Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 95

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D0kkaebi

Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

(last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

To sum it up:

Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Signature copied here by Brianhe for clarity

Discussion of problem by Azurfrog and Oliv0, 11 September 2015–13 September 2015
  • Reasons for this suspicion:
  • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Amplification by Francis Le français, 14 September 2015
Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
  1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
  2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
  1. [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
  2. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything !
  3. [4] he protects bad sources
  4. [5] WP:OR
  5. [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
  6. [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
  7. [10] removes a critical source
  8. [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
  9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

--Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

rebuttal by D0kkaebi, rebuttal to rebuttal by Francis Le français, 15 September 2015
Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
  1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
  2. Same change, same revert.
  3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
  4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
  5. Same changes as above, no justification
  6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
  7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
  8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
  9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
  1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
  2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
  3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
  4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
  5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
  6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
  7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
  8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
  9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

--Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More information and request for action by Oliv0, 18 September 2015–9 October 2015 – part 1

 Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

  • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
  • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for COI

by Oliv0 – part 2

Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI:

  • "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait;
  • The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00;
  • "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these;
  • Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP.

Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for bias

by Oliv0 – part 3

I can see nothing will happen here if I do not follow Huon's advice on my talk page, so it seems I am forced by COI/N rules to show the actual bias, though I am sorry to worsen tensions this way and I thought the evidence for COI would be enough as explained in WP:COIBIAS.

  • 21 February 2011: "patriotism", a positive word without a source
  • 6 March 2011: making "Popular Republican Union" a disambiguation page with Popular Republican Union (2007) instead of keeping the name for the "dominant party in Alsace during the Interwar era"
  • 9 March 2011: in the source added (now on archive.org) no mention of "the second highest honors"
  • 27 March 2011: "patriotism" again for PRU though not in the source given (at the time this text on archive.org), which is the PRU website
  • 9 March 2012: Asselineau in the ENA article among "famous alumni", all much more famous
  • 25 March 2012: hiding the poor result (17 signatures out of the 500 needed) behind the need for secondary sources, the source removed is a video of Asselineau himself giving this number in his official declaration, a correct source since he cannot be suspected of giving a worse result
  • 4 April 2012: same thing, now unsourced after he removed the source
  • 9 April 2012: PRU in list of French parties with political position "gaul[l]ism, euroscepticism", gaullism is a positive word without a source
  • 29 October 2013: Asselineau's thoughts on vocabulary in article Euroscepticism are hardly relevant
  • 2 November 2013: "Gaullism" added (would need an independent source) and at the same time removal of PRU website source about not claiming to be gaullist and still being most gaullist of all
  • 30 March 2014: removing as "vandalism" several good changes: the poor result of 17 signatures whose source he previously removed, the removal of "the second highest honors" not present in the source, the removal of "thoughtful" as a bad translation of the source sérieux ("serious" candidates, as opposed here to fantaisistes "fanciful, strange ones")
  • 2 October 2014: removing as "no connection with political platform" a passage with a source (Le Plus, collaborative but here edited by a journalist Louise Pothier) about Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/Front National, Bush and Marianne
  • 12 October 2014: undoing as "ultra bias" (and trying to control through "expose your changes one by one" on talk page) a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style
  • 20 February 2015: reintroducing "neither right nor left" without an independent source (only the party PRU says so) and membership figures quoted from the party (though maybe all parties do so) - many similar changes follow in an episodic edit war with IPs and then with User:Francis Le français
  • 8 July 2015: removing newspaper Sud-Ouest showing doubts about membership figures (which also says Asselineau is "anchored at the right of the right")
  • 24 July 2015: insisting with a ref ("the last sentence of the article") on "centrist", a bad translation of the source where Asselineau says (primary source, insufficient here) "we are beyond (transcendons) right and left"
  • 30 July 2015: "Gaullism" back, and moderating PRU's claim they are "the most visited French political party website" by "one of" not present in the source (le plus consulté) - many similar changes follow in an edit war with User:Francis Le français
  • 9 September 2015: undoing my changes, though I explained them and then checked about the COI with Lawren00 and warned about it on the talk page, which brought me to WP:AN/I for "personal attack" and "outing", and then here.

Oliv0 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Restart

Pardon me for folding the big discussion above, but this needs a restart. It seems reasonable for an uninvolved editor to ask D0kkaebi if he is a PRU party official, given that his former username on Wikipedia is the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing by giving the full name of the real-world person involved. The COIN process can go from there. – Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a new template, based on Jytdog's way of handling COI questions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Question (includes documentation). This has been posted to User talk:D0kkaebi which seems to be as much as needs to be done at the moment. He hasn't edited since a month ago. - Brianhe (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
IMHO we should let sleeping dogs lie... Vrac (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Answers by Oliv0 to calls for inaction, all off-topic of whether D0kkaebi has a COI
Some of them never sleep. Oliv0 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, so could a francophone tell me, is this Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme an active group/force on the French Wikipedia? Maybe what we've seen here is essentially spillover from a wider issue. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen the (most recent) ANI thread? This battle has been going on for about 5 years and has spilled over into most of the wikiverse. There is a lot of history here. Vrac (talk)
Also see my conclusion after your analysis there: "after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch", meaning that your suggestion to "bury the hatchet" (WP:DEADHORSE) cannot solve the problem.
And to answer Brianhe's question: that "PRU wiki group" was only an ad-hoc group reporting on how Wikipedia is unfair and biased about Asselineau, I was hinting at their "national manager for Internet activism" (last sentence says Internet helps against Asselineau's "ban from the media", no details but WP is not the primary goal). Oliv0 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
You (collectively, the frwiki editors) have been on this crusade for years (absurd, absurder, absurdest) so I'm not likely to dissuade you. I'll leave you with a sentence from the German AFD as food for thought: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber (translation: Instructive case of "Cross-Wiki Anti-Spam Spamming". Wiki witch-hunt fever.) Vrac (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This is something I mentioned above (beginning of the closed box "part 1"), the article about Asselineau once in 102 Wikipedias, now 20 after a cross-wiki action warned about the French AfD, which may have been spam against spam but was helpful to the 82 (!) WPs that deleted it. Anyway, anything else than the COI report is off topic here. Oliv0 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure it is off-topic. Perhaps the COIN case is just another angle to continue the same crusade. Vrac (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Whoever reports it, it is useful to determine whether there is a COI because of WP:COI "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Oliv0 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(off-topic part folded) No answer yet, @Jytdog and Brianhe: what is next in this way of handling COI? Note that D0kkaebi has frequently been absent for 3 or 4 months in a row, last time in Nov-Dec-Jan 2014/2015. And as I suggested Azurfrog on AN/I, the only thing I request here on COI/N is some community approval to use COI-related templates.

I think what I would use would only be {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1 (maybe also the AfDs for François Asselineau, but this template is probably not intended for AfD pages). These are the talk pages where user D0kkaebi/Lawren00 has a predominant role and generally directs discussions, telling others about the rules. The aim is that unsuspecting editors reading them would not be fooled by his pretended neutrality, and could use talk pages normally without the influence of the COI. Oliv0 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a question for Vrac too isn't it? Anyway I'm not in a hurry to get into this. What's the rush? – Brianhe (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I did it so now my question is clear, no rush to answer, there can be implicit approval. If D0kkaebi does not come back within 3 months (limit for RCU data, at least on the French WP), it may also help remembering he may use a new account. Oliv0 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Oliv0: Let's assume good faith and not jump to the conclusion that he will be back socking. However, I'm realistic and know that sometimes COI editors do this. We have ways of taking care of that if it becomes necessary. Can I have your permission to archive this case now? – Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I have at least some approval by experienced COI/N contributors like you for my two diffs I give above, that is the template {{Connected contributor}} on the talk pages of the two articles involved, so that in its "|U1-otherlinks=" parameter the link to this COI/N case could be a reasonable justification for it and could avoid its removal? So far the closest I have seen is your mention of "the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing", and your allusion to "sometimes COI editors" just above. All opinions are welcome. Oliv0 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic of whether D0kkaebi has a COI
I have been asked by @Oliv0 (talk · contribs) to weight in. Based on reading links posted here by OlivO, I came to the conclusion that, on one hand, accused user (D0kkaebi) is most probably a follower of UPR party (enthusiast, member or whatever) but also, on the other hand, that he has been both civil and trying to reach consensus. His interest is certainly a fuel for his writing and editing. It is no surprise people giving hard work on a small page like this will be either followers or opponents. In choosing to talk and find consensus he has proven he was willing to avoid conflict of interest from his part. On the other hand, his opponents also have interest (whatever it may be) in this page and hope to hide it... which in the end, sorry, didn't work with me. Nobody can hide behind neutrality. Nobody is neutral. Neutrality is to be reached together. Witch-hunting is also a conflict of interest. Now it is easy to judge. On one side an alleged follower on the other side alleged witch hunters. One tried to reach consensus together with opposing party. The others retorted to cheap tactics, deleting and calling themselves authority. What matters is less the "possible conflict of interest" of one side than the "conflict of interest at work" of the other. Now, I think it would be better people burry the hatchet... Or leave it to new contributors (english-speaking ones if it is not too much to ask). Tl;dr : not guilty. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
On the talk pages that I mentioned I do see he directs discussions so as to reach in the articles what is #Evidence for COI, finding rules to oppose all other contributions even with correct sources, and his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus". It makes a sharp difference with people like Azurfrog and me who are really neutral (Francis Le français is less experienced on WP and may have done things in haste). As I said above, my {{Connected contributor}} on these talk pages means he only pretends to be neutral and nobody should be fooled, and approving this template or not is the only thing I am requesting here: do you mean it should not be there? What do others think? (@Brianhe, Vrac, and Jytdog:) (Note: the IP is French but I feel the command of English is far above all French users so far including me.) Oliv0 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You said: "his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus"." I honestly have to disagree. He was indeed calm and civil at least until Azurfrog came in. And, I am sorry, but there is no way I could defend Azurfrog's behavior on that one. As much as I can agree there is a sharp difference between them two I rather saw benevolence on the accusee's side than on Azur's side. This said, he also seems a far less experienced user, as is also shown in his attachment to his contributions, which might have contributed to the situation. Finally, I rather separate Azurfrog's contribution from yours, as I noticed you at least have been correct with me, though I didn't side with you. I hope it is a sign you are not afraid of consensus yourself. P.S.: I indeed live in France and I begin to think this Asselineau page better be edited by people far from here. 80.215.170.172 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"Azurfrog came in" here, doing as I said in #Evidence for bias "a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style" one year ago (trying to use only the best secondary sources found in the ongoing French AfD), D0kkaebi tried to stay in control of François Asselineau ("expose your changes one by one") but failed and stopped editing it, so D0kkaebi's patronising style and control of that talk page is not after but before Azurfrog came in. Oliv0 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Writing in a patronizing style while trying to find common ground is still civil (however unpleasant the patronizing might feel to some). Attempting to block articles and deleting other's work together with lack of communication is not, whatever write-style is used. Just my two cents... Anyway, I can't comprehend how this debate moved here. This is not French Wikipedia. Anyway, about the {{Connected contributor}}, if it is indeed necessary, I think it should come from him, not us. For me, at this point it is both unproven and useless. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
This is what this page COI/N is for: determination of the COI coming from us, not him. #Evidence for COI is above. Oliv0 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
What are we talking about? A global corporation? An all mighty lobby (like pharmaceutical, weapons or GMOs)? Is a small party like this even able to pay anybody? What is at stake? That a party that small, that broke and with so little means of expression be labelled leftist, rightist or neither? It would have to be very important for me to support violating someone's privacy and anomimity on the net just for that. I think it's not and I stand by these values. It's the usual question of security against freedom. Respect for privacy and anomimity on the net are precious tokens of freedom. Let's not retort to fascistic methods. Let's try to find a better idea. And once again, it is clear some people who wrote about this party are in a COI from an opposing source (not to mention anybody here out of courtesy, but Rudy Reichsdadt, seriously???) and these sources are both able and willing to pay for it (e.g. the French socialist party has a notorious history of doing just this). Neutrality in politics is a fragile thing. The accusee would maybe better admit his links (if any) on the condition he would be protected from consequences. History taught us finding the common good is key. P.S. Aren't we all blowing this thing out of proportion? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So does COIN consensus determine that D0kkaebi=Lawren00 has a COI for articles François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) so that the relevant talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}} ? No need to consider any off-topic discussion above, only #Evidence for COI. (Added note: Azurfrog too would like contributors not to consider the IP's personal opinion that nobody is neutral and that he — a French admin who greatly contributed to some of the main guidelines there a long time ago — is an unexperienced user with a wrong behaviour, but rather consider his explanation of why the COI is blatant.) Oliv0 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I said D0kkaebi didn't seem experienced. Never said such thing of Azurfrog. Don't put words in my mouth. Thank you. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That was "he also seems a far less experienced user" in my last link above, so it seems you meant it to explain the "attachment to his contributions" of the user with a COI D0kkaebi/Lawren00, who has contributed so much and so loudly for many years in many AfDs, Delrevs and talk pages about Asselineau/PRU on the French WP and here that I did not see he is the one you call less experienced. Oliv0 (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, your message isn't decipherable for me. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, on the French Village Pump recent and older media exposure has been found and the article about Asselineau now has good chances to be restored and kept, so I started the Delrev fr:WP:DRP#François Asselineau (32) (yes the 32nd one, this is how much French admins have been pestered with this), which brings some hope that the English WP will no longer be the main place for information about the man and the main playing ground for his fans. (Added note: fr:François Asselineau was kept. And 3 months have passed since D0kkaebi was last seen, so this COI/N lost its purpose and can be archived.) Oliv0 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My last two cents here: The COI in which D0kkaebi is involved is blatant, and clearly demonstrated by the links I could provide within the limits of WP:Harassment (summarized above by Oliv0).
So I won't expatiate any further on the subject: it's now up to the sysops to make up their minds whether or not there is enough evidence to decide. As far as I am concerned, I just tried to help protect NPOV here; if nobody cares, I won't either and won't pursue the matter. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Columbia Theological Seminary and related biographies

The most serious problem here is that this user has ZERO Talk edits(Tool Labs Report), despite repeated attempts to make contact.

Jcstanley activity centers on Columbia Theological Seminary, and a slow steady indiscriminate mass-creation of biographies for individuals connected to Columbia Theological Seminary. Approximately one new biography every 25 days, FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. The biographies are beautifully constructed from technical standpoint, but they are heavily tagged for lack of Notability and Sourcing. The articles that aren't (yet) tagged are just as bad. Impressive looking "publication lists" include items like blog posts(OMGWTF). "Awards" sections get filled with a long series of research grants. During Deletion of John_William_Harkins there was discussions of mass-review and mass-deletion of these biographies. Discussion continued on my talk page and with three people commenting at User_talk:Jcstanley#Welcome.2C_but_we_have_a_problem. My hope was that Jcstanley's participation would reduce the workload of sorting out the mess, and possibly salvaging articles if any are actually Notable. Jcstanley ignored all comments and pings, and TODAY created Jeffery Tribble and added it to Columbia_Theological_Seminary#Current_Faculty.

I still hope to get Jcstanley's help cleaning up this mess. We need a formal COI, all articles will need COI notices, and I suspect it may take a temporary block to get Jcstanley to use Talk. Alsee (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his or her talkpage as an uninvolved party urging engagement with the community. - Brianhe (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
They've been given a first warning as of 1 December, and haven't edited since, but it's been less than a day. I proposed Paul J. Johnson for deletion, per WP:NACADEMICS. Let's see what happens next. John Nagle (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I've seen similar projects before years. The acceptability of doing this depends on two factors: the apparent notability of the individuals, and the non-promotional nature of the bio. (Copyvio is frequently present in such cases also, but in some instances the individual might be willing and able to give permission, altho the material will generally still not be usable.) As for notability under WP:PROF, about 25% of these are either former presidents of the school , or holders of endowed professorships--tho this is an independent college and not a major university, I'd probably consider such people notable, and if the obvious COI editor had confined himself to them, there would be much less of a problem. (endowed Associate professorships, btw, have generally not been considered to intrinsically meet WP:PROF.) For the others, WP:PROF depends upon publications, and probably a many of them will meet the requirement. (As a complicating factor, we have in the past differed about considering non-scholarly works for this purpose, and often not considered it met by people writing entirely minor pastoral books and the like). And there is always the possibility of WP:GNG. If someone wants to help, the first thing to do is check against the college CV for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to list a few additional prods, to try to reduce the number that need consideration at AfD. They all will, unfortunately, haveto be considered separately, as they will all have different degrees of notability. I do not think a joint nomination will be fair. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Grace Dieu Manor School

The page on this school, which was the scene of sexual abuse crimes, has had a fairly stormy editing history. A relatively recent SPA is The Gallop, whose latest edit summary reads "reinstated a verified list of previous headmasters supplied by the Trustees of Grace Dieu Manor School". I've twice left a WP:COI warnings on the editor's talk-page, apparently without effect. More eyes, please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's a source for the list, it would normally be considered appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

EagerToddler39

articles edited
articles created - businesses
articles created - businesspeople, professional servicepeople, entertainers
articles created - other

There is solid off-wiki evidence that this editor has worked for hire on Theodore Harold Maiman. Reviewing their editing history shows a concentration of topics of commercial concern such as Roger Smith Hotel, Endgame, Inc., real estate developer Jose Roberto Antonio, etc. The edits to Laser bonding look like a virtual advertisement for a particular company (diff).

This pattern has been noted on the editor's talkpage by Bilby (here), Looie496 (here), and Themfromspace (here).

In a previous COIN discussion the editor neither confirmed nor denied paid editing. — Brianhe (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this editor active at Flexenclosure which rang a bell. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Amalto and others. - Brianhe (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Toned down the Laser bonding article a bit. What else needs attention? John Nagle (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Nagle, thanks. I've marked some articles as "cleaned"; pretty much everything else could be reviewed, especially articles created by this editor. I will send them the usual uw-paid template but not sure I'll be able to follow up on it. If other editors could keep an eye on their contribs and userpage, that would be helpful. -- Brianhe (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
One more note. FrenchFriedAnything created the article Worldview Entertainment, which was later expanded almost 50% by this editor. FrenchFriedAnything is a Morning277 sock. – Brianhe (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Found Context Relevant job also listed in the same off-wiki source as Theodore Harold Maiman. There is no doubt in my mind that this is undisclosed paid editing. -- Brianhe (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit history of Slidely is informative. There is just one after another confirmed or suspected sockpuppeteer and/or undisclosed paid editor, starting with Formatpainter, a checkuser-confirmed sock, and including BiH who's now blocked for promo editing. – Brianhe (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jassy pal edited together with ET39 at Mercia Fund Management, High-Tech Bridge, Mobile Fun. – Brianhe (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, EagerToddler39 was doing paid editing for a long time - there's enough evidence (especially offwiki) that there's no question that this was the case. However, as far as I know they having been engaging in paid editing for a few months now - in part, perhaps, because they haven't really been editing. I never saw anything to suggest that they ran sockpuppets or similar - like often happens, you get a fair bit of overlap between paid editors, as a client might hire two-three editors now for a single job, or they might hire different editors for the same article over time. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Causey

A short bio created nine years ago with few sources has apparently become a vanity autobiography, still inadequately sourced. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's a blatant copyvio from https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=causeym. I've stubbed it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable geezer, vanity article—surely a suitable candidate for AfD? Writegeist (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was created in 2006 by User:AJ Raymond, not Causey [24]. I find that often articles on academics are created by their students or colleagues. Causey only started attempting to "improve" it this year. In any case, he might scrape notability at an AfD; he has considerable library holdings and citations. Voceditenore (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media

Paewiki posted to ANI about persistent problematic edits to Rhema Media. Turns out the usernames involved all connect to the organization in one way or another, so seemed relevant to mention here. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rhema Media. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed out much of the hype. We need a station list with call signs, transmitter locations, power, and frequencies. John Nagle (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

XacBank

XacBank is a Mongolian financial institution. There is a Wikipedia entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XacBank

In August 2015 a user named "Xacbank" made rather extensive edits to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xacbank

This user eventually was banned, but their edits remain. Should all of their changes simply be rolled back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:301:14F0:E940:9D09:3363:7803 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Neil Palmer Photography

I just nominated an article for deletion - Wasaphone. Within the opening paragraph, there is a statement that the company is run by "Tom Hackwell of Armchair Committee." I followed the redlink to the article and see it was an article created by the infamous Orangemoody. I will assume good faith at the moment and trust that these articles are NOT connected by socks of Orangemoody. However, here is why I found it interesting. The creator of Wasaphone also created another article - Neil Palmer Photography. From reading some of the history of Orangemoody, I believe there were a lot of photography articles created by socks. Not sure if it is coincidence or something worth closer at. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, Neil Palmer Photography looks like it could be AfD'd as well as a not-notable company -- samtar whisper 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
How about York Place Studios as well? - Brianhe (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Both of those articles seem to lack WP:ORGDEPTH notability and should be sent to AfD in my opinion. Any similar articles created by SPAs should be scrutinised.- MrX 12:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree - marked both AfD -- samtar whisper 13:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Americans for Legal Immigration

Persistent edit warring. Admitted his conflict of interest in this diff. Free Bullets (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Also left a message on my talk page asking me not to intervene. Free Bullets (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would think a block is in order at this point, even without the admitted conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The ip is under a 24 hr block. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on connected contributor template

Please see Template talk:Connected contributor#RfC: Template split and usage and add your two penn'orth. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest and attempted outing at Romanian Wikipedia

I am a Wikipedia editor at both English and Rumanian Wikipedia. I started contributing at Wikipedia at 2006. In 2007 two bureaucrats at Romanian Wikipedia accused me of conflict of interest and made attempted outing against me, based on the fact that I made contributions in articles related with Romanian Revolution. They asked my permaban at Romanian Wikipedia. I didn't make a formal complain about the attempted outing, I thought to let the community to decide if I was wrong. The community decided in my favour. Those two bureacrats were hurted in their ego by the fact that the community decided against their will and continued to harrass me. Other people who were on my side on the debate were also harrassed. Actually, almost nobody who was on my side in the conflict of 2007 is still active on Wikipedia. Myself, I stopped contributing at Wikipedia in 2008, because of harassments, however I had no formal interdiction. After that I made only short returns, almost only with comments on talk pages, not with editing articles. This year I returned at Romanian Wikipedia as I saw that an article about a leader of Romanian Revolution of 1989 was proposed for deletion. After that, harassment started again against me, I was blocked twice for "trolling" (there is a policy at Romanian Wikipedia which don't exist at English Wikipedia, based on which users can be blocked for "trolling"; I asked the deletion of this policy and this was also considered "trolling"). I was again accused of conflict of interest (keep in mind that I had almost no edits in articles' mainspace from 2008), and attempted outing was made again, in several Romanian Wikipedia pages, including my own talk page at Romanian Wikipedia. I tried to remove my attempted outing from my talk page and I was reverted, accused of "vandalising" my own talk page, and the nature of the block was changed, in order not be able to edit my own talk page. (after that, other accusations were made on my talk page but I am not able to answer). Any protest against attempted outing at Romanian Wikipedia is considered there as Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I've asked through e-mail User:Pafsanias (who is admin at Romanian Wikipedia) to oversight the edits where refference was made about my possible real-life identity (one of them was made by him) and he took no action.

I mention:

  • I didn't write at Wikipedia an article about myself or about a family member, while there is at Romanian Wikipedia an admin who wrote articles about himself and about a family member, and nobody cares about conflict of interest.
  • I didn't write an article about a personal friend or a person with which I have common commercial interests.
  • I was accused of conflict of interest because I suposedly participated in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and I edit Wikipedia articles on this topic. While I don't want to disclose my real-life identity, I do not deny my participation in the Romanian Revolution. There are hundreds of thousands of Romanians who participated at the Romanian Revolution, and around 20000 registered members of more than 100 associations of former revolutionaries. In my opinion, the aproach from Romanian Wikipedia, to accuse of conflict of interest persons who participated in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 if they are trying to contribute in articles related with this Revolution, while not making such accusations if supporters of the former Communist regime (overthrown by the Revolution) are trying to contribute at same articles, is hurting the NPOV.
  • In English Wikipedia my main area of interest was not Romanian Revolution, but Transnistria. I was even involved in the arbitration case about Transnistria where the arbitration comitee decided no sanction against me, but sanctions for all my opponents. It was a good decision, after that edit-warring in Transnistria-related articles stopped. However, in both English and Romanian Wikipedia I made some edits in topics related with Romanian Revolution.

I realized that the accusations of conflict of interest which were made against me at Romanian Wikipedia can follow me at English Wikipedia (recently, after a 5 year absence, I made few edits at Romanian Revolution). I want to know the community opinion, if is indeed a conflict of interest for someone who participated in a big historical event like the Romanian Revolution to edit Wikipedia articles related with Romanian Revolution? But if he is not editing such articles, but is expressing opinion in talk pages or articles for deletion debates (as it was recently my case at Romanian Wikipedia) about articles related with the Romanian Revolution?

Also, I want advice about the attempted outing which was done against me at Romanian Wikipedia. As after 2008 the number of my edits on both Romanian and English Wikipedia in the mainspace of articles is negligible (in English Wikipedia I made 13 mainspace edits in 2010 and 4 mainpace edits in 2015, no edits in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 [25]; in Romanian Wikipedia I made 1 mainspace edit in 2009, 11 mainspace edits in 2010, 1 mainspace edit in 2011, 11 mainspace edits in 2015, no edits in 2012, 2013, 2014 [26]), I do not consider myself such a danger to Wikipedia in order to justify the attempted outing, even in the eventuality that a conflict of interest exist. While in 2007 I tolerated the attempted outing in order to let the community to decide if is something wrong with my behaviour (and the decision of the community was in my favour), I don't want to accept new attempted outings today (the new attempted outings and 2 blocks for "trolling" against me at Romanian Wikipedia occured after I was against 2 nominations for admins at Romanian Wikipedia). I want oversighted the edits in Romanian Wikipedia which attempted to out me even against the will of admins at Romanian Wikipedia. I don't give specific DIFFs as it will mean to further expose the attempted outing. I will give the details to the person who is willing to oversight those edits.

I know it is not normal to bring problems of Romanian Wikipedia at English Wikipedia, but I don't know how to solve my attempted outing problem, as the Romanian Wikipedian community seems to consider WP:OUTING acceptabile and even positive. I listed 4 wikipedians involved in this case, while only I am involved in a possible conflict of interest (for which I ask the opinion of the community). User:Pafsanias and User:Accipiter Q. Gentilis are involved in attempted outing (Pafsanias also blocked me twice and Accipiter Q. Gentilis asked twice for my blocking, request accepted by Pafsanias), while User:Turbojet didn't make a clear outing, he only wrote that I am a revolutionary and he knows I will deny that I am a revolutionary, but this is wikilawyering (suggesting that my opinion against the deletion of the article about the leader of the Romanian Revolution is not a legitimate opinion; however, at the end the article was recovered). I never ever denied that I was a revolutionary in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (I didn't confirm it either), but from Turbojet's writings I saw that he trully believes that it is a conflict of interest if I express opinions about articles related with the Romanian Revolution, this is why I listed him as an involved part. I don't list the 2 bureacrats from Romanian Wikipedia who attempted to out me in 2007 because this is an old story and they didn't repeat the attempted outing recently.-MariusM (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We have no influence over the Romanian Wikipedia here. John Nagle (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We potentially do have influence if active ENWP users with advanced privileges on the Romanian Wikipedia are outing people in significantly harmful ways (I haven't looked at this enough to tell if it's the case, but even without going to the stewards or something I would feel perfectly comfortable blocking an active ENWP user if they continued to out people on other WMF projects. Obviously blocking them here would only matter if they care about editing here. That said, this is probably a more appropriate matter for the meta stewards or the office depending on the severity of outing involved.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no problem or COI with you editing articles on the English Wikipedia on the Romanian revolution if you were a participant. As you said, thousands and thousands of people took part in the revolution. I'm assuming that you're not actually mentioned in any articles as a leader or anything - how would they be outing you? Even if you are a prominent person now who took part in the revolution, I don't see any possible COI so long as you're not discussed in the articles. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maryam Hashemi

COI article deleted per G11 by JzG – Brianhe (talk) 14:35, 11 December 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.

I have unbolded the venues also cleaned up a bit, sorry I didn't realise it was being edited while I was adding details I thought it was my iPad error, I have added correct references also more up to date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahashemi (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Autobiography that's been up for six years. There's a strong sense of ownership, witness my attempts to un-boldface venues. Left to their own devices, this becomes something of a resume. I've attempted some clean up, using two IPs (not my intent, but my computer hops on its own), but would prefer others to take a look, so as not to edit war. Really needs more eyes. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Deleted as blatant advertising. The article was deleted, as Ms. Hashemi is well aware since she edited it prior to deletion, and it was re-created by Ms. Hashemi herself. This is not cool. Virtually all substantive edits are by the subject and the tone was that of a PR bio not a Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 11 December 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.

Chopra (again)

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a significant connection with the subject of Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Every now and then he engages in another push to whitewash critical material from the article, which is under long-term assault from Chopra cultists. I encourage others to review his comments and edits, which to my eye bear substantial signs of advocacy. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a voluntarily announced connection, admit a possible CoI and have therefore not edited the Deepak Chopra page. When I have issues with the article it is relating to specific, cited violations of BLP, reference integrity, or NPOV issues. I have been civil, have included references and policy suggestions, and have not indulged in WP:WALL. Especially considering I have not "advocated" for anything other than a review of the NPOV tone of the article, it seems excessive and offensive to call me a "cultist." The Cap'n (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, to be fair you do keep pushing to misrepresent sources[27]. Also, from you comments you appear to have some kind of connection to the recruiting pieces that keep appearing in the Huffington Post (e.g. here). Anything to say about that? Alexbrn (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no misrepresentation there. The statement you're supporting says that ayurveda has no evidence it can treat any illness, but the ref you're linking to includes a lengthy list of illnesses that evidence suggests ayurveda can influence. It's not misrepresentation to point out that's an OR citation problem. The Cap'n (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
We say it's not considered effective for treating any disease, which the source plainly says too (to quote: "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease"). That it also says some weak research "suggests" ayurveda can "influence" stuff in no way contradicts that. This is basic evidence-based medicine. I notice you made no reply about HuffPo which is publishing these recruiting articles by a employee of a company called ISHAR (which seems to have been established as an activist group lobbying to get Chopra's Wikipedia page changed). I note ISHAR are your declared employer too. Hmmm. WP:NOTHERE? Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right page to debate the strength of relative research (though I would argue editors deciding on their own that some of the research in a source is "weak" and others strong is exactly OR). I came here to answer accusations that I was violating CoI policies, which I think I have.
As far as your requests about revealing my identity and name, I don't think that's appropriate. A few weeks ago someone asked me that exact question, and within a day of my talking to them in WP:AGF they began harassing me off-wiki and tried to threaten my job. I'm not interested in revisiting that process. Regarding the article you reference, I do not see a conflict that a nonprofit I work for is outlining factual inaccuracies on a Wikipedia page (that I've already announced I will not edit), then explaining Wikipedia policies and encouraging readers to familiarize themselves with WP ethics and editing. You can't claim WP:SOAPBOX when the main complaint is that there are factual references not accurately represented in a NPOV manner. Likewise a nonprofit providing links to WP's own pages informing newcomers on how to get involved in a responsible way. The Cap'n (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the HuffPo article is silly stuff but that's not the point. ISHAR seems to be paying its employees to shill on behalf of Chopra by writing such propaganda (they of course will take the coin and obligingly dance to the money's tune). I'm not asking you to reveal your real-life identity (though there's nothing wrong with such disclosure, if voluntary), but I am thinking that anybody who is even part of this activist effort probably has no place on Wikipedia, especially if they're POV-pushing too (as you are). You've said nothing to reassure me on this point - the questions is, are you being paid to try and discredit and damage the Project ... because somebody is: the author of that stuff in HuffPo. It may be that you have some other role within ISHAR (collating material e.g.), but if you're part of this activist effort then I think there are concerns. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's stop with the name calling and inflammatory language. And lets stop thinking any one of us has a right to limit who becomes part of this community, especially if limited to a talk page, based on our own POVs.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

Well of course no "one" of us decides anything - it's for consensus. However, I suspect there will be consensus that it is - at the very least - problematic that an editor with a blaring FCOI seems to be stirring up trouble on an article Talk page which is then used as the basis of dodgy journalism which seeks - by recruiting - to stir up yet more trouble at the article (to generate yet more journalism?). That is really WP:NOTHERE and is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
"Stirring up trouble," and you are supporting the edits of an admin who semi protected an article, then edited that article with inflammatory content on a BLP, an article he had just made an edit to. You are advocating including content that does not represent a source accurately per your own extended and POV take on that content. People who live in glass houses comes to mind. I'm not going to get into this further given the distasteful quality of all of this-life is too short. but I suggest care.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC))

Wikipediocracy

On the article talk page the above editors have declared conflicts of interest. But some have put themselves on the list, taken their own and other names off the list, and essentially played around with the template. My feeling is that anybody can put their own names in the template or other names in the template if those others have openly declared a COI. My hope here is that the COI editors will quite playing around. Possibly the play has gotten to the point of harassment. In particular the possible harassment is directed toward @Coretheapple:, who does not seem to have a conflict of interest (certainly not by any definition at WP:COI) and whose name keeps being added to the COI template by others, with Coretheapple, myself, and 1? other, removing it. My apologies for dragging anybody into this but the COI editors seem to be insisting on it. I'll just inform them by a note on the article talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Smallbones" and another guy ("coretheapple") hate that website and are editing with an agenda against it and its members. That's a conflict of interest, to be sure. But since they're Wikipedia game players, they won't allow the reasonable thing to be done - to recognize that there's plenty of opinions to go around, and that people who hate article subjects with the blazing power of the sun are not fair arbiters of content or conduct. Of course it won't be handled that way - which makes this whole "process" beyond farcical. (Elsewhere, this thing "smallbones" lied and accused me and a bunch of other people of "harassment" - a crime I am not remotely guilty of.)Dan Murphy (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The template is for those with declared COI - so that readers will know who declared. No one else goes there, as much as you hate them (or their POV) or they hate you (or your POV), so put only those self-declared there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:Advocacy is not WP:Conflict of interest. Don't tag people as having such when they don't have one. LjL (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Alanscottwalker and LjL. Having an opinion, whether positive or negative, of Wikipediocracy is not a conflict of interest. No one who has not added themselves to the list should be added by someone else on the basis of having such an opinion. Anyone who has chosen to add themselves to the list should not be removed by someone else without the first editor's agreement. Adding or removing editors in this way is contrary to policy – as is referring to an editor as a "thing". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the purpose of the "connected editor" template is to alert readers and fellow editors to situations in which someone who is actively editing an article, or has contributed a significant portion of the article, is so entwined with the article content as to raise meaningful doubts as to its neutrality or reliability. In this instance, I'm not sure the "connected contributor" template is necessary, and I am certainly sure that a template with a dozen names is not. This sort of navel-gazing bickering about this particular article is unwise and counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. COI disclosure is about disclosing COI, so that others can do with that information whatever they think make sense for them. As for involvement, that is also a matter of record, and if a person involved in an article or article talk page wants to declare COI, let them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
NYB: You're right. Not least because we went through the exact same thing in April last year. I pointed that out to "Figureofnine" as soon as he or she had added it back to the talk page, but the hint wasn't taken.  — Scott • talk 13:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Sometimes when I make an obviously stupid suggestion I forget there are stupid people who might take it seriously.... But since we are here - the connected contributor template is designed to alert editors that someone connected with the article has edited it. In the case of a discussion forum/blog where the *subject* is wikipedia and its editors itself, EVERYONE who has a registered user there, or has been the subject of threads/blog posts, is connected to the article. When that discussion is largely negative as in the case of say Jimbo, if he started editing the wikipediocracy article, he would have a COI in that any edits he makes are suspect due to the ongoing criticism of him. While AGF assumes that an editor is making constructive edits, when those edits are largely negative or clearly designed to belittle wikipediocracy (see Coretheapple's contributions, an editor who also has been the subject of less than complimentary commentary at wikipediocracy) its not a big jump to go with 'retaliation'. The 'interest' in Core's case is that by reducing/belittling the wikipediocracy article he lowers its reputation, and therefore the perceived validity of anything there (including criticism aimed at himself) thus serving his own interests.
What he failed to realise, is that use of the template means that if anyone makes edits to the wikipediocracy article, all someone has to do is go to wikipediocracy, open up a thread or two about their editing history, and boom, instant connected contributor (this is not a suggestion to do that, but it is a logical outcome of using the template).
Since the only real reason for having the template is to 'shame' wiki-users here (Alison has come under particular harrassment in this regard over an extended period, despite being one of the most trusted users and having an unblemished record of service on wikipedia to be envied) the template is just a bad idea in this case. However since it is used, it should not be used as a weapon to push editors agenda's. Either everyone with a potential COI is gets listed, or no one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not know what suggestion are talking about. But your statements are incorrect, a COI is a stake or a financial interest. A stake is established by a formal/familial defined relationship with an article subject, wheras a financial interest is determined by remuneration. The footnote in WP:COI is clear that anyone's feelings do not make a COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, would you also say Qworty had no COI? See the Wikipediocracy article for background if you're not familiar with that (as yet unresolved AFAIK) situation. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) As already said above, ADVOCACY is not COI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Damn the spirit, polish the letter? Wow. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You damn the spirit of it, when you make a COI into POV or worse everything undefined - it is not POV, it is based in defined relationship - a given fact - that is why disclosure is not insult. We may block or ban the advocate, but not someone for disclosing COI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about Qworty, but SB_Johnny, you have a declared COI and you have edited the article nevertheless, and before you declared that connection. Will you undertake now to comply with WP:COI and cease editing the article and make the appropriate disclosures per WP:DISCLOSE? Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I was being POINTy. What are you doing? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess you figure you can get away with it, you being an admin and all that. Coretheapple (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
(ec, responding to Only in Death) Hello? I didn't put up the COI template, Figureofnine did. Figureofnine was right. He had no "COI" no matter how much the fans of the subject try to pervert the meaning of the term. If you look at his edit that sparked this torrent of angst from friends and fans of the subject of the article, you can see that he added one editor to the template, the self-declared co-founder of the site, User:Alison. Alison edits both the article itself, the RfC I started on use of the word "investigate," and the AfDs that have sprung up over the years. In any other article this would not result in much reaction. I mean, it's a slam-dunk. It is required by WP:DISCLOSE, which she ignores as if it is some kind of irritating imposition. Well! Such an insult could not go unavenged. That calumny set off a chain reaction of grandstanding. There was a frenzy of "I am Spartacus" dramuh edits by friends of that conflicted editor, trying to show solidarity with her by declaring their COI, to make the connected contributor template as long as possible. I was added, of course, because hell they don't like my edits and this is their article, gosh darn it!
This is fine. They do have COIs because they say they do. (They weren't grandstanding or being disruptive, God forbid). You were one of them, so you have a COI, self-declared. Does everyone who edits Wikipedia have a COI? Uh no,. Does everyone who has ever been mentioned negatively on that site have a COI? No again. For otherwise, what that means is that you give external parties the right to bestow a COI on Wiki editors. I could care less about what someone says on an external site about my user account. It doesn't impede my ability to engage in my livelihood, which is not editing Wikipedia. Yes, it may well be that some of the posts on that site constitute "external harassment" or whatever. Again, we don't let external harassers (if that is what it is) to bestow "COI" on Wiki editors.
My suggestion is that if you feel that my starting an RfC on use of the word "investigate" (a subject first raised by that other editor, not conflicted even by your crazy definition) was such a terrible thing, such advocacy, even though I do believe that my position is supported by a plurality of the non-conflicted editors, then I suggest that you rush on over to wherever it is that such things are adjudicated. Maybe you'll get a WP:BOOMERANG, maybe not. I look at that article talk page and I see all sorts of misconduct, personal attacks, plenty of disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone who edits wikipedia has a COI in relation to wikipediocracy. Everyone who edits wikipedia and is the direct subject of criticism on wikipediocracy and decides to edit the wikipediocracy article does have one. Due to the potential for biased editing. Which I made perfectly clear above. Its 'connected contributor' template. You are a connected contributor no matter if you self-declare it or not. Its a ridiculous template to have on the talk page due to the wide-ranging scope of connected-ness inherant in a website that is devoted to investigating, exposing and commenting on wikipedia editors. Which should be plain to anyone with half a brain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No. You do not understand what a COI is. It exists when there is (formal, familial or financial) relationship. It is not a value judgement on anything, nor anyone. It just is or is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually I understand perfectly well what one is. A conflict of interest is any situation where someone's actions may/can dictated by their personal 'interest'. This may be financial, power, influence, reputation etc. It is not limited to financial or tangible rewards. Routinely this is in most cases is a direct financial interest, as that is the most common motive for self-serving actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No you do not understand COI. A COI is not point-of-view, it exists when there is a defined relationship - and no, as I said, it not just financial, it is also formal or familial. Everyone has a point-of-view but not everyone has a COI. COI exists when there a defined relationship. Your mistaken view would make every academic someone with COI in their area of expertise, because they are personally interested in the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
To bring up a point that I don't believe has been raised. @Alison: - I better ping her - the self-declared co-founder of the site has never objected to her being added as a connected contributor in the template. Indeed, I've not seen any comment from her whatsoever on that point. I note also that an effort was made, without success, to coax User:Alison to discuss the subject on her user page and she declined to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit by User:Alison, in which she added another user to the template. So clearly she has no objection to either herself or others being added. I assume that the editors who added themselves to the template don't object to their being there, or they wouldn't have put their names there. I see no disruptive intent. I see COI editors (including Only In Death, op cit) making a clean breast of things. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The editors there, having declared their conflict, now seem to be saying, through a kind of edit-warring pantomime on the page, that they don't want any template on the page at all. They just want a vaguely worded template of their own design. Well, it's their page, they WP:OWN it, and that's the way it is over there. Coretheapple (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Not a complicated situation. The site founder is conflicted, her COI is disclosed. No argument has been advanced for her removal. The other names were added in bad faith, as is obvious. The template is clearly warranted. Her name goes in it. Others not. They can remove their names but Alison stays. I suggest to admins that further disruptive "solidarity gaming" of the template be handled with blocks. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It does now appear that some added themselves because they do not understand COI, or they were disrupting to make a point. Yes, those without a defined formal relationship can remove themselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The editors at the page feel that the template is a "badge of shame" that somehow sullies Alison, the site founder, who declines to participate in this or any discussion, relying on her friends to do the heavy lifting in terms of reverts and snark. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits by conflicted editors

Given that the editors pinged above have declared a conflict on the talk page and/or added themselves to the conflicted contributor template. WP:SELFPROMOTE states "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." Some of the editors pinged above have declared COIs but nevertheless edit the article. This is an active and continuing problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs, please. If you are suggesting that actually problematic edits are being made to the article by conflicted contributors, please present proper evidence to back up your accusations. WJBscribe (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.  — Scott • talk 11:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
""You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes." Emphasis added. Coretheapple has been battling against anything to do with Wikipediocracy for years, and is one of the most frequent editors to the article (FWIW, my only edit there was reverting his removal of a section of text he was edit warring over). Most if not all of the WO people editing the article are very much opposed to puffery and promotional content, but unfortunately we have to keep an eye on it because of the behavior of a few "haters" (personally I would rather the article didn't exist at all for just that reason. This is a ridiculous battleground game, full stop. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No, objecting to COI in an article does not make one a "foe" of the subject of the article. I'm sure that BP, that dude out in Africa who keeps re-creating his article, the PR guys I've nominated for deletion and quite a few others view me as a "foe." We don't let subjects of articles dictate who edits its articles because they don't like the editor. They don't have the power to create "foes" by badmouthing the editors they don't like. Actually I see very little about me on that site. I don't follow it, I don't care, I've never complained about "harassment" or whatever, and I get much worse on-Wiki by a long shot.
As for diffs, declared COI editors regularly edit the article, contrary to the guideline. SB_Johnny (added himself to COI template) [28] Scott (ditto): [29][30]; Only in death (ditto): [31][32]; Alison (self-declared co-founder of site): [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]... and on and on and on.... as you can see from the page history, for months at a time the only edits were Alison telling the world about how her wonderfully her website was doing on Alexa. E.g., "first time under 120K.". The most recent edits show that Alison edited the article to reinstate the word "investigate" to denote what her website does. That's in lieu of "discuss" which she doesn't feel adequately encapsulates what her website does. She also participated in the RfC on use of that term on that as well as AfDs on the article in the past. Alison has been pinged but has declined to discuss the COI issues, at least not seriously. In fact, in general she and her friends have treated the whole subject with contempt, at worst, or as best a joke.
The guideline is clear that conflicted editors are strongly discouraged from editing the articles. As for "who has a COI," well, Alison clearly does. The others declare they have a COI, but that appears to be grandstanding. But if they want to play that game, they need to abide by the guideline too. That is, they need to confine themselves to the talk page. Believe me they have the numbers to control the article as it is, so I don't see this as much of an imposition. Coretheapple (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked for diffs showing problematic edits, not just diffs showing that the people you say have a conflict have edited the article. Were any of these edits problematic? Did Alison misrepresent the Alexa rankings, or were her edits accurate? You say she reinstated the word "investigate" (a reference to this I believe), but: (i) she was in fact reverting her own accidental edit which changed it to "discuss"; and (ii) there seems to be a fairly clear consensus on the talkpage that "investigate" is the correct word anyway. You seem to be trying to create a major issue where none exists. So I will ask again, what problematic editing (e.g. adding false information, breaching WP:NPOV etc) has there been? WJBscribe (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh? Where in the guideline does it say that "problematic" edits by COI editors are "strongly discouraged"? I don't see that in the guideline because it's not there. COI editing is inherently problematic. If you disagree, I'd suggest you go right on over to the talk page of the guideline and fix that omission. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Strongly discouraged ≠ forbidden in all circumstances. If the edits were actually (parking the issue of who they were made by) compliant with policy, then this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of articles where people with conflict of interests are making edits in contravention of Wikipedia's core policies. Our COI guidelines are not a stick to beat those you disagree with, they exist to prevent actual harm to articles. I take it that you are tacitly accepting that SB Johnny, Scott & Alison have not in fact added false or non-neutral content to Wikipediocracy. If they haven't, then I think we could all spend our time on better things. WJBscribe (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know the guideline as written is one big loophole but it is not half as awful asyou would like it to be. It says "A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict.[3] COI is like 'dirt in a sensitive gauge.'"[8] Perhaps we need to bring the guideline into compliance with your position by adding "When long-term editors have a COI we give them a pass; they can edit the article and if anyone objects they're making a mountain out of a molehill unless the edits are clearly bad." Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
And what about WP:DISCLOSE? Is there an exemption to that portion of the guideline for non-problematic editors? As I understand it, the aim is to disclose to other editors the extent to which connected editors are involved in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:DISCLOSE is just a link to a section of WP:COI, a "behavioural guideline". From the heading of the page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply..." (my emphasis). Please can we try to apply a bit of common sense here? You seem determined to use this guideline to bludgeon your opponents, rather than trying to solve any actual problem with how Wikipedia articles are being edited. WJBscribe (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know I know, we can wikilawyer the COI guideline to death, as you are doing, and make it from meaningless to useless to a big joke, as it is in this article and its talk page. As for "bludgeoning" the editors on that page - that truly is funny. Arrayed on that page is the site founder, who is an admin and checkuser, and at least two or three other admins. They have as much interest as enforcing the COI guideline as you do but don't pretend to be civil about it, so thanks for that.
If we were to apply your concept of COI to BP, that article would now be controlled by the company, as would its talk page, because there was no question that the behavior of the BP official assigned to that page was in compliance with policy. This is a very typical COI situation in that respect. The only thing that makes it more interesting than usual is that the COI belongs to a checkuser with a small army of supporters. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This dispute has become so ridiculous, and the number of administrators involved so high, that I've thrown it on Jimbo's lap. We can carve out a special exemption for Alison but let it be Jimbo's doing. What I see here are editors so intent on protecting one COI editor that they would make rubbish of the guideline. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems stupidly obvious that those defending Wikipedia certainly suffer from equal but opposite conflicts of interest, especially those discussed on the site. The whole thing has a bit of the barber paradox in it, since it seems that the only people who can edit the article without fear of COI are people who do not edit Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Noble

The subject of this article, the ex-head of Interpol(!), has deleted stable but "unflattering" info I had added about him about 3 years back I think. I reverted a few times and then he left this post on the talk page. I'd like some other people's views on this. He was a high-profile individual and it is in the public interest to have a balanced article. Malick78 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope this can just be treated as a WP:BLP dispute. It seems a bit undue with only a single source, but the source suggests some coverage is due mention. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it's BLP, but since it was stable for 3 years that suggests other editors were fine with it. Only the subject himself has complained, hence I came to COI. Malick78 (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Hut

Minor and small scale changes by SPA COI editor on the Hut Group. Previously they had tried to create a page for Coggles, a subsidiary of the hut group, but this was rejected on notability. Editor is not disruptive or making large scale changes, but they are unreferenced. Clear links between editor and article subject can be found easily. Rayman60 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Amusingly, there are many recent news articles about The Hut Group, including one in the Times (London), and they're rather favorable.[61][62][63][64]. This could be a much better-referenced article, and the company is doing some interesting things not mentioned in the article. Clarepotts is an SPA editing only this article. If they are editing on behalf of The Hut Group, they're not doing a good job. John Nagle (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The HomeSlice Group

This article on a holding company their bar in Sturgis SD was just created by one brand new editor. Another brand new relatively new editor added a bunch of links to it, the same day. – Brianhe (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Donald J. Mitchell

This hagiography on late congressman Donald J. Mitchell was primarily written by a family member. It's full of positive raves about his life and packed with barely related photos. I've tagged it as COI but nobody really edits this article. What am I supposed to do? Should I just completely rewrite it? The editor has not admitted his COI so I don't know if I'm supposed to report him or what, but this would be outing if I identified him. I asked at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"How to handle COI" section and it seems nobody knows. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While BLP doesn't apply, it still has plenty of good guidance: Follow our content policies, follow our dispute resolution policies.
Identify the editor here, notify the editor of this discussion, hopefully we can come to an agreement on what restrictions the editor should have on editing the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you to the users who have already started fixing it. The user with the COI is Professor JR who has been the main editor to the article. It would be nice if he openly declared a COI if he wishes to continue editing it. I will notify him. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have notified him again and am pinging him here: @Professor JR: do you have any intent to continue editing this article? If so, please discuss your plans here. The article has a thick "multiple issues" template and probably needs to be WP:TNTd. The article relies heavily on an offline obit in The Herkimer Evening Telegram. Meanwhile another ref in the NY Times archive attesting to his multiple awards failed verification (I have full access to their archives). —МандичкаYO 😜 17:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

COI-related RFC at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)

Recently an editor with a self-disclosed financial COI went through the proper channels to request edits to Marsy's Law and to request creation of a new article, Marsy's Law (Illinois). As a neutral editor I reviewed the proposal and made some suggestions, and the article changes were accepted. Overall I felt the draft text to be well-written, neutral, and acceptable by Wikipedia content standards. I believe the COI editor has been making a very good-faith effort to comply with our COI policy and that the result has been an improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the subject.

I am here to ask for additional neutral editors' input at an RFC at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)#RFC: External link to Marsy's Law For All website to evaluate whether the article should include an external link to the website of the organization connected with the drafting editor's COI. If anyone could take a moment to offer their view there, I'd appreciate it. alanyst 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

One option is to merge Marsy's Law (Illinois) into Marsy's Law, and just have short sections for each state which passes something similar. John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic Coast Brands

The wikiwashing has started anew. Brianhe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. Undid SPA edits, reverting back to Brianhe's last edit. Andr8 has been given detailed warnings. Let's see if the problem recurs. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Whitewashing by Tcohn01: [65]. Undone, warning template on talk page. Please watch article for further problems. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Rod Davies

I've recently been editing the article on Rod Davies, who passed away last month. I have a COI here as I knew and worked with Rod over the last 5 years or so, e.g. see [66] and his last scientific publication at [67], and I currently work at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at the University of Manchester. I believe that I can contribute neutrally to this article, and my edits have been made purely to try to improve the already-existing Wikipedia article (notability is not a question here), as a volunteer, and outside of my paid employment. I would like an objective review of whether that has thus far been the case in practice or not, and about how to proceed in future with this article. My edits to the article to date can be seen at [68] [69], [70], [71] and [72]. I would like to continue to neutrally expand the article based on referenced material in the future, if that would be acceptable. I'm happy to answer any questions about my edits thus far, and my intentions for the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the first time someone has "reported" themselves Mike Peel, so I must thank you for your transparency! I'll have a look over those edits, as I'm sure other editors will - but provisionally I cannot see an issue with your continued contributions, as you've proven that you're being upfront with the whole situation. Obligatory links to WP:COI and WP:NPOV -- samtar whisper 21:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia biographies are built from source material that is independent of the topic. Source material by Davies himself is not independent of Davies. Delete any material in the Wikipedia article sourced to Davies, R.D. You can create a scientific publication subsection containing a representative quantity of Davies scientific publications. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jreferee: Thanks for having a look. :-) I agree with your first two sentences. With the fourth, that's how those references started off in the article (they weren't added my me), and personally I'm never too keen on such sections, as they're never particularly useful (I wonder how many readers just skip over them). I turned them into refs to support what I think are undisputed statements about the general areas he researched rather than anything more specific. Perhaps they can simply be removed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Update on the University of Chicago gift information

I have suggested edits to both the University of Chicago and Robert Zimmer articles regarding a gift that the University recently received under their Talk pages.

As I work for the University of Chicago, I have a conflict of interest and hence the request for a review by Wikipedia editors. I believe the updates are factual and represented without bias.

Thank you in advance for helping these two Wikipedia articles stay accurate and up-to-date. Michikog (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Those edits read like press releases. It's not Wikipedia's job to provide PR for donors. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The entire article Housing at the University of Chicago reads like an apartment brochure. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bed and breakfasts

A new discussion at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions concerning B&B marketing via Wikipedia led me to check Category:Bed and breakfasts. It isn't pretty. The two articles listed above are the first two I checked; each has exactly one reference. – Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the WP:COI issues?
Glancing at them, AfD is probably the way to go if a PROD or Db-promo doesn't apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe that one of these articles was created by Starwars57 a CU-confirmed sock of Webdesignbb. See [73] for further details of the commercial/COI issues. The greater issue that there's advertisers specifically telling B&B operators to get a Wikipedia page, and this was brought up at Signpost newsroom. I'm not claiming that any of this editing was recent, but at the same time the articles in this category haven't really been checked yet. – Brianhe (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, it was this example that brought this up. w.carter-Talk 09:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, all the BnB articles should be reviewed and considered for deletion. Any extremely likely socks added to the sock report. The meatpuppets and others that appear to be following bnbwebsites editing advice should be given a COI notice and directed here if their editing is at all recent. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion for the two bed and breakfast houses listed. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Also proposed deletion of The Old Wailuku Inn at Ulupono. The claim of being on the Hawaii state register of historic places doesn't check out. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
PRODs timed out without objection, articles routinely deleted. Done here. John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

CobraNet

In July 2013 I removed a "Licensed manufacturers" section from the article [74]

A few days ago Scottywong, the creator of the article, a retired editor and admin with an impressive list of contributions to Wikipedia, reverted the deletion.

Kvng, who has declared coi [75] and claims to be the inventor of CobraNet [76], has twice restored the content, even after declaring his coi.

I don't believe Kvng should be adding material even remotely like this per WP:COI. I've not reviewed Kvng's other edits to this article.

I'm also concerned that Scottywong's professional interest in the topic (identified here along with his declaring he has no FCOI), his being the creator of the article, and his creating the article as his very first edits from this account; is interfering with the need to focus on content, sources (of which there are no independent sources at all), and the relevant policies.

Discussion about the content is here. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily antagonistic. We're trying to have a discussion with you about the content, and you're just wiki-lawyering yourself all over the place. This is going to make it a lot more difficult to have a discussion about the content. User:Kvng has no financial interest in CobraNet. His thoughts on the subject are no less valuable than yours or mine. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
COI covers interests other than financial, which is why Kvng needs to restrict his editing, and why I mentioned your editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking further, Scottywong has a definite conflict of interest with the content he restored. I've asked him to respond or revert. As there have been some WP:OUTING problems concerning Scottywong's identity, I hope we can resolve this without evidence, but no matter what I will not divulge his identity. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that COI issues are apparent here and it is worrying that Kvng has edited it heavily and has been edit-warring recently. COI rules weren't so prohibitive back when it passed GA so I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to hide the COI or promote the product, but they shouldn't be editing the article directly from now on. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Scottywong's coi, though a financial one, isn't to CobraNet as a whole as is Kvng's, so I don't think he needs to restrict his editing to WP:COIADVICE except with the content where he has a direct conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've had no financial interest in CobraNet since 2006 when I amicably left Cirrus Logic. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for repeating that. How about addressing how closely you think you should follow COIADVICE given you are the creator of the product, which is the issue? As an expert on the technology, you've much to offer and I don't think your biases would be a problem if you restricted your edits to COIADVICE for everything other than the technology. Your biases are clearly interfering with the need to have high-quality, reliable, independent, secondary sources in the article; which the section your restored has none of 11, and the article has one of 32. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see a distinction between making changes to the article and restoring the material Ronz deleted without consensus. I have opened an RfC to help resolve this. I may not have stayed abreast of changes to WP:COIADVICE but it looks like the last time I made a significant change to the article was July 2012. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
COI doesn't make the distinction. If anything, edit-warring making multiple reverts where you have a conflict of interest is a bigger problem. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the edit-warring accusations. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Struckout. Are you going to address the issue? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I have any further issues to address with you here at this time. If anyone else has a question or something I need to hear or respond to, please {{ping}} me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not about me, but about whether or not you are able to follow COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Given Scottywong's behavior, I've opened a discussion at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Williams (DJ)

I initially came across this user via the article for Williams, as it was up for speedy deletion via A7. I noticed that the article had some promotional puffery, but decided to let that slide since it was slightly ambiguous. Things that stood out include the sentence "His role at iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel, has continued to evolve."

I nominated the article for deletion via AfD since A7 didn't really qualify and took another look at Kazmandu2's edits a bit later after noticing that they referred to themselves as a "we" at the AfD page. I quickly noticed their second page in the draftspace, which I nominated for deletion. It was very, very unambiguously promotional and looked to be taken directly from marketing materials. Content from that article included peacock language like "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" and "There were lots of companies catering to small to medium businesses, but Bryan wanted the challenge of working with the Biggest and Best names in the industry." There was also a list of people they'd worked for. A further look into matters shows that they uploaded this image as fair use, which implies that they own the copyright to it.

I flat out asked Kazmandu2 if they had a COI, only for them to claim that they don't. To be very honest, I don't believe them. Their edits and the way they spoke at the AfD suggests that they are someone hired to create an article, likely someone from Rockstar Marketing. I should probably block them for the "we" comment, but I wanted to give them one last chance to come clean. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I usually assume better faith from people, but this all feels a little too dishonest for my tastes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I ended up just going with my gut reaction and just blocking them. There's far, far too much evidence to suggest that they're a paid editor. The image uploaded to the Commons is concerning somewhat there's a walkthrough that goes over the various policies for images (so they should've been aware that they couldn't upload something that wasn't fair use or that they didn't own the rights to) and that they did this separate from Wikipedia suggests that they're passing familiar with Wikipedia. I don't think that this is something of Wiki-PR proportions, but I do think that they'll likely be back. Again, I normally try to assume far better faith of people, but this just seems like a WP:DUCK scenario since they're pretty much engaging in all of the stereotypical paid editor habits but were trying to claim that they weren't a paid editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Copy reading "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" can safely assumed to be PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like there are some IPs coming in to edit now, so I think that this might require some further intervention. The following IPs have begun editing:
@2602:30A:2CF0:90:492F:4F51:A343:4DBF: This editor created Draft:Daswise, which has just been started and has the same spam issues. They also ask for the draft for Rockstar be restored here.
@2600:1:A140:546:C106:385E:D6B9:935D: Another IP, edited Kazmandu2's talk page and appears to be the same editor. They'd made a pretty bad faith comment towards me asking them if they were a paid editor. That's usually a pretty big sign that I'm correct, given that innocent people are rarely this defensive.
I'm debating taking this up to SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm bringing it to SPI. Now there's Scottdaddy2222. A search for the name and Rockstar Marketing shows that he's very obviously the company's owner. This pretty much shows proof that it's this company. What makes it worse is that they're trying to hide it, which is extremely unethical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Added one more editor and a draft. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that! I'm leaning towards blocking this one as well as a block evasion and an undisclosed paid editor. This company is turning out to be another example of what not to do if you own a marketing company. I mean, if Kazmandu2 had just been honest about their COI I would've just warned them about making promotional edits and mostly left it at that. However lying is pretty much one of the worst things you can do on here since it's the epitome of unethical and deceptive. There's not much more that they could have done to make their company look terrible. I really hope that they're not ramping up to be the next WikiPR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Protect the article maybe? --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm tempted to say that we should leave it just so we can pick them off one by one. I wonder if they're just trying to make themselves look bad at this point, given that they don't seem to really be looking at any of the warnings. I think it's safe to say that this company has zero scruples. Do you think that we should reach out to some of their clients to ask them to stop? Daswise has a facebook page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Abhishek Agrawal

Editor Krish512 !voted in deletion discussion at Abhishek Agrawal [77], and re-created the article on 15 December at Abhishek Aggrawal (note doubled letter "g"). Anon editor inserted link to article under first name at [78], and Authorabhi added it under second name at [79]. Appears to be self-promotion by nn author and/or cohorts, and attempts to circumvent the community-based article review process.

ManyAll of these same editors were warned in November at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Abhishek Agrawal. – Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

IsAnybodyDown?

Resolved
 – No COI evidenced presented. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - User NatGertler is clearly being paid to edit the article in question on behalf of outside antagonists. --98.165.218.244 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "outside antagonists" would be here, but no, User NatGertler (who, by the way, was not notified of this discussion) is not being paid to edit this or any other article by outside antagonists, inside antagonists, stateside antiquarians, cowhide anteaters, or anybody else, despite the towering lack of evidence that has been presented against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
98.165.218.244 and Nat Gertler, No COI evidenced has been presented, so I marked this thread as resolved. No issue was listed either, but the article talk page raises an issue of whether Chance Trahan should be connected to the website. I added references to the article talk page, which support connecting Chance Trahan to the IsAnybodyDown website and supports writing a biography article on Chance Trahan. Dryvyng being associated with Chance Trahan does not thereby associate Dryvyng with IsAnybodyDown. I read the articles on Dryvyng[80][81] and there is nothing in there to support including Dryvyng in the IsAnybodyDown article. NatGertler, User:98.165.218.244's edit summary advise is correct, so I suggest that you may want to consider undoing this edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Maxxsonics

Maxxsonics, now in its 2nd deletion discussion had only 1 reliable source and a bunch of press releases as sources. I edited it to 1 of each, and there is nothing left of the article. I asked @Hcparvin: if he is a paid editor and he said no., but this doesn't appear to be correct. I can e-mail an admin on this if necessary. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Article deleted via AfD. John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Subodh Kerkar

Article has become a vanity page for this artist, with much unsourced content, including biographical detail, descriptions of individual artworks, and the standard resume listing of non notable gallery shows. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockfarm working on information technology researchers

checkuser-confirmed sockfarm

This situation needs more eyes to figure out what the sockfarm was up to. In an unusual twist, an editor claiming to be one of the article subjects, a person in a highly visible U.S. government position, has asked for one of the articles to be deleted [82]. Brianhe (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Add Checkuser blocked T2e3f5f5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to that motley crew (apologies to the real Mötley Crüe)--Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the sockpuppetry, thought I would comment on the article deletion of David Bray. I will repeat what I said there - "I hope that anyone voting to keep the article is not doing so despite the situation - being that there is a COI with the article, potential sockfarm, and now the subject of the article requesting deletion and maybe trying to keep the article to prove a point. Yes, I am assuming good faith, but I am also tackling the elephant in the room so sorry if anyone is offended." --CNMall41 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This is strange. All three articles are quite favorable to their subjects. Yet one of them (or someone pretending to be them) wants their article deleted. This does need further study. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
My thought exactly which is why I took an interest in it. Seems like a genuine request from someone who does not wish to be in the public eye - despite being in a position that will attract such. If you look at the press, he seems to do a great job of staying away from features or in-depth articles about him, which makes me think it is a genuine request. However, it also raises the question of why a sockpuppet - assuming there is a financial interest involved - would create the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Two of the subjects have a connection to Emory University but not sure how the 3rd would be connected.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I wrote at WP:AN/I "... I'd suggest that Mr. Bray mail in an ORTS request (see Wikipedia:Contact us) to establish that they are in fact who they claim to be, and the ORTS team should confirm this. In the presence of sockpuppeting, I'm reluctant to assume that someone claiming to be Mr. Bray is in fact Mr. Bray." Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. If you can confirm that it is genuine, that would be a step in the right direction.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed as genuine via ORTS; see AN/I discussion. The problem seems to be not with the present version of the article, but a previous version with more personal details. There were so many personal details because the article subject wrote and self-published an autobiography, which is available from Amazon and in Google Books.[83]. He apparently regrets that now. Anyway, the article is at AfD, and trending towards deletion, so this problem may go away via that route. John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

jake sasseville

It appears the Jake Sasseville page is being used to make unsubstantiated claims about being the youngest television host in ABC history, and other non-cited grandiosity. I made a correction, citing the correct information, but someone immediately reverted it to the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims.

Not seeing the problem. Please provide a diff, showing the specific edit you are complaining about. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Centre for International Governance Innovation

It appears this page has been written and maintained by employees. Luthair (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Reduced hype level. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

National Business Furniture

Appears to have been created for pay, see http://terryhull.net/10343.html Luthair (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I did some article cleanup. However, the article may not pass WP:GNG. Anybody else want to take a look? – Brianhe.public (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Luthair: I agree that it obviously was a pay article, although it was 4 years ago, when the paid editing rules weren't so strict. I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_95&oldid=1079647726"