Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

List article

I have a COI with McKinsey & Company; the article about them is currently in the GA review queue.

Through the process of improving that article, a sub-page was created called List of McKinsey & Company people and offices as a place for the directory-type list information that was previously on the company page.

I did not support the creation of this sub-article, but so long as it exists, I'd like to correct/update the job titles of everyone listed, add sources, remove those I can't find sources for, add others I can find sources for, etc. It's all extremely tedious, boring work that will take many many hours of going through it one name at a time.

Perhaps I lack imagination, but I have a hard time seeing what COI problem could possibly exist, or what meaningful feedback someone could offer through a Request Edit process, so I'm asking if it's appropriate for me to work on it the normal way. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I don't see how a simple sourced list of people and places would be a COI issue. I don't know if someone disagrees with me, but I have no problem with you editing it. Especially if you remove all those redlinks... §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Seems fine to me- looking at it's current state, your edits can only be a positive thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Redlink names should not exist in the list, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Brianhe (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Medtronic related users

I have concerns that these users are related to Medtronic

Have blocked both of them due to repeated copyright violations and have clean up much of the issues in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: According to the revision history of Medtronic here, neither of these users has edited that page. Wrong page linked perhaps? Or some adminy thing to hide all the copyright vios from the history? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

They are editing articles about Medtronic's products rather than Medtronic itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense. I knew there was a logical reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Majid Al Futtaim Group

Tbenazoun is a fully-disclosed COI, who isn't editing the page, and is making edit requests. However, a new account Jbenoite accepted these requests, despite the fact I'd indicated on the talkpage that I believed they shouldn't be done. Jbenoite has no other edits apart from on Talk:Majid Al Futtaim Group and Majid Al Futtaim Group, so appears to be a SPA, quite possibly also with a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

kangol kid

Assuming I am doing this correctly, I am declaring my COI and intent to edit the Kangol Kid article. While I am Kangol's publicist and sometimes bodyguard, I can assure you that all edits will be handled only in a very neutral way. They will solely be an effort to correct misinformation, such as his place of birth. Nothing will be done with the intent to "cast in a better light" Lion126 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The easiest way to do that is to only add new information when you can cite mainstream academic or journalistic sources to support said information. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that this editor cannot be trusted to be neutral in his editing, and that he therefore follow the steps laid out in WP:COI. He should not edit the article directly, but should make suggestions on the talk page and allow other non-conflicted editors to implement them.
Also, his notice should be on the article talk page, and on the editor's talk page. This page is not the place people will look to determine if the editor has a COI. BMK (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Teddy Sagi

I've posted on the talk page of Teddy Sagi – there are one or two things that need clarification, most notably the ownership of Camden Market as he's not actually the owner but the majority shareholder of the holding company. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Teddy Sagi is my client. Please see my user page for more info. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nautilus Productions

A few weeks ago, I approved the AFC draft of Nautilus Productions, contributed by Caprockranger. It was always clear the user operates a single purpose account with edits relating to the underwater videography of archaeological sites by Nautilus. I don't recall a discussion of possible COI at the time. However, since then, the user has made a couple of promotional edits, such as [1], and opted not to answer questions about promotion, sourcing or COI such as [2]. Although I think the connected articles are currently free of bias, and there is no obligation to answer talk page posts as long as you stay out of edit wars, I think this pattern of editing justifies the {{connected contributor}} banner on the article talk page. Is this an appropriate response? Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon

Username implies they work for Xenophon, repeatedly removing sourced content without explanation. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pristine (company)

Resolved
 – articles cleaned; COI editor no longer with company Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Editor is an employee of the company who just kindly disclosed his COI. Created the subject article, Pristine (company). I tagged it - it needs review for NPOV if someone wants to do that. I may get it to it first, or not... User also edited two articles. I turned those edits into edit requests on the Talk page, if someone wants to review them. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So it appears that I accepted Pristine (company) from AfC a few days ago, it seemed okay to me then. For this reason, I think it'd be better if someone other than me did the cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
it may be that the article is just fine or even GA! it just needs review. I didn't have time to even look it over yet - it was other edits that caught my eye.  :) Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
It needs work, but is better than most at this stage coming from coi-editing. Too much of it is based upon primary sources and sources that speculate about possible future success. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article and offering input. Ahelsinger (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that it makes a difference in this situation, but to let you know for further reference, I'm no longer with Pristine. Ahelsinger (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know! Thanks too for being so gracious about this. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing

Djhuff has not disclosed a financial connection to writing any articles but the pattern of editing strongly suggests she has done so since 2011. I invited her to disclose, today. There is persuasive off-wiki evidence that connects a certain industrial marketing concern to this editor, who wrote in a 2012 advertisement "I’ve had the opportunity to write a few more Wikipedia pages". Brianhe (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor acknowledged paid status and claims that this out-of-order unsigned comment on her talkpage posted in 2014 suffices as disclosure. I leave it up to this noticeboard to reply. — Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks Brianhe. I put a COI warning on djhuff's talk page and he/she has started to go through and make declarations on the relevant pages. I've tagged the articles and their talk pages. Thanks again - nice looking out. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added a Disclosure notice to all pages listed above. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be deleting all of their edits before this disclosure, when they were an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on paid editing? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Tweak. Great news Djhuff. Please add the following code to the talk page banners you added: |editedhere=yes --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So I did some copyediting on these articles, removed puffery/unsourced claims etc, put a couple up for deletion. Still don't think the COI tags should come off though, all the articles seem to have been written almost exclusively be this COI editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 i put the COI tag on, if I don't have time to review the article, so that others know it needs reviewing. an article shouldn't be deleted only because of its creator's COI or lack thereof - it needs to be on the merits. paid editors sometimes create acceptable articles (sometimes); sometimes partly acceptable articles (more common), and sometimes, yes, complete garbage. But each needs to be judged on its own merits. yes? Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they've all had at least a bit that needed removing but I've been removing/copyediting text based on Wikipedia guidelines, not assuming they're all rubbish. But a couple of them only needed about 10 lines removed, whilst others needed about 80% of the text removed, and ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
great - and about your comment above about deleting all their edits prior to disclosure due to ToU violations... that is problematic in my view. I don't do that. The edits need to stand or fall on NPOV/VERIFY/OR (the content policies). Arbcom has said that they do not view ToU as policy so I believe (but I could be wrong) that removing edits due to ToU violations would - if you did that on issues that came before Arbcom - be viewed as disruptive behavior on your part. I think. Or, if the editor is a sock of a blocked user, you can revert based on WP:REVERTBAN. that's all we can do, i think. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
fair enough, I didn't do that, although I think we should have been allowed to. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • I don't think that is the only way to view policy+guidelines+ToU. Here is my contrasting suggestion. Arbcom doesn't arbitrate content, so if there was a consensus to blank 100% of an article, that would be ok, regardless of whether it meets NPOV/VERIFY/OR. Arbcom has said that they won't take Terms of Use into account when arbitrating - AFAIK it didn't comment on whether we should encourage or assist other editors in complying with ToU. Finally, since we are very clear that it is almost impossible for a paid editor to write for the enemy (because of human nature) if we find say 50% of an editor's contributions require deletion : then it is sensible damage limitation and efficient use of resources to delete/blank 100% of that editor's work. We have consensus that paid advocacy is "very strongly discouraged" and 100% revert would be one way to provide that discouragement. en.wiki takes a damage limitation approach for copyvio, and there is no concern of disruption.
  • IMHO we are far too gentle with paid advocacy editors, because such editors have been helping us write policy + guidelines, and we should treat them as firmly as we treat other editors who don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. (It is not just my opinion, the wider Wikimedia community, and the wider world, have told us so on many occasions. When newspapers get caught doing things like this, people get fired. Yet at English Wikipedia, some people want to say: we'll fix your articles for free when we get round to it, and meanwhile carry on editing.)
  • Joseph2302, was there any particular work prior to the Feb 2014 disclosure that should be cause for concern?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
did some updating. some of these articles still need review. Jytdog (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Neelix just worked over Social Media Examiner Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Friends of Coal

Headley declared himself the "official representative" of the organization, and made an extensive edit. Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Aricent

Disclosed paid editor, disclosed here. They haven't been directly editing, but it's still good for other people to be aware. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

They're also repeatedly suggesting the same edits, not discussing properly, and removed my talkpage comments. Can some other users get in on this please? The article is currently fine, but they're threatening to edit on 20 May. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Harvey Jason

Edit summary here shows a COI, the text they were adding was clearly promotional and had only non-reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Dyn (company)

The foundation of this article is created by User:Beaulieualex. It appears the this major contributor has a close connection with the article subject, as as most of the user's edits has been directly or indirectly related to Dyn. domesticenginerd 05:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Hitchcock

The user listed above is the major contributor of this article (edits by other users seem to be copyediting and categorizing). It appears that this major contributor has a close connection with the article subject, as most of the user's edits have been about Dyn (company) or related articles (such as this one, which is about the CEO/founder of the company). -- domesticenginerd 05:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Cutler

I have resubmitted the article on Jesse Cutler attempting to follow Wiki guidelines. Anyone that has any ideas that may help me get this published would be greatly appreciated.


Surfsupjoe125 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)surfsupjoe125

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chauntry Cup

Resolved
 – The page is deleted after an AfD, Dartman1001 was a legit new account of Lichfield, but got blocked after declaring their only interest on Wiki was to promote this Cup. They had a sock too, who also got indeffed. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This page was created by LichfieldCC (now softblocked for username vio), and is being maintained by SPA Dartman1001. I've made my views on the article clear, but would like other users to look over the article- note I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Chauntry Cup What do you mean by a conflict of interest? I personally have nothing to gain by editing The Chauntry Cup page. I have only ever been to one cricket match in my life and I'm 53 years old. I am not a member of any club and never have been, and have no interest in the game. I think the Chauntry Cup should be recognised. That is my only wish. I have no interest other than that. Dartman1001 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

making note to prevent archiving Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nordstrom

Just come across this, the name suggests obvious COI. Haven't had time to look at article though. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Evans clearly works for their PR department. I've posted the "connected contributor" info on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Someone backed out that PR already. I also noted an uncited but prominent section about the Nordstrom Employee Handbook being 75 words. CBS News debunked that, and the real 12-page employee handbook is on line on Nordstrom's own site.[3]. Article revised and cited accordingly. John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Trend in spam - replacing dead external links with links to spam sites

Hello. For the past few months I have seen more spam accounts which search for dead external links on Wikipedia and then replace them with links to unrelated or semi-related spam websites. This happens in a range of articles. I have seen this in medicine, public policy, low-traffic articles about products, and I think in a biography.

In my opinion this is an intolerable sort of vandalism because I can imagine no way for any user to do this without being completely aware that they are intending to circumvent detection and that they are doing nothing useful for Wikipedia. Only entirely corrupt advertisers could think of doing this.

I wanted to alert people here. If there is more conversation about this somewhere, or if others have seen this, then I would like to know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: See this. There's a couple of others. It's actually quite the cottage industry as far as I know. There was a flood of these after that moron published the article, most of which were obviously new accounts that had no other contributions, and most were blocked. I'd say if you see that going on, examine the account(s) and report them to ANI or even AIV (if we consider this to be a form of vandalism). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any receny diffs? It sounds like a job for an WP:EDITFILTER if it's continuing a while after that was written. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Unfortunately not. There were a couple of threads over at ANI but I can't find them. Stupidly, they used exactly the same edit summary as recommended in the article, so those were easy to spot, but I'd wager they wised up to that so any effective filter would have to probably be a combination of a low edit count/new account, the delta from the {{dead link}} text and the insertion of a URL. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Found one. Apparently a filter was requested but I don't see that it was implemented. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This strategy has apparently become very popular in SEO circles. Find a dead link, replace it with a link you want to promote, and claim you're improving Wikipedia. Some actually find a copy of the original content from Wayback Machine or elsewhere, copy that content to their own website, and then claim they are simply repairing a dead link. Somewhere there was discussion about creating an edit filter to flag any edit that removes {{deadlink}}, but I'm not sure where that discussion was or whether is was ever implemented or not. Deli nk (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Iranian Americans

As here, the user continues to edit what appears to be people who bear the same last name as his user name, or entries relating to them, suggesting an apparent COI. As reflected here, he has been warned for COI editing in the past. All of his other edits have been erased, and all related to a "Hassibi". --Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

emgx fs

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jekaterina.bogdanova85 (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Hello! Can you please tell me why I cant post my article? This article is about company EMGX FS. This is just information, not advertasing! Its the same like Avon, coca-cola or other companys info. Here will be my article:

"EMGX F.S. is the informative analytical portal about gold. The latest and most relevant information regarding gold in the market: demand, prices, investment, will be published in articles and news on this website. The website has a section on the current gold prices.

The informative analytical portal EMGX F.S. will also publish information regarding the whole history, qualities and properties of this precious metal. The group of experts of this portal provide articles and news which are the outcome of a very exhaustive analysis of the information and advice published through a range of different media. The idea of starting this news portal was born out of an initiative to provide the most up-to-date information to people worldwide.

The access to this information is available to every user interested in this topic.

Main topics of the EMGX F.S. News portal:

Changes in gold prices; spot gold price; culture and history of gold; technology, science and different fields in which gold is utilized; how to earn with gold; gold companies; opinions and forecasts of gold experts; gold trends; gold coins; gold bars; gold jewelry; etc."

best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekaterina.bogdanova85 (talk • contribs)

Why was it deleted? "(A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events))" That blog does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Basically, you can't use Wikipedia for promotion. Please read WP:CORP, WP:AD, and WP:NOTE. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A heads up for those who might not be watching

Per here it appears people are trying to buy established Wikipedia accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

They've been kicked off of Elance. See comments at link above. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

David Gorski

per WP:BLP policy, SageRad should not edit about Gorski due to external dispute. No longer a matter for this board. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2015 (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.

Well, here's the story. I have been interested in glyphosate, and i read a lot about it. I made my way to David Gorski's web-blog called "Science-Based Medicine" in my various searches for information about glyphosate, and there i read some things that i disagreed with, and like hundreds of other people, i commented below the article about what i disagreed with, citing scientific articles and making some points about glyphosate that contradicted what he had written in the article itself. Standard thing for people to do, i think. Then some other people there attacked me with name-calling, and i responded, trying to be civil but they kept attacking with names and taunting and then i responded with a bit of name-calling of my own, and then suddenly David Gorski banned me from any further commenting on his web-blog, and yet he did not ban any of the people who taunted and attacked and provoked me first.
So, i found another place where David Gorski commented on some other blog. This is in Disqus, where it's easy to see a person's commenting history, and a lot of people do see what other people are commenting on. It's pretty much a main function of Disqus, so please don't think i was "stalking" him. I just didn't want a dialogue to end with me being banned and people not knowing i was banned so it would seem like i had no answer to the open questions, etc. I found a place where i could respond to him (because he'd blocked me on his blog) and then i said that he'd blocked me, so that people would know why i hadn't replied back on his own blog, and i told my story, simply that i was commenting with evidence to explain why i disagreed with his article on glyphosate, on some key points. I also have another friend who was blocked by Gorski in a similar way.
Well, a month or two later, i saw his article on Wikipedia and i saw a statement in there to the effect that David Gorski claims that another group had tried to prevent him from blogging by asking the college where he teaches to stop him from doing so. This statement was sourced to Gorski's own blog. I then edited the article to say that Gorski sometimes bans people from commenting on his blog when he disagrees with them.

Now, another user has cited me for "COI" on the basis that i have an external relationship with Gorski. Now, the extent of my relationship is that i have commented on his blog, and he banned me from commenting, and then i commented on that at another place in response to his comment. So, it's a couple of text exchanges in public forums on the internet, during which we disagreed (rather vehemently) but that is it. Now i am listed on the page about him as having declared a conflict of interest regarding him. So, my question is, is this true? Does this constitute a true conflict of interest? Thanks for your time and sorry to spend your time on this stuff. I guess that's why you're here. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: Yes, that constitutes a conflict of interest. Your purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to air your own gripe with Gorski, rather than to maintain the neutrality for which Wikipedia strives. And COI aside, your addition probably lacks reliable sources (i.e. no reliable source has reported on the fact that Gorski has blocked commenters he disagrees with), so it really has no place in a biography anyway. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, as to the relevance, i would argue that it's relevant, especially when he's claiming to be the victim of attempted censorship himself.
As to the sourcing, sure, it's self-reported information from me, not from some external source, but on the other hand, his claim of attempted censorship against himself is sourced to his own web-blog as well. Wouldn't that also suffer from the same exact sourcing issue?
As to conflict of interest, ok, i hear your opinion that it is a conflict of interest. However, in reading over the COI guideline, i see much more focus on economic self-interest. Consider an example in which someone has a gripe against Monsanto because they made a chemical that poisoned the rivers near his house, Monsanto didn't disclose very critical information that they knew about its danger to humans and ecology. Would that person be unable to edit anything about Monsanto because they have a gripe with Monsanto, and so that someone could say, "Your purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to air your own gripe with [Gorski]"? To put it another way, what if i said that my purpose in editing the Wikipedia article is to include a relevant fact that he engages in censorship even while he contends that he's a victim of attempted censorship, so that people who read the article would know this about him and his blog, and take this information into account when they do read his blog? They could then know that the blog comments are censored to some extent, and not trust that everything is quite as it seems.
To put it another way, perhaps, imagine that i wrote an article about the Soviet newspaper Pravda and i wrote something to the extent that as a newspaper, its content was subject to some level of censorship. Would that statement in the article be a conflict of interest if i had been a citizen of the USSR, because i had a "gripe" with Pravda for its censorship?
I am being totally serious.
Where do we draw the line and distinguish between a "gripe" and a "useful piece of information"?
I personally don't care about Gorski, but i care about people having good information about sources that they read about things that matter.
Period.
Lastly, does COI apply to this kind of relationship generally? What if i once wrote an email to Noam Chomsky and he replied to me. (That is true.) Would i be disallowed from ever contributing to the article about Noam Chomsky?
SageRad (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky. Meh. There is a video on YouTube addressing me by Deepak Chopra. Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 19:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The basic problem is that the only way you know that Gorski engages in censorship is because you yourself were the victim of the censorship, so your reporting about it here at Wikipedia is not coming from an unbiased source. If the hypothetical Soviet citizen writing about Pravda were citing reliable sources for their claims about that publication's censorship activities, that would be fine. If said Soviet citizen were writing based on their own personal experience of censorship ("They wouldn't publish my letter to the editor..."), that would be a COI. And no, if you had once received an email from Mr Chomsky, that would not prevent you from writing about Mr Chomsky here at Wikipedia. That is a rather hyperbolic stretch of the imagination.
I can't speak to the sources the Gorski article uses presently, as I have not evaluated the article. I am merely responding to the facts you have presented in this discussion.
The COI guidelines are mainly aimed at the prevention of self-promotion, but the larger issue is the preservation of neutrality, whether to prevent self-promotion, or to prevent using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to air one's gripes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
WikiDan61, i understand that COI is mainly about prevention of favoritism in terms of economic or other nepotistic interests (like promoting your son's talents or something). I understand that a real personal grudge would not be a valid thing, but this is not a personal grudge. I'm not hoping to "get back at" my Uncle Tom for shooting me in the foot. I'm actually concerned about people being properly informed about the character of David Gorski, as he is seen as a source by some of reliable information, and a person who will enforce a censorship based on viewpoint is not, in my opinion, a reliable source of information about controversial topics. It's public interest. It is not a personal grudge. Words were exchanged but i hold no personal grudge. It's an issue of his role in the world and the information about him from Wikipedia being accurate. If i do contribute to a page on Monsanto, to use the analogy again, from a place of dislike for their past actions, that is acceptable, i think, as long as it's in the interest of public knowledge, and not for the purpose of some vendetta type of thing. If i remain vigilant of people or entities who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in the past, that is a sensible thing, and if i want their untrustworthiness to be known to the public, if that is indeed a reliable claim, then i think that is also worthy. It's a matter of public interest. And no, it's not "saving the world" but it is transparency, and giving people the ability to make their own decisions based on complete information.SageRad (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sage -- the problem here is that there is not a reliable source that says that this is the "character of David Gorski", there is only you saying this, based on your own bad experiences with him. So, not only is it an issue of COI, but it is an issue of valid sourcing, which we place an extra premium on when it comes to negative information about living people. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The COI guideline talks about having external relationships that could effect your neutrality here. Getting into arguments with Gorski on two diferent sites and getting banned from both sites one of them is much more of an external relationship than swapping an email with someone. Common sense. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (corrected Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC))
Not common sense to me. In fact it's against common sense to me. I'm very genuine in what i am saying. What if when i wrote to Chomsky, he had offhand mentioned that he wears false teeth, and if that were somehow relevant to anyone, and then if i found some other source about it. Then i could include it, i assume. Even if Chomsky had been irked about me and had called me names and i called him names back. (That was not what happened. He explained that he was too busy working on issues surrounding Iraq to contribute a quote to me about the situation in Nepal, which i was working on.) SageRad (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... as far as recalled it was one site, his own site, that i got banned from. SageRad (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
sorry, misread. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that is really odd, Jytdog, because on further consideration, i recall that i was banned from some other stupid blog, some "Skeptoid" blog or some such thing, and i can't remember if it was due to an exchange with Gorski but i think it was. So you seem to have had more information about me than i have stated on Wikipedia, which would imply a very strange thing. SageRad (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't go looking for trouble where there isn't any, Sage. You mentioned two conflicts; Jytdog merely misread as two bans, rather than one ban an one simple conflict. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. SageRad (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
yeah, probably. SageRad (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a problem with primarily WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX off-site bleeding over into Wikipedia that has also become something of a real-life conflict of interest. There's a lot going on over at SageRad's talk page about their behavior in general too. Messy indeed, so I'm not sure what course of action is best at this point or if this is even the most relevant board. For the time being though, I do agree this is a conflict of interest based on how involved SageRad is in this if we would call it that from a WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective. Whether one wants to call it strong advocacy or actual COI, best for them to disengage from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So Sage, was the disagreement with Gorski about glyphosate and the microbiome? If so, it would appear that every edit you have made here could be interpreted as a strike against Gorski by editing his bio and attempting to put your POV (which Gorski did not allow on his website) here on an even more prominent website. Its great to contribute, and everyone has a POV but you really need to be here to build an encyclopedia and not to retaliate against those you've disagreed with on other websites or engage in some sort of self-vindication. Because if that is what you are doing, you're using a pedestal that was built by others to pursue your own interests. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 20:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have many interests, but right now my main focus of intellectual pursuit is glyphosate. I focus on one thing at a time as a habit and for productivity. I have many other interests, though, and this one would not be dominating my time on Wikipedia if there were not a huge backlash anytime i modified anything to have a more accurate representation of reality. I am here to build a useful people's encyclopedia. Take it or leave it, but that's the truth. It's gets extremely tiring to get this level of backlash for any move i make. It becomes not an intellectual pursuit so much as a chess game, then. I mean, when i edited the article on hoes -- the tool, you know? -- i got some backlash and a revert and then i explained what i was doing, and why the term "hula hoe" deserved to be mentioned as common name for the stirrup or action or oscillating or hoop hoe (all those names being used for the same thing). Then the other user actually saw that this is true, and i gave a patent as a reliable source for this terminology, and we agreed to change the page back. And now we're friendly, and improving that page further.
However, when i go to improve the page on PCBs or on glyphosate, it's as if i have woken up a hornet's nest and people come at me with legalism, and a level of paper-cuts that i have never seen, even at inspectional services when i went to get a building permit. I am serious, this is not normal. This is so strange to me. I look forward to a time when glyphosate is not on the forefront of my mind and i'm back to some topic where some major power centers have no vested interest, and so it's not "controversial" as it's called, and so it's not under the microscope like this. I mean, it's good to be careful, but it's not good to absolutely stultify things with this exaggerated legalism (in my reckoning that's what it is). It's odd, and weird, and not very human.
Everyone has a point of view on many things. And on some things, there are real conflicts of interest. That's life. There are some people who want to hide some information and others who want to expose it. That doesn't mean either one is correct or wrong. It doesn't mean that the one who wants to expose some information is doing some unethical advocacy or has some conflict of interest. It may simply mean that they care about the public interest, and they love the Earth and people, and want people to know what happened in the past so that they can be careful not to let it happen again.
That is not wrong, and that does not conflict with the mission of Wikipedia.
If Gorski does censor people on his web blog, which is mentioned prominently in the article about him, then i want people to know. That makes sense to me.
You can legalize on me all day long and i still think that it's good to have good information in the public view.
I know that sourcing is important and reliability is important, because we can't have crazy theories being presented as facts. But, on balance, i reckon that there is a pretty remarkable bias in the level of resistance given to a claim that a company knew about the danger of PCBs while they continued to sell them, and to the claim that Gorski censors comments on his web blog. He's being presented as an objective voice against pseudoscience, in the article about him. Well, it's relevant, then, that he would censor countering views that present evidence with sources to the contrary of some of his claims. That's not very "Science-Based". I believe the article about him is rather biased. Perhaps i could address that point in some other way. But now, i seem to be not allowed to partake in the editing of that page, as i am being claimed to have a conflict of interest with Gorski. I don't think i do, other than the actual conflict of our ethics, apparently, and that's not unusual in the world. This may be a little more than usual and i may be more stubborn than most people, but it's on a continuum of what is true about everyone and everything, to some degree. SageRad (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
please read this case: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83#Sugar_Mountain_Farm two editor who have been battling forever over an article about a farm. turned out that one of them is the farmer who owns the farm, and the other, a neighboring farmer. the two have been arguing in real life for ever, and brought that right over into WP. Or look at this comment by an editor who added a bunch of negative stuff to the Novartis article, and who ended up disclosing on Talk that she is suing Novartis. Having a dispute with X outside of Wikipedia, is a relationship with X that can bias your editing here. It is a conflict of interest. Don't carry your grudges into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, this is not a COI issue. It's a WP:BLP issue. That policy explicitly prohibits the importation of off-wiki grudges to a Wikipedia biography. The policy also states that an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki... should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person. So SageRad is blatantly violating WP:BLP by trying to shoehorn a personal grudge into a Wikipedia biography. Insofar as we ostensibly take WP:BLP seriously, that should raise significant concern, and he shouldn't be pursuing this nonsense anywhere on Wikipedia.

Separately, I'm trying to think of a polite way to tell SageRad to grow up. And a polite way to explain that he clearly has no idea what "censorship" entails. I suppose that on some level I envy people who live in such an impenetrable bubble of cluelessness and entitlement that they view being unable to comment on someone's personal website as a free-speech violation. But I'm not sure how to say that politely. Maybe someone else can help, or maybe it's not that important. MastCell Talk 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: I think you've said it, politely or not. No need for any of the rest of us to pretty it up for you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy, is that really the case? Are you trying to figure out a way to tell me to "grow up" because i wish the public to have access to accurate representations of reality? What insults are being slung here. It's pretty sick. I take serious exception to the entire comment by MastCell. I think you are the one who needs to grow up, if you wish to put it that way. I feel your slime all over me. I need to bathe. Holy cow. Censorship is a simple thing. It's the blocking of speech in a forum where freedom of speech is reasonably expected, and another layer is that when censorship is being employed, but its employ is not known commonly to many readers, then the point of view portrayed in the forum is biased but appears to be "balanced" or at least open to dissent, and that is the most insidious form of censorship because it's the most powerful at presenting a version of reality that may not be accurate.

You are actually defending censorship and attacking my desire to include in the article about a person that focuses on this website, the fact that censorship occurs there. That is really not very admirable. So, this is still open, and i would love to see the opinions of others. Like i said, this is not a personal grudge. This is a particular thing that i know, and not many others do know, and that i think is important for the public to know. I'm not "pushing an agenda" but i am using my specialized knowledge to improve Wikipedia, for the public use and for the functioning of a healthy civil society. Keep on shooting yourselves in the foot. It's useful. SageRad (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (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.

David Gorski 2

per WP:BLP policy, SageRad should not edit about Gorski due to external dispute.Therefore, this is an issue for WP:BLPN, not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2015 (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.

By what process did the above entry about David Gorski and myself COI get a final "verdict" and then get hatted? And now i am prevented from working on that article? I'd like to know what the process here is and how long it may take and whether i can request some third-party opinions? Because honestly, i do not think the dialogue above was acceptable. It seems as if the other participants barely registered and responded to the things that i wrote, and it seems that it is deemed acceptable to just tell me to "grow up" and then close the case? By one particular editor who seems to have it out for me, of all thing? Really, what's the process and how can i get a fair hearing? Please do read the above hatted case, and think about it for yourself. There are some serious issues in there, which would prevent people from working on articles about people or entities or information sources that censor people, in effect, extending that censorship to Wikipedia itself, which i do not think is what we (most of us in civil society) want. SageRad (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Notice also the timeline. Seems like a kangaroo court. Open and shut ASAP. SageRad (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Free speech. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for you to engage in a petty personal dispute with David Gorski. If he chose to ban you from his blog, that is no concern of ours. Nobody anywhere has the 'right' to post on someone else's website - not Gorski's blog, and not here either. And no, there are no 'serious issues' here. Just someone complaining because their trivial spats don't merit encyclopaedic coverage. We don't care. Get used to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, this was closed because it's a WP:BLP issue, not a WP:COI issue, as was written above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This matter has been brought to the BLP noticeboard. It is no longer relevant at this board. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:47, 20 May 2015 (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.

Alexander Cornell du Houx

Could we get some extra eyes on Alexander Cornell du Houx, please? @Fin108: seems very keen to pile up lots of praise in this biography, teetering on rather slender sources. However, a bigger problem is that they insist on adding links to Alexander Cornell du Houx's Youtube page, which contains copyright violations (ie. copies of news articles that briefly mention the subject of the article). I have tried to remove these links, per WP:ELNEVER, but they keep coming back, and I am losing patience. Other editors have suggested that there's a COI problem, and I agree. Could a more patient editor help out, one way or another? bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Neil Rackham

All SPAs adding promotional content to this biography. I've reverted to the page before all the content was added, but this probably needs more eyes. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Gableman

For the past several days 165.219.245.62 has been edit warring the Michael Gableman article in an effort to add promotional material and to whitewash incidents in which the Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice has been involved. The IP address 165.219.245.62 is registered to the Wisconsin Court System (http://wicourts.gov/). It appears that 165.219.245.62 is an insider there who is trying to spin the justice's article. 165.219.245.62 has been warned about conflict of interest, to no avail. I suggest a topic ban for 165.219.245.62 for all Wisconsin court and judiciary-related articles. 32.218.42.167 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Very interesting. Can confirm that the IP backtraces to Circuit Court Automation Project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. --PureRED (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like the COI was also brought up yesterday. PureRED (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Lisa Lambe

LisaLambe01 has not specifically identified herself as the actual subject of the Lisa Lambe article, but her editing has indicated that she has a vested interest in the article. She has consistently altered the content to downplay Ms Lambe's involvement with the group Celtic Woman (which she (the article subject) left in 2014). Several attempts at the editor's talk page to have her avoid the obvious conflict of interest have been ignored, so I'm bringing the matter here. Ms Lambe (the editor) clearly wants the article to move past the Celtic Woman phase, but there is not really much evidence of notability outside of that, so if we redact that portion of Lambe's career, the article woudln't meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that User:LisaLambe01 has been sufficiently warned. If she makes any further inappropriate edits at Lisa Lambe, a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Correction: LisaLambe01 has explicitly identified herself as the subject of the article in this edit, where she writes:
when you google my name in general a box on right hand size of screen comes up like a fact file
indicating that she is identifying herself as the Lisa Lambe of the article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Added User:Uncletomscottage, as they're making similar edits to LisaLambe01- removing the image, replacing surname with firstname. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Matthias Hentze

Several SPAs created and are maintaining this article. Article is a BLP that looks like a CV. It has one reference, to a German library catalog. Princessella123 appaears to have access to digital images from subject of the article's place of employment. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Princessella123 declared at Wikimedia Commons here that she is the subject's personal assistant. — Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Deakin University

User:Ahladita has recently made a number of edits to the Deakin University article, mainly updating trivial numbers and the like. However:

Just wondering whether it's just me, or whether a COI exists?

-- sandgemADDICT yeah? 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - one of Ahladita's edit notes said the edit to the Hollander article was authorized by Hollander - that is a clear tell of an external relationship. I have opened a discussion with Ahladita on their talk page, and have tagged the articles. Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This user has only just declared they are a paid editor at their userpage, User:TGCJKS197276. The articles look really spammy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I had only published the Daniel Ritchie article a few minutes before I wrote the discloser. The Cody Sipe article is only a couple of days old. I was unaware of the disclosure policy as I am new to Wikipedia. As soon as the policy was kindly pointed out to me, I made the disclosure. It was not my intention to hide the fact that I was writing as a paid editor, nor was it my intention to be "spammy". Both men are notable in the physical fitness and functional aging sectors and that was my reason for writing the pages. I intentionally did not link to their personal websites in the articles, nor did I promote any products that they have for sale. I'm new to the Wikipedia world and understand that my style may not be perfect yet. I did, in good faith, attempt to write the articles from a neutral point of view. If they need modification, then I am willing to do so and also welcome the assistance of other editors. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't need modifying, they need deleting. Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable individuals to use as advertising space, see WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:CSD#A7, [[WP:CSD#G11]. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
one of the problems of paid editing is the temptation to create articles on marginal topics. The way for a paid editor to establish a good reputation here as a responsible contributor is to limit themselves to subjects where there is clear notability, and make certain that the article fully shows it,and contains no extraneous promotional material. In some fields, judging notability has proven difficult, and for these, a sensible editor, paid or unpaid, ought to check the fate of similar submissions and see what comments are made at relevant AfDs. Doing good work here takes effort. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

agents

I'm not sure of a better place to ask this, so: why do we permit (and even soucourage by having a line in the infobox listing the agents for a model; the information would be of use only to someone who wanted to hire the person and is thus promotional. (eg [4]? DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't belong in the infobox and unreffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
you are not the first to ask that (that link is at the Template talk page); this post there claims that what agency a model belongs to, is important for their career. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if knowing this information about a model were the equivalent of knowing whether a professional athlete plays in the major leagues or the minor leagues. Deli nk (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jean Griswold

Deleted article on obscure corporate official recently re-created by SPA who appears to be an admitted paid/conflicted editor, based upon contributions and especially creation of photograph of subject [5] and comment on my user page here Use of "reply to" template (I wasn't familiar with that myself) indicates additionally this account is probably a sock (surprise surprise). Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Article creator and principal contributor has self-disclosed as subject company's digital marketing director. In his disclosure he generously proposes to become "moderator" of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pippa Norris

This Ip address has claimed to be Pippa Norris here. I've done the relevant talkpage tagging and given them a COI notice, but the article needs a major cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Now editing logged in using PippaN account- the creator of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
tried to engage her on her talk page. let's see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Election judge and COI

In an effort to make sure I do not have a COI in a specific area of elections in the US I am asking this question. I have mentioned that I am an election judge in the US during elections in more than one place on wikipedia. I do not campaign for anyone, but I have declared my party as part of the requirements for being an election judge (Democrat). The duties are basically processing people to vote by making sure they are registered and making sure that all the rules for an election are followed. While I am 90% sure this would not be a COI, I would rather be more sure since I have started closing RFC's and if there is a COI I would of course avoid any RFC's that deal with elections in the US. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

hard to see any problem here. Thanks for checking though. Maybe just be careful about using good sourcing to avoid the pitfalls of what you know by doing, should work on any election related articles. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto legal cases

Looking at a fringey blog I see the following: Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout. When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed. Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.[6]

This looks to be an attempt by a lawyer to use Wikipedia as advertising. The article in question is Monsanto legal cases. There is some discussion on the article talk page and at RSN, but consensus seems to be that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to make the case notable. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits by plaintiffs' lawyers are a fact of life for big corporations. Rarely are any of them notable.--ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But rarely do the lawyers put effort into using Wikipedia to attract clients to their class action cases. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
this is just ...precious. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Analog Devices

Resolved
 – done by another editor and me Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I've proposed several updates/additions to Analog Devices, here - some minor factual updates and a few expansions of basic information in the article. I have a COI and won't be editing directly, but I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Rockland Center for the Arts

On their talkpage, have said they work for the company- adding unsourced text that seems to be half-copied from the official website. Then proceeded to demand reinstation of their text, despite the fact I've told them about WP:VERIFY and WP:COPYVIO. Needs some eyes/more help please. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

boy they were combative. AfDed. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Cellular automaton

Lev Kalmykov insists on including his own newly-published original research into cellular automaton, and has edit-warred to keep it in after I removed it: original insertion restoration #1 after removal restoration #2. More eyes on this, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Dear Colleagues,

I have a problem with a possible misunderstanding.

My contribution is not about "original research". The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

My contribution also cannot be considered as "spam and advertising": Latest revision as of 17:28, 22 May 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank) Joseph2302 (talk | contribs) (Reverted 2 edits by Lev Kalmykov (talk): Remove spam and advertising. (TW)).

My contribution is appropriate and accurate. It's not about my biography, my personality and it does not contain anything other than a title of the article published in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.231 which is indexing in 27 bibliographic bases and another title of the article published by 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal with IF=1.503 which is indexing in 7 bibliographic bases.

Re-posting was caused by the insufficiently correct deletion of this adequate contribution by David Eppstein.

In more details:

The first removal of my contribution “16:01, 21 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undo WP:REFSPAM, WP:TOOSOON to tell whether this is of any significance)” looked biased because I provided a referenced link to the peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2015) A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata Acta Biotheoretica:1-19 doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9) and it is already indexed in PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25980478. Within a month, it is expected that the article will be indexed in all 27 bases. Besides, this contribution directly corresponds to the title of the published article and Wikipedia's section.

The second removal of the contribution “15:31, 22 May 2015‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (56,031 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (Undid revision 663513765 by Lev Kalmykov (talk) same reason. Primary source with absolutely no citations on Google scholar.)” also looked biased because Acta Biotheoretica has Impact Factor 1.231 and indexed in Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, CAB International, Academic OneFile, Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, CSA Environmental Sciences, Current Contents/ Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, Elsevier Biobase, EMBiology, Gale, Geobase, Global Health, INIS Atomindex, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, The Philosopher's Index, Zoological Record.

I also provided a link to another peer-reviewed article (Kalmykov LV, Kalmykov VL (2013) Verification and reformulation of the competitive exclusion principle Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 56:124-131 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2013.07.006). It was published in 2013. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals has Impact Factor:1.503. This journal is indexed Science Citation Index; Scopus; Current Contents/Engineering, Computing & Technology; Mathematical Reviews; Research Alert; SCISEARCH; Zentralblatt MATH

This contribution also directly corresponds to the title of the article and Wikipedia's section.

Verification of the competitive exclusion principle and biodiversity paradox were the long-standing problems in theoretical ecology.

I am a novice at Wiki and I need more correct and understandable arguments. May I cite these articles using their titles and referenced links (as I did in these cases) for example after a month when our article from Acta Biotheoretica will be indexed in all 27 bibliographic bases?

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely,

Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:David Eppstein, although my subject knowledge is limited- they look to be edit warring to keep their own research in the article. I'm choosing to reply here rather than on my talkpage where the message above was also posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Independently from David Eppstein I noticed that Lev Kalmykov has added multiple references to his own work on the Complex system lemma, see here, which I think is not ok. I was planning to add a Template:COI tag to the article (or remove the reference) when I saw this discussion, and decided to comment here first. -- Mdd (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Lev Kalmykov please understand that Wikipedia has been around a long time, and you are not the first scientist who has wanted to cite his own work here. The community has figured out ways to deal with this. Would you please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work and then reply here, showing us that you've read that and understand it? Please don't think that we don't want experts to work in Wikipedia -- we do, very much! Please do read WP:EXPERT which is an essay written to help folks like you understand Wikipedia.... please also see the last bullet which again circles back to the COI issues being discussed here. If you have any questions or want to talk through this more, please let us know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Since I was the one to report this I should probably note that I have in the past also added references to my own publications to articles. But (1) it's a tiny fraction of my edits, (2) I will not restore such references if someone else disagrees with the addition, and (3) I usually make an effort to include a comment about the COI and about not restoring if there's disagreement in the edit summary. Where the present situation crosses the line for me is not so much the addition, but the edit-warring to keep the addition in. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
good on you, david eppstein. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues,

I believe that there should be a rule which definitely allows posting relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters. The a-priori labeling of relevant scientific knowledge from reliable published sources as "WP: REFSPAM, WG: TOOSOON say whether it is of any significance" looks unacceptable. A removal of such information may be considered as Vandalism on Wikipedia.

If there is no firm rule which explicitly permit authors to post relevant information in Wikipedia if it was published in academic peer-reviewed journal which has an impact factor in Journal Citation Reports of Thomson Reuters, then I offer to implement it. Otherwise, there is too much room for subjective voluntary actions, which are difficult to distinguish from vandalism.

Note: The problem arose when my contribution was deleted. A text of the contribution: “A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata” with the reference to the Wikipedia article ‘Cellular_automaton’ was posted in the section ‘Problems solved’.

The reference: Kalmykov, L. V. & Kalmykov, V. L. A Solution to the Biodiversity Paradox by Logical Deterministic Cellular Automata. Acta Biotheoretica, 1-19, doi:10.1007/s10441-015-9257-9 (2015).

Impact Factor of the journal 1.231. As our results were published in peer-reviewed journal which is indexed in Journal Citation Reports, these results are not the "original research" and thus they can be posted in Wikipedia. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Lev Kalmykov (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sawdust Art Festival

Promotional language that apparently cannot be removed, repeated removal of COI tag, no disclosures so far from the 3 SPAs that I can see. The topic is probably notable given existing sourcing, but still written largely as a brochure. Would probably benefit from some c/e by an unconnected editor, but I'm primarily worried about the lack of disclosure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

zoiks. left messages for those editors. BC Space is the name of an art gallery in Laguna. warned them about that. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OK artwriter has responded here. Local resident and fan who seems interested in learning how WP works. No apparently COI though. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Having monitored the page edits, it looked from their edits that Artwriter wasn't trying to promote, they were removing lots of the promotion, buzzwords and weasel words- think it's the other 2 that were adding promotional language. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyck Turgeon

Resolved
 – deleted, socks being handled at SPI Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Was written by a paid editor from Fiverr. Account was written by one of dozens of this persons socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Socks include:
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Have posted here at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Girlishkim Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here. all done, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Uncovered a mass of socks [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Scarborough Town Centre

The connection between the target article and the editor is clear. The article is the only one the editor has edited. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this here. i left them some messages about their username and COI issues, and have tagged the article and its Talk page. Needs cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This user has renamed themselves User:Iriskimberly. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Rick Shutter - Declare COI and Invite Feedback

I expect to receive compensation from Rick Shutter, a musician, for writing an encyclopedic Wikipedia article about him. Per the recommendation in the Paid editing (guidance essay), I am declaring my COI here. I have read Wikipedia's policies regarding paid editing, COIs, BLPs, and the Five Pillars, and I have strived to abide by these policies. I have written a draft on my user space here, I have disclosed my COI in the edit summary there, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the examination of the user-space draft. The first reader offered constructive feedback, which was quite helpful. The second nominated the draft for speedy deletion, and the third deleted it.Kekki1978 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP:NOTADVERTISING was certainly applicable (I was #2 person by the way). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Joseph2302 has chosen to identify himself and state his opinion. (A reason for doing so is unclear to me, as additional discussion, particularly in this forum, seems moot since the draft has been deleted.) Given that his facts are now aired, in the interest of balance I am getting additional facts on the table. (By responding to Joseph2302 in this forum, I am respecting his banning paid editors from commenting on his talk page as well as complying with his stated desire that discussions be kept unfragmented.)
"#1 person" apparently disagreed with Joseph2302, stating (to the best of my recollection) that the draft was perhaps a bit too promotional but it was nothing that couldn't be fixed. ("#1 person" also thanked me for following the paid editing rules.)
Regarding Joseph2302's opinion, WP:NOTADVERTISING lists 5 kinds of promotion, (essentially: advocacy/propaganda/recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, advertising/marketing/public relations). Of these 5, the first 3 seem obviously irrelevant, leaving the latter 2 as possibilities; in fact, Joseph2302 cited CSD G11 as his criterion for applying the tag. GSD G11 describes text that is "exclusively promotional" and that "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Again, "#1 person", by stating that the text was "perhaps" a bit too promotional but could be fixed [italics added], apparently disagreed.
I am a few months "younger" here than Joseph2302 and I admit I am still learning the ropes; I value others' guidance. While I may not have been here long enough to have formed opinions that others value, I do feel that the placement of a "speedy deletion" tag on a userspace draft in these circumstances (in place of providing feedback and fostering discussion on the draft's talk page) was surprising. Indeed, CSD G11 also states that "if a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." My draft was about a professional musician, who by virtue of having contributed to a recording whose sales were certified as Gold, definitely met the criteria for notability stated here: Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Since the text could easily have been replaced, (particularly based on requested feedback), it seems reasonable to me to conclude that deletion was not a preferable approach. Indeed, a recent conversation in the Teahouse indicates that at least one other editor has the opinion that "the transgression must be blindingly obvious to warrant the approach." (I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to identify the Teahouse host as s/he's not a party to this conversation. Regardless, it is clear that the alleged transgression was not blindingly obvious as "#1 person" had a different opinion.)
One of my goals in requesting feedback on my draft was to gain a clearer understanding of what the Wikipedia community considers to be neutral language but I have walked away from this experience with merely an understanding of two people's opinions. I find it unfortunate that I am unable to gather a wider range of feedback because the userspace draft was deleted.
I realize that it was an administrator and not Joseph2302 who deleted the userspace draft and I recognize that I have the opportunity to discuss reasons with the administrator and to request an undeletion of the draft. The existence of such checks-and-balances within Wikipedia is extraordinarily helpful. IMO, however, the discussion seems moot at this point and it seems more reasonable just to focus on re-writing the draft.
I appreciate Joseph2302's identifying himself and defending his opinion regarding my userspace draft. I also value Joseph2302's stating his belief on his talk page that "Wikipedia should not have paid editors" and I am impressed that editors have expressed appreciation on his talk page for "all his hard anti-COI work". Nevertheless, I find it unfortunate that this detailed discussion of varying opinions is now taking place in this forum, as the IMO this discussion of opinions regarding an already deleted draft doesn't contribute much to the mission of expanding Wikipedia with solid articles. I do thank Joseph2302 for his work in trying to ensure that Wikipedia remains a high-quality source of unbiased information. Kekki1978 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify my position on COI/paid editors, my view was that if I was in charge then I would ban paid editors and not let COI editors directly edit articles. However, I fully respect the community consensus that paid editors are permitted, and COI editors are allowed to edit articles, and work and do my upmost to help them as much as any other editor- this is why many people believe that my COI work is good. Also, this post seems to be less about the article, and more about complaining about my actions, which an administrator has supported. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I thank Joseph2302 for defending his position. As a point of correction, the text in question was not an "article", defined as a page in namespace that has encyclopedic information on it. Instead, it was a draft on a subpage in user space. Storing "drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest" is a legitimate use of user space.
Regarding Joseph2302's statement that my post here seemed to focus more on "complaints" about his actions than defenses of my "article", at this time I choose not to discuss with the deleting administrator the legitimacy of how I used user space nor defend the text in question any more than I already have because to do so seems moot; it is a deleted userspace draft that is being rewritten. I am of the opinion that subjecting readers here to a repeatedly cycling discussion of discarded text would be futile and I am hopeful that the discussion of it is ending. In response to this experience, I have instituted the practice of tagging my user space drafts with the { { userspace draft } } template to more obviously indicate that the text is a work in progress. I thank Joseph2302 for helping me to augment the robustness of my writing discipline.
I wish Joseph2302 the best in his COI work.Kekki1978 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Muzammil Ibrahim

PrinceIsnomiac has a pretty clear COI or huge advocacy problem.

the editor added a huge swath of unsourced, PROMO content inlcuding, and I am not joking: "His name as a model is one of the most celebrated of all times and he is even touted to be one of the best looking men of entire Asian continent."
this was reverted by Cluebot
and restored and added to by PrinceIsnomiac.
I stubified and left a COI tag and similar tags on the article talk page.
I also left princeinsomniac a welcome message and opened a discussion about COI in WP
Princeinsomniac didn't reply there, but reverted the stubification and COI tag
i followed up on the COI questions on their userpage and have provided a 3RR warning. And I reverted the article back to sub and COI-tagged, and opened this thread. I've provided notice of it to princeinsomniac. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

socialworkhelper.com

I happened across a user whose only contributions involve additions of content referenced to socialworkhelper.com and I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done so I'm just bringing to the attention of this noticeboard. The edits all appear constructive, but it may be promotional as well. Based on the username, Swhelper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), there appears to be a connection to the website and a possible conflict of interest. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That bears watching. "socialworkhelper.com" has some good content, and some promoted content, and both look the same. The site comes up in Google only in its own PR (Facebook, Pinterest, etc.) I'd suggest that the editor involved refrain from adding more links to "socialworkhelper.com". It's starting to look like linkspam. John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I had responded on the Edgeweyes talk page, and there will be no more links added. Our intent is not to be linkspam. User SWHelper is an editor with Social Work Helper, and it was not our intention to hide this fact. The links that have been added actually covers the span for a couple of years because very few updates have been made to main social work pages. All the links important for us to reference have been added. However, I would note Social Work Helper is the leading authority for the social work profession which helps to elevate the platform of social work professionals and social work topics. Wikipedia editors are not crediting contributions of social work professionals or social work contributions on topics. Social Work Helper should not be judged solely because other magazines or newspapers are not providing publicity to Social Work Helper. Newspapers and magazines rarely provide publicity on social workers or credit social workers contributions to public discourse, but it should not alleviate its importance. Google "Celebrity Social Workers", if it had not been for Social Work Helper, many people would not know Sam Jackson, John Amos, Martin Short, Dr. Steve Perry (who doesn't have a Wikipedia page at all) Alice Walker, and Winnie Mandela to name a few were social workers. To be fair, topic not being covered should not be the only impetus for inclusion, rather than identify whether authoritative figures are utilizing and contribution to Social Work Helper in order to reach the social work community at large. Social Work Helper is the first social work media platform to get press credentials to a White House Event and attend a White House Briefing on another occasion as well as being owned by an African-American woman. Social Work Helper is also a Google News site. Who exactly is going to document this other than someone interested in documenting this piece of history? Any advice would be appreciated for me to pass along.Swhelper (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

All of my edits have been reverted (jytdog)despite being good edits. How do I contest this?Storm705 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Contest reverts by Jytdog

All of my edits have been reverted despite them being good edits. I disclosed the COI, but the edits that were made should have been reverted. Two other editors had already looked at the edits made, they suggested to not make any more to socialworkhelper because it may be spamming. Jytdog, left a message on my page to change my name because it violated policy. Then, they reverted all of my edits. I wanted to contest the reverts, but I am not sure how to do this. My original name was username is swhelper Storm705 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Moved to subsection of original discussion. Also @Jytdog:. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Just because you say they were good doesn't necessarily make them actually good. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
spamming articles from socialworkhelper.com into WP is a violation of WP:PROMO. Most instances I found were not adding value to WP. You should not be using WP to get exposure for your website. I would be happy to discuss any particular edit you made, that i deleted. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Website spamming:[8],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].
Frankly I'm surprised that you haven't been blocked for spamming yet. Wikipedia is not a place to spam your website, if you continue then you will get blocked. Spammers may also get their websites blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix Audio Technologies

Phnxaudio's name suggests affiliation, and promotional, unsourced edit here with edit summary "Phoenix Audio Technologies Administrator added text and made minor modifications". Not responding to my talkpage messages about COI and username violation. IP address added exactly the same content here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Phnxaudio is now indef blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Phoenix Audio Technologies for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Moroch

Resolved
 – Situation is under control — MusikAnimal talk 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This user was blocked for promotion on Moroch but has been unblocked. Their content is questionable, at it includes a long, unsourced client list, which I've removed per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The IP address has admitted to being related here. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I unblocked them under the terms of a new username and that they would work to maintain neutrality. They are new and are learning their way, please allow them time to get acquainted with policy. Just because they work for the organization does not mean they weren't making an honest attempt to update information unaware that their tone of writing was an issue. — MusikAnimal talk 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll also add the aforementioned list of clients was easily verifiable, and in my opinion relevant given their high-profile stature. — MusikAnimal talk 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
But they also used an IP address to evade the block earlier. And spam is spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
They used the IP to make the unblock request and to seek help. Hardly block evasion but rather a simple newbie mistake. I am willing to stand by the stern COI concerns leading up to the unblock request, where they made it clear they wanted to simply update the information in accordance with policy. Beyond that we're just biting them and disallowing them a chance to show their true intentions. Once made aware of the issues with tone their proposed changes have been fully acceptable with the exception of sourcing of easily verifiable information that was in my opinion unlikely to be challenged to begin with. The second account was indeed wrongfully used to make further COI edits, but hey, lesson learned and hopefully with gain of a worthwhile contributor. — MusikAnimal talk 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
They actually used an IP to complain about their block here. I guess if it's going to be watched properly then that's fine, but has WP:COI been explained to them properly? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It could not more obvious they were simply trying to find out how to address accuracy of the page in accordance with policy. That's why they went to the help desk, where we they would expect others to help them. Between the initial hard block, my detailed unblock statement and the discussion that followed, and the barrage of unnecessary warnings and notices, I think they've got the point. Either way I am actively monitoring both the user and the page, and if we could please take a moment to see the end result which is a more accurate article on this organization, and a new informed editor with potential, in what I should be considered a win for us all. — MusikAnimal talk 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the article is better for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GreenEarth Cleaning

Resolved

The editor is has removed content from the article saying it is "libelous information, that is 100% false and detrimental to our company." Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Added User:Ajnewport, since their only edit has been the same- meat/sockpuppetry, I think. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Now resolved, User:GreenEarth Cleaning blocked for promotional name and edits, and User:Ajnewport blocked for being a sockpuppet. Looks like @Jytdog: has cleaned up the article well too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_84

Leave a Reply