Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,523,108 edits
Line 303: Line 303:


:i looked at this. i see no evidence of COI. New user making a (sadly typical) mistake of personalizing a content dispute. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:i looked at this. i see no evidence of COI. New user making a (sadly typical) mistake of personalizing a content dispute. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

== Heritage Documentation Programs ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|Heritage Documentation Programs}}
* {{userlinks|Schafphoto}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This user has been editing the article to include links to a photographer's website. The username transparently suggests that the user is the photographer, Stephen Schafer. I initially removed the link added by an IP editor because it didn't seem to meet [[WP:EL]], and the person then added a short quote with the website as a reference. It seems to be the editor's intent to work their website into the article in any way that'll stick, rather than improving the article. (The website may be in principal useful as a B-quality source until the article is improved.) [[User:Knight of Truth|Knight of Truth]] ([[User talk:Knight of Truth|talk]]) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:20, 26 February 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Brian Hamilton (businessman)
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Alain Pellegrini
    Talk:Philip Morris International
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Surgical Care Affiliates

    Erik Eger Entertainment and THREEE editing on behalf of clients

    At least two registered accounts and some IP addresses from the Los Angeles area have been used to add information to a suspiciously small group of biographies, all of the biographies connected by the fact that the persons are being managed by an agency called THREEE, formerly Erik Eger Entertainment. The list of THREEE clients includes the following:

    The following accounts and IPs are involved in promoting the above persons:

    The account Markthree explicitly stated that "we manage kid harpoon".[1] When Markthree created the Robin Hannibal biography in 2013, it appeared to be a copy/paste job complete with old maintenance templates from 2010 and 2012, probably following a successful PROD.[2]

    The IP editors show their hand when they add an external link to THREEE or Erik Eger Entertainment:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

    Various NPOV violations have been made including peacock prose to show the person in a better light. This person or management team has also reverted other editors in the effort to promote clients. For instance, Mayast and IPadPerson were reverted here and here to promote Kid Harpoon. Another reversion came here to promote Kid Harpoon against the judgement of My love is love.

    I would like to see this person be restricted to just one account which acknowledges the conflict of interest. That way non-neutral additions can be managed better by uninvolved editors. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. It is a clear fact that they are lying about themselves for WP:PUBLICITY. Even a COI notice would work for them. IPadPerson (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed down Michael Brauer article to properly cited GRAMMY awards and published paper. John Nagle (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion of John Hill. Not notable per WP:MUSIC; he's a record producer, not a performer, and not a notable producer. The articles about him are mostly archived copies of THREE PR. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed citations at Rich Costey. He seems to pass WP:MUSIC, and there are good articles about him. Took out spammy links and listcruft. The article could use some attention, but the spam level is way down now. Someone else please take a few of these. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempted to clean up Al Shux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Removed obvious PR quotes and worked on grammar and comprehension. 79616gr (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone requested that the website be added to the spam blacklist? I think that might be worth doing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Prod was removed from John Hill by the last-named IP above. I've sent it to AfD, with a rationale borrowed from Nagle. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi everybody. Thanks for your interest in this issue. It seems that there might be a bit of a disconnect here. First, I see now that there are two accounts associated with these changes. That has been fixed and all future revisions will come from this account. Second, I see that in my attempts to make sure credits were listed correctly, it came off as promoting. That was never the intention and I will make sure future additions stick to the cited material. Third, I see that John Hill is being contested as not a notable producer. I respectfully disagree and would point you to the Producer of Year nominations for the 2015 Grammys. He has also been a part of a number of large albums and songs in the past. So I would ask that the proposed deletion be reversed as he values the importance of wikipedia for people to learn more about him and his projects he has been a part of.

    Lastly, I see that a number of our pages have already been edited and have had a number of discographies deleted. I would hope that you understand that these pages are important for our clients and help potential artists and labels get an idea of what they have worked on. I maintain these pages not to promote our clients, but to make sure that the information listed is as up to date and correct. I work hard to make sure all pages are cited and credited properly. At the end of the day, deleting this information doesn't hurt our company specifically, but hurts the producers and writers who work tirelessly for these credits. And I don't think that is fair to take that away from them. Please reconsider. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to "allmusic.com" have been retained, so anyone who wants full discography information can find it. Wikipedia is not a music or credits database. (We'd never be able to keep up.) See WP:NOT. John Nagle (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. In the music industry community, Wikipedia has become a quick and convenient way for people to search and see an artists, producers, mixers, or writers credits. I think it is unfair that our clients are being singled out when in fact a majority of the major producers and writers have wikipedia pages with extensive credits. I would like a little more clarity as to why those pages are free to list extensive credits and our pages are being singled out. I can't help but feel like this is an attack starting from IPadPerson (talk) after I tried to adjust credits that they disagreed on. They seem to be spearheading this attack on our clients and it seems vindictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threee123 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:PROMOTION. Writing about your own organization's activities is strictly limited, is why this issue came up here on WP:COIN. Please read up on what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia takes a rather tough line on promotional editors, and promoters. If it didn't, Wikipedia would read like PR Newswire. You can, if you like, ask on the talk page of the article to have information added. The best information comes from reliable third-party sources. See WP:RS. If your people really are notable, there should be substantive articles about them in major publications (not blogs). Mention those on the talk page. John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    i try to stay out of music articles, but there is probably a username violation here, if anybody wants to go there. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Carmen A. Puliafito

    Username says it all. Needs editing, review, and watching. I've tagged the article and the userpage (note - account has been closed down for username violation, but we can expect someone from there to come back. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed the entire thing is written as an advert, with jarring sentences like "under his leadership"...Limit-theorem (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out some of the brochure-type material. A few more citations could be added. John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Goodgame Studios

    User:Goodgame is the self-admitted "official account of the press office of Goodgame Studios" and "the account of the GGS corporate communications". In the past, this account has added company info to Goodgame Studios as well as adding theirgame tovarious lists. I have previously templated the user, to which they responded that they intend to follow our policies. However, they continue to edit their own article and do PR work with fans/customers, not to mention their use of CORPNAME. Woodroar (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's definitely a user name issue. But their edits at Goodgame Studios have been factual additions to their company infobox. If they stop now, there's no big problem. John Nagle (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this potential issue here again. As discussed on User_talk:Goodgame before, with Goodgame Studios we want to contribute to the correct and up-to-date description of Goodgame Studios. We have done our outmost to respect the rules of Wikipedia, especially the guidelines and recommendation under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, if the direct factual contribution of a company to the articles dealing with it or its products is entirely forbidden in the English Wikipedia project we will of course abstain from doing so again. We will suggest changes on the Talk Page instead. Goodgame (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for writing here! It is great that you want to improve your article. A couple things. First, you'll need to change the username on the account - I just left a template on your Talk page that points out the problem, and tells you how to fix it. Please apply for a new name, and reply there saying that you have done so, so that your account is not deleted while the request is processed. Then, with regard to the article itself. In the new account, please add something to the userpage making it clear that you work for Goodgame, so you comply with the requirement to disclose in the Terms of Use. Now finally, on the article itself... If there are any simple, uncontroversial facts that need updating you can do that yourself. Simple, uncontroversial. Anything more than that, you should request edits to be made on the article's Talk page, as described in WP:COI. good luck, and thanks again for wanting to follow our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope this is okay, but I moved your comment from Talk:Goodgame Studios to User talk:Goodgame, where I believe you intended it to be. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire)

    John Foxe repeatedly deleted reliably sourced (major newspapers) material from this article concerning the association of his personal and professional friend Reverend Chuck Phelps and Phelps involvement in the rape cover up of teenage Tina Anderson who attended Phelps church at the time. [REDACTED CONTENT - DONT RESTORE] Clearly "John" has drank to much BJU Kool Aide and cannot refrain from editing that seriously violates COI especially when it concerns Bob Jones University related articles. "John" has been banned from editing many articles and for sock puppetry as well over many years and has denied wrongdoing until the evidence overwhelms the deception he was attempting. He also has demonstrated ownership of many articles related to fundamentalist causes. 172.56.9.207 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I last edited that article in December 2011, this COI is clearly harassment by a sock.--John Foxe (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree Vertrag (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Foxe you are the confirmed user of sock puppets (and blocked for doing so, see USER:Hi540) so it is no surprise that you resort to false accusations in an attempt to deflect blame from your long history of COI and edit warring. Your shotgun accusation is meant to do nothing more than cast aspersions so you will not face examination.[REDACTED] you continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines. Your continuous engage in edit warring, sock puppetry, agenda pushing for all things fundamental and Bob Jones University, and low regard for Wikipedia standards. Vertrag I am sorry John has sucked you in as you recently reported John's many fouls and gaming the system. I understand you are using a sock to protect yourself from John Foxe as you stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter_Ruckman I assure you Vertrag I am no sock but my IP changes randomly and sometimes frequently due the nature of my cellular connection. I am the one you agreed with in the BLP noticeboard and it was because of your posting there that I investigated USER:John Foxe and easily figured out who he is and then posted here as a result. Thanks for the help 172.56.15.85 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned with WP:OUTING issues in the posts above. Does anybody share my concern? Should we bring this to ANI for review and revdel if needed? This is not a comment about the editing concerns being raised about Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire), which may or may not be valid. I'll look into that separately. It is a question about OUTING. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your concern. Someone should also make a judgment call about coatracking in that article. I'm not sure the church is notable without the Tina Anderson case, and the case is perhaps important enough to stand on its own.--John Foxe (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • John your long running defense of fundamental Christian issues related to Bob Jones [REDACTED] has clouded your judgment as demonstrated by your careful editing of the article to make the best light possible out of major national news story at the time. It repeatedly made national news because of the way the Pastor Chuck Phelps treated a young student from a troubled family who was raped by a wealthy parishioner who was allowed to stay in the church for years after Chuck Phelps knew he had impregnated the teenage girl. Phelps then subjected the girl to ridiculous questioning and embarrassment and then sent her off thousands of miles away where the police where unable to contact her. It is about the church but one could argue more so about Chuck Phelps. The story received the attention only because Phelps handled it very improperly from a moral standpoint that shocked even the secular world. [REDACTED] That blatant and egregious COI is why I brought this up here. I have a question, why do you believe COI does not apply to you concerning this article? John your long history of abusive editing is very troubling. Again this all started because you repeatedly added libelous material to the Peter Ruckman which has since been thoroughly cleansed as a result of the BLP investigation I started at your challenge to report you. There are so many COI's concerning articles you have worked on that I have discovered that it appears your account is largely used to promote a fundamental Bob Jones agenda. One thing Wikipedia is not for is religious warring. [REDACTED] John, I believe you have been given some remarkable gifts but you must apply them with compassion, reason and integrity and remember who you claim to represent. 172.56.15.75 (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Trinity Church article is a clear and unambiguous coatrack article, self-evidently created to cover the rape - a subject which would otherwise not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Since it is obvious that the church doesn't meet our notability guidelines either, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trinity Baptist Church was created due the enormous amount of press attention (very notable) the church received due the emotional and verbal abuse of a rape victim by her pastor and other church officials. The article could be renamed the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) Scandal but that may not please John Foxe and some others in the fundamental circles who would like to see the scandalous behavior suppressed. Another option would be the Chuck Phelps scandal but most of the news reports seemed to focus on the church so that does not work. Bottom line the atrocious handling of a rape of vulnerable girl is what brought it to 20/20 and most major news outlets. It is definitely notable so it is clearly not a coatrack. The title could be improved by renaming it Trinity Baptist Church (rape scandal) as it is really about the rape scandal at Trinity Baptist church. The information about the church's current attendance/status is irrelevant.172.56.15.75 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the unambiguous acknowledgement that the article is a coatrack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take the article to WP:AFD and WP:BLP/N for action. The crime seems potentially notable enough to have an article, but probably the Church is non-notable and its article is merely a coat rack for discussing the crime. The content appears to be well-sourced. As for outing concerns, IP editor, please stop discussion who John Foxe is in real life. It is entirely immaterial to Wikipedia. If his editing is biased, it can be dealt with as biased, regardless of the reason for the bias. If as he claims, he hasn't touched the article since 2011, nothing needs to be done about him now. (If he's lying, which I will check, I would block him straight away.) I'm going to strip some bits from your comments about to protect his privacy, though he may not deserve it, because Wikipedia is very cautious about outing its editors. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    * I'd like to turn this discussion back to COI issues. As far as I am concerned, there is no "statute of limitations" in WP. John Foxe made three big batches of edits back in 2011. (there are IP edits too but who knows who did those):

      • dif 1 where Foxe:
        • added (for example) "Anderson's mother has consistently supported Phelps, crediting him with the "purest of motives." with support from the very not-independent source: http://www.drchuckphelps.com/mothers-statement.html Chuck Phelps website
        • removed, for example: "Other former church members accuse Trinity Baptist as being harmful. Matt Barnhart, a church member for 15 years, said he and his family left the church in 2010 because he had “misgivings about church teachings, including about "worldly" practices, as well as the "discipline" of the alleged victim (Tina Anderson), which he witnessed years earlier. Another former member, Jocelyn Zicterman, said the church covered up incidents of physical and sexual abuse by her own family members" sourced to here
      • dif 2... these changes updated the article with the results of the trial. Mostly neutral.
      • dif 3 I think mostly neutral. Updated sentencing. Add Phelps (the supposed focus of his COI) resignation, under pressure from public campaign. Added appeal.

    In my view the edits in diff 1 are terribly bad judgement - especially the content putting Phelps in a positive light sourced to Phelps' website. That is really crap sourcing by WP's basic editing standards, and even uglier doing it in favor of the guy in power while all this went down, and beyond ugly in the context of it happening in a church.

    Background: There was a prior discussion of Foxe's COI with regard to Bob Jones, see here which was converted to a case at ANI which was closed with no consensus for action.

    Folks here, I recommend that we ask John Foxe to agree to avoid making any edits to this topic going forward and to avoid making any potentially controversial edits to other content related to Bob Jones University again - and instead to follow the WP:COI guideline going forward. And if he won't agree to self-limit, we should consider trying to get such a limit established via ANI (topic ban probably will not fly after the recent long ANI). Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't made any edits to this article since 2011, and I gladly agree not to make any in the future. Fair enough?--John Foxe (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    whew. i am catching my breath from the flippancy of that response. John, based on that, and on your apparent lack of self-insight into whatever it was that led you to make what has got to be one of the most conflicted edits I have ever seen in WP, hell no. Some acknowledgement and I (speaking just for me) might have said OK. But with that response, hell no. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we really asking for sanctions for a 4 year old edit the person who made it has not repeated and has indicated they won't make again? --Jayron32 02:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you hate rhetorical questions? Actually "the person" showed zero insight into the conflicted edit - what we got was "oh I don't care about that topic, no skin off my back not to touch it again" and no engagement with the topic at hand - namely COI. No promise whatsoever to be more careful with regard to COI. For anybody scholarly that flippancy with regard to COI is a big flag saying "Don't trust me". At this point, I favor seeking enforcement of the COI guideline via ANI. I will wait for other input. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make it a statement. The edit in question was 4 years ago, and the user in question has unambiguously promised not to make it again. If you take this up at ANI, it will be laughed off the page and you'll be made a fool of for being so petty as to dig through 4 years of history and demand action for such a singular, non-repeated violation. That's not a rhetorical question, that's a fact, Jack.--Jayron32 06:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You made your point clear, thanks. What you present as a fact is your prediction, which may or may not be realized, should I go ahead with an ANI. The edit is egregious and the editor shows no sign that he is aware of that; the response was dismissive. What he actually promised was to not edit that article again; he didn't promise to mind his COI better. As I said, the editor has a clear COI and if he cannot manage that himself, in my view the community will have to do that for him. The reason I looked at the edits is also clear - this COIN posting. There is no witch-hunting, petty digging - that is a mischaracterization of what has happened. I'll see what other folks have to say before acting. And what I would propose at ANI is that John Foxe be obligated to follow the WP:COI guideline with respect to the topic, Bob Jones University for which he is a clear advocate. Not a topic ban. I think that is reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jayron32, the problem is that it is not an isolated event. Foxe regularly (though not always - he has made good and significant contributions to Wikipedia) makes edits that reflect a COI and takes a defiant stance when they are challenged. The text he inserted into the Peter Ruckman article (see this diff for the removal of text he had inserted over time after a recent BLP report) also shows a lack of respect for Wikipedia policies and a conflict of interest. He regularly edits articles with which he has a personal view (Peter Ruckman, mormonism related for example) to "oust" or "expose the truth" which I believe rises to the level of a conflict of interest since he is a religious professor of a different faith. Like I said, Foxe makes many useful edits, but he has no recognition of why certain edits are inappropriate. He'll apologize and agree to topic bans or other remedies, but a few months, and in some cases, a few years later, he is right back at his former ways. I personally don't know how to address his consistent success at gaming the system Vertrag (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Compile a list of violations with the resulting agreements not to do it again. If the list shows substantial recidivism, you can say, "We need a formal topic ban because prior voluntary agreements haven't prevented further problems." I predict that such a request, if based on solid evidence, would be passed at AN/I, thereby resolving the problem. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Jehochman, WP:RFCU is thataway. Also, what you JUST said was in no way said before I made my statement above. Based on Jytdog's statement, we had a diff to a problematic edit 4 years ago and a demand for action. No f'n way based on that. You can't then say "No Jayron, you're wrong because he's done X, Y, and Z more recently". No, I wasn't wrong because no one told anyone about X, Y, and Z. If there's a problem to be dealt with, gather your evidence, start a WP:RFCU or something similar, and present the evidence of a long term problem. I'm not saying there isn't a long term problem (and by saying that, I am also not saying there IS a long term problem. I am not committing one way or another on the existence or non-existence of such a problem). My objection is to ask the community for a sanction based on the evidence of a single 4-year-old edit. I'm saying that is not evidence of a problem. That's different from saying that it's evidence there is no problem. There may or may not be. But don't say I was wrong in my initial assessment based on evidence you didn't provide for me to make that assessment. AND, most importantly, this is not the venue for such a discussion. If it should be had, ANI (or better yet, RFCU) would be the place to present it, so long as the evidence is clear and not based on a single statement from 4 years ago. A pattern of behavior and recidivism (and "I didn't like the quality of his apology just now" is not recidivism) is a good start. --Jayron32 22:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayron, RFCU was discontinued in December - "thataway" is a dead end. Also, there is a short section above called "background" that lays out prior history - it was right there to look at. you are making really strong statements based on partial and wrong information and i don't understand why. your comments here are not adding light nor useful guidance and i don't know how this popped up on your radar. anyway....Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaygan Kheradpir

    Was hoping to attract potential watchlisters and participants to the page in general and to this discussion in particular. The reason I brought it up here is because I have a disclosed COI with the man's former employer, Juniper Networks, having created this version of the article in a Bright Line(ish) format with @FreeRangeFrog:. The other editor, Intchar*, has an editing pattern that very strongly suggests a non-disclosed COI. We seem unable to reach agreement on quite a few things spanning the inclusion of awards, unsourced patent claims, excluding products his team made that were unsuccessful, and so on. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Greta Berlin and Free Gaza (again)

    The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[11] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[12]

    A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com.[13]

    It was again brought up with no comments:.[14]

    The user name is the same as a publicly shared email address. Tecspk@aol.com is again removing content from the article.

    I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    notice wasn't provided. i did that and also tagged the Greta Berlin article itself for COI and added the connected contributors tag. Cptnono you seem pretty familiar with the long history here - do you reckon you behavioral grounds for an SPI case? That may be the swiftest way to deal with this, and would be good to resolve in any case. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh... did the notice last week but not this recent time. Bad form on my part. Thanks.
    SPI could be beneficial. I believe it is a matter of DUCK but other eyes is always good. The IP might have changed (if Truegreta and Tecspk@aol.com are the same) but maybe not. The accounts are infrequent but it would be nice to have a record i case it comes up again. Should I move this over there?Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IF you see strong behavioral patterns, that would be your best path by far, yes. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider watching Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies

    Hello. I note that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies there are several questions about COI issues. This is a WikiProject which is getting several posts a month, so is more popular than most. I stopped in there because my student in the Wikipedia Education Program went there. I responded to a couple of old queries but there are several there asking for help with COI. Is there a template response which anyone here routinely gives?

    Also, if anyone is interested in watching these things, WikiProject Companies could use watchers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    USC Eye Institute

    Article was created by ResearchOnCommand - very promotional; was almost immediately deleted per PROD by Jimfbleak after Cwmhiraeth moved it through AfC. Cwmhiraeth took responsibility and re-created the article (non-promotionally!) and I added more stuff. Today a new account Mdraper91101 has started coming through and dumping more promotional crap into the article. I note that the USC Eye Institute was associated with a nonprofit called the Dehaney Eye Institute since the mid-1970s and together they built an authentically rocking program. The two just went through a divorce, with Dehaney allying with USC's rival, UCLA, and it is really obvious that the newly naked USC EYe Institue is trying to re-establish itself. Blatant promo/COI editing going on. I've tagged for COI and notified the editors. Mdraper is also edit warring. Please watch and help. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    this edit is really telling. Removed reference to Doheny and dumped in an already-prepared (and unsourced) listing of All The Great Things That Have Been Done There. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected for three months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Doc, I'm watching the page too now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both of you! Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ResearchOnCommand (talk · contribs) also created Frank P. Paniagua, Jr., who was involved with something called "Green Plug" (a power supply device) which got some press back in 2010-2011 and hasn't been heard of since. I put a "prod" on that. John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    St John Ambulance (England and the Islands)

    We have a problem at the article St John Ambulance (England and the Islands) where there have been massive numbers of edits over recent days by User:Benjaminbrill. This editor has made several references in edit summaries to "being paid" by St John Ambulance (the subject of the article) to re-write it for them. Today the same editor has removed whole sections and their references. Some of these references are deadlinks, but I have notified the editor that he/she should be tagging these as deadlinks, rather than mass section blanking. The editor's own user page quite blatantly states that he is a single-issue editor with a clear COI. Indeed, he states that he is a paid editor. The current wording of his user page is: "I am a writer who has been employed by St John Ambulance (England) to update its Wikipedia pages." I would request Administrator intervention, and reversion of this editor's recent edits. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hum yes. So this organization is directly paying to have the article rewritten and that editor is directly rewriting it. They have disclosed and discussed on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i have tagged the article and its Talk page and left the user warning on the editor's talk page. Article itself needs reviewing still.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not bite the newby. He has done the first thing needed correctly - he has reported that he is a paid editor per the Terms of Use and identified his employer. I'd say the next thing to do is to ask him to make any proposed corrections on the talk page, and let other editors make the actual edits. Finally some advice: Ben - please don't make any edits (even on the talk page) that look like adverts. This can be hard when somebody is paying you, but it can be done. This is why we prefer to have an independent editor make the actual edits to the article. At that point, all we have to do is say "Thanks for the cooperation!" My thanks in advance to all, Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Samsung C&T Corporation, Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, and Lakhta Center

    User appears to be affiliated with Russian gas company Gazprom, adding semi-promotional and unencyclopedic material on more than one instance. Procellam (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kristina451 and High-frequency trading

    This person has been excessively editing the High-frequency trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article without giving other editors an opportunity to review his edits for encyclopedic quality.

    I followed his contributions list and found that there is a repeat pattern of either inserting content excessively critical to algorithmic traders, or tidying up the pages describing vocal critics of algorithmic traders.

    The person identifies himself as a "professional trader", which seems to provide modus operandi for the biased position against this specific group of traders?

    I think this level of overzealousness in such a narrow scope of articles cannot be the work of a neutral editor.

    Quickly looking at the edits by Kristina451 to High Frequency Trading [15], the insertions are well-cited and don't look bad, but some of the deletions may be a concern. It's not promotion or link-stuffing. I'd suggest looking through that set of edits linked above and seeing what needs to be re-inserted. There may be a POV here, but I'm not seeing a COI. The editor involved seems to be willing to discuss this on article talk pages.John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it's good to have your reassurance. I will do that and work things out with the editor. We can close this issue for now. MelissaHebert (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Enbridge

    IP is registered to the subject of the article. User has been warned previously, and there is a previous COIN discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Enbridge_editing_Enbridge. Recent edit to the article: [16]. The edit may or may not be appropriate, but this user should request the edit on the article talk page rather than editing directly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OfficeoftheSpeaker

    Account that appears to be official government department adding advertorial content to the Speaker of Queensland parliament's page. Have warned. Also on WP:UAA#User-reported -- Aronzak (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Morris (biologist)‎

    Yesterday, an IP editor started altering the Brian Morris article and adding a lot of information to it. The IP also included a substantial amount of peacock terms and general aggrandizing of Brian Morris' accomplishments, leading me to suspect an association with him. After reverting the edits, the IP (presumably) created an account with the name "Professor emeritus brian morris" (spaces added), making it almost certain that this user is, indeed, Brian Morris editing his own page. I reverted his changes once more this morning and they have been re-reverted, though with a fair bit of toning down of the puffery. I'm nevertheless concerned about the potential bias being introduced into the article. Brian Morris is a relatively controversial circumcision advocate and the article now contains statements like "...[others and] Morris demonstrated that RACP policies on infant male circumcision were not evidence-based" which were not there previously. I'm concerned that, even after toning down, there may now be a substantial bias to the article based on Brian Morris' own interpretation of events. – Robin Hood  (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting! I re-did your deletion. re-added COI tag. added connected contributor tag. watching the article. asked PBM to disclose whether he has has a conflict or not on his Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to keep the COI after reverting, so thanks for doing that. I've learned my new thing for today. :) – Robin Hood  (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Bell (entrepreneur)

    99designs

    Eponymous account working on article. Have given them a username warning, have tagged article and talk page and notified account of this posting. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    System Development Integration

    Creator account is a SPA, appears to be a throwaway used for this purpose. article is very promotional. COI-usernamed account was recently created and made edits; they are currently applying for new username. i have tagged the article and talk page, and warned both users. article needs review for NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Niall Mellon

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) edits by IP listed above have removed negative sourced content and added unsourced positive POV content. Likely COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Carol M. Swain

    my username: Minnie Katz

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Minnie Katz (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe one or more editors of the page for Carol M. Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University, is seeking to promote Swain's views on Islam by linking to them under a dubious "Controversy" category.

    It appears that the major purpose of the insertion of this text is to draw attention to a recent opinion piece by Swain published in the Nashville newspaper. I have deleted this text twice as irrelevant to Swain's career history. Each time, another editor has reinserted it.

    The opinion piece referenced in the new section wasn't notable, and neither was the reaction to it. Other aspects of Swain's career, such as books she has published, are more notable. The incident someone is trying to insert into her biography is not appropriate material for a reference service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnie Katz (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

    i looked at this. i see no evidence of COI. New user making a (sadly typical) mistake of personalizing a content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heritage Documentation Programs

    This user has been editing the article to include links to a photographer's website. The username transparently suggests that the user is the photographer, Stephen Schafer. I initially removed the link added by an IP editor because it didn't seem to meet WP:EL, and the person then added a short quote with the website as a reference. It seems to be the editor's intent to work their website into the article in any way that'll stick, rather than improving the article. (The website may be in principal useful as a B-quality source until the article is improved.) Knight of Truth (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=648885449"