be grateful for some advice from senior admininstrators of wikipedia on this topic, so that this matter can come to a resolution. It is naturally very concerning that the two users are allowed to freely post accusations about a company with a highly loaded tone and language. Any information on wikipedia should be from reliable and accurate sources, and not posted with a clear agenda. The edits of which it is shocking that they continue to post (clearly in violation of the 3 edit rule) is that the company has received funding from sources of which it has not. Could someone please advice the best way forward to end this edit warring from Hunk (talk) and Daithidebarra (talk)? Thank you in advance. Please also note that the reason why I have not posted on a talk page until today is not because of no interest in resolving the matter, but simply because I do not know the ins and outs of wikipedia as well as the two users clearly. Please also note that whilst I may have edited on other pages that also belong to the group, that does not take away from the fact, that wikipedia should not support blatant accusations about an organisation - I merely wish for wikipedia to be a descent and accurate source of information for users. Wikjan2016.talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikjan2016 I am glad you have started talking - it is fundamental to eveything that happens here. Would you please disclose any connection you have with Bellevue Education or the trust. That is the first order of business for this board. We can talk about other stuff after we deal with that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Jytdog Jytdog. I really appreciate it. I have absolutely no connection to the Trust whatsoever, but I do care about and know staff of Bellevue Education - hence my interest in the matter.

More information This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. ...
Close

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:41, 12 May 2016‎ (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)

User:Wikjan2016 Please take a break working on the article, while we try to figure out what is going on here. You have left your description incomplete. What is your connection with Bellvue Education? Please be clear. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you also please explain how this logo is your own work?
The purpose of this board is to help deal with the COI issues and manage them. As in academia, we try to manage conflicts of interest here. We only seek to eliminate them if they cannot be managed. The first step is disclosure; the second is a kind of peer review (not banning or anything). We are just trying to get clear on the disclosure part. Many people come here and aren't aware of these processes, which are very common in academia. So. Please disclose your relationship with Bellvue Education so we can start the process. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks so much for taking the matter seriously. It is much appreciated. Very happy to refrain from editing the page so you can look into the matter and the personal agenda that the Daithidebarra Daithidebarra user might have. My connection to Bellevue Education is of a personal matter, and I have edited some of their wikipedia school pages from personal interest - and professional as I myself work in digital communication independently.

More information This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. ...
Close

-Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijan2016 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Please sign your posts by typing four tildas after them "~~~~". I would appreciate it would you would make a clear disclosure. Let me try to pull out what you are hinting at. It appears that you have family or friends who work at Bellevue Education. It appears that you are being paid by Bellevue as a communications professional. Is this accurate? Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry, not used to wikipedia - will sign off as requested. Nothing to pull out of me, apologies if I was not clear - I am not paid by the group, but I know and care about staff members there who are on the receiving end of these allegations. I am paid by my own company, with no relation to Bellevue Education. "Wikijan2016 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"

Getting clearer, probably just a couple more back and forths are needed. OK, so you have friends at Bellevue. You don't work directly for, nor as a contractor to Bellevue. Is Bellvue a client of the company you work for? Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. No they are not. That would be fairly interesting as I work in the comms department (on digital side) of a shipping insurance company. Do let me know once we can discuss the matter of legal and moral issue around the wording of the editing on the Bellevue Education page. That is really were the matter solely lies. Thanks so much for taking this seriously. "Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)"

Thanks. It will be clear when we are done working through the COI management process. Only after that will I get involved in content. It is too messy to mix this up with that. You've taken an interest in several articles related to Bellvue including uploading new logos. Were you asked by the people you know and care for to update these articles? Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry could you clarify what you mean by COI management process? Just so I am clear on the process here, and what the messiness you are referring to is? Could we possibly also obtain some more information on the other user so their personal or professional agenda also is a bit clearer? I think I mentioned earlier that I have edited a couple of other articles for them from a personal point of view, I have also edited other articles in the past, I think under different user names as I have changed computers and forgotten user name and passwords - nothing to hide there - again I wish I would have been paid for any editing, but unfortunately not. Logos have been available online already, as most are on google images. I assume you have been satisfied with information my end, and will obtain the required information regarding the other user, so we can look into the matter of the content as soon as possible - which is only where this dispute lies. Thanks so much again. Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I have written you five short messages here in which I already explained that I am trying to engage you with the COI management process in Wikipedia, the first step of which involves disclosure of conflict of interest, and I have asked you to clearly disclose your relationships here. Again, this discussion is about conflicts of interest. As a Wikipedia editor, you agree to follow the Terms of Use and to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, every time you edit Wikipedia. That is your (and my) primary interest as Wikipedia editors. People often come here who have outside interests in the real world, that are more important to them, than are their interests as Wikipedia editors. They have a conflict of interest. It happens all the time. You have disclosed that you "know and care about" staff at Bellevue. That is creating a conflict of interest for you here in Wikipedia. Will you please acknowledge that? Once you do, I will explain what we ask of editors who have a COI. Then I will start dealing with the content issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All clear now. Thanks for clarifying again. It was not clear to me the first time. Again, nothing to hide - complete transparency my end, I do know staff members of the group as said all along, which is why I was horrified to see the tone and language used and the posting of the source as previously discussed - and have taken a personal interest in the page over the last few weeks as the user has gone to great lengths to ensure their edit is on the page. To be clear, I have all along stated that wikipedia should be an objective and reliable source of information - my latest attempt to edit the user's content to ensure just that is a testament to this - as it is a much more objective and clean way of presenting content vs their use of strong words such as "exposed" etc. Do let me know if you require any further information my end. I don't know whether it is worth looking into the other user and whether they have any connection with organisations/media etc that might benefit from sharing the supplied content in the way they have chosen to do so? Thanks. Look forward to hearing an update and to discussing this further. Wikijan2016 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to acknowledge that your relationships with folks at the Bellevue have created a conflict of interest for you. Please respond. Jytdog (talk)

No I do not think that is the case, so I cannot tell you that I am afraid. My problem with all of this is the moral and legal aspect of someone posting content in a certain tone for their own agenda or to promote their political views. It is morally wrong - not to mention in this case also legally. I would be appalled if wikipedia supports such behaviour. As someone from a long line of lawyers I cannot sit back and say nothing to this. The reason why this morally wrong behaviour caught my attention is because I know hardworking people within the company, yes, but my interest is purely moral and legal so no conflict of interest. The only one with a conflict of interest is the other user, as the shear persistence suggests a very clear agenda - do I post a conflict of interest case against them perhaps, so we can look into this, or can you initiate it from there. That is actually the root of the problem, and why we are all wasting our time with this. Thanks again.Wikijan2016 (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, could you point me in the direction on wikipedia of where I can file a complaint of this user in terms of their moral and legal wrongdoings on wikipedia? Ultimately that is the aspect we need to get to discuss, otherwise we are all just enabling such behaviour. Thanks again. Wikijan2016 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually we are done here. You were warned not to continuing accusing others of doing legal wrong at the edit warring board here. You have ignored that, and per WP:NPA you will soon probably be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia.
I hear you that you feel like you don't have a COI. I have worked on a lot of COI matters in Wikipedia, and it is very clear based on what you disclosed here and on the way you have behaved that you have a very strong interest in your friends, and that interest has prevented you from even taking the time to understand the polices and guideline that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. That is how strong the conflict is - you cannot even see Wikipedia - you completely ignored the warning about legal threats, at the article you just reverted content you didn't like without providing a basis in policy or guideline, you haven't actually discussed the content you disagreed about, you just edit-warred; and then you escalated things to a noticeboard, all again without discussion. You hardly paid attention to what I wrote here - you had to ask me what I meant about the "COI process" even though I explained it twice before, in my short messages. Instead you tried to use this forum to continue arguing about the content you don't like.
You have a glaring conflict of interest with regard to Bellevue Education. But that is moot now. I will give you a notice of the ANI board discussion where I will seek to have you indeffed for making legal threats. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kikai Labs

Company page created, editied and reverted by founder of company. Editor name identical to founder name, also acknowledged "Yes, I am the founder!" on his/her talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am merely posting the history of a company that IS relevant in the 3d printing scene of South America. I know its history well because as stated, I founded it. If this article were posted by a third party would it be acceptable? Also as I pointed out it is an entry similar to all the other entries under List_of_3D_printer_manufacturers, so if mine is not acceptable then all those other entries should be removed as well. If you google "Kikai Labs" you will see many many newspaper articles about the company. These can be listed as the Sources (just give me time) if that will make it more acceptable. The editor removed almost the whole article, in particular the history of Products and also the company's contributions to 3d printing (even if minor). The article is not self-promoting, it is not selling anything, it is just recording history (this could be relevant to anyone doing a news story, for instance). Thank you. Mruizcamauer (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mruizcamauer: Thanks for coming here and talking. It's great that you're doing that. You have correctly pointed out that some articles have content issues and need correction. However before we address that, it is important that you do one thing then we can continue the conversation. Since you have acknowledged your conflict of interest as the company founder, would you agree to abide by the community practices for editors with a conflict? There is a way for you to suggest changes for others to review in our model, but best practice involves you allowing other editors to consider those changes, and to apply them or not, in a dispassionate way. Details here. - Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


Would this be what I need to put at the top of the page to disclose the "COI" properly? If so, can I add the missing content again? (sorry, I'm a newbie in this) {{Connected contributor|User1=mruizcamauer |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Founder of Kikai Labs}} Mruizcamauer (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes to question one. As for question 2, you should discuss the problems on the talk page with editors, and not directly edit the article. You should not add content without editor consensus, because you should not be editing the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I added no wiki to the template to prevent COIN from being added to Category "Connected contributors". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Buhram

Given the breadth of the topics and the persistent addition of advertorial content despite multipe AfC declines suggests paid COI that ought to be cleaned up. —SpacemanSpiff 12:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Added GraceSophie09 who is clearly trying to promote The Location Group and had tried to create Marc-Christian Riebe at AfC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Buhram for an undisclosed COI, since it looks to be a WP:DUCK situation. I'll look at GraceSophie next. I'm debating endorsing a SPI for socks, given that Jeffreystance1 edited the AfD for Noah Miller and his edits solely revolved around that person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I found some off-wiki evidence which confirms that this was a paid COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Flag of Syria

User has indicated that he is working for the Syrian Interim Government, is editing at the instruction or request of the Interim Government, and is a politician. User has made changes based on a clearly partisan view and has refused to provide secondary sourcing. Can another user provide assistance to make sure that policies on verifiability and neutrality are followed in this article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is a problem. I have written to them at their talk page. We'll see how this goes but my sense now is that this is person is going to end up being blocked per WP:NOTHERE. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I left a note on his talk page. I doubt this will get anywhere, he will be blocked soon if he keeps this up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Can you remove the "all westerners are idiots" material from his user page, on basis of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as he is attacking all western editors? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh my! I just posted this a few minutes ago on the user talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
If he continues, I'll send this to AN/I, due to his behavior being out of control and completely unacceptable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I started, go to WP:AN/I for more. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

JaberEl-Hour Indeffed at ANI. (see here). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Electric & class action lawsuit

Peter Devonald

Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd

Chevelle (band)

Olejjoerges

Battle of Mantinea (362 BC)

Michael Ehrmant

Xandyxyz (undisclosed paid editing)

Abof through Zizoo

Arbaaz Khan (actor)

Malta Medical Students' Association‎

Natalia Toreeva

Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies

Medopad

Emily Carmichael (filmmaker)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI