|
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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional notes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
|
Contents
- 1 Rory Ridley-Duff
- 2 Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design
- 3 Infoiarm and agile management
- 4 Luly Yang
- 5 Brian L. Jones
- 6 Diamond and Silk
- 7 CAcert.org
- 8 Technics Publications
- 9 Henry I. Miller
- 10 Michael Messenger and Victoria Nixon
- 11 myfundnow.com
- 12 Einstein field equation
- 13 Richard R. Fisher
- 14 Art379m
- 15 Coupa
- 16 KORE Wireless
- 17 Central Area
- 18 Jpop73
- 19 Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies
- 20 David Jolly
- 21 Tabish q
- 22 Ssa1990
- 23 Loubna Berrada
- 24 Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc
- 25 CAcert.org
Rory Ridley-Duff
Article deleted & contribs checked by LaMona (thanks). All quiet for now, though we may want to watchlist the redlink against the possibility of its return. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Rory Ridley-Duff ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Roryridleyduff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User has been creating an autobiography since at least December 2012. His most recent edit was Feb. 15, 2016. He was warned about writing about himself in January, 2009 and about COI at that same time. I see no evidence of a reply. The article on himself is quite promotional (IMO). The article has been tagged for deletion but he has inserted his own works in other articles. LaMona (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Article on Ridley-Duff has been deleted, but in around 2009 he added his works to a number of articles. I spent hours yesterday removing some, but it's difficult because they've been there so long that they've become integrated into the texts in some cases. In each case I was able to verify that he himself had added the content and references. If anyone can take some time to look at what remains: Social_enterprise, Courtship, Worker cooperative, Social Enterprise London, Cooperative, Discrimination, Social Enterprise Europe,Anarchist economics. Some of those are articles when I didn't find a way to do a complete cleanup. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Follow-up - I think I got all of it. Removed those that he added but that were either not RS or didn't actually relate to the statement it referenced. Noticed that this person's work does not appear at all in G Scholar, oddly, although he does have some publications in Emerald journals. Not at all sure what the story is. LaMona (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article on Ridley-Duff has been deleted, but in around 2009 he added his works to a number of articles. I spent hours yesterday removing some, but it's difficult because they've been there so long that they've become integrated into the texts in some cases. In each case I was able to verify that he himself had added the content and references. If anyone can take some time to look at what remains: Social_enterprise, Courtship, Worker cooperative, Social Enterprise London, Cooperative, Discrimination, Social Enterprise Europe,Anarchist economics. Some of those are articles when I didn't find a way to do a complete cleanup. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:20, 23 March 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.
Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design
Article deleted. Watchlist the redlink & move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Symposium_on_Integrated_Circuits_and_Systems_Design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FSillT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
FSillT seems like a decent enough person but they persist in editing the above page, of which they admit to being the organizer of. Is this kind of thing OK to let slide? User warned already but persists. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The conference does not seem to be a notable one (according to [1]). I wonder if the article is even required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 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.
Infoiarm and agile management
- Agile Risk Management ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draft:Agile Financial Management ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Infoiarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.
Infoiarm (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Infoiarm you are new to Wikipedia and are not in a position to make judgements about whether you have a COI here in Wikipedia. Please tell us, do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? This is important - please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- To explain a bit further (much more is on my talk page), IARM is a one-person "institute" founded by Alan Moran that publishes only the works of Alan Moran, and his is the only name that appears anywhere on its pages. So it isn't possible to refer to IARM in a way that is not a reference to Moran. It so happens that the two articles that have been created are also the exact names of one of those books by Moran. These terms are possibly wp:NEOLOGISMS and it isn't clear if they mean anything different from the many "Agile" methods that exist in business literature. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- To explain a bit further (much more is on my talk page), IARM is a one-person "institute" founded by Alan Moran that publishes only the works of Alan Moran, and his is the only name that appears anywhere on its pages. So it isn't possible to refer to IARM in a way that is not a reference to Moran. It so happens that the two articles that have been created are also the exact names of one of those books by Moran. These terms are possibly wp:NEOLOGISMS and it isn't clear if they mean anything different from the many "Agile" methods that exist in business literature. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hello, Yes I am new to Wikipedia and in the interest of avoiding any sense of COI (or even commenting further on it if this is not desired) I will voluntarily remove both articles now. Please be advised that there is and has been no attempt to skew/bias content - I feel the material is in itself balanced, neutral and appropriate though I also respect the feedback and issues raised that any association or appearance thereof may imply. Thank you again for your feedback and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Infoiarm you did not answer the question I asked. Do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? What is your relationship to IARM? If you want to continue as a Wikipedian you must answer. If you want to resign and walk away, that is of course an option. Not disclosing and staying, is not an option. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at their website, it seems to me that Agile Risk Management is pretty similar to Agile Business Intelligence (hard to tell without seeing the article) and Agile Financial Management is probably related to that as well. As suh, I don't believe either would ever warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Yes I am new to Wikipedia and in the interest of avoiding any sense of COI (or even commenting further on it if this is not desired) I will voluntarily remove both articles now. Please be advised that there is and has been no attempt to skew/bias content - I feel the material is in itself balanced, neutral and appropriate though I also respect the feedback and issues raised that any association or appearance thereof may imply. Thank you again for your feedback and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hello Jytdog, first off my apologies for overlooking your question that you posed earlier in the thread. infoiarm is associated with IARM as was mentioned in another talk i.e., this was no attempt to hide this fact or mislead in any manner as evidenced by the user ID. It was mentioned somewhere else too that I felt there was no COI because it was not the intent to promote IARM (which was never cited in either article) or Moran (though authorship is cited and the person is named alongside others). I added that I would respect the opinion of reviewers if they felt there might be any issue at all. In light of some comments I updated the one of the articles as I felt this feedback led to improvements but if the prevailing view is still that of concern then I would rather not antagonise or add to these concerns (hence by withdrawal). BTW, I took a look at the Agile Business Intelligence but think the topics differ i.e., there is clear water between the risk and financial materials and this article (sorry, perhaps I removed the articles too quickly?). I did wonder if a separate article was appropriate (or perhaps a subsection in an exiting article) but was unsure how to judge this. To conclude, This was a genuine attempt to air an interesting idea in NPOV but my desire to avoid COI or its appearance takes precedence so I will refrain from writing about it or related topics on Wikipedia. Infoiarm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Another long string of words and no answer. "infoiarm is associated with IARM" is non-informative nonsense. "infoiarm" is an account on Wikipedia. By policy there needs to be one single human being operating that account. I am asking a question about the relationship in the real world between that individual human being and IARM, which is a legal entity in Switzerland, so that we can determine what conflicts of interest are at play here. Please answer the question about the relationships, and do not write about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Jytdog, first off my apologies for overlooking your question that you posed earlier in the thread. infoiarm is associated with IARM as was mentioned in another talk i.e., this was no attempt to hide this fact or mislead in any manner as evidenced by the user ID. It was mentioned somewhere else too that I felt there was no COI because it was not the intent to promote IARM (which was never cited in either article) or Moran (though authorship is cited and the person is named alongside others). I added that I would respect the opinion of reviewers if they felt there might be any issue at all. In light of some comments I updated the one of the articles as I felt this feedback led to improvements but if the prevailing view is still that of concern then I would rather not antagonise or add to these concerns (hence by withdrawal). BTW, I took a look at the Agile Business Intelligence but think the topics differ i.e., there is clear water between the risk and financial materials and this article (sorry, perhaps I removed the articles too quickly?). I did wonder if a separate article was appropriate (or perhaps a subsection in an exiting article) but was unsure how to judge this. To conclude, This was a genuine attempt to air an interesting idea in NPOV but my desire to avoid COI or its appearance takes precedence so I will refrain from writing about it or related topics on Wikipedia. Infoiarm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Luly Yang
- Draft:Luly Yang ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Luly Yang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I requested for the information on the user's talk page. Let's see if the user responds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the user is deliberately not responding or cannot understand the instructions. Regardless, I don't think the article is suitable for moving to the mainspace any time soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Brian L. Jones
Article deleted. Watchlink the redlink and move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Brian L. Jones ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rhbrjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Unremarkable subject, seems to violate WP:NPOV. Username also indicates attempt to self promote . Music1201 (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having a username reflecting one's actual legal name is hardly self-promotion, as my own username testifies. I have edited Brian L. Jones so that it is no longer promotional, and it now complies with NPOV, reflecting the best sources I could find online. Notability might be debated, but I think this now satisfies the WP:GNG with multiple news stores from multiple publications cited.DES (talk) 22:11, 27 March 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.
Diamond and Silk
- Diamond and Silk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Saundra4you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 67.237.64.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
There's an edit war going on at the Diamond and Silk article, and the same edits keep being made by a single-purpose editor and an IP address, the latter of whom geolocates to North Carolina, where Diamond and Silk are from. I suspect a possible conflict of interest, especially given the promotional tone of the material that Saundra4you and the IP keep inserting. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FiredanceThroughTheNight is removing my content and replacing it with his or hers. Don't remove my content and replace with a derogatory message. This is not fair to the users of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saundra4you (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Active as video bloggers and YouTube personalities." - that's usually not enough to pass WP:BIO. It might deserve a minor note in United States presidential election, 2016. Send to AfD?
CAcert.org
Requested amendment made; thanks to User:Neoeinstein & Roxy the dog™
- 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.
- CAcert.org ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User:Neoeinstein added a paragraph to the article. For reasons laid out on the talk page, I think that paragraph should be either improved or removed. Due to my conflict of interest with the subject, I don’t want to attempt improving it myself, but I think that removing the paragraph (restoring the article to its previous state, except for this other edit) would be an edit with very little risk of me introducing bias (since I’m not really introducing anything new to the article). As there hasn’t been any response on the talk page by the author (who was pinged) or anyone else, I’d like to go ahead and remove the paragraph… but perhaps it would be better if someone else could first judge whether that removal would indeed be acceptable for me to do. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Removed per WP:LEAD -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your assistance! Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 22:21, 30 March 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.
Technics Publications
- OnceAlpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Machine learning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (reverted by: Qwertyus [2], next attempt reverted by me HelpUsStopSpam [3], then again by Chire [4], and then yet again Roxy_the_dog [5].
- Logical data model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Conceptual schema ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Exploratory data analysis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Supervised learning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Unsupervised learning ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Feature engineering ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- many more pages, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/technicspub.com
The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [6] instead of discussing with the commit message
- "This addition is not spam. We are adding important knowledge to this page from some of our technical titles. If you feel the content is irrelevant, that is a different story. But it is not spam just because books from the same publisher are being quoted." [7]
This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [8], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...
Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The user continues to ignore the warnings and pointers, and instead continues with copying excerpts from their books into Wikipedia (which likely constitutes a copyright violation): [9]. The uploaded image [File:MahalFaciltationFramework.png] is also straight from the book "Facilitator's and Trainer's Toolkit", Page 23. on Google Books, the text from pages 22 and 23. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Henry I. Miller
- Henry I. Miller ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Henryimillermd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [10] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is more a BLP than COI issue since the subject has been removing poorly-sourced content which is accusatory - an activist site such as this one is not a suitable source for BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- SmartSE I suggest that you take another look at this. I cannot agree that this is mostly a BLP issue. There are issues with a few of the sources that were used, but the user also removed material that was sourced to Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and directly to articles that Miller wrote himself. He appears to have a clear COI, he has a long history of editing this article without responding to attempts to discuss his edits, and his recent implied legal threats while removing material (and while doing so again without responding to the talk page thread)) justify this COIN thread. One of the purposes of this board is to determine "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Any BLP issues with the material removed are already being dealt with (for example, the material you pointed to was not restored with the latest round of edits). Determining if there is a COI violation by the user is contingent on first deciding if he has a COI. Meters (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the section on "Controversial positions" is WP:SYNTH, using Miller's own writings rather than third-party sources. If these statements were sourced to proper third-party sources - and then removed by Miller - COI could be blamed. As it is, I myself would be tempted to remove these as not meeting wp:rs. I also think that much of the article is wp:CHERRYpicked by the editors. I'm not defending the Miller's views, but the article's problems do not stem entirely from his intervention. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Having looked at the various sections in detail I see there is a definite bias against Miller in the coverage. It is being discussed on the talk page, and will be addressed (some already has been). I think the controversial positions section is worth keeping. It needs to have balanced, non-synthesized coverage so that readers can see why Miller takes these seemingly controversial positions. But, as I said, at this point I am simply looking for consensus that we are dealing with a COI editor. Note that the editor has now made his first talk page response [11], albeit with more implied legal threats, and he clearly claims to be Henry Miller. Meters (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- As a policy BLP takes precedence over COI and in a case such as this where an article subject has raised questions about content we should examine our sourcing very closely. As LaMona has pointed out, much of it is WP:SYNTH - citing articles written about him as evidence that his views are 'controversial' when there are no sources stating that's the case. It's completely understandable why Miller was driven to edit the article himself. Obviously, we would prefer him not to edit the article and I hope he will refrain from doing so in the future, but that's secondary to the BLP issues that need to be addressed. SmartSE (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Having looked at the various sections in detail I see there is a definite bias against Miller in the coverage. It is being discussed on the talk page, and will be addressed (some already has been). I think the controversial positions section is worth keeping. It needs to have balanced, non-synthesized coverage so that readers can see why Miller takes these seemingly controversial positions. But, as I said, at this point I am simply looking for consensus that we are dealing with a COI editor. Note that the editor has now made his first talk page response [11], albeit with more implied legal threats, and he clearly claims to be Henry Miller. Meters (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the section on "Controversial positions" is WP:SYNTH, using Miller's own writings rather than third-party sources. If these statements were sourced to proper third-party sources - and then removed by Miller - COI could be blamed. As it is, I myself would be tempted to remove these as not meeting wp:rs. I also think that much of the article is wp:CHERRYpicked by the editors. I'm not defending the Miller's views, but the article's problems do not stem entirely from his intervention. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- SmartSE I suggest that you take another look at this. I cannot agree that this is mostly a BLP issue. There are issues with a few of the sources that were used, but the user also removed material that was sourced to Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and directly to articles that Miller wrote himself. He appears to have a clear COI, he has a long history of editing this article without responding to attempts to discuss his edits, and his recent implied legal threats while removing material (and while doing so again without responding to the talk page thread)) justify this COIN thread. One of the purposes of this board is to determine "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Any BLP issues with the material removed are already being dealt with (for example, the material you pointed to was not restored with the latest round of edits). Determining if there is a COI violation by the user is contingent on first deciding if he has a COI. Meters (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael Messenger and Victoria Nixon
- Paulwest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- VictoriaNixon1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Messengero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- OCtom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Michael Messenger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Victoria Nixon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paulwest (talk · contribs) own userpage on Wikipedia states: "Hi I'm Paul West. I'm a marketing man and sometime website developer. Some of the sites I've built include www.michaelmessenger.com".
- Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Michael Messenger, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger.
- Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Victoria Nixon, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon.
- Other listed users, above, are all Single Purpose Accounts on same articles.
Thank you for looking into this matter,
— Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently Victoria Nixon = married to Michael Messenger, per this post to my user talk page: "I also would like to comment that my husband Michael Messenger has tried to help in resolving these problems for Wikipedia, but he is not fluent either, and now also is on the 'Deletion' list!". — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
myfundnow.com
- Melodyafsana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.
They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- I should also draw attention to this edit posted back on March 28 which affords some insight into the COI issues here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Einstein field equation
- Einstein field equations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Relativity priority dispute ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Newton–Cartan theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Einstein–Cartan theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gravitational wave ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- דוקטורגלי (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User דוקטורגלי promotes her book on these articles and others. Since she is an expert on these subjects, her contribution can be extremely valuable, but without referencing her own research. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note that user has already removed the COI discussion notice from their talk page. That's a bit of a F-U. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Claiming to be a known expert does not allow you to refspam your publications across Wikipedia. Also, no evidence has been given that you actually are a "known expert in history of Einstein’s special and general relativity", and the claims on sexism in Wikipedia sources is completely barbaric.
- I think the user should have a final warning for spamming on Wikipedia, and if they continue, then they should be blocked, and there publications blacklisted if possible. (Is it possible to blacklist names of books, or can you only blacklist URLs?) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits were not reverted because of sexism, they were reverted because of apparent self-promotion and conflict of interests. I tried to make that clear twice on your talk page, and other editors have tried to make that clear when they undid your edits. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The editor was adding a book written by herself, published by Cambridge Scholars Press, to articles like this. A search of the interwebs leads to some interesting discussions on whether this is a vanity press. – Brianhe (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The two books by "Weinstein, Galina" are held in ~50 and <10 libraries, respectively. This tells me that these are not major books in the field, so adding them to WP pages may not be warranted. They also do not appear on G-Scholar as cited books, and of the articles by this author, the most cited one has been cited 4 times. All of this speaks to "known expert" and unfortunately the results are not positive. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- The editor was adding a book written by herself, published by Cambridge Scholars Press, to articles like this. A search of the interwebs leads to some interesting discussions on whether this is a vanity press. – Brianhe (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 (talk • contribs)
Richard R. Fisher
- 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.
- Draft:Richard R. Fisher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Uchu RRFisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User:Nthep's post at Signpost newsroom copied here verbatim.
See this thread at the Teahouse - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#User:Uchu_RRFisher_and_an_apparent_requirement_for_applicants_to_be_in_Wikipedia - is the position being approached where being the subject of a WP article is necessary to be considered for an appointment? In this case the AIAA (presumably the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) commented on the fact that the applicant for a place on an advisory committee does not have a WP page about him whereas the other applicants do. Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to use his page nor do I understand what to do with this page. Could you please advise me if there is some action or information I might provide? Uchu RRFisher (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- It isn't clear to me either, as the reviewer who originally declined the subject editor's autobiography, what the purpose of this posting is or how the subject should respond. The AIAA apparently is encouraging the development of COI biographies, but that is out of scope of anything Wikipedia can do. The discussion at the Teahouse suggests that there are also other non-notable biographies, but what does that imply for this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Art379m
COI issues sorted. Notability issues may remain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Art379m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Alacris Theranostics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per their contribs, this editor is 100% WP:SPA with regard to Alacris Theranostics. When I noticed that I reached out to them on March 30 to open a dialogue. They ignored that and kept editing the next day, so I followed up asking for a reply. They went away and came back today with more of the same, so I followed up with a last warning, sharper, and they have continued to refuse to respond but kept on adding content about Alacris.
Please indefinitely block this editor as being WP:NOTHERE, but rather here only to promote Alacris. They are ~probably~ a paid editor as well, and therefore are probably in violation of the ToU. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- They have now responded and state that they are not paid, so I don't think a block is justified atm. It is a little strange that the logo they uploaded is much higher quality than the one found on their website or elsewhere online, which raises the question of where it came from and I agree that the edits to personalised medicine are problematic. AFD is probably the best way to resolve this, since the company appears not to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are starting to respond... and have taken the step of disclosing that they are an Alacris employee, but said that writing the WP article is not part of their job. So that liminal case. And we are not quite there yet - it is not clear yet if they will come all the way through and agree to abide by COI - that is the key thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, the person has come all the way through and has agreed to follow the COI guideline. Sorry it took this drama to get them to pay attention. Haven't decided if the company meets NOTABILITY yet... I have worked it over as much as I can, and I think they fall short. But others should look and judge by this point. Would you please do? Feel free to AfD it if you think so. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- They are starting to respond... and have taken the step of disclosing that they are an Alacris employee, but said that writing the WP article is not part of their job. So that liminal case. And we are not quite there yet - it is not clear yet if they will come all the way through and agree to abide by COI - that is the key thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Coupa
Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article looks rather like an ad now. I had to trim it back a bit. I also added a section on "Misappropriation of trade secrets", covering the admitted use of competitor Ariba's trade secrets and IP. There's also a redlink reference to "Spend management", which may be a newly coined term. "Accounts Payable" and "Financial Supply Chain Management" are closer to being standard terms. We need to either create a "spend management" article or use an existing term. John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here, here! on the "awards". There are a gazillion of these "Top n" type articles, and I think those should be declared to not be "awards". They aren't any more authoritative than the various top ten lists that mainly function as click bait. Then there are the "send us your entry and we'll give you an award" sites, e.g. Stevie Awards, and local Emmy awards. I'd be willing to contribute to a list if one were begun. Even if we can't create a binary yes/no it would be helpful to add more information that would speak to potential notability. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
KORE Wireless
- KORE Wireless ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Trident13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- CO10 715 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- KORE Marketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see COIN archive). More cu is probably needed. The sourcing to trade magazines is especially qestionable, in some cases verbatim or very lightly edited corp press releases. In at least one case I removed stuff that was credited to publisher Wireless Daily News but linked to corp press room. The article still has very promo "awards" and "services" sections. – Brianhe (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Central Area
- 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.
- Central Area ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MageLam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- linrx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This article has been updated by only one unique content contributor umpteen times in over 3-4 months. Recent edits by MageLam over nearly 3-4 months are one-sided individual edits without any intermediate review by a qualified Wikipedia editor or administrator. Cuss words uttered by user include cow manure when her competence is questioned. Manner in which the article is being unilaterally edited by the user appears as intentional spamming over months. Linrx (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Linrx: This is not the place to post about it. WP:COI is for cases where the a contributor has some connection with the subject of the article. (In this case it is not possible). I understand that you have issues with edits by MageLam but there is clearly no COI issue over here. I have removed the tag from the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MageLam: Good. Keep the other two tags there. Thanks Lemongirl942.
- 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.
Jpop73
- Amy Andersen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Linx Dating ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Jon Birger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michael Hutchins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jordan Schaul ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Draft:Jonathan Michaels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- John E. Michel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- William Hurley IV ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mieshelle Nagelschneider ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Eden Sassoon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Sandra Dee Robinson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD
- Kathy Riordin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sal LaBarbera ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Western Wildlife Outreach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) proposed deletion
- The Biodiversity Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gretchen Hillmer Bonaduce ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) proposed deletion
- Sujoy Banerjee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John A. L. Currie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rachel Reenstra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Awesome Ocean ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jefery Levy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jessica Denay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) proposed deletion
- Inga Verbeeck ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) sent to AFD.
- Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jpop73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Zootrainer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- zooaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Zookeeper4u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Wallabyguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Eatyler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.
It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.
Zootrainer appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a quick check of some of these articles and share your concerns. I'm seeing unverifiable, promotional content about barely (or not) notable subjects which are hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Thanks for bringing it here - it needs a lot of clean up work. I'm tempted to block them now, but it would be good to hear explanation. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- This group of articles/editors came up here before back in 2010. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Wikipedia pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @LaMona: I get what you are trying to imply. You might wish to see this [12] as well, where the user states "In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created". I'm afraid we cannot go any further without violating WP:OUTING. At the moment I think it would be better to ask the user for clarifications about the accounts. If all the accounts belong to the same person, then it needs to be noted. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Wikipedia pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.
Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jpop73: Could you let us know if any of these accounts (Zootrainer/zooaction/Zookeeper4u) are/were operated by you or anyone known to you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help?Jpop73 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I found something additional which is most probably COI though perhaps not related to Jpop73. User:Eatyler did 4 edits in 2013 to Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. The list of staff mentions "...entered into a mentorship under our then Director of Sales and Marketing, Ethan Tyler". Mentioning it for record, although it seems the concerned person is no longer associated with the center. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Account possibly connected to digital PR firm FP1 Strategies
- Terry Nelson (political consultant) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- American Council for Capital Formation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John Shimkus ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Quico Canseco ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Charlie Ergen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vocativ ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Airlines for America ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Robert S. Rivkin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lenovo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ann Kirkpatrick ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alan Sears ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- editors
- Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Intermittentgardener (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Iliketoeatpotatoesalot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
An account named User:Lesbianadvocate has been POV-pushing, edit-warring, and adding copyrighted material to an article named American Council for Capital Formation. After consulting with User:1990'sguy, who had a similar run in with her on another article, I started investigating why she's writing so many hit pieces, and it looks like all of her articles for the past few years correspond with clients of the digital PR firm FP1 Strategies. (Her edit history can be seen here).
- This year, John Shimkus employed a firm called FP1 Strategies to “build his digital presence”. [13] At around the same time, LA suddenly got interested in posting positive information about him, and negative info about his challenger, Kyle McCarter.
- FP1 Strategies was employed by Quico Canseco in his 2012 congressional race.[ https://www.facebook.com/FP1Strategies/] At the same time, LA suddenly became interested in writing negative information about his challenger, Pete Gallego.
- Also in 2012, FP1 Strategies handled public relations for Rodney L. Davis [14]. At the same time, LA suddenly got interested in rewriting the page of his challenger, David M. Gill. (which is now merged into another article.)
- One of FP1’s long-term clients is Fox Entertainment.[15] LA recently spent two months intensely interested in Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC, including posting reams of negative information about Dish Network and its CEO, Charlie Ergen.
- FP1’s Vice President, Ryan Williams, blasted ACCF’s ethanol position on Twitter the exact same day LA created her article attacking the group, using the exact same language. (“$1.6 million from ExxonMobil alone” [16])
In short, all of LA’s major article projects for the past four years seem to be FP1 clients or their opponents, taken on exactly when FP1 takes on the clients. It would be mind-boggling if this was coincidence, right? Can any action be taken? More details about her problematic editing, including some examples of her copyright violations can be seen here if necessary. I'd be hugely grateful for any help or assistance you could offer. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The combination of Positive writing on FP1's clients, negative writing on their client's opponents, as well as the specific timing involved (when FP1 took them on etc) quack loudly to me. This combination of pro/negative editing was pointed out in 2012 by an editor who subsequently was banned for socking. However it does show that the editing pattern is a long-term issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another key connection to FP1 is this - an image of a person who had joined F1 as a partner shortly before the image was uploaded by LA. (shortening the user name); the documentation for the image says it is owned by F1 and has an accompanying OTRS tag giving permission from the owner releasing the image. We see this kind of coordinating between conflicted editors and their object of their outside interest quite often. LA never directly edited the article about the partner. At the time that person joined F1, the article about him was edited a lot by a User:Intermittentgardener (negative information removed) and then further by User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot, which added the image in that series of edits. Which brings those two accounts under this same cloud.
- Here are the relevant edits at Kyle McCarter mentioned in the first bullet, which are very negative. Not mentioned, the edit-warring to retain them here then here then here; no talk page discussion.
- this set of edits to the Pete Gallego article are not so blatantly POV, but see this immediately next edit by LA, removing information that LA had just added with edit note "On reflection this is not appropriate". The first edit didn't add strongly negative information (although depending on your politics it might be upsetting, e.g abortion bill) but did remove a bunch of unsourced positive content. Overall did make the person less attractive to people in the other party.
- A connection with FP1 seems very, very likely to me. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding this [17] does anyone know what timezone Twitter uses? Was that Twitter post made before or after this edit [18]? And what was the outside impetus for this--something that Paul Ryan said? Geogene (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also will add that I find this dialogue interesting: [19]. I'm seeing some overlapping personality traits that may be grounds for a SPI here. Geogene (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Jytdog, for looking into this. It's such a relief to finally get this into the open.
- I agree that IntermittentGardener sounds a lot like the enraged, policy-scolding tone I've gotten very familiar with from LA; I don't know if that means it's the same person, or just FP1's official policy to try to bully and shout down users who question their edits. Just at a glance I can see that IG and LA have edited several of the same obscure articles: Vocativ, Airlines for America, Robert S Rivkin, and Lenovo. IG and Iliketoeatpotatoesalot also overlap on both PJ Media and Terry Nelson. It would be extraordinary if this was coincidence. Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place? What are the next steps here? Thanks everybody. EllenMcGill (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Added Terry Nelson (political consultant) to case. Back to back favorable editing by eds Intermittentgardener [20] & Iliketoeatpotatoesalot [21]. Nelson happens to be "a partner at FP1 Strategies".
- Note similar language in edit summaries here (LA: org. "is only a reliable source for its own opinions") and here (IG: org. is "Not a reliable source for anything but iown opinions"). Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Another pair of edit summaries with identical language "The article is about Nelson" here (ILP) and here (IG). It seems increasingly likely given various similarities in apparent motive, argument style and writing habits, that the three accounts named here may be operated by a single person. - Brianhe (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Geogene: Re twitter times see this - the time displayed depends on your user settings, but that tweet was posted after the edit was made.
- @EllenMcGill: "Is there a way to check if these accounts are all logging in from the same place?" WP:SPI is the place to find that out but checkusers will only be able to compare User:Lesbianadvocate and User:Intermittentgardener because User:Iliketoeatpotatoesalot hasn't edited in almost a year and there isn't a great deal of cross over between those two: [22]. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- More correspondences noted. There is clear (and unattributed) collaboration going on between editors if not outright socking.
- Correspondence #1. This edit to Alan Sears (IG, 13 July) corresponds to this revision of ILP's sandbox which was blanked over a month before the mainspace edit.
- Correspondence #2. LA's sandbox (permlink) (28 October 2014) contains a draft of an article on a thing called Copy data. The redlinked term is used in exactly one article on Wikipedia, Actifio. The term was introduced in this edit (1 December 2014) by Intermittentgardener. - Brianhe (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Would other COIN denizens please review the evidence here and comment. This is a pretty significant case in my view. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in the process of opening a thread at this user's talk page (and toned down the header here a bit and added userlinks above). Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lesbianadvocate. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC) great. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SmartSE: I may need to add to the SPI case, but I can't see deleted pages; could you or another admin check if User:Lesbianadvocate/sandbox is a recreation of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Copy Data whose original author appears to be Reills78? Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
David Jolly
- 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.
07:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- David Jolly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - cleaned
- Bascomcomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - indeffed for user name
Two news reports state that David Jolly's PR firm has been editing the article on him. He is a candidate for the US Senate in Florida. See Buzzfeed and The Hill. A staffer with a similar name has said s/he made edits to Jolly's page. They have only 2 edits, which look quite POV. They have disclosed in the Buzzfeed story.
I suppose there won't be further edits of this type from the staffer and suggest that if they make the required disclosure per WP:PAID that no further action be taken. But if there is no on-Wiki disclosure, then they should be formally banned. I've informed them on their talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the article and worked it over some; it seems OK now. Wasn't bad before i started as the POV pushers from both sides seem to have been cleaned out. The account is a username violation as Bascomcomm = Bascom Communications. I expect the account will be indeffed soon. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tabish q
Tabish q (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on Afshar experiment to include a source that (COINcidentally) was written by Tabish Qureshi. I had earlier removed this source as unreliable as it was published by predatory publisher SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notice. I tried. We'll see how that goes. I appreciate your desire to retain Tabish! Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Ssa1990
- Psychology of Women Quarterly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ssa1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Proximo9737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.
Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely WP:NOTHERE. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The use of the term "find us" as you noticed here and the linking to PWQ and nothing else strongly suggests a COI I believe. Perhaps reverting all of the user's additions as promotional spam would be appropriate? They only appear to be tangentially related at best. Elaenia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits [23] and [24] use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review. Brianhe (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, apparently there's enough going on that I could have posted this almost anywhere and it would have been appropriate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review. Brianhe (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits [23] and [24] use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?
This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a good question but the efficacy is debated. Do a web search for "Wikipedia off-page SEO" for some of the answers. It's my sense that reputation management is more important these days; see my essay for details and feel free to follow up on the essay talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Loubna Berrada
- Loubna Berrada ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Loubna berrada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [25] and [26]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like this is a BLP issue. I didn't find any biographical information about her in the sources listed, and even checked the wayback machine for the staff page of the organization, but she's not there. I don't think she should be editing this page in the way that she has done, but I must say that the article does sound inflammatory. There's now a delete request on it, and I think that may be the best route. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found
- These are some (possibly) reliable sources about her [27], [28] (web archive copy of Elsevier (magazine)) which show that she was involved with the VVD as well as a founding member of the committee of ex-muslims. [29] quotes her as a cofounder as well.
- She also removed the information that she was a candidate of Libertas Netherlands in 2009 (see List of Libertas list candidates at the 2009 European Parliament elections) although her name was in the candidate list (see the Dutch Electoral Council website [30]) and there was a biography of her on Eline van den Broke's website (see [31]).
- Article at NRC Handelsblad where it says [32], [33] she left the ex-muslim council.
- Opinion piece which (possibly) says she is an ex-Muslim [34].
- Not sure if opinion or news article, but implies that she left the council after some disagreements [35]
- An opinion piece about her [36] which should be read with care as it seems to be written by someone who has a beef with her (POV).
- Unable to understand the translation here [37]. Would be glad if someone could help.
- I'll try to ask her to reply here so that we can look at what she is trying to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found
-
- Since this is a BLP issue as well, I am not reverting her edits until this is clarified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc
- Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Caribana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- SMCKINNON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see [[38]]) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is no conflict of interest- this matter was deemed accepted by other users that is accurate, further more it was objective and not promotional in any way. Furthermore I am not involved with organization its just information I have knowledge about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMCKINNON (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi SMCKINNON. So your username is very, very close to that of Steve McKinnon, and you have written a great deal about Steve McKinnon. So one thing at a time, and that has to do with your relationship with Steve McKinnon. There are only two possibilities here. You are not him, but are impersonating him. This makes your account name a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE and we would need to block your account. The other option is that you have an unambiguous COI here and you need to acknowledge that and work with us to manage your COI. So please clarify which it is. There are other issues here, but that is the primary one, as it has to do with the existence of your account. So please clarify. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page , there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.
2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem.SMCKINNON (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
- Thanks for clarifying what is going on with the account, that is helpful. It would be really helpful if you stopped making declarations and just talked with us a bit and explained the relationships you and your company have; this whole thing is here at COIN so the community can look at what is going on and make determinations. OK, so you are CEO of Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc, and what your company does, is put on help others put on events, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
CAcert.org
- CAcert.org ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Neoeinstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.
I believe that Neoeinstein (talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.
How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Wikipedia account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)