Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
Requested edits
Answered requested edits
Declined requested edits
Implemented requested edits
Partially implemented requested edits
  User:Abmd942/Quarto Group
  Talk:ACIS
  Talk:African Library Project
  Talk:Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  Talk:Alghanim Industries
  Talk:American Geosciences Institute
  Talk:AN/TPQ-53 Quick Reaction Capability Radar
  Talk:Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings
  Talk:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
  Talk:Association of School and College Leaders
  Talk:Aurora Organic Dairy
  Talk:Sarah Austin (Internet celebrity)
  Talk:AXS (ticket merchant)
  Talk:Jules Bailey
  Talk:Balsamiq
  Talk:Bioresorbable stents
  Talk:Louise Blouin
  Talk:Bombardier Recreational Products
  Talk:BP
  Talk:Brown Brothers Harriman & Co.
  Talk:James T. Butts, Jr.
  Talk:Albert Carnesale
  Talk:Cheadle Hulme School
  Talk:Chicago Council on Global Affairs
  Draft:Cleeng
  Talk:Cleveland Clinic/edit requests
  Talk:Comparison of continuous integration software
  Talk:Comparison of issue-tracking systems/Archive 1
  Talk:Comparison of Kanban software
  Talk:Comparison of project management software
  Talk:Comparison of Scrum software
  Talk:Conduit (company)
  Talk:Coronary stent
  Talk:Counter-battery radar
  Talk:Céline Cousteau
  Talk:Richard Crasta
  Talk:Dani Ploeger
  Talk:Debiopharm
  User:DGG/COI & OTRS templates in process, 2015
  User:DGG/Key
  User talk:Dom at Carter-Ruck
  Talk:DriveTime
  Talk:Drug-eluting stent
  Talk:Dyn (company)
  Talk:Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation
  Talk:Engagement Game Lab
  Talk:Etsy
  Talk:Brian Evans (singer)
  Talk:Family Radio
  Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
  Talk:Friskies
  Talk:Garfield Refining
  Talk:Gate Gourmet
  Talk:Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  Talk:George Institute for Global Health
  Talk:George Ranalli
  Talk:Global Innovation Index
  Talk:David Harding (financier)
  Talk:HeinOnline
  Talk:Daniel Hesse
  Talk:Hilton Worldwide
  Talk:International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs – ICAP
  Talk:IYogi
  User:Jkrzysik/sandbox
  Talk:JMP (statistical software)
  Talk:Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences
  Talk:Kempinski
  Talk:KVOQ-FM
  Talk:Libertarianism in the United Kingdom
  Talk:Gustavus Loomis
  Talk:Louvre Abu Dhabi
  Talk:Paolo Macchiarini
  Talk:Macmillan Cancer Support
  Talk:Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
  Talk:Maritz, LLC
  Talk:Helene Chung Martin
  Talk:Herman Matthews
  Talk:Methanex
  Talk:MetLife
  Talk:Mexicanal
  User talk:MikeL MSFT
  Talk:MindMeld
  User talk:Mlmccoy2
  Talk:Monoclonal antibody
  Talk:Arif Naqvi
  Talk:New Oriental
  Talk:Number Portability Administration Center
  Talk:Olney Theatre Center
  Talk:Ornella Barra
  Talk:Patterson Companies
  Talk:Peppercomm
  Talk:Tom Poland
  Talk:Vern Poythress
  User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/EditRequestsForArticleCarlHewitt
  Talk:Project management software
  Talk:Jennifer Raab
  Talk:Raheja Developers
  Talk:Ren Zhengfei
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contest/preload
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/contribute/preload
  Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard/correction/preload
  Template:Request edit/sandbox
  Template:Request edit/testcases
  Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies/Political figures
  Talk:Rio Tinto Group
  Talk:RW3 Technologies
  Talk:John Sall
  Talk:SAP SE
  Talk:Satellite (software)
  Talk:Serragia Airfield
  Talk:Smile Train
  Talk:Sodium oxybate
  Draft:Antano Solar John
  Talk:State Accident Insurance Fund
  Talk:Daniel Steres
  Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 1
  Talk:Ted Strickland
  Talk:Quint Studer
  Talk:Carol M. Swain
  Talk:Synthetic Genomics
  Talk:Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy
  Talk:Test management tools
  Talk:The Abraaj Group
  Talk:The Hollywood Reporter
  Talk:The Pictet Group
  Talk:ThoughtWorks
  User:Tom at Manifest/sandbox
  Talk:Trinity Industries
  Talk:TSG Consumer Partners
  Talk:University of Chicago
  Talk:Vani Rani (TV series)
  Talk:W. R. Grace and Company
  Talk:Dan Wagner
  Talk:Walter Ofonagoro
  User:Wesclark80/sandbox
  Talk:Wikia
  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools
  Talk:Philip Womack
  Talk:WorkCover Authority of New South Wales
  Talk:XTO Energy
  Talk:Yassin Kadi

Jesuit Social Research Institute et al[edit]

I thought we had this discussion already about the IHS Logo and that everyone agreed that it does not belong in an article unless it is actually the logo of the organization. I have to claim once again that Jzsj's Addition of the logo in the userbox for organizations that have different visual identities is promotional editing. It's also a violation of WP:LOGO, which says the logo should only be used for the main organization. The Jesuit IHS is minimimally psychologically invasive, but I have to ask: If there were a big fat Christian cross there, on the page of something like a homeless centre, would it be considered neutral and non-promotional? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your repeated misquoting what is said at various places about this seems to me to raise the question of whether you are harassing me or truly reflecting an established policy. I have reread the places you mention, and more, and find nothing against use of this universal Jesuit logo within the infobox of Jesuit organizations that have in Wikipedia no more specific logo of their own. Please do not attempt to solve this issue on your own but note how complex an issue it might be from other discussions, as on sports logos. If a thorough discussion concludes in an administrative decision that general logos that are in the public domain cannot be used in organizations that claim that identity, then I will place organizational boxes on these websites, but I prefer to not go that route at this point.Jzsj (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
For comparison to the above list, here are some articles on Catholic organizations where the logo is used in a non-promotional way:

HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't get your point: is it that you find the cross less obvious on these websites and you find the cross offensive?Jzsj (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The difference that I see here, and HappyValleyEditor can correct me if this wasn't their intention, is that each of these articles has the logo of the organization that is the subject of the article. Thus the Caritas articles has the Caritas logo, the Catholic U of A has the Catholic U of A logo, the Boston Archdiocese has the logo of the archdiocese. If you look at Caritas Hong Kong or Caritas Việt Nam, you don't see the Caritas logo. The article for List of Catholic University of America buildings does not have the Catholic University logo in the article -- however, it does have it in a box at the bottom, but that box is about the university, not the buildings. Then look at Society of Saint Vincent de Paul, and even though this is a Catholic charity, there's no logo indicating "Catholic church". In fact, in the article on the Catholic Church there doesn't seem to be such a logo. I looked at articles on specific Catholic churches (e.g. St. Eric's Cathedral, Stockholm) and there's no logo there indicating "Catholic." So I think it is not at all difficult to see what the general habit is, and that habit does appear to follow the stated use of logos which is that they are for the organization that is the subject of the article, not all subordinate organizations. The policy says: "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents." I reiterate of the main article on the subject the logo represents. I honestly don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. LaMona (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
LaMona, precisely. I am hard-pressed to find a group of pages in Wikipedia that use the same organizational logo across a number of pages as Jzsj suggests is permissible, although I could be wrong. Jzsj, does LaMona's explanation of why this is not permissible now make sense to you?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I am hoping some other editors wil share their opinion on whether this logo use is promotional.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not seeing an IHS logo in each of the article userboxes mentioned above. I am seeing each organization's logo - and I am seeing the same with the second set of "Catholic" articles. I don't see a problem here. So, am I missing something? --- Steve Quinn (talk)
OK - correction. I see what User: Happy Valley is saying. There are a few or several articles that are using the IHS logo - and this is not these organizations' logo. So, this is not appropriate. I am not going to say WP:PROMO in light of AGF. However, it is not appropriate. Especially if the IHS logo is non-free content, i.e., subject to copyright. Also, the use of the IHS logo in these instances is unintentionally misleading, because I think these organizations each have their own logo. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
OK - sorry - I just had one more thought based on new information. Apparently, this IHS logo has been downloaded as being in the public domain. So, if these userboxes in question are in articles about Jesuit founded and funded organizations, then is it appropriate to use this logo in these several articles? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, with egg on my face, I see that User LaMona already answered my question. I have to go with the IHS logo cannot be used in these several articles based on conventional Wikipedia norms and WP:LOGO. It would only be appropriate to use the logo "owned" by each particular organization for that particular article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer but "public domain logo" might be a contradiction in terms, at least the way you're using it above. Public domain is a copyright-related concept, and copyright is just a subset of intellectual property, in which logos and trademarks are a separate domain. An image can be both public domain, and a protected mark. See the second paragraph under Trademark#Comparison with patents, designs and copyright. It would be a complex determination regarding continuous usage and other factors to decide whether the IHS logo can be used indiscriminately on Wikipedia. - Brianhe (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll be glad to read that out of curiosity. But I have no interest in the status of this logo or its use. The issue was its indiscriminate use. Truthfully, I been having a hard time believing that this is really a public domain download, ever since I checked its Wikipedia licensing, because it is a logo. I think it was downloaded as such in error, or because the down loader did not do due diligence. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a ping so this doesn't get archived. I want to look at this still. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank's for keeping this alive,Jytdog, I was not aware of the replies above by Steve Quinn and Brianhe. I'm wondering if this discussionmatters at all (he said pessimistically) as the user seems to not be following the suggestion to stop using the logo indiscriminately for Jesuit institutions. Here's a new article from June 17, and another from the same day. Also his new articles (examples: one, two, three) do not seem to be going through the AFC process as was suggested for someone with a perceived conflict (a Jesuit priest writing on Jesuit institutions). I really have nothing against religious people editing Wikipedia, but I am bothered by the obvious promotional editing bias here and our inability to do anything about it. It is clearly non-neutral and also clearly ignores the repeated suggestions of other users that it is promotional. Pinging @LaMona:....HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
HappyValleyEditor I am curious about the source for the logo so I queried over at Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions - IHS emblem. However, looking at the different language Wikipedias that are now using this logo I am not hopeful about discovering anything. Here is the file, and just scroll down to see: [1]. Also, someone will have to ask Jzsj to remove the logo from the info boxes of the articles mentioned above - based on consensus that seems to be here - that this logo does not belong in a certain set of articles - per this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thanks for looking into the logo. The user has already been told not to use it based on the WP:LOGO policy and COIN consensus. However the use persists. Feel free to give it a shot!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please give me the reference where it says a generic logo may not be used in an infobox. I'm not ignoring what is said; I respectfully note, Steve, that most of the previous discussion was about a logo being used outside the infobox. Also, this logo can be found somewhere on the website or in the publication of most Jesuit institutions, and so is shown as appropriate to the institutions. Also, please note that the file is used on over 150 websites, only a few being my doing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ihs-logo.svg). It might fairly be said that the logo is owned in common by all Jesuit institutions, none claiming exclusive rights to it. Also, I don't understand the examples of use at the beginning of this section; some of these are logos specific to the institutions. Pinging @Steve Quinn:. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

sigh. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jzsj - Actually, the discussion did include placing this logo in info-boxes in articles where the Society of Jesus is not the main subject - and this was emphasized. We have several blocks of text above. Also, apparently this has been discussed previously someplace else with User:HappyValleyEditor and I am hoping they will provide a link to that discussion here. This was also discussed on your talk page with User:Pjposullivan here [2], and here [3]. Based on what I have written so far, I think what is happening is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

    In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. (Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.)

    I am assuming this logo is not in the public domain, as is the norm for logos. Also, public domain for a logo must be proved per WP:LOGO. At the same time, I am going to follow User: Marchjuly's suggestions over at the Media copyright questions discussion board [4].
Additionally, if I am reading WP:LOGO correctly, use in a template is not allowed either. So the many aritlces that use the Society of Jesus template with probably have to do so without this logo. And to repeat in so many words what has already been said - I quote WP:LOGO:

A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents. For example, the main company logo may appear in the main article about the company, the main school logo in the main article about the school, and the main sports team logo in the main article about the sports team, but a school logo and a school sports team logo may not both appear in the same article (although they may appear in separate articles). Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos (see discussion) should be used within an article.

Lastly, I stongly doubt that the Society of Jesus is so desperate for publicity that it needs to have its logo placed in articles where it does not belong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn:, Here is the previous COIN discussion where the conclusion was that the logo did not belong in infoboxes beyond the main institution. Also see this discussion which mentions the logo use as well. This has been discussed, repeated and ignored for more than a month, so it would be good to hear form the editor that he will follow communicy concensus and the WP:LOGO rules. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Jzsj has contacted me twice on my talk page. I am copying and posting this section here to continue the continuity of this discussion. Here it is:

I don't find the directions in articles about Wikipedia to be very user-friendly. I usually try to imitate what others have used and hope that it works. I tried to alert you in two ways on my talk page. Did either of them work, and if not how do I send an alert? Thanks.Jzsj (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hoping to receive a response, but let me add, please. We seem to be pushing in opposite directions, with my seeking maximum freedom where issues are not clear and your wanting to remove logos from all the templates about Jesuit works. Also, I saw Pjposullivan giving me qualified support in the end. And I see wiggle room within the statement introducing the Logo article: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Also, my take on your partner in this endeavour is that he may be harrassing me, as he was warned of this before (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HappyValleyEditor&diff=722059718&oldid=722033869 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Centro_Gumilla). Since he has erased his talk page it's difficult to get a sense of his work, but he appears to have just begun editing this year, and has perhaps not yet captured the spirit of graciousness and tolerance within rules with fuzzy edges at times. My conclusion is that the Jesuit logo is permissible within the infobox of Jesuit works, as they all use the logo for their works. I believe we would need a broader discussion to definitively rule this out. I have moved non-free logos into the infoboxes of all the Jesuit schools where I found the more specific logos copyable. Jzsj (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jzsj - I don't understand why you are trying to engage me in a discussion here on my talk page or even on your talk page. In the above, you said we need a broader discussion and one is happening over at the COI discussion board. And there will be another one opening at the Village Pump about the Logo's status as soon as I get time, within the next few days. There is also a link to another discussion taking place over at Copyright questions [5] on the COI discussion board.
This discussion that you are attempting to have here, should be taking place over at the COI discussion board. Please don't try to discuss this issue with me on my talk page anymore. If you do so, I feel compelled to ignore it. I am probably going to post this section of my talk page over at the COI discussion board.
As an aside, you have already set up an alert when you pinged someone over at the COI discussion board. And that is how it is done use "ping" or "re" in a template preceding the person's name. The "ping" or "re" is separated with a vertical line "|". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
End of talk page discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the "ping" problem.Jzsj (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jzsj, I think it would be smart to stop blaming people and to start following policies. Now, if you would please just follow WP:LOGO and not brand your pages with the jesuit logo, we could stop this silly discussion. Do you agree to stop putting the IHS Logo in the infobox? If not, I am considering bringing this to an admin's attention as I think you have engaged in a pattern of disruptive and promotional editing that will be easy to clearly demonstrate. But-- before that, you have a chance to stop that and join the community concensus. You do not seem to realize that you are wasting poeple's time here by trying to write your own policies on both notability and logo use. It's really a question of whether you want to follow policies and work with others collaboratively, or remain on your own churning out low notability Jesuit pages that go against policies! This is a place where we work together and respect collective policies. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I am currently inquiring from a Jesuit historian to see if he can identify the first use of this precise version of the 16th century logo, used by the earliest Jesuits.Jzsj (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The logo is obviously public domain at this point. It's in the Church of Gesu, over the altar, and that is abotu 500 years old. The point in this discussion is not the copyright of the logo. The point is that we (Wikipedia) have a policy on this, which has been explained to you at least a dozen times now. I'm going to ignore this for a week. If you have not stopped the promotional editing by then I am taking it to an admin, with the two COIN discussions and a list examples of you ignoring community advice. Noting personal, you sound like a nice person. However you refuse to follow policies and are wasting a lot of other poeple's time, which qualifies as disruptive editing. Have a nice evening. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
HappyValleyEditor To me, the case can be made that because this logo is still in active use [6], that may be grounds for changing the licensing from PD. Please see the discussion over at Media Copyright questions. In any case, maybe we should now leave questions of copyright and trademark over there and not here - just a suggestion. These seem to be evolving into two different issues - imho ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

How about using an architectural detail instead of a print logo? Examples:

Maybe crop such photograph? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:KatrinaMcCaffery & User:Kittymccaffery[edit]

According to the talk page of KatrinaMcCaffery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), these appeared to be her clients according to her client list and one of those she created because she claims to admire. Donnie Park (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Per this diff on her talk page, Ms. McCaffery gave an undertaking on 29 March not to work anymore on articles of clients, and she has kept her word. She has since that date edited a draft article which she has submitted and had knocked back through AfC; I'm unsure if this is or is not a client, but I'm happy, at least, that it was taken through AfC. I'll tag & check the articles Ms. McC has had involvement with (if that's not been done already). Beyond that, I think there's little to be done beyond thanking Donnie Park for this notification, and Ms. McC for working with rather than against Wikipedia by complying with WP:COI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Veggieboomboom has not edited since 2013. She specified her identity on her userpage. I get the impression Krista Allen has been heavily edited since her last edit diff and that though some of her inputs persist, she has well and truly lost control of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo[edit]

I recently reverted the edits of this user on the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, because the source he cited comes from his own works. I'm not sure if the sources fit the reliable sources policy, but since he is the author of the source and because this is a controversial article, I wanted to make sure that I'm going through the correct channels first. He isn't a representative (upper level administration) of INC but the author of a book which is critical of it, so I would like to ask if this is COI, and how he approach the article. --wL<speak·check> 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

[I'm hoping I'm doing this properly since this is my first time editing an entry in Wikipedia. If I violate any protocols, please accept my apology and show me the proper way. Thanks!]
The subject in question is concerning the membership numbers and ethnic composition of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. My source for the data is the 1990, 2000, and 2010 Philippine national census, with the data mentioned in the footnote I produced (per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22; The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf). [Retrieved Nov 2, 2015]). The 2010 data was extrapolated using an averaged 1.9% natural growth rate per Philippine NSO data (http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics. 2000-2010 = 1.90%;). The 2.4% INC membership figures is identical to the latest 2010 Philippine census for the 10.5 million overseas Filipinos, with an identical conversion growth rate derived from the difference of actual INC membership compared to where they would be if the numbers would solely be by natural growth (delta of +0.3% or an averaged 5015 converts/year between 1990-2010 - total delta: +100,293 from 1990 to 2010).
Note: I used the Philippines' averaged natural growth rate of 1.90% for 2000-2010, despite it is decelerating compared to historical performance (1990-2000 = 2.34%; 1980-1990 = 2.35%; 1970-1980 = 2.71%; 1960-1970 = 3.08%). A more accurate assumption would be a harmonized lower growth figures of 1.90-1.60, but I cited historical instead of projected data.
Despite my book is critical of the INC's theology and practices, the data I provided is accurate, given the parameters of +/- 5%. Please keep my changes. The INC has a habit of exaggerating its size (they've been telling me since the 1980s that they were anywhere from 7-10 million despite the 1990 census showed they only had 1.4 million adherents - this means the prior information cited by Catholic Answers is incorrect). EdwardKWatson (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Edward Watson
Note, this was withdrawn and closed by User:WikiLeon in this dif with the closing note: As I can tell from the conversation between the user and @SwisterTwister:, this isn't a COI problem, my apologies. But this became a complex issue that may need the attention of the original research noticeboard or invocation of Ignore all rules.
In this edit I am re-opening. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
User:EdwardKWatson thanks for replying here. I have reviewed the article and done some editing to it. this dif by you in an obvious product of conflicted editing. And almost all of your edits cite your own book. Your book is self-published and in Wikipedia that is an WP:SPS and not a reliable source. It is not something we would use normally. It is clear why you are using it. Do you see how your work on this article is under a conflict of interest? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Thanks for the clarification, and since this is my first attempt at editing in Wikipedia, chalk it up to ignorance on my part. I'm more than happy to change how I word and reference the information, but the analysis of the latest membership figures can only be found in my book and nowhere else. How then would I provide the most accurate membership size without referencing the only work that cites it? It seems to me that if someone who purchased my book were to do so, you wouldn't have a problem, but the problem occurs only if I self-reference. EdwardKWatson (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson
@Jytdog: Once I was able to get to a computer to edit the article, I was planning on taking the information he posted above and replacing his citations to the SPS. (which is why I put the {{better source}} instead of reverting it. But doing so would likely be original synthesis depending on whether or not census data is considered statistics. @EdwardKWatson: Because you are financially invested in what Iglesia ni Cristo does, when it comes to selling your book, you cannot use your own sources. I seriously think you need to begin reading a number of policies, starting with everything you need to know, so you can build this encyclopedia without looking like you're dishonestly trying to sell your book. This is what makes this a conflict of interest issue. --wL<speak·check> 01:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@WikiLeon: Thanks for the clarification. I just need to know the correct process. EdwardKWatson (talk)EdwardKWatson
  • User:EdwardKWatson the issue here is your editing in which you mention yourself in the content, and your editing in which you cite your own book. Both of these activities constitute conflicted editing here in Wikipedia. Would you please acknowledge this? (Note: it is not a bad thing to have a COI - you just need to a) acknowledge and disclose it, and b) follow the peer review processes here, which means offering proposals on the Talk page rather than editing directly, and putting new articles through WP:AFC.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: As mentioned above, newbie mea culpa. What verbiage should I then use given the analysis can only be found in my book? I want to follow the proper procedure and if a peer-review process first needs to be done then I'm more than willing to do so. EdwardKWatson (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson
Please post your proposed content on the Talk page for other editors to discuss. Please do not add it to Wikipedia directly yourself. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Saket Suman[edit]

Looking over the edit history of this user, it seems like their only interest is Suman and his productions. Both articles listed above are rather spammy, I think, and the references are flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself). I am not too familiar with what is needed for a journalist to be considered notable, but Suman does not seem to meet WP:JOURNALIST. However, before doing anything, I'd rather have some other opinions of some of the regulars here. Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ugh. Speedy-nominated both articles and left a message for Rhoods. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave the honors to another admin, but will keep an eye on this. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I second speedy deletion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That didn't take long. Now we just have to see how the discuss with Rhoods goes. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have cited valid references and sources are ranging from credible newspapers like The Statesman and The Dawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Johny Rhoods this thread is about your relationship with Saket Suman. Would you please disclose your relationship with Suman? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

JonathanGodwin[edit]

User:JonathanGodwin created a page for National Center for Victims of Crime in March 2016. This is the user's first and only Wikipedia edit in the last four years. Article only has primary sources cited, absolutely no secondary sources. Article reads like an advertisement. Possible financial conflict of interest. Questionable notability for the organization. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Quacks Like a Duck. I've left a note on the user's talk page - it seems reasonable to invite him to this discussion. The organisation seems notable enough to me (google news). It has been though an AfD which was closed as no consensus.
The article does read as if it might be an 'About us' website page, and could do with some pruning & de-peacocking, but its basic structure and content appears reasonable. Lack of secondary sources is problematic, but use of primary sources may be justified ... for the detail of some subjects there are just too few or nil secondary sources. WP:PRIMARY
I'm not sure where the WP:FCOI assertion comes from (and find the assertion problematic from a WP:NPA & basic evidence perspective). COI is clearly possible, but not clearly established in my mind, any more than that the same user had COI with his 2012 Glossery of rowing terms edits.
I'm inclined to think this is a situation in which we might remind JG of WP:COI, ask about affiliations, and invite him to comment here should he wish (done); and do some copy-editing of the article (not done - not in the mood right now). And, if enthusiastic, find some secondary sources. I'm disinclined, without more pointers, to tag the article with {{Connected contributor}} ... this is not quite a WP:SPA, and whilst SPA can signal COI, it can also be a false positive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

TheLiberal.ie[edit]

The article TheLiberal.ie was created on 27 October 2015 by Keepfightingeveryday, their only ever edit. I have serious concerns that all of the above are single-purpose accounts with an obvious conflict of interes, namely an agenda of promoting TheLiberal.ie and presenting it in the best possible light:

  • Following creation, subsequent edits were made by Makeamericagreatagain (who has made three edits, total - two to the article, one an appeal against a decision at Articles for Creation to not create an article on TheLiberal.ie).
  • Imthenumberonefan has since made approximately 50 mainspace/talkpage edits. All of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its Talk page, or its current AfD. Prior to those edits, it appears this user had made at least five attempts to have the article created at AfC.
  • Barumba has made 20 edits to date; 19 of them have been to TheLiberal.ie, its Talk page, or its current AfD
  • Other editors, including myself, noticed what we perceived to be hyperbole on the article. Whenever we edit in accordance with policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc., we are reverted. 3RR has been ignored, when Imthenumberonefan finally engaged on the talk page, it was to breach WP:NPA, and s/he seems unwilling to listen to the consensus. The founder of the site covered in the article can't just be a named person, they must be described as an "entrepreneur". The Liberal can't be mentioned as being one of 43 organisations to be nominated for a (minor) award, it must be presented if it was the only organisation nominated. Accusations of plagiarism (reliably sourced) were first erased, and now have daft phrases added such as "Without any conviction" (plagiarism isn't a crime).

On the face of it, there definitely seems to be COI at play:

  • Single-purpose accounts;
  • Insertion of information not generally in the public domain:
    • Claim by Keepfightingeveryday that TheLiberal.ie launched/will launch theliberaldirectory.ie (site doesn't yet exist).
    • Claim by Imthenumberonefan that TheLiberal.ie will launch pretty.ie (site doesn't yet exist).
    • Claims made on AFD suggest Imthenumberonefan is privy to data analytics you would presumably need to have a specific business account login to access (i.e., NewsWhip won't tell me how Website Company A is doing if my account is for Website Company B).
  • Content of TheLiberal.ie website changed to include ownership by the LockSher Grop, following discussion on article's talk page. See Talk:TheLiberal.ie#COI_editing.2C_part_2 and this page changing the day after my comment in that section on 15 June to this version on 16 June.
  • Actually, those links also show that the staff names had been edited in to the website following earlier removal from the article, as poorly sourced.

Ultimately I think it's fairly obvious we're dealing with a series of sockpuppet account with a serious COI. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this situation for a while. Please see the SPI I've opened. GABgab 21:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

NB: Article has now been deleted; the SPI is ongoing. Would still like a resolution to the COI of issue. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

College and university rankings[edit]

Probably a new account - COI editing - above user is author of a French language book he/she is trying to insert as a reference into the College and university rankings article (diff here: [7]). It appears they have changed text in this article to reflect book content as the source - which I will roll back shortly (diff here:[8]). They have also edited the other two listed articles in such a way as to somehow add the College and university rankings article into the text or as a part of a reference. I have been rolling back their edits in these other articles. I will have to double check to see if I got all of it. I wonder if this person is doing the same to the French and Swiss Wikipedia since French and Swiss seem to be their focus at the moment, as can be seen by their edits. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am very surprised of your reaction. I am not the author of the book. I just happened to have read it and thought that some information could be useful references here. I agree that a book in French is not the best reference for the article on university rankings; the reason that I cited it was only because there were no other source given for the criteria used in rankings methodologies. What is more, I do not understand why adding a link to the page College and university rankings other relevant articles would be a problem. Zopital Vegh (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC).
Your The first name of your user name seems to be a close match the last name of the author of this French book. Also, editing "College and university rankings" according to this book's contents, and changing the content of other articles to point to this article, where the book is a supposed source, seems to closely correlate to having some sort of agenda. So far, the editing I have seen only relates to this book, or pointing to this book as a source from another article. Additionally, there is no way to determine this book's content on an English Wikipedia, unless a one is literate in French ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, for anyone just joining this conversation, when I first opened a COI entry in this thread, User:Zopital Vegh was a red-linked account, which has since been edited [9]. So now, it is no longer a red-linked account. The point is - this seems to be a new account. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:JGHSMC[edit]

Sadly JGHSMC seems unconcerned, having continued to add his client's name after an 18 June warning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Editor is now also at the 3RR limit for Dead Space (2008 video game); I have warned the user about 3RR. —C.Fred (talk)
JGHSMC has apologised for the edit war and set out his/her position well at Talk:Dead Space (2008 video game) following C.Fred's advice - thanks to both. I'll go through all edits and provide what help I can in the next couple of days, unless others get there first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • We've now got bigger issues with the account. The user is now holding himself out as J. G. Hertzler (diffs: [10] [11]) and showing OWNership-type behaviours to the article, including adding lots of material that lacks reliable sources. @Tagishsimon: You'll definitely need to go through the article now, as well as any other sets of eyes that want to look at it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yup, I saw that. Disappointing. As far as I can see the first user of the account has passed the PC over to JGH, who has had a good go at his own article. That's not good policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've even informed him about what sources to use (no IMDb) but it was ignored. I've tagged those entries for citations needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AngusWOOF - excellent work on J. G. Hertzler. There has also been a wee bit of page blanking going on. I've now read the riot act at User talk:JGHSMC, who seems to be courting a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Jayne Joso[edit]

Dictionarylady has a conflict of interest regarding this article (see discussion at User talk:Cordless Larry#re: Jayne Joso and the edit summary here), which is an unsourced BLP but too old to qualify for proposed deletion on those grounds alone. I could do with some help working out what to do with the article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Bless. We frequently see members of the 'rules don't apply to me' brigade here. The article needs to be cut down to a stub, with all uncited content removed - presuming the subject does indeed pass WP:GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is clear COI editing going on here; that too for a long time. I find the request not to disclose it troubling. Btw, the article subject has questionable notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see no problem here, except for possibly on the part of editors lining up against this one. Editor Dictionarylady disclosed they got "approval" from the writer Jayne Joso about wording of one version. And they disclosed they are a "close associate", or maybe that edit summary means they got wording from, or reviewed by, someone who is a close associate. Dictionarylady may be a fan (in fact obviously must be one) who chose to develop the article and could have asked the writer (or a close associate of the writer) to ask them to review what was written for accuracy, perhaps along with asking for materials to use in the article. I did that myself in a few BLP articles, where I admired the subjects perhaps from seeing them speak or perform at public events, and I had met them in person and felt comfortable they would know who I was if I contacted them. It would be okay also to do this for a peer artist or professional. That doesn't mean they or I have a COI that needs to be enshrined into a formal, permanent notice system. I certainly don't want to be unduly associated with the subjects I have had passing interest in, by being required to post some permanent notice about having conflicts of interest, when the fact of the matter is I believe I write objectively and that I do not have a COI. Dictionarylady stated clearly that they do not have a financial interest. Dictionarylady did disclose some association. You can post link to that at the article's Talk page. What more do you want? Is it just that you want the disclosure to be in some particular way, like in some template, and you feel they are lying in effect by not saying it in exactly that way? The editors here concluding that Dictionarylady has falsely "declined" to disclose COI is not appropriate. Assume good faith. And sending the article to AFD, after this and Dictionarylady working to add references, seems like piling on. --doncram 17:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
COI is not a reason for AfD. Lack of notability is. Sending the article to AfD was done because the subject does not seem notable. The majority of those who have joined the AfD to date have voted delete. You might want to start assuming good faith yourself, Doncram. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Doncram: COI was not the reason for sending it to AfD here. We don't send every single article with COI/Paid editing to AfD. In this particular case however, we have a subject whose notability is questionable at best. AfD is a good way to get community feedback on whether the subject is notable and in this case the subject isn't. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow this noticeboard and I am glad to be informed a bit more how it works here. And I may be incorrect about the editor. And I don't think anyone here was deliberately malicious. But the opening of this COI proceeding was energized by a misunderstanding, by a belief that the article is brand new (see diff at AFD), which would justify being irate about the article. E.g. about carelessness and disregard of Wikipedia policies for sourcing being left unclear. But in fact the article dates from 2009. And being angry/irate does prejudice this proceeding. Of course we are affected in how we interpret the situation, by the tone established here and by the tone of related interactions. Human beings cannot escape that. There is a vast literature on psychological biases. Given that the article was not just written, it is not practical for the main editor to immediately meet demands that sourcing by external links be replaced by inline citations. Likewise no potential COI has ever been raised before, and I think it unreasonable to force immediate resolution on that. The editor has been challenged too much all at once, with some of those challenges simply being invalid. And they were responding with discussion and edits to the article, only for everything to be deleted. They can simply be forced to give up, to assume nothing they do will be accepted, and then not say whatever magic words are the right ones to alleviate some concerns. And they might need time to learn more about disclosures, about what they look like in practice, and to see how it works when various disclosures are made. Will abuse be heaped upon them? And it looks to me like they did make disclosures, yet are being harassed, in effect, about not making them in some proper way. And they have to think about any impact on their life, and to decide what to disclose or whether to walk away or whether to request revdel of everything, say. This COI proceeding is one place where it seems to me there is too much impatience, and "ganging up" has happened. (I'm not saying it is feasible to avoid bias and crowd-psychology effects though.)
And like I said at the AFD, it is proper to tag about your concerns in an article, but not to eliminate everything wholesale, before or during an AFD. That prevents the challenged editor from being able to delete stuff themselves once they understand more, and it prevents them and other AFD participants from addressing problems and nurturing along stuff that should be saved. (So, really, don't do that. If that is practice with the articles that do go to AFD from here, I don't like that.) --doncram 03:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Your whole argument seems to me to be one great big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here's how I see it. We have an editor who specifies "Written by close associate of author, who has verified the information", which would seem to give reasonable grounds for suspicion of a COI. When asked, the editor responds (I paraphrase) "Meh, all sorts of people have COI, go away". It's not that we want to know who the editor is or what the nature of her association is - the COI process makes very clear that Outing is a more serious crime than COI and that COI should not demand Outing. What we want is for her to understand that COI editing is problematic, and that policy says if you have COI, do not edit the article. She was having none of that.
Go back and have a good read of the text that was removed. Three main features: 1) very much promotional 2) includes contentious material (e.g. truanting) and unsourced anecdote about her school days 3) rammed with uncited quotes. All of these are attributes that call for the removal of the text.
Go and look at the full article history. Dictionarylady added all of the text which she later found so hard to provide citations for. It's not as if she was being asked to provide citations for stuff which other had added.
AfD does not require us to leave promotional & uncited text in an article. AfD requires that the subject be presented to the community, which decide whether the subject (not the flowery prose of the article) is notable.
It's always a little unfortunate when someone who (AGF) was not aware that wikipedia is not a repository for subject-approved hagiographies of non-notable individuals, finds out that wikipedia is indeed not such a repository when wikignomes take actions prescribed by policy against such an article.
Still. Good of you to defend the COI promotional editor and attack the wikignomes. That way lies Wikia, not an impartial NPOV encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to correct a misunderstanding, Doncram, you say that my opening of this discussion was motivated by the belief that the article was brand new. I did mistakenly believe the article was brand new to start with, but had already realised that it wasn't before I opened this discussion. Indeed, it was partly because I realised that the article couldn't be PRODded as an unsourced BLP that I brought the issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize that I was in fact incorrect in my understanding of the sequence of events, and that I extrapolated from that to suggest that this COI proceeding was biased. However, as I also note at the AFD, I think the tone was set wrong, at least by the presence of incorrect "unsourced" tag on the article which participants here were going to see. --doncram 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cordless Larry thanks for clarifying that. Tagishsimon, please don't act this way on this board. I do understand the frustration, but please stay cool. Doncram, there is a valid concern about COI that was raised in this thread. Generally the people who work here deal on two levels; one is trying to work with the person and have them engage with the COI management process (to address behavior), and the second is to address the content. On the behavior side there are really just two things that we look for: disclosing and submitting content for peer review rather than editing directly. The peer review step is standard in academia; it is a bit odd here in WP since it is so easy to edit directly but once it is explained to people they ususally get it and follow the process. Content wise, when independent editors review content created by conflicted editors, what we often find is unsourced, promotional content. Yes, the same kind of content that fans write (COI is just a subset of advocacy). That peer review process often ends up with an AfD especially when notability is marginal. Whether the community agrees to delete is of course up to the community but even if the article is kept it will now be stronger for having undergone the peer review that an AfD provides. Nothing untoward has gone on here. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I did and do experience a big dose of feeling IDONTLIKEIT when I consider how all this (this proceeding, the COI, Talk page complaints, edit summaries) is going to look to a new/inexperienced editor. There needs to be a limit to what is going to be addressed in any depth (either the COI, or tagging for inline citations on the quotes in the article, say).
It is a problem that too many negative interactions, like jabs, came to the new editor from just one editor. There needs to be some limit on number of interactions (like, say, two negative interactions of any kind) before they should simply step away or turn over responsibility to someone else. Have someone else advise the editor about signing their postings, instead of having them experience that as another chiding. In real life, no one of us would accept 5 or 10 negative comments in a row, from one person. --doncram 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Does someone who operates an advocacy website have a conflict of interest?[edit]

If an editor operates a website devoted exclusively to advocating for a particular person, does that editor have a conflict of interest with respect to editing that person's WP article? 32.218.46.78 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

They would certainly give the appearance of having COI, and would be best advised not to edit the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
If they want to cite their website that is an issue with WP:SELFCITE (and probably [{WP:SPS]]). Otherwise if they have no actual relationship with the object of their fandom then there is no COI but there would be probably be an advocacy and I would point them to WP:ADVOCACY which is a very useful essay, and ask them to mindful of that when they log in to Wikipedia. If their account is a SPA, then I would also ask them to read WP:SPA. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Cutting Room (film)[edit]

accounts blocked, (thanks User:Tokyogirl79) article up for AfD so is being peer reviewed. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 23 June 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.

COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I see no notability, hence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cutting Room (film) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both accounts are stale, but I've blocked both since the usernames are obviously problematic and both have made edits that could be seen as potentially promotional. In the case of BoxcleverMedia, they tried marking their article as mid importance - something that would require far more coverage and notability to get to that level. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:17, 21 June 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.

EMO the Musical[edit]

accounts blocked. article up for AfD so is being peer reviewed. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 23 June 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.

This appears to be a single use account that was created to promote Matthewswood Productions, its films, and employees. A notice about COI, promotion, and username policies was placed on their talk page after the first page (EMO the Musical) was created, and they have continued to create pages without notice. JamesG5 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the user since they've had fair warning that the username was problematic. Offhand their edits don't seem over the top promotional, although there's an obvious and clear COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since their edits were really only to edit about this film, I've made it a spam user block. Offhand this doesn't really look to be a notable film, so this could probably be taken to AfD. I'm not bringing up much offhand, although there are some false positives for an American musical with the same name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I've worked on the article. It looks like this releases in August so I'd recommend just sitting on this for now. The coverage is light but slightly enough to where it could pass WP:NFF if we wanted to be especially charitable. If it releases in August and gains no coverage then I'd suggest maybe nominating it or at the very least changing it to refer to the short film rather than the feature film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Has already been taken to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMO the Musical. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:28, 21 June 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.

Written by Alyson on August Burns Red[edit]

It seems that the August Burns Red's management don't like the reliable sources that state the band is "Christian" band. The band has attempted to distance themselves from the moniker, but RSes disagree. With that said, the user's comment while making the revert, "As a label representative speaking on behalf of the band", seems to be that the account was created for one purpose: to push a specific PoV. I usually like insiders editing, but I can't stand censorship. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the standard COI template to User talk:Writtenbyalyson since that gives more information about COI in general. We'll see if they respond. LaMona (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
They made just the one edit so far... Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

S. Georgiev[edit]

85.118.69.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) adding references to S. Georgiev to multiple articles, including fringe references. Also abusing multiple accounts: 85.118.68.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why has the editor not been notified?TeeVeeed (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

5.120.252.218[edit]

5.120.252.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding links to an unreviewed abstract to the article Navier-Stokes equations. Also, abusing multiple accounts: 5.120.209.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Disruption continues. I guess no one at this noticeboard really cares. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały: This seems to be the wrong venue. I would try WP:AIV or WP:AN3. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Recovery research institute[edit]

Funny article in that it goes to great lengths to provide references. A closer look shows that the refs are not really for the article subject, but rather for the people involved in the institute. A Google search for "aplante recovery research institute", returns results that indicate a strong likelihood of COI. I've asked the user about this on their talk page. I think the article should probably be deleted, purely on a notability basis. Ah, and the institute is at Harvard University, if you have by chance heard of that. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Aplante1 confirms here that s/he works for the institution in question. Perhaps a few people could comment on the page itself? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Aplante1 has continued to edit page after being warned. S/he removed the PROD so I've sent it to AfD on th ebasis on non-notability. Pinging @Jytdog:.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Zadara Storage[edit]

This article seems to be heavily edited by the above three SPAs, and Nnahum was given a COI template back in 2012, with no apparent further action. The last username, who is an active user, should definitely be blocked for promo, and the other two are stale by now, but I will bet there's some sockpuppetry going on. MSJapan (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have simply added the Zadara technology products and awards, no different than many other software companies. It isn't clear to me why listing products and awards is "fluff" or "marketing jargon." I am the only person who uses this account, so the previous notice about multiple users on one account is unwarranted. Please describe why the content continuously removed is considered fluff or promotional. How else can I further describe Zadara as a volunteer editor? Why is it acceptable to delete an entire page? Can you, or others, as editors remove the content that is in violation, rather than stripping the page of all content and references? I am at a loss. Summer.zadara (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have a conflict of interest, which is safe to assume given your username, then there is nothing simple about your editing of the article. Please review WP:FCOI and WP:DCOI. Given your username, you almost certainly have a coi, so please either disclose or explain your situation. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that the material removed was overly promotional and poorly sourced, violating WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Solynta[edit]

Article creator appears to be Managing Director of the article topic. MSJapan (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, and there hasn't been a response to the COIN notice. MSJapan (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Barracuda Web Server[edit]

User focus is articles on Barracuda products (there's another in User:Sorisen/sandbox) and uploaded a file to Commons as explicitly licensed to the creators of the product. The live article has been nommed for CSD, but the sandbox article clearly shows it's a larger problem. MSJapan (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There are two articles which relate to the Barracuda technology. Wikipedia has distinguished (correctly) the topics in isolation of Application Server, vs. an HTTP Embedded Server. Given it was my first experience for creating material for Wikipedia and that I spent time researching the background of a particular technical tangent implementation "of course" the subject matter would appear in isolation and the COI acquisition is unfounded. Your reaction to submit everything for CSD and apply a COI acquisition is in haste, clearly evidenced by the reference to the sandbox which is merely the draft area used for the Barracuda Web Server page, therefore it's not "more of",... material, but the basis staging for the content itself. The image has a CC permission and I will add it. (Error that it was unintentionally left out.) Further to the point I have started a new draft on Lua Server Pages located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lua_Server_Pages, which demonstrates that the material I work on is relative subject matter related to server technology rather than any particular product or use scenario. These technologies are (new) to common knowledge or laymen awareness, time, use in industry, etc. The Internet of Things movement will help to establish a wider audience and the background information such as the areas where I'm focusing will be appreciated by a broader scope of readers that hope to learn and understand how these types of technologies are applied and historically evolved. Personally, as a new contributor I find that receiving this kind of notice with no examples, or guidance for improvement extremely discouraging. It would be useful to understand how the material that I created could be improved relative and in comparison to the same type of material which was already established i.e. Comparison of application servers, where similar technologies are discussed. Sorisen (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering you pushed both articles live, my reference to the sandbox is irrelevant, and I've added the other article above. You started Draft:Lua Server Pages months ago, and haven't touched it since it was declined after about two weeks. So that's entirely irrelevant, other than the fact that you used a Barracuda/Real Time Logic LLC reference there as well. You've had months to learn about policies and ask questions, and you have done nothing to educate yourself about what is acceptable and what is not. Moreover, if you do not have a COI, why are you writing about a particular set of products by a particular company (instead of a technology), uploading intellectual property of that company that you somehow "know" is CC-BY-SA, and referencing well more than half of the sources on the products to articles written by employees of that company? Our policies are very clear on this, and yet you have done it twice, as well as on Lua Server. You're relying too heavily on one company's material for it to be accidental. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, as far as license for the file is concerned, the user was somehow able to go find this document on the company servers, which is not accessible from either the public downloads page or the directory immediately above the file. So how did Sorisen find it if he wasn't told where to go to get it by someone at the company? I think it's because he created it himself at work, which explains why it's legally incorrect. I think is the most likely explanation, as he has not yet denied an affiliation with the company. It's the lying here that's the real problem, frankly, because I think Sorisen is well aware that the product is not notable, and therefore, he's either being paid to write the article or he works for the company, and he knows that if he admits it, the articles lose all merit. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Also not a new issue: Talk regarding SharkSSL in March 2016. This editor only writes about Real Time Logic products, period. The style of license provided by the user has also been used before, and I don't see why we are finding it acceptable. It was clearly not from an acceptable source available to an uninvolved editor. Every Commons upload he has made is sourced to Real Time Logic. WP:DUCK. MSJapan (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I am lacking in Wikipedia educate. This is not a full time job for me and given I use Wikipedia regularly to learn about technology attributes I thought it would be nice and kind of neat to make a contribution. I'm neither an employee nor paid writer for these articles. In explanation, I became interested in the server technology behind IoT Internet of Things as used in embedded devices. I have a personal work history in working with embedded operating systems which is a different but related topic all considered within the realm of 'Embedded Programming'. IoT is new evolving and I'm learning as I go along... After reviewing many server implementations on Wikipedia, I didn't understand why no one added the comparison of Barracuda. It is easy to find information about this implementation via google search and in my opinion made a good compatible with unique attributes for its construction vs. the other implementations sited. I looked at the other webserver and application server articles to get ideas for how the material should be shown and then created one for Barracuda. At first, I had complaints that it read too much like a brochure/marketing material and I had help from another experienced editor to fix it. Here I learned (after the fact) that just because other 'like' material exists on Wikipedia doesn't mean those particular articles used correct form. The reason there are separate articles for Barracuda Application Server, Barracuda Web Server, and SharkSSL is because the underlying technologies are interrelated to the whole, but needed clarification explanation in isolation. (Again I am looking at comparable within the same technology realm and how they were shown on Wikipedia.) example: Comparison of application servers, Comparison of web servers, Comparison of TLS implementations

The Lua Server Pages (draft), article shows that I did start to continue into a new topic with similar subject matter but nothing which is owned or controlled by the people that designed Barracuda. The first draft was not approved, but I intend to finish it if my continued participation is allowed. This entire experience is new for me and I would appreciate help to fix the areas where I have made mistakes. In full disclosure regarding my interaction with Real Time Logic, I found the images on google and asked them to release them under a creative common license that would allow use on Wikipedia. I also requested that they review my articles for accuracy to make sure that I had captured the capacity of the technology correctly. Many of the references used for this article do have either Real Time Logic participation as material that editors pulled from for their publications, however we could add more sources and eliminate anything, which is not credible. Additional guidance and help for areas to make corrections would be appreciated. Sorisen (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sorisen:To answer your first question, nobody added Barracuda because Barracuda doesn't meet our notability guidelines. The type of material you have found is pretty much indicative of that. I've added a reading list of policies and information to the end of my reply.
Much more importantly, if you are having the company review your article for accuracy, then there are two problems. If you cannot write about a topic without help from others, there's a real possibility that you don't know what you're talking about; why that is a problem should be obvious. Secondly, by allowing editorial oversight by the company about the company's product article, you're essentially functioning as an unpaid public relations employee of the company. you are basically giving them free advertising. Companies do not have the right to vet their Wikipedia entries. The fact that you are in contact with them is also problematic.
For the time being, I would suggest you read the following policies: general notability, reliable sources, promotional articles, existence is not notability, and neutral point of view. I would also suggest you read the essays on independent sources and third-party sources. It might explain a lot of things of which you do not seem to be aware at present. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Untangle[edit]

Aabatangle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) makes edits to the Untangle page, in some cases removing critical comments and performing ongoing unsourced updates to the page.

No response to my talk page comment, I believe this user is being a naughty boy and should be censured appropriately. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Radyo Kabayan[edit]

User claims site logo as own work. Per the article, the user seems to have far too much biographical information on the owner of the station to be an uninvolved party. User has made all of seven edits on WP over the course of 23 months, 5 of which were this article, and 2 of which were to request the article be put back after PROD. MSJapan (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radyo Kabayan. I doubt this is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Community Supported Shelters[edit]

Would it be considered a conflict if I create an article about Community Supported Shelters, a charity in Eugene, Oregon? My relationship is: I am a major donor, and served on the board of directors until 2014. Also, obviously, a friend of the founders. JerryRussell (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely for the last reason, certainly for the second, and likely for the first. My initial response would be not to get within ten miles of the topic, and not even edit relating to the state of Oregon or the Pacific Northwest, but the latter is perhaps a bit extreme. I will explain, though:
In all those three situations you mention, you show a vested interest in the cause, and more particularly, you have a vested interest in its success because you've contributed to it monetarily, worked actively for it, and have a persona relationshuip with it. It's also likely that you might be associated with some of the material out there, so here's an extreme example (that I assume to be untrue): What would you do if CBS News in Oregon reported "User:JerryRussell, former member of the Board of Directors of CSS, was found to have stolen $37 million in donations from the organization and run off to Cancun with his longtime friends and founders of the charity, who had devised CSS as an elaborate scheme for their timeshare funding"? I can't see you putting that kind of material in, somehow. In short, I see a problem in adhering to NPOV, and by being involved in it, it's going to be very hard for you to see WP:PROMO issues and the need to show both sides/perceptions of the organization.
Following on from that, I see an editor conduct cobcern. I'd note that by asking if you could write the article, it seems you already have determined that it is suitable for Wikipedia. So i have a series of important questions. Are you familiar enough with Wikipedia's policies to make that determination, or is the idea to get it into mainspace (because as a registered user, you can) and then see what happens, simply because you think it should be there? If the community decides it does not meet policies (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:GNG, WP:CORP, etc.), would you accept that decision, or would you fight it because you "knew it was notable and should be here", maybe "because I know the founders worked so hard on this?" These may seem silly, but if you have problems with any of these types of issues or situations, it is likely you can't write from a neutral point of view because you can't approach the subject from a neutral point of view. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@JerryRussell: Yes, it is most definitely a conflict of interest, although it is not forbidden for editors with a COI to create articles. However, what happens is that editing with a COI, usually leads to a bias. This is natural. If someone is associated with an organisation, the editor might think that the organisation is notable, while others disagree. Now, coming back to policy, editors with a COI are not forbidden from creating articles. However, such articles need to go through a review. For this we have a process called "Article for Creation". If you are convinced that the organisation is notable, then you can start a draft and submit it to WP:AFC, where a reviewer will then look at the article and accept/reject it. For editors with a conflict of interest, going through AFC is preferable to creating the article directly. In addition, you need to declare on the talk page of the article that you are a connected contributor using the Template:Connected contributor (or Template:Connected contributor (paid) if you have been paid for editing the article). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello @MSJapan: and @Lemongirl1942:, thanks for the input. I believe it's marginally notable: one article in a national publication (linked above), several independent articles in local newspapers & TV station websites, some more op-eds from organization members, and an independent branch opened in Tuscon, which has attracted similar local attention there. I would appreciate your opinion, about whether this is good enough to meet notability policies.
I've been editing here since Feb and am having fun, gotten into a few scrapes, and now I'm taking a hard look at my own conduct issues in hopes that I don't eventually get into trouble with the arbitration board. So if it would be wiser not to edit an article about CSS, I won't do it.
But on the other hand, I think it would make Wiki a better encyclopedia if this article was created -- not mainly because it (marginally) meets GNG and CORP, but because I as far as I know, their approach to the problem of homelessness is unique in the USA at this time.
Is there a place where I can go to request that some other editor create the article? Is this, realistically, an option; or is there a huge backlog? Or if I write it as carefully and impartially as I can, and run it through WP:AFC, would I emerge with a clean bill of health from a conduct perspective? JerryRussell (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You have to disclose the COI on the article itself, regardless of conduct. So I'm not sure you'd get what you're looking for in terms of "cleanliness" no matter what, because you'd have to disclose, essentially, that "a major contributor to the article has a close connection with the article topic" and leave to the reader to decide what that means. It's always wiser not to do it, but maybe your writing skillset is better than someone else's, or there's some other factor. It's not black and white in that sense. I personally find COI-written articles to be poor overall, but a lot of that is because paid editing is about getting it done, not getting it done well, so they basically hang everything on the WP:COATRACK to show a perceived meeting of WP:GNG.
You could also avoid the issue entirely and go to Wikipedia:Requested articles, but that's not a guarantee that it will get done. So you need to figure out what the priority is there.
Notability is outside the scope of this board (Try WP:N, but I would point out that op-eds by board members are not "third-party independent sources" as required by WP:RS, so their use is very limited; they're closer to WP:PRIMARY sources, so you can use them to talk about what the group does, but that's about it. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pubs Code Regulations 2016[edit]

The issue is with the Pubs Advisory Service (PAS) section.

Chriswright68 appears to be the proprietor of the company known as the PAS (his own link - http://pubs.expert/information/about-the-pas.html - would indicate so).

I have attempted several times to add to the section the fact that the PAS has no special status in the legislation which is the subject of the article nor in relation to the government's desire to see a "pubs advisory service" and that other avenues of obtaining advice are available.

All of the forms of words I have attempted have been reverted by Chriswright68 who has not engaged in my several requests to discuss the matter on the articles's talk page.

The most recent example is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pubs_Code_Regulations_2016&diff=727369196&oldid=727355545

On the face of it this would appear to be an attempt to suppress knowledge of the existence of competitors to the PAS.

In the absence of any response to my requests for discussion I am unsure where to go next.

Pedant999 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the existing refernces [12] is fairly clear that the company PAS is one source of PAS advice, but that, for instance, the BII are also organising themselves to offer PAS advice. It's clear to me that the current section of the article does not deal with these two sources of PAS advice equally. Unless someone else gets involved, I'll edit the article and speak with Chriswright68 in a few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
An even better link to establish COI is this where Chris Wright is named as the team leader. I passed this article on to main space from AfC but didn't see the COI evidence at that time. (I always post COI notices on talk pages when I do.) This person should really be blocked from editing this article, IMO. LaMona (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That, in the current climate, may be a better way to get yourself blocked, laMona - see User_talk:Jytdog#June 2016, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jytdog Outting a new editor by linking to their LinkedIn Page & WP:OUTING. I've yet to see Chriswright68 make any declaration of identity or of COI with respect to the PAS company. Unless & until he does, I suggest it is better to deal with this from the content perspective, than worry too much about a possible COI. With luck we end up in roughly the same place - an NPOV aticle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. The name is obvious, Pedant999 has already pointed to the site and the name, and the behavior, if you've looked at the history, is absolutely begging for blocking, COI or no. Note that no one has put a COI notice on their talk page, nor do I see a link to this discussion, and both of those would be good places to start. They have refused to engage around the article contents, but I'll add the COI tag to the talk page to give him a chance to confirm or deny. LaMona (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not in my power to give you a break on this matter. I'm merely pointing to the recent actions of a clique of admins. Try not to shoot the messenger, eh? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile: I've amended the contentious section in line with the source - (diff) - and asked Chriswright68 to respond on the article talk page if he has problems - (diff). I'm well aware that he has to date chosen not to avail himself of the talk page and instead to edit war, but one can always be hopeful. Clearly, warring much beyond this point will tend to lead to an edit block being placed on the account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm new to this and if I've done something I shouldn't have done (outing) or not done something I should (COI notice) then I apologise for that. Pedant999 (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
We currently have a user blocked for making a fairly obvious connection between a username and the identity of the user, based on the username and the editing behaviour of the user. A camp of admins thinks that's outing, and has gone somewhat nuclear. I think a little circumspection is probably called for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Pedant999 (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I put a COI notice on User talk:Chriswright68 and alerted them to this discussion. LaMona (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with the advice above (especially in light of recent events) not to publish inline links to off-site pages that show COI. The policy also seems to support that idea-- someone gives up their name here, OK, but does that mean we post their occupation through offline links? Policy on harassment says "Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other." I think we need a smarter test to communicate and confirm COI without posting actual incriminating offsite links. Just my two cents.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Eskişehir Osmangazi University[edit]

Umm...Article reads like a webpage, and may actually be (a non-English webpage). There's an extensive history if IP editing. It's been tagged as PROMO for five years and it seems to be getting worse if anything.

I don't know that I'm even really reporting a particular IP. There seems to be a lot of them throughout the page's history. Not sure what you do with a mess like that. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow. This is a mess. We may have to WP:TNT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Jaaz Multimedia films and many others[edit]

I am suspecting he is working for Jazz multimedia. He has created an article List of Jaaz Multimedia films. Created articles for the movies Premi O Premi, Rokto, Doob: No Bed Of Roses, Niyoti, Hero 420, Angaar (2016 film), Detective (2016 film) etc - all of these movies are produced by Jazz Multimedia. He also added a commercial link to a movie booking site to the movie article Niyoti, a Jazz Multimedia Movie diff. There is currently an SPI case open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bishal Khan about this user. - Mar11 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added a COi enquiry to the user's talk page (diff). I'm pessimistic, based on the user's conduct to date, that we'll get a response, but I live in hope. For the most part, the user's additions seem relatively non-promotional (or perhaps I should say non-advertorial) - the film articles created are fairly prosaic and basic. I suggest that, to the extent you have concerns, you deal with the additions on the basis of notability (i.e. speedy or AfD) and then the normal WP:BRD to remove anything that is promotional. The user may or may not have COI; may just be enthusiastic for this strand of cinema ... seems to hve contributed in other areas too, but with limited success. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Medmira product pages[edit]

Two articles on some kind of testing technology, aout 95% sourced from medmira.com. Likely COI. User has been queried but did not reply. I used the following general procedure to determine the COI:

  1. User names sometimes contain a first initial and a last name.
  2. It is sometimes possible to easily extract a last name from a user name,
  3. It is possible to search for that name with the company name in question, as in "name + company"
  4. it is possible to read the results of such a search privately.

I'm hoping I did not break any outing rules there. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the pages is gone thanks to CambridgeBayWeather. The flow-through page seems to have some useful info, but it is hard to say without a medical education! Pinging @Doc James:...... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
T'other article has a speedy tag on it right now. I've pinged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, since they may have a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
thank you kindly Tagishsimon. Doing a little searching, the main result for ""flow through" test blood" is the Wikipedia page, so I am not going to be worried if it gets deleted. Sounds like a revolutionary form of pin-prick blood testing... wait, where have I heard that before?....HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

China Construction America[edit]

SPA has created an article that consists almost entirely of a list of non-notable projects undertaken by this company and a list of awards, almost all unsourced. I tried to fix it but got reverted. Other than that I have no direct evidence of COI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the article and asked if they are a paid or COI editor on their talk page. Have another shot at making some edits to the article and I'll back you up. It's rabidly promotional. Definitely notable though-- I see many sources. The long lists do not belong though.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I gave it a trim from 10,500 to 2,500K.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Form 1120[edit]

It is difficult to keep track of all this. User:Majesticfish is being paid by User:Vipul to create articles [13]. The articles edited by User:Majesticfish so far are (the U.S. Tax Forms) Form 1120 [14], which this person created as has been editing [15] and Form 1040 [16], [17], [18].

Next I have noticed that -- User Vipul states on his/her User page:

"For more on my Wikipedia editing, see my site page about Wikipedia, my site page about sponsored Wikipedia editing, and the list of all pages I have created, with pageviews across the years".

I wish to point out the above link within this blurb about this editior's link to the description of this person's self-disclosed Wikipedia sponsored editing, which is located at an off Wiki site - for clarity I will place it here [19]. The page discusses detailed paid editing and analysis of its impact via page views:

I am quoting a small blurb here:

2015

"In April 2015, as part of an Experimental Content Creation Grant (ECCG) to (a person), I included reimbursement for Wikipedia page creation. The scheme was as follows: for the period from April 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, I’d pay (a person):

$1 for every 1000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2015. If the pages he created were specific ones that I had requested him to create or approved the creation of, and the page as created by him met my standard for quality and completeness, then I’d add a one-time payment for each such page. The one-time payment would be determined per page, but the standard would be $25.

(There is some fine print that caps the total amount I need to pay (a person), but that’s not relevant here since Wikipedia pageviews don’t contribute enough to the overall ECCG to trigger that fine print). (A person) is User:Simfish on Wikipedia. You can also access his contribution history" (link provided on off wiki web page).

There is more on this page that should be read. This also continues into 2016...

2016

I renewed my content creation grant for 2016 with (a person), with some changes to the rules surrounding payments. I would pay (a person):

$1 for every 2000 pageviews of pages he had created before 2015, or $0.50 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 800 pageviews of pages he created in 2015, or $1.25 per 1000 pageviews. $1 for every 500 pageviews of pages he created in 2016, or $2 per 1000 pageviews.

My goal was that, while (a person) could still make money of pageviews of pages he created of his own accord, the focus of his work should shift more in the direction of creating pages I wanted him to create, with a fixed pay from me..."

There is more under "2016" that should be read. Personally, I am taken aback....

However, all this may pale in significance to the page linked from the above quoted page [20]. This page outlines the whole of User Vipul's paid editing operation for (or aimed at) Wikipedia: List of contributors, Money spent this month, Impact (of efforts I suppose) based on Page veiws and anecdotal evidence. The section on "Total Money Spent This Month" is particularly amazing. (Someone else) is a recruiter (recruits paid editors for Wikipedia, apparently from high schools and colleges). (A person), mentioned in the first sentence in "2015" is the paymaster. And most of the others do "piece work".

Sorry for the wall of text - in this instance I felt it was needed for clarity. Hopefully this is so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be entirely altruistic, although it may violate some policies (e.g. sock/meat puppets, COI, paid editing) I found this quote on one of those pages you link to above: "I am interested in funding similar pages on the timelines of malaria, cholera, and influenza, and might consider expanding to things like AIDS, particular cancers, senescence research, smallpox, and other diseases."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks HappyValleyEditor ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=727627146"