Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 77

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

SAS81, Chopra Foundation, question


Hello everyone, SAS81 again. I'm here to inquire the best way to approach this. Also, hoping I got the formatting for this COIN correct. I have a lot of content on the Chopra Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by Deepak Chopra and an organization that comes up in nearly every article on Dr Chopra. It seems like the foundation is more than significant and established enough to warrant its own article. I have all the research, sources, and content needed to make a respectable starter article here in my sandbox.

What I'm not sure I have is the ethical ability to do so. If I wear my Wikipedia editor hat, I think it should go up. However wearing my ISHAR hat and our financial relationship since Chopra Foundation has funded us to a degree makes me question this. Therefore I am reaching out for advice and help. I do think this article belongs on Wikipedia, but since I'm not going to post it someone else would need to. I'd appreciate any Good Samaritan who wanted to take a look at what I put together in my sandbox, then see if they approved and wanted to post it themselves, obviously with whatever modifications, additions, or subtractions they felt necessary. My understanding of COI rules allows unenforced suggestions of content, if anyone has any evidence showing otherwise please alert me. I'm not intending to violate any COI policy.

Like I said, I feel like it's a good article, as good as many on Wikipedia, but I don't feel comfortable posting it myself. If anyone else does feel comfortable, I hope you'll take a look at what's put together here and judge for yourself whether it belongs on Wikipedia. SAS81 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is built on self-published primary sources, and reads like a promotional piece. Unless the topic meets
COI
10:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Articles need to built based on credible, independent sources and should use sparingly, if at all, any citations to the org's website. In order to qualify for an article, there must be at least two, in-depth profile stories in credible, independent sources. Contributing with a COI is not forbidden, but it is discouraged, because in almost all cases the editor ends up with a distorted view of what is neutral and notable. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with
Alexbrn. I'm guessing this topic could be significant enough to justify an article, but we need more, better sources and a little polishing up of the content itself. I'd offered to go over this material in the past (hadn't noticed this conversation till now or I'd have said something before), SAS81, so I'll look into it, try to address these issues and, unless anyone has an issue with me doing so, submit the article for consideration. Seems that's a resolution to the COI, sourcing and content issues. Thoughts? The Cap'n (talk
) 20:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless there is substantially better sourcing, it's no kind of "resolution" at all. Basic question: does this pass
COI
20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Still looking into it, but based on what I'm finding I think I'll find enough to satisfy GNG, and can certainly do better than existing random articles like Thomas Whalan, Henryk Ruder and Will Murphy, all of which have no or single, non-secondary sources as references. By the standards of much of WP, the financial references alone would be enough to get a stub posted, but I agree that more is better. I'll get some independent secondaries or bump it back here as a no-go. The Cap'n (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Per my discussion on both the Deepak Chopra Talk Page and the COIN here, I've updated the
WP:GNG, but if anyone has any questions/issues, please let me know. The Cap'n (talk
) 00:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't meet GNG in my view. I have nominated it for deletion, see
COI
04:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint_and_Sip_Industry

In the interest of full disclosure, I work for Painting with a Twist, who is also featured in this article. However, it appears that someone from one of our competitors, Pinot's Palette, is editing this page, as well as creating a Pinot's Palette article, for the purpose of promoting their business. I think references to industry awards (the Entrepreneur Magazine reference) as well as the promotional image including the Pinot's Palette logo have no place in this entry.

 Done Basically the entire article was an indiscriminate list and plug-fest of various vendors. I removed all of it except for the foundation of the first Paint and Sip company, which is of historical significance and I added a plug in the image, as we would actually want the image to describe exactly where it was taken (including at which vendor). I will start looking through the individual vendor pages to do additional cleanup as necessary. CorporateM (Talk) 05:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually their own article (Pinot's) was done reasonably well. I just removed the "Awards" section which had a lot of trivial ranking-type stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 05:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dark Wallet

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Genjix (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Hi, I'm a developer on the project Dark Wallet and wish to start a new page. For comparison, here is one of our competitors

Dark Wallet links to a biographical page, whereas I wish to start a dedicated page. Any pointers here on the right approach are appreciated - can I just go create the article and notify editors here after? Thanks. Genjix (talk
) 15:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have provided some advice on this issue in an essay I wrote at
WP:ORGVANITY that may be helpful. Basically it is hard for someone to tell if a separate page is warranted without doing a lot of research, but that provides some guidelines on when it is appropriate to create separate articles on orgs/founders. CorporateM (Talk
) 05:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

I am a little concerned about a paid editor exerting ownership over an essay about paid editing, in order to protect promotion and advocacy in favor of paid editing. It seems to set an entirely poor example to include exactly the types of promotion/advocacy we should be encouraging the essay's readers to avoid.

I have tried to modify the essay to reduce promotion, avoid an indiscriminate collection of links and provide other corrections/clarifications and have in each case been blanket reverted by user:WWB using unusual reasons for his reverts such as speculations into my motives and mis-representing the edits I made.

It is entirely inappropriate for two paid editors to fight over an essay on paid editing. I have taken it off my watchlist and skurried on, but I post here in hopes that other editors interested in COI that are not directly affiliated with the initiative will take a look. If he does have the right to control the page as an essay, then I apologize. CorporateM (Talk) 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this statement is on Wikipedia in the first place. It seems self-serving and promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikifornabeel on Nabeel Perfumes

The user name "Wikifornabeel" suggests that the user may have a conflict of interest regarding

Ittar (diff) and Agarwood (diff), which seem to be designed purely to promote Nabeel Perfumes. Cnilep (talk
) 01:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Kris Holmes

Article and user with same name.

open channel
) 03:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Palringo

Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft to replace the current article for Palringo, which has been flagged for poor referencing and notability issues. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and that Palringo is my client. The redraft is fully referenced and NPOV. If anyone would like to leave feedback either on my talk page or on the current article's talk page, that would be much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

LA Models

On 30 June I filed a

WP:CCI request for Trident13, who keeps a very curious miscellany, including a number of copyvios, in hidden text in his various sandboxes. Looking through some contributions, I found this, the initial version of our article on LA Models
. I was particularly interested to read this part of the article:

Hey Ian,

Sorry to hear about your rough patch, hopefully all up hill for 2014? :)

Thank you very much for your help, we really appreciate it. Sounds like you're more than qualified to tackle our Wikipedia woes.

Here is all the info we have:

Company Name: LA Models

Website: www.lamodels.com

Most of the articles we are mentioned in are not directly related to the agency. We have a repertoire of press releases but, not many published articles. The bulk of what we have that could be considered valid has already been tried and rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/LA_Models

Found the 2 below references. In your opinion, if they seem like something valid, we can track down print copies or continue to move in that direction. If not, it would be much appreciated if you could please furnish us with examples of what you need to get this done. We're here to help. :)

We also have a sister agency that is on Wikipedia without issue. Here is a link to that page for your reference:

New York Model Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia New York Model Management is a modeling agency based in New York City. New York Models started when Heinz Holba started L.A. Models (now its sister agency) in 1985. After operating international agencies, he opened New York Models in 1997. Marion Smith, the current vice president of New York Models, worked under Eileen Ford with world famous modeling agency Ford Models, Smith joined Holba in 2001.[1] The current director of New York is Cory Bautista. Notes[edit]

^ http://models.com/agency/New-York-Model-Management External links[edit]

Official Website New York Model Management in the Fashion Model Directory New York Models at Models.com

Potential Sources:

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/americas-next-top-model-laura-james-wins-20121711

http://pagesix.com/2013/01/21/beautiful-webbs-ny-move/

Regarding images, yes, we can def get some to you. Is there a preferred size?

As you are the expert, what is the typical window in which the page is flagged/removed? A couple weeks, a month? We'd prefer to hold payment (or perhaps do 50% upon completion, 50% after the said time frame has passed) to ensure the page stays up. Again, this is your forte, not mine.

Let us know what else you need on our end, we appreciate your help! :)

Best,

Kate

I don't think there's any question that Trident13 has a conflict of interest at LA Models, and at New York Model Management, which he first edited on 9 May 2014, three days before he moved User:Trident13/LA Models "into production" as LA Models (that sandbox was, by curious coincidence, deleted at his request yesterday). What I'd really like to know is how many other articles this editor, who has over 100,000 edits, has created for pay. Are you going to give us a list, Trident 13?

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am quite happy to admit that I create paid for articles - its is still not the majority of my content, on either a daily or any other period measured basis - and this has been known by some including Admins for a period. But this is not in conflict with Wikipedia's Terms & Conditions, and I have not been asked before this point as to whether I had a COI re LA Models. If I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so. Secondly, having been asked over seven years ago by Admin
WP:AOBF-driven posting by Justlettersandnumbers, I will be pursuing mediation. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk
) 14:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That is an interesting link that you post about WikiExperts. You seem to have been more than a little economical with the truth in replying to editor
JamesBWatson, Diannaa and Lagrange613
that it was unacceptable to do so?
Anyway, back to the purpose of this board: would you be prepared to list the articles that you have accepted money to edit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 under the ToU you are obligated to disclose paid contributions. Whether anyone asked you or not, is irrelevant. I strongly recommend you disclose every article where you have made a paid edit since the ToU changed. Again, disclosure of paid edits is now required; it is not optional or "available upon request." Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You're definitely required to disclose every edit you've been paid for since June 16, 2014 by the Terms of Use. May I also suggest that you go back to LA Models and clean up the adspeak and promotional tone. There's no reason that you should make other editors clean up after you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Trident13 I feel like i was a harsh, and want to give you a chance to speak... I have a hard time seeing how you are trying to comply with the COI guideline and ToU. Can you please explain how you are? If this thread is a surprise to you and you are seeing things differently and intend to start editing differently, please let us know that too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia drive towards Neutrality. Hence, IMO, all wikipedians should exercise
WP:AFC, where it is possible for fine tuning the contents as there are good number of active reviewers are available there. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ
) 10:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Trident13, Jytdog: I don't see how our colloquy in 2007 is being interpreted by you as me asking you to be "open in your methods of creation", but it doesn't really matter because I don't see how being open in methods of creation has anything to do with the issues here. A copyright violation is a copyright violation and paid editing is paid editing and methods of creation has nothing to do with either (unless you're saying I was in some way endorsing paid editing, as a motivation for creation; to that extent, I most certainly was not). The former must not be engaged in; the latter is repugnant to me, but policy does not forbid it but as other have pointed out, the Terms of Use, as of June 16, 2014, does require your affirmative disclosure. To wit:

"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
     • a statement on your user page,
     • a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
     • a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions."

What I am not clear on is whether you are obligated to provide disclosure for paid edits prior to June 16, 2014, as has been called for above, but I think you should without further prompting. I certainly appreciate your many good edits over the years but even if you didn't know of the changed ToU you do now and it's been almost a week since this discussion was opened without any action I can see to comply for your post-ToU-change edits. You say above that "I have not been asked before this point as to whether I had a COI re LA Models. If I had been asked or if it had become an issue re the articles inclusion, I would have happily and openly admitted so." As others have also pointed out, you do not need to be asked. Again, you have an affirmative obligation and should meet it without delay. As for the copyvios, I have not seen your response to that, but I have also not seen any evidence presented of any ongoing copyvios being posted or a widespread problem. If someone can point out which supbpages contain problems I'll take a look. My edited time right now is very constrained.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments,
WP:CCI request is here; the article that revealed the first problems is Soughton Hall; Michael Hogben is listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 July 11. I still don't know if the CCI is really needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk
) 00:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Rapp

Joshua Davis (web designer)

I noticed that an article on my watchlist just started being edited by a user with a username that suggests he is the subject of the article. I know I'm completely ignoring the guidelines for this page, since I haven't talked to the user at all, but I really don't have the time or interest to discuss the conflict of interest guidelines with that user or to edit the article in question. The article was only on my watchlist since I patrol prods for articles that were prodded but had previously had a prod contested or previously been at AFD. I was hoping someone with more time and more interest in the conflict of interest guidelines could review that user's contributions to the article, and discuss the conflict of interest guidelines with him if you feel there is a conflict of interest. Calathan (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


--

thanks Calathan... we're a studio of 42 people, and Joshua Davis does work here... and I'm making edits to his Biography, to reflect his "actual" Biography rather than a ton of short unconnected statements posted by fans. Eventually we'd hope to have his page changed to Joshua_Davis_(designer) since he isn't and has not worked in the medium of the web for several years... Joshua is a designer working across multiple disciplines, the web only being 1 facet of his career.

if there is a better practice for helping me update Mr. Davis's credentials and avoid future COI issues... I'd love the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaDavisStudios (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving the template {{uw-coi}} message that highlights the use of the talk page to request changes rather than editing the article directly. I'll also mention the username issue. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor for hire

Not sure what we can do about it, but OTRS has just been made aware of another company offering "paid editing" services, like

Wiki-PR: http://www.submitexpress.com/wikipedia-page-creation.html --ukexpat (talk
) 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-initiated COI investigation

I would like to submit evidence privately that I have no COI that prevents me from editing anywhere on Wikipedia. I have talked with my CPA and he is willing to provide (privately, to a functionary) an affidavit that my spouse is the sole source of income in our family and that my spouse does not work in a capacity or in an industry that in any way compromises my edits. I would also be happy to provide (privately, to a functionary) that I have credentials as a trained editor. Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Utterly pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding where any discussion regarding even a potential COI involving Lightbreather has taken place. For those of us not familiar with the backstory here, why would we care who does or does not employ him or his spouse, and how would it be relevant? I see that Lightbreather has recently become subject to a topic ban ([1]) as a result of ongoing edit warring and tendentious editing; beyond that topic ban, is there something I'm missing? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that Lightbreather is a 'she' not a 'he'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, I was topic banned for edit warring only.[2] Second, I could provide several links to where there have been allegations and/or speculation about me and my editing, and that is what I want to quash in the future. If someone has a question about content I add (or remove, for that matter), fine; I am happy to argue content-related questions. But I am sick to death of having me, as a contributor, discussed without evidence. Considering the civility policies of harassment and personal attacks, that seems like a reasonable request.
However, I have just received advice elsewhere that may be better than trying to take care of this here... Lightbreather (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit warring while advocating a particular point of view in a controversial area is 'tendentious' editing by the common-sense definition of the word; I'm not interested in having a debate in which 'tendentious' is re-interpreted as some narrowly-circumscribed legalistic term of art.)
Truth be told, the request doesn't make sense on its face. The only person who cannot have a conflict of interest is the person who has no interests. There is nothing a person (or his/her CPA) could attest to that would allow a blanket declaration of an absence of all possible editing conflicts "anywhere on Wikipedia". In principle, one could make disclosures to address concerns about conflict of interest in specific editing situations, but that's entirely a different kettle of fish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I answered this on the related thread. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my request. This appears to be turning into a discussion about me and my intentions instead of a request for something that seems reasonable to me. I will pursue this through a different channel. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

TruthKO

TruthKO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TruthKO has created an article about himself. Seems to be a blatant conflict of interest. Should we impose sanctions or anything so that he can't edit about himself? 電子888說-TALK 00:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no absolute rule against creating an autobiography (see
WP:AUTOBIO) and it is certainly not "sanctionable". The article has (rightly IMHO) been nominated for deletion, not as an autobio, but for lack of notability. If the user persists in re-creating the article (assuming it is deleted) that may be actionable.--ukexpat (talk
) 12:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction

Recent author self-identifies as inventor of the system, within the article. This is going to take someone explaining a few things to him, and I'm not sure I have that much time today. I've notified him. Not sure about the creator of the article, but the opportunity for COI, and in a bad way, is high enough that I wanted to drop this off at a larger discussion to deal with. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice dealing with COI editing sought

I'm looking for advice primarily, therefore I'm not naming names. A notable living author's article covers, among other things, a controversy they were involved in. A user with that person's username is edit-warring to remove a link to the source for our coverage of the controversy and to add what looks like their own view about the matter. A look at my last two edits should indicate what I'm talking about. I have relatively little experience for how to deal with this in a non-bite-y way. Does anyone have any advice in how best to educate the person about our applicable procedures? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually I think a polite note mentioning the policy in such situations suffices. He has a right to remove libelous or unsourced negative information about himself, and to fix errors. Coretheapple (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Relisting editors not scrutinized before being archived

It appears that being comparatively uninteresting is the way for editors with conflicts of interest to escape scrutiny. These editors with virtually the same name as the pages they edit happened to end up on this page at about the same time as #LA Models. The cases received no comment after nomination. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Edgar181 blocked Wikifornabeel indefinitely on 26 July 2014. Krisholmes has received no attention as far as I can tell, but hasn't edited since 16 July. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Monroe College

There seems to have been persistent long-term COI editing of this article. The COI editors identified on the talk page are those listed above. There may be others; there may may perhaps also be more usernames than there are actual editors. More eyes on this would be welcome, I think. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oseymour here. I would just like to apologize for my edits to the page. This was done before I fully understood the rules of the community. User:Oseymour (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dyli

The above named editor created the articles listed above, two of which are now at AFD for lack of

not inherited. A COI notice was left on the editor's talk page.   ArcAngel   (talk)
) 01:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

SRmanager

SRmanager is editing SR's (Shehzad Roy's) article, a clear COI, including questionable OR and uncited adds. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I believe that User:Coal Press Nation should be banned from editing Wikipedia because he is requesting that musical artists contact him if they're interested in having a Wikipedia page. He uses his blog and Twitter account to promote Nigerian artists. In this edit, he told me that he has had contact with the artist Emmy Gee. Although there's no physical proof of getting paid for editing, I wouldn't rule that out. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Uhm....do you have some proof they are receiving money for these articles? No...so we do rule that out for the moment. You really have not demonstrated that they are placing their own interests above that of the project. They can use their blog for whatever they want. We have no control over that. This seems like promotional editing, however, just being in contact with a subject is not an issue at all. Seriously, many editors and admin have been in contact with subjects that have a Wikipedia article. Also...you are not going to get a block here. This report needs a great deal more to be an issue, but it is possible there is more and I am a bit disturbed that they would be asking for subjects to contact them to create articles for them. I am just not sure that alone crosses a line. I think we need a bit more opinions here though as I may not have a full understanding of that one issue.....that an editor can make articles by request or by promoting themselves as a Wikipedia editor. After all, they still need to be notable and if they are to Wikipedia standards and no money is exchanging hands...what is the issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Versace1608: For God sake I do not take Money to publish wikipedia, i only do it too promote, Most importantly Nigeria Artist Only, If you do not believe me this is my Twitter Link You Can Read My Tweet, which i use in asking them question's [3]].. i am only a music producer and a singer who got some interest in writing wikipedia... if you don't believe me, that up too..What make's you thing i take money form them User:Versace1608
Promotion is advertising and is NOT permitted here, see
WP:SPAM.--ukexpat (talk
) 14:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
User name blocked for promotion and
WP:CORPNAME.--ukexpat (talk
) 15:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, you do get blocked for that. It is promotional editing to make articles for music artists even if they were notable if it is a something you do as a profession...promoting music artists. And a music producer does have a COI.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lisa Habermehl

This user has been adding promotional-type content to

Museum of Art - DeLand, Florida. After looking at pictures of the Museum she uploaded on WikiCommons, I saw she lists herself as Director of Marketing for the museum. I put a COI warning on her talk page. Without commenting back, she added the material deleted from the museum article to her main user page. Could someone attempt to advise her on our policies, since my efforts do not seem to have been successful? Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health
‖ 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some work on the article. It's a small but legitimate museum which checks out in GuideStar as an IRS-registered nonprofit.[4] It's shown some notable artists and had a good writeup in an Orlando newspaper recently. So I put in some properly cited material from a published review of an exhibit, took out some of the promotional material, and removed the "needs citations" template. The reported problem looks like a well-intentioned edit from someone not familiar with Wikipedia policies. I'd suggest that
WP:BITE applies here. No need to bring the COI hammer down on them. John Nagle (talk
) 07:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User Eleanor60 spamming all Ford Mustang-related pages; admits to having COI

I originally reported this to the Incidents noticeboard (see: [5]). Woodroar recommended I bring it up here:

User Eleanor60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been running wild over every single Mustang, Shelby, or automotive film related page spamming it with poorly-written, non-encyclopedic, non-referenced comments about Eleanor - the star car from the film Gone in 60 Seconds - or the copyright battle pertaining to the 2000 remake and its creators:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carroll_Shelby&diff=618295282&oldid=617232221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Mustang&diff=618466058&oldid=618294602

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shelby_Mustang&diff=618292578&oldid=618292319

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619350706&oldid=619314809

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619353558&oldid=619353375

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619043557&oldid=619043079

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang&diff=prev&oldid=618299242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang&diff=618299764&oldid=618299242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._B._Halicki&diff=619044900&oldid=619044829

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._B._Halicki&diff=618308707&oldid=618308453

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_in_60_Seconds_%282000_film%29&diff=518904950&oldid=518824454

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_variants&diff=619486358&oldid=619383459

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_variants&diff=next&oldid=619486952

I tried speaking with this editor to no avail as follows, trying to keep things kind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eleanor60#Non-encyclopedic_edits_to_Eleanor_section

After thanking me for my concern in that dialogue, Eleanor60 went ahead and reverted my attempts to clean up the page and retain factual information in an encyclopedic manner.

More importantly, Eleanor60 has admitted to having a COI/direct involvement with the lawsuits that they've been spamming each page with, as seen here in my discussion with the user.

Please advise.

Cudak888 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Everyone, I hope I am doing this correctly by writing here. Is there someone that can teach me how to post the truth and correct information? I'll I am trying to do is correct the wrong inaccurate info that's been posted. On: Eleanor Mustang, Gone in 60 seconds (1974 and 2000), H.B. Halicki, Ford Mustang, Carroll Shelby and Varenet Mustangs. I have notice that some of the inaccurate information being posted (on the Pages mentioned above) are found on other website, and that information is not factual. And are harmful to the people/films/cars they are writing against and adding more untruths and inaccuracy. Please I am looking for someone to help me so I can add the correct information. I hope I am signing out and this gets to helpful people to help me. thanks. Thank you. Eleanor60 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional diffs for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619633099&oldid=619525516
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gone_in_60_Seconds_%281974_film%29&diff=prev&oldid=619355463
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eleanor_%28automobile%29&diff=619042995&oldid=618941638
Cudak888 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

TRUSTe

There's been an ongoing minor problem with promotional editing at

TRUSTe. Every once in a while, an SPA appears, makes a few semi-promotional edits, and disappears from Wikipedia. A few months ago, it was NJPink (talk · contribs). Today, it's Davedeasy (talk · contribs). There have been a few similar edits from IPs, as well. More eyes on the article would help. Thanks. John Nagle (talk
) 08:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked several editors if they are aware of the change in the Terms of Use. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

[Jorge Stolfi]

The following edits have concerned me a bit [6] [7] I don't believe they reach the level of a conflict of interest yet, but I do think more eyes on the situation is a good idea. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense do you think those edits reflect a conflict of interest?
The first of those two edits was to remove and correct a paragraph that someone inserted in my bio -- as a prank, punishment, or attempt to discredit me -- after I voiced my skepticism about bitcoin on a major bitcoin forum. It was totally false, of course; the truth is that do not own bicoin, and, besides being skeptical about its chances of success, I see it a scam (the "private fiat money scam" that I mentioned in the second edit).
The second edit is my sincere opinion about the announcement of "wikipedia accepts bitcoin", which (as I wrote in reply to user CombatWombat) I think was worded in a way that made it seem an endorsement of bitcoin -- and it is being used that way. (After some further exchanges on the Village Pump, I took that concern to a Wikimedia Foundation forum here, for whatever it's worth.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
PS. What happens next? Should I keep checking this page regularly to learn my "sentence"?
By the way, it seems a safe bet that many editors of Bitcoin and related articles have invested in bitcoins. Such investments will only pay if more people buy bitcoins; which will only happen if those people are convinced that it has a bright future. If that is not a conflict of interest, then I don't know what is. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nile Rodgers

Some oversight, and friendly advice to new editor User:NileRodgersProd, might be helpful over at Nile Rodgers. Some of the edits being made appear to be neutral and helpful, but others are clearly promotional. They have not yet responded to requests for clarification on their intentions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last month or so of edits [8], there have been too many recent edits without references. Many uncited claims ("Multiple Grammy-winning") are being made for this performer. He seems to have been a backup performer for a lot of big names, which is the sort of thing that needs reliable sources for each name. (
New Music Express reports him performing with Daft Punk, for example. [9]) There's also too much promotional-sounding material. Most or all of the claims are probably true, but someone needs to do the homework of citing them. Try adding an alert in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians#Article alerts, and maybe add "cite needed" tags where appropriate. Somewhere there's probably a fan to do the gnoming job needed here. John Nagle (talk
) 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
NileRodgersProd (talk · contribs) having been blocked, IP 68.173.123.153 (talk · contribs) seems to have continued the editing effort. [10]. The edits aren't that bad; it's just that there are too many uncited statements. John Nagle (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

According to their user page,

concerned that the Brahma Kumaris page sees "ongoing skirmishes between WP:SPA editors committed to the BK world view and WP:SPA editors who seem to have an aversion to that", but does not count his or herself among those SPA editors, despite 515 of Danh108's 566 mainspace edits having been to the Brahma Kumaris article and its talk page. Some of these edits appear quite strong and bordering on WP:OWN, the editor having today reverted edits by myself and User:Truth is the only religion
to their own preferred version, dismissing the text as "quite random edits without proper justification by a first time editor" and asking that they be discussed first.

When I expressed concerns that Danh108 might have a conflict of interest here, I was told that they rejected the "label" of being a COI editor and that they felt they had "a connection, not a direct conflict" and didn't feel they were doing anything inappropriate or showing any bias.

Should this editor be considered as having a conflict of interest with regard to this religious group?

McGeddon (talk
) 18:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

TruBrain

Last year a prolific spammer was booking jobs via eLance to create articles and links between articles. At the time, I added the redlinks for a bunch of companies and other subjects mentioned in related eLance jobs to my Watchlist.

SPA which is obviously a throw-away account created for the purposes of creating this article. St★lwart111
23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Open Government Partnership

Hi. I've suggested some improvements to the Open Government Partnership article on the article's talk page. As the OGP is a client of mine, I thought it best to declare my relationship on this noticeboard and ensure that I don't implement any edits myself. If you have any questions then please contact me via my talk page. Thanks Vjemmett (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

OneoNater

This user has set off my paid-editor alarm bells as they have created articles about organisations and their employees -

new page patrol (how many newbies know about that?). They bear other marks of an experienced dodgy paid editor too - stringing together brief mentions in reliable sources to make it appear that they are notable. I could be wrong of course, but would appreciate more eyes taking a look to check whether they are notable and whether content is suitably sourced. I've already nominated David Scowsill for deletion. SmartSE (talk
) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Indiggo

Pretty obvious, user claims to be "...administrator for Indiggo Twins website..." CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns here. Especially given the history of socking by the subject of this article -- with multiple puppets (now blocked). Such as is discussed here and here. It may be time to protect the article, to give us a breather from filing these reports. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Lieze Stassen

WP:REALNAME, there seems to be a very clear conflict of interest here. Does anyone disagree? Justlettersandnumbers (talk
) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Deutsch Inc.
Trimmed puffery down to tolerable level. Deleted client list. Kept only major awards. That agency has done some notable work, and has press coverage for it. They had the top commercial of 2011, "The Force".[11][12] If this is an SPA employed by the ad agency, they're doing a terrible job of promotion. A well-written neutral article would be better than what the SPA has created. John Nagle (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite for Heritage Action

Hi, I am looking for editors to review a revised draft I have prepared for the Heritage Action article. I have prepared this revision on behalf of Heritage Action and, due to my relationship with the subject, I am avoiding all edits to the article. I would like to request that editors review the draft I have prepared and provide me with feedback, if necessary, so I can improve the draft. Ultimately I would like to find an editor who is willing to replace the current version of the article with the revised version I have prepared.

I have left messages on several WikiProjects (Conservatism, Politics, Organizations, PEH) and related Talk pages (Heritage Action, The Heritage Foundation and two user Talk pages) but have not found any editors interested in reviewing this draft. I'm hopeful editors here might be interested in taking a look. If not, I am open to suggestions on where I can take this request, I'm feeling a little short on ideas at this point.

I've left a detailed message at Talk:Heritage Action explaining the differences between my draft and the current version. The message also links to the draft in my userspace.

Looking forward to discussing this draft with editors. Thanks, Morzabeth (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

For a COI editor to propose replacing the entire article, starting from their draft, is a bit much. In general, Wikipedia frowns on wholesale article replacement, even by uninvolved editors. The draft is basically a position statement. John Nagle (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, I've replied over at Talk:Heritage Action. Morzabeth (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We went through a similar situation recently at Banc De Binary, where a COI editor wanted to use their own text and control/moderate the discussion. The process was painful for all concerned. Let's not go though that again. Big COI edits are work-generators for volunteer editors. If you have specific inaccuracies in the article that need to be corrected, please propose them as individual edit requests. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrator Torai works for IBM and makes commercial edits to OpenOffice.org

Torai lies here[13] --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why he has done all the edits to Openoffice to merge it with Apache Openoffice an IBM project. This is commercial posting and abuse of administrator powers --- see how he threatens other users on Talk:OpenOffice.org. 85.255.234.10 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There's some contentious editing over there. Not sure what to make of it. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't work for IBM. And never have. --Tóraí (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Czarkoff

Hi! In the deletion discussion linked above an IP editor accused me of conflict of interest, and I wanted to check here whether I am getting the situation right. I nominated for deletion an article about GoldBug instant messenger. One of contributors to that article noted that I can't start such discussions because of my involvement with another software of this kind – Tox, another project of the same genre. My contributions to that project were four bug fixes (pull requests #826 and #827 for toxcore and #121 and #122 for toxic) required to build this software on operating system I daily use. Does this amount of involvement indeed constitute a barrier I should never cross? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I don't think you are too involved to nominate, since it won't be you making the decision. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean that I am involved to some degree that would limit my ability of editing within some topic? If so, which topic should it be? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
If someone has an answer for me, I would appreciate a {{
ping}}. Thanks in advance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track
) 21:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Use the wikipedia resources:

Wiki Education Foundation to hire for two content-focused positions

As I just posted at various relevant places, Wiki Education Foundation is hiring for two part-time positions, Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. I don't think these paid positions should pose COI problems, but I'm posting here because we want to be proactively transparent. The main responsibilities for both of these positions will not involve directly editing articles, but there may be times when they get involved with content (e.g., helping a student editor polish up an article for GAN or DYK), as well as with quality assessment.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Robertleavitt

Would someone be able to look into

talk
) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION. Kendall-K1 (talk
) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Evans

Please check out what's been going on within the last 24 hours at

WP:COI with him. —Largo Plazo (talk
) 14:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Evans has been warned multiple times about his COI editing in this article (essentially trying to whitewash his past). I believe a temporary block is in order to reinforce the warning messages he has received and to allow other editors time to sort out the issues. Once his block has expired, I would recommend a topic ban, disallowing any edits to this article and only allowing talk page edits to request changes, as would be appropriate for any COI editor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There's discussion on
WP:BLPN. However, the COI user should still not be editing, and yet he has done so twicethree times after his block ended (reverted both times), despite an embarrassing report about his activity here in the local press. Interestingly though he'd left his phone number at User talk:TheQ Editor
and urged that it be used to verify that he is Jack Evans, when the reporter called Jack Evans' office he got a refusal to confirm Evansjack1's identity. Technically, I guess the jury's still out on whether this is really Jack Evans.
As for the week-long protection on the page, it didn't prevent his edits, why is that? Did he get autoconfirmed somehow? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
No response? He's edited the article another four times since I last posted, despite warnings and despite consistent reversions of his edits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiple bourbon related articles

This IP address is registered to Buffalo Trace Distillery, a major US producer of bourbon, and has been editing multiple articles related to bourbons produced by that distillery. I spot checked a few and found some were maybe ok but many are problematical, and reverted a few. I don't have time or resources to go through them all. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some example problem edits: [14] [15] [16] Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also these

And more. But I think the worst of those edits have been taken care of already. Buffalo Trace is owned by

The Sazerac Company. As you can see on the IP user's Talk page, I've been bumping up against this editor's strong pattern of biased editing of articles related to Sazerac products for some time now. (There have also been a couple of other accounts making biased edits about this company and its products.) I think I tend to be rather tolerant of COI editing, but this editing pattern has been a bit irritating. I also note that all of the IP's edits seem to be related to either this company and its products, or to those of its competitors. There seems to be no off-topic recreational editing happening here (except for one vandalistic edit in July 2010 and one possibly constructive one in November 2008). —BarrelProof (talk
) 04:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on for four years or more: [17] Maybe time to request a block? Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps – at least a brief block to get their attention – but like I said, I think I tend to be rather tolerant of COI editing, and although the IP's edits seem consistently biased, they don't always seem entirely unhelpful. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I think much more than a brief block is in order, this is the kind of editing that makes people question the integrity of the project, a problem far more detrimental than most issues. Also a brief block is unlikely to get noticed as this IP seems to do drive-by editing and then disappear for months.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the brand articles should just be merged into the corporate article. Wikipedia isn't a product catalog. The individual brands aren't particularly notable. There are brand reviews available. Cracked.com on Kentucky Gentleman: "The concept of mixing nearly equal parts of bourbon and grain alcohol appealed to a demographic of bourbon lovers who do not want any recollection whatsoever of the night before. Its cheap price and convenient pint, liter, and half gallon sizes appeal to many college students and mobile home residents throughout the United States." [18]. That and Wikipedia are the top references in Google for the product. The Whiskey Reviewer site says: " The phrase “Kentucky Gentleman” implies a certain Southern genteelness, and frankly, no one possessed with such grace and class would ever stoop to drinking anything resembling Kentucky Gentleman whiskey."[19] Chowhound: "So what is this stuff, paint thinner"[20]. Suggest either merging the brand articles or putting in some of those reviews. John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, Sazerac is not the only company – or even the only bourbon company – for which there are distinct pages for individual branded products. And the brands do have individual characters and histories that transcend companies – alcoholic beverage brands often have tangled histories where distilleries and brand names have been sold from one company to another or the companies themselves have been purchased or the production process has been contracted out to third parties. I would certainly support adding negative information to pages where appropriate and adequately sourced – that makes a Wikipedia article much more interesting than what you would see on a product label or a company web site. (I personally added the recent news that Kentucky Gentleman was declared too unhealthful to be allowed on the Russian booze market – information that the IP in question then tried to remove from the article.) —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I created Category:Sazerac Company brands to get a better sense of which pages are involved. The sheer number of interchangeable whiskies, and minimally sourced articles, makes me think I must have missed a few, though. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably, you haven't tried Blanton's. Blanton's and Kentucky Gentleman are about as far from being interchangeable as such things can be. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I have tried Blanton's, and, unfortunately, many of the cheaper ones as well. With that many labels, there are bound to be a few outliers. I was more thinking of Kentucky Gentleman, Kentucky Tavern, Ten High, Old Thompson, etc. There are so many labels that I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a couple when populating the category. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on the descriptions of their formulations, the drinkers of
straight bourbon (and seems pretty well respected as a value brand, and I think it's aged at least four years, although I'm not sure), so it's definitely a big step up from those. Ten High apparently made a move downwards in 2009. I guess they're trying to cover all segments. —BarrelProof (talk
) 01:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, it looks like you've done a very good job of finding the relevant articles and placing them in the new Category. (I'm not sure Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve belongs there, since they don't actually own that brand name, but they do produce it and do list it on their web site.) You're right that there does seem to be a rather large number of brands produced by Sazerac and that many seem in similar market segments. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Readers here may also find some of this other information interesting in regard to (somewhat clumsy) COI editing relating to this company:
—BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I considered posting a {{
coin-notice}} on the additional user talk pages mentioned above, but have not done so. Neither account is currently active (no edits for more than a year), so I think it would be "beating a dead horse" to do so. However, I thought that if we're discussing COI edits relating to that company, those prior encounters might be worth mentioning. —BarrelProof (talk
) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Articles for every brand of down-market booze are probably excessive. Frank-Lin Distillers Products in California alone has over 2000 brands.[21]. (They're all made from beverage-grade ethanol, de-ionized water, and flavoring.) Sazerac seems to be a similar kind of company. Some merging of brand articles into manufacturer articles might be worthwhile. John Nagle (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Another biased/COI user,

coin-notice}} to the additional user's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk
) 17:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That username also violates
WP:CORPNAME. Kendall-K1 (talk
) 11:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
And now reported as such to
WP:UAA.--ukexpat (talk
) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Blocked.--ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyogerst

Cyogerst (talk · contribs) on the following articles:

I first came across this user when he created a highly promotional, unsourced biography for

biography noticeboard and talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
) 17:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I was not aware of the COI issues when I reposted the edits. Your initial emails went into my junk mail folder and I did not see them immediately. When I saw them, I only went in and created links to some of the information that was allowed on the page. In regards to whitewashing, the controversy section on Roland Martins page I argue that that content is not justified for his page because inability to attend to every fan request is commonplace for any public person. Therefore, putting it in the Wiki page appears to be libelous and biased against the persona in question. I greatly appreciate your feedback and links to help me understand the regulations about promotional content and conflict of interest and I will only post sourced material from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.133.146 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Having examined the material in question, I agree that it is trivial and does not belong in the person's biography. It is not "whitewashing" to remove a single media reference from 23 years ago that is both
undue weight and is being misrepresented as some sort of ongoing "controversy." There is no evidence that it is of encyclopedic import to his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk
) 23:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: The issue is more the conflict of interest than whether the text is appropriate. I have not restored the information, and I am not going to edit war to include it. However, I don't think this editor should be editing articles to which he has a clear COI. If he works for the subject, how can he write an objective biography? He has already written one highly promotional biography; see the original version of Jimmy Houston before my rewrite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree the COI is a problem, but the stuff he removed most recently at Roland Martin doesn't belong in that article. See my comment on the article talk page. He has not edited since this COI notice went up. He does need to divulge the COI on his user page if he continues to edit. I'm not sure what else can be done right now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - I just feel we need to be careful in this case, because it seems to be a mix - looking at some of his edits, you're definitely right that he has done some overly-promotional rewriting, but he also has a point with regards to some of the negative material that he removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Warren Rodwell

If you look at the article

Warren Rodwell it was created by WarrenRodwell and edited by him. I believe there is a conflict of interest as he is editing and writing about himself which is discouraged. Is this a conflict of interest, and if so, should sanctions/restrictions be applied? 1999sportsfan (talk
) 14:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

USER REPLIED:

  • May all your Wiki experiences and edits be happy ones WarrenRodwell (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Article was merged into
WP:BLP1E[22]. So this COI issue is now moot. John Nagle (talk
) 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

George Perry (neuroscientist)

A few years ago I created the wikipedia article for a former professor without properly noting my connection in advance. I was notified there is a conflict of interest allegation, and have attempted to resolve it by discussing it with the editor, who directed me here. I have updated my user profile to reflect a connection with this person and to explain that I do not intend to violate neutrality. After reading the conflict of interest wiki pages I am still unaware of what I can do to remove a conflict of interest notice and would appreciate help. Maybe if I remove some details from the biography to reflect only the most obviously important facts? 84.186.213.64 (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Advisor shares possible employee editing

I noticed that the Advisor shares article had an unusual amount of activity and then was put under protection. I looked at the history and am convinced that there is a COI with the company trying to hide inconvenient facts about its history. I did a search and realized that someone else had brought this up but not gotten a response. I'm new to the COI rules but have been a longtime reader of Wikipedia. Can someone please look at the below claims, which I copied and pasted from the archive below and possibly do something about them?

I strongly believe that employees of Advisorshares, fund.com and/or Arrow Invesment Advisors are editing the “Advisorsshares” and "Fund.com" Wikipedia pages. An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same user (probably an Advisorshares or fund.com employee): UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Other possible sock puppets of this same user include, Babylon1894 and Jigsaw574.

UserNameUnderConstruction has been warned twice on their talk page that if they are a paid employee of a company whose page they are editing, they need to declare it. Both times they avoid answering if they are a paid employee or representative and claim that other users can’t make such assumptions. UserNameUnderConstruction has twice accused use "Sargdub" of being a sock puppet of ETFCanadian on the talk pages of Advisorshares and fund.com, even though Sargdub has been a user since 2010 and is from New Zealand Icelandicgolfer (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@
Sockpuppet investigation. Chris Fynn (talk
) 18:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Icelandicgolfer is more than likely a sockpuppet himself though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@CFynn: thank you for the suggestion. I tried to do what you suggested but not sure if I did it correctly. Submitted an abbreviated sock puppet complaint but for some reason after I submitted it, the final version had the text repeated multiple times in a row.Icelandicgolfer (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ryulong:I can understand why you think that. I wrote in first paragraph that I copied some of my ideas and sentances from other users, although not ETFCanadian. I looked and realized that some of these users were banned from copying from ETFCanadian. However, I am just a crazy viking from the middle of nowhere Iceland. Icelandicgolfer (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This "crazy viking" garbage has gotten old after your 3 postings of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Notice how no one has investigated this. The editor was not found to be innocent. It was not completed. Yet the case the Ryulong brought forward against me has been investigated several times and no evidence has been found against me. Is this considered harassment under wikipedia's rules?Icelandicgolfer (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
drop the stick on AdvisorShares and edit other topics. There is no current problem on AdvisorShares and related articles, and they are being watched by neutral parties. Jytdog (talk
) 13:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the accounts being complained about haven't edited the article in the last month (or are blocked), and the AdvisorShares article is currently rather negative on this set of financial products. The "Fund.com" article starts out by reporting they've been demoted to the "pink sheets" and was involved with a Ponzi scheme. Not seeing anything like a current promotional or COI problem. John Nagle (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Note, the OP has been banned as a meatpuppet and the SPI was closed here. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Brand.com has a new self-described COI editor.

Over at Brand.com (the company that used to be

Reputation Changer), we have a new editor who properly identifies herself as representing "Brand.com" and makes comments on the talk page.(Talk:Brand.com/Archives/2014#Article Assistance). The main issue she's raising has to do with a statement by their CEO which was quoted in a news source but which, apparently, Brand.com now regrets. There's a lot of history with this company, which at one time had a very bad reputation[23] and is now trying to de-emphasize that history. Nothing bad is happening yet. I'd suggest putting this article on watch lists, though. John Nagle (talk
) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Family relationships and COI

I am thinking of working on the bio of my spouse's great-great-great grandfather, and I was wondering if that relationship is close enough to require a COI declaration on the article. And yes, I did create the article (back in 2005) but have not edited it since it occurred to me that it might be a COI issue (except to add an image to the article several days ago).

Am I correct to think this isn't worth a COI note? (I have no vested interest in making him look good, or bad.) Guettarda (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • You are correct IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree - the fellow was a congressman, notable by default and long since passed. There's no element of promotion whatsoever and no real way for you to benefit from his having an article (which, as I say, we would have whether you edited it or not). You could always add a {{mbox}} note on the talk page noting a (very) distant connection rather than a "COI" note for the sake of convenience. St★lwart111 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I have a possible COI?

Please advise me if I have a COI in editing pages concerning agriculture and specifically those with organic and related sustainability topics. I do research in developing an alternative agricultural model. I am not paid by anyone to do this research, and it is completely funded by the sales of tomatoes and peppers from my test plots. (I have 2 test plots. 1 is ~1/10th an acre and the other is ~1 acre.) I receive absolutely no outside funding from any industry or government, neither the organic industry nor the conventional industry. The produce is not certified organic. However:

The trials using the methods I am developing use these 10 principles:

Principle 1: No till and/or minimal till with mulches used for weed control
Principle 2: Minimal external inputs
Principle 3: Living mulches between rows to maintain biodiversity
Principle 4: Companion planting
Principle 6: The ability to integrate carefully controlled modern animal husbandry (optional and not currently part of the project)
Principle 5: Capability to be mechanized for large industrial scale or low labor for smaller scale
Principle 7: As organic as possible, while maintaining flexibility to allow non-organic growers to use the methods
Principle 8: Portable and flexible enough to be used on a wide variety of crops in many areas of the world
Principle 9: Sustainable ie. beneficial to the ecology and wildlife
Principle 10: Profitable

In the past I have worked in conventional agriculture, however that was over 30 years ago. So I doubt that is a COI either.

I honestly don't feel like there is a COI either way, since while I did make a living in conventional ag years ago, that was long past, and the trials I do now are not making me a living, any income simply funds the trials. But I am inexperienced with certain details about WIKI so I defer to your judgement and will be happy to post a COI if you think it is needed. If my trials end up being successful in scaling up to full size, then there could potentially be profits that might be needing to be disclosed. That hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.Redddbaron (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)PS. I have not made any wiki edits or posts of any type about my project, and my project does not appear on any wiki pages. But I have been making edits on agricultural pages that are found on wiki and have volunteered for the wiki agriculture project and help where ever possible and appropriate IMO.Redddbaron (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. If we assume anyone who works in a given area is conflicted for any and all subject matter related to their vocation, we will quickly eliminate all expertise from the encyclopedia. Many/most of the medical editors are practicing physicians, and I think that's a pretty good analogy.
talk
) 00:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. possible an issue with
WP:ADVOCATE but that is a different ball of wax. Jytdog (talk
) 00:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Delta Epsilon Iota

I stumbled across the article Delta Epsilon Iota. Something very strange seems to be going on there that should probably be looked in to (see the page history). Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean because it's being heavily edited by "DEINationalOffice"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
DEINationalOffice looks like a role account - both from the name itself and repeated use of "we". LadyofShalott 00:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
User name reported to
WP:ORGNAME.--ukexpat (talk
) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

If an editor works as a volunteer for a religious group and (according to their user page) was first motivated to edit Wikipedia by "how this 'real life experience' as a volunteer didn’t match the portrait presented on Wiki", should it be considered a conflict of interest when they edit that article directly? The editor has been blanket reverting other editors' work on the article and removing COI/advert tags.

McGeddon (talk
) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Mbunda Kingdom - editor is spokesperson for Mbunda tribal association, edits on behalf of the tribal authority

Dear Colleagues. I am extremely concerned about the article Mbunda Kingdom. Besides the general poor quality of the article, (example: 1-4 under the historic foundation of the kingdom)

  • Firstly, it is almost single-handedly the work of one editor, User:Ndandulalibingi (formerly User:Libingi), who identifies himself as the "National Chairman of Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association".
  • Editor also claims to be writing the article "with full authority from the current Mbunda Monarch on the Throne".
  • The article is based on the content of a book written by the said association; the book is the result of "indigenous Mbunda Writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers, some of whom were there in Mbundaland which is now part of Angola". As you can se here questions have been raised about the editor's methods and his claims about the validity of oral tradition as history.
  • The material is ultimately ascribed to the "The Mbunda Kingdom Research and Advisory Council"
  • Large part of the material is in fact copy-pasted from the Mbunda site, as pointed out here
  • In reference to the book by this association that speaks for the Mbunda people, the usar says "However, there are so many sources who agree with this research on google books, some of whom have been blacklisted on your [Wikipedia] web pages, for whatever reasons you may know better. Libingi (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)"
  • The article makes some claims that I find nowhere else, starting with the fact the Mbunda people migrated from the Sudan, as per this map
  • The said Kingdom started off somewhere near a place called Kola, in the DRC, near the Luba and Lunda states shown here
  • The kingdom was founded in early 1400s, "interacting with the Luba and Lunda Kingdoms"
  • The
    Lunda Kingdom
    not until the mid-1600s.
  • Then the kingdom moved - please not that it does not say that the people migrated, but that the kingdom moved north-east, and was "was re-established" here
  • Later the kingdom moved again and "was re-established here
  • The maps used to indicate the various places where the kingdom was established were uploaded by the editor and attributed to the site of the Mbunda kingdom website,
  • The elephant image used as the symbol of the monarch is copyrighted material taken from here, although the editor says "Own drawing to depict the eulogizes Mbunda Kingdom monarch symbol"
  • The pictures of one of the Mbunda kings appears to be a user's avatar on Answers.com, though is attibuted to the editor.
  • A drawing that the editor claims as his owned work is signed as "Kavela Arts"
  • By the looks of it, other images from the article also appear to be avatars on Answers.com
  • Many of the names of people and even places mentioned do not appear in the WP with the exception of on pages related to Mbunda. This includes the supposed birthpalce of the kingdom, Kola, which as such would certainly merit mention in a number of places. By contrast, any reference on an article of Hereros, or Shangaans or Zulus will appear on countless pages.
  • I am equally skeptical of other articles created single-handedly by editor such as this one this one and numerous others.
  • The editor hijacks language articles and fills them with the history of the Mbunda people as can be seen here and here. On at least two talkpages I saw two editors warning him to stop this practice.
  • If you google, you will soon find out that the so called association is nothing more than an organisation driving a political agenda, advocating for recognition of political rights for the Mbunda people and Wikipedia is now being used to create 'bulk' content to exaggerate the size and importance of the population. Examples:
    • The article on Zambia - a lenghty well structured article had no mention of Mbunda until the editor introduced mention thereof in October 2013. This is most odd, for an article that was already well-rounded in 2006 How could the existence of the Mbunda escape hundreds of editors over a decade and only since this editor came along are these references being inserted - and only by this editor?
    • Mavinga, also had no mention of Mbunda before the editor's edits. Editor also added 6 entries to Mbunda-related articles under "See also". The same is true of a duplicate article on Mavinga.
    • An extremely visible article such as History of Angola, had no mention of Mbunda before the arrival of the editor in 2013, making numerous edits on Mbunda
    • The same article in Portuguese does not mention Mbunda (or Bunda(s) once.
  • Google will also show you that the editor, in his capacity as National Chair of the association, is in fact the de facto spokesperson for the Cheke Cha Mbunda, described on their information site, The Missing Link, as the "information wing" of the Mbunda people.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


@ Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I quote your unfortunate statement which exposes your motive: "If you google, you will soon find out that the so called association is nothing more than an organisation driving a political agenda, advocating for recognition of political rights for the Mbunda people and Wikipedia is now being used to create 'bulk' content to exaggerate the size and importance of the population". This is total harassment. If you do not know an ethnic group called Mbunda and the Mbunda Kingdom, please ask the Angolan authorities. History is about continuous research. If a group was never covered in a research you know and it is brought out in a later research, why should you question it if reliable sources are cited? You mention that "questions have been raised about the editor's methods and his claims about the validity of oral tradition as history". Yes these questions were raised because of mixing Mbunda language and Mbunda people and the issues were strange to them as they seem strange to you. These issues were argued and agreed upon which resulted in working together with those scholar editors and came up with polished articles. For your interest's sake get hold of the Mbunda History book, you will notice that it contains oral research without much source references. However, my articles give many reliable source references to validate the oral history as urged with other editors. The pictures or drawings you are referring to of the Kings are our photographs and drawings which other websites have copied from us through Wiki Commons. We have proof of original drawings we scanned from if you are interested to see them. You should be mindful that a lot of ethnic groups in Angola are not researched and the door to research them is not closed. You should also be mindful that the history of Angola is far from being complete. The Portuguese wrote very little about Angola and mainly along the coastline. Copied to: ukexpat (talk) Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have a motive, as you say. And that motive is to fight against what I see as the Wikipedia being being used. I believe my heart is in the right place. You on the other hand, are rewriting history, which is why you yourself found out that most of the sources you are trying to use are taken down because they are blacklisted as fringe. I still need to take the time to see what is going on, for I have seen some things about replacing mentions of Nganguela with Mbunda. I am not making any accusations, as I first need to see exactly what the nature of these changes is. But perhaps you could could comment on that. As for knowing or not knowing about the Mbundas, I have no need to ask the Angolan authorities, I KNOW about Mbunda people. But they are a tiny minority of a few hundred thousand people, which does not justify you flooding various articles with extremely lenghty sections about the Mbundas, while bigger groups are described in a few lines, in accordance with their weight and the size of the article. You seem to lack a sense of measure. In one article about a town, what you included on the Mbundas makes up 85% of the text, and worst of all, IT IS A REPETITION of what you have already pasted in three or four other pages. Seeing that you mention the Angolan authorities, I work with them regularly - to them, what you refer to as king of the Mbundas, is treated by the Angolan authorities as a soba (traditional chief), as you can see here and elsewhere in Angolan documentation. Most of what you add to articles are fabrications and exaggerations. As an Angolan, you cannot tell me about Angola, you don't even speak Portuguese. Most of your lenghty diatribes about the Mbundas in Angola cannot be found in anything written in Angola and when you do find, this is in fact a translation of material put out by your association, the result of the interviews conducted by your association, based on memory of elders, as you yourself say elsewhere. You have no sources - the article on the Mbunda kingdom appears to have 18 sources, while in fact it cites the SAME book by Papstein 8 times and cites publications by your association a number of times. And speaking of sources, in at least two places you deleted a source in an article and replaced it with your source, more favourable to your point of view. In brief, you, as an office-bearer of the Cheke cha Mbunda, should be limiting yourself to small non-controversial edits, not driving a campaign to promote the Mbunda cause, which anyway has no place in the WP. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


Ngangela language, Mbunda language and Mbunda people articles, you will find numerous sources and debates we had with sociolinguistic scholars, learn or prove the sources wrong. I will not stop here, His Majesty King Mbandu III Lifuti and the Angolan authorities will be informed about your insults on the King and the Mbunda people in general. You are the type that are confusing the history of Angola, mind you history of Angola did not start in 1975. Ndandulalibingi (talk
) 10:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Colleagues, there are two issues, only one of which is of relevance to this forum. One is the question of COI, the other the general issues with the article, especially sources, verification etc. Right now, this discussion is going in the wrong direction and I am partly to blame for it. In fact, I don’t even know if this is the place for a discussion or merely a place to bring to the attention of others pssible COI issues. The discussion has now taken a “who is the fraud here” direction, which – like everything else on the Wikipedia – can be settled only on the strength of sources.

Like I said, there are two issues and I would seek guidance as to where I can take up the other issues to ensure maximum exposure. Understandably, the talk pages of the Mbunda articles will not get the attention they deserve, so I would the matter discussed at a bigger forum in the interest of a diversity of voices, transparency and academic rigour in a peer environment. Having said that, it behoves that I point out a few deatils on sources: The point about speaking Portuguese is not about being Angolan, as the editor understood, but about being able to consult what is out there (sources) on the Mbunda people, written in Portuguese. Unfortunately there is a negligible amount of written material in the local languages, and I share that sentiment with my fellow Angolan editors.

I fully agree with the editor on the need to use our own sources, but not at the expense of the truth or by resorting to sources that tell a one-sided version of history. Is it on record that I argued with colleagues about the preponderant use of foreign sources in the Portuguese article on Brazil.

The scholars who have helped him referred to by the editor are two editors (whom I know) who have the same issues with the editor as I do in as far as sources are concerned. There are numerous talkpage discussions where these two editors tried their best to get the editor to conform to the WP policies, one going as far as asking to be allowed for time for him to try and salvage the Mbunda article when it was tagged for speedy deletion. Both express in discussions concern with the direction the articles are taking, especially sources and the disproportionate amount of text afforded the Mbundas, while other more numerous people get a two-liner and how the editor always portrays the Mbunda as above all others, even superior, in a number of places claiming that all other tribes were defeated, with the exception of the Mbunda because of their suprior fighting skills. The editor cites the superiority of the Mbunda in at least four place that I have come across so far. As I said, this is not new, it has been pointed out by one of the two "scholar editors" that helped improve the Mbunda articles.

The editor has the following to say about sources:

  • “I do not rely on second class information or foreign anthropologists, who may distort our history to serve their own endeavours”.
  • “we believe that, History is stories or narrations given by forefathers down the line”
  • “The history and life of the Mbunda Speaking People is well researched and published in 1994, by Cheke Cultural Writers Association, now called Cheke Cha Mbunda Cultural and Writers Association”
  • “This is an indeginious Mbunda writers Association who have interviewed, the Mbunda forefathers”"
  • “there are so many sources who agree with this research on google books, some of whom have been blacklisted on your web pages [Wikipedia]”
  • “when I tried to post some references from google books, they were rejected that, "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist"”
  • When another editor pointed out that reliable sources indicated that a group called Mbunda in the DRC was unrelated to the Mbunda people in Angola-Zambia, the editor’s reply was “these are misconcerptions of foreigners trying to document history or particulars of an ethenic group without consulting them”

As I pointed out before, the sources used on the Mbunda people are the book commissioned by the editor’s association (a collection of material collected in interviews with Mbunda forefathers) and edited by Robert J Papstein and some works by Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan. If you do an internal search on Wikipedia, these two names appear only in relation to the edits by editor on the Mbunda people. Have these works ever been peer-reviewed? All that I have pointed out here has already been pointed out before by the two editors that tried their best to help turn the Mbunda articles into quality Wikipedia articles.

Other than the COI issue, any assistance will be appreciated in guiding me in taking the matter to the appropriate forum. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


@ Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) I totally agree, this is now the right way to go about it. However some corrections:
  • The issue was not about a group called Mbunda in the DRC being unrelated to the Mbunda people in Angola-Zambia. The argument was that the Mbunda language in DRC is classified as different from the one spoken in Angola Zambia and Namibia. This was at the time I was mixing Mbunda people's input into Mbunda language article. I was therefore encouraged to write the Mbunda people article, which I did. Most of this was at the time I was new and still learning to edit on Wikipedia.
  • The sources used on the Mbunda people are not only Mbunda history book edited by Dr. Robert J Papstein and some works by Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan. Other sources used which can be verified in the same context are:
* Historical Dictionary of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, By Emizet Francois Kisangani, Scott F. Bobb, page 336, 2009 - History, Published by Scarecrow Press, Inc.
ISBN 978-0-8108-5761-2
* Bantu-Languages.com, citing Maniacky 1997
* Terms of trade and terms of trust: the history and contexts of pre-colonial pages 133...By Achim von Oppen, LIT Verlag Münster Publishers, 1993,
ISBN 978-3-89473-246-2
* René Pélissier, La révolte des Bunda (1916–1917), pp. 408 - 412 (French for "the Mbunda revolt"), section footnotes citing sources: Luís Figueira, Princesa Negra: O preço da civilização em África, Coimbra Edição do autor, 1932
* The Bantu in Ancient Egypt, citing sources: Alfred M M'Imanyara 'The Restatement of Bantu Origin and Meru History' published by Longman Kenya, 1992 - Social Science - 170 pages,
ISBN 9966-49-832-X
* The elites of Barotseland, 1878-1969: a political history of Zambia's Western Province: a. Gerald L. Caplan
ISBN 0-900966-38-6
Publisher: C. Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 1970
* Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and Middle East, Facts On File library of world history, Facts On File, Incorporated, Social Science, Infobase Publishing, 2009,
ISBN 978-1-4381-2676-0
* Mupatu, Y. Mulambwa Santulu Uamuhela Bo Mwene, London, 1954
* White, C.M.N. Notes on the Political Organization of the Kabompo District and its Inhabitants, African Studies, IX, (1950), pp. 185-93
* Franz-Wilhelm Heimer, Der Entkolonisierungskonflikt in Angola, Munich: Weltforum Verlag, 1979
ISBN 3-8039-0179-0
* Billy Graham Center Archives: Collection 252, Robert Wesley Brain, T1 Transcript
* Ministério da Administração do Território
* A.W, July 1, 1917, A Comparative Vocabulary of Sikololo-Silui-Simbunda, African Affairs, Oxford University Press
* Tusona: Luchazi Ideographs : a Graphic Tradition of West-Central Africa By Gerhard Kubik, pages 291, 292, 300

Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Consumer Priority Service

This article was mainly written by one editor and all of that editor's contributions involve this company. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a look, I'd say it's an AfD candidate. The article is highly promotional. Only one real source, and I couldn't find any others in a short search. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I will support AfD. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumer Priority Service. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Update regarding Full Sail University and Los Angeles Film School

I have previously

WP:COI policy, and in cases where I am discussing content related to the Full Sail University or Los Angeles Film School
articles, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.

I want others to know of this conflict of interest up front, and would like the community's feedback on if this is a sound approach to participate.

Thank you. --Tylergarner (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User mstoneham SPA used for self-promotion on Game Genie

Single-purpose account exists only for self-promotion on the Game Genie article. Insists on maintaining references to himself in the article, even returning after a 7-year hiatus to restore his name to the article. Appears non-notable from a quick Google search. Some guy (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fernando Fischmann ‎

This s.p.a. is constantly tinkering with the article, trying to make the subject look better and more important than he really is. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaplan University

These two editors have been responsible for most of the recent edits to

WP:COI, in particular reportage about a lawsuit against Kaplan by one "Jude Gillespie", who Judelawparis admits to being here. MT wKaplan isn't being secretive, but he is much too active on the article about his employer. --jpgordon::==( o )
14:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)

The Senior Wrangler is a title given to the highest-scoring undergraduate mathematics student at the University of Cambridge. The user listed above claims to have been given the title in 1992, but there is no proper evidence other than self-assertion. Her account is a single-purpose account with the intention of including her name on the article. Here are the two main edits where she has tried to push her name onto the article against consensus and commonsense [24], [25]. She has only provided two 'sources': the first a link to her Linkedin page [26][27] and the second a self-published and completely unverified letter [28][29] supposedly from a Cambridge fellow that is hosted on the website of her workplace. Quite simply, something this obscure and dubious does not deserve a place in the article, as she has been told on the talk page here [30] and here [31] and on her user page here [32], all of which she has ignored. The lady is not here to 'build an encyclopedia' but only to push her name onto this article, something that falls well below Wikipedia's standards. Since she has repeatedly ignored the guidelines that have been brought up and continued to force her name onto the article, complete with aggressive language and numerous capital letters(!), I can only suggest some kind of block or final warning here. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my response: I am not a regular Wikipedia user, and I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page. I believe the editor who has stripped a long list of names post 1909 has been too prescriptive in doing so. I am aware from discussion with another editor (who has taken the time to email me personally to discuss the matter in a helpful and pleasant manner) that there are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations. It would perhaps be an alternative to create a separate section on the article entitled 'suggested Senior Wranglers' explaining that these names have been put forward and are subject to further verification. Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently? I am not clear as to why this editor is so intent to have me removed from the list, and what particular interest they have in this matter. I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this. It is identical in format to the two letters from the previous two years, where I was placed 6th (part IA) and 2nd (part IB). I uploaded it to my husband's website so that it is in the public domain. It is inherent in the non-public nature of Senior Wranglers since 1910 that evidence is hard to obtain, and the fact I have the original letter is something that others have not offered. (If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves, as I know we wrote our own profiles when I was a doctoral student at Warwick University.) It is very upsetting that this editor is taking this aggressive approach and their accusations above are very hurtful. I will admit I stated firmly on my edit - including using capital letters - that their approach to editing is unacceptable, because I was very keen that they stop making these changes. I think that it is the editor above who should be asked not to approach the editing of this page in this way. In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber (see http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~rrw1/ for his profile and contact details) to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine. I do wonder, as this editor seems so interested in the subject, whether they would like to look at the list of suggested names (if they have kept it) and contact the colleges listed, which I am sure will be able to verify their own alumni's achievements. A single contact with Trinity College would probably produce a long list. To the people at Wikipedia considering the above: I am sorry if what I have written above is not written in the proper format, or expressed in the proper way. I have not edited anything on Wikipedia before, and I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement. I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain. Thank you. Ruth Juliet Hendry.


'I only wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page.'
I am sorry, but that is simply not how Wikipedia works. You have a conflict of interest, which is defined
here
as 'an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Your role as an editor is to edit the encyclopedia neutrally, not to include your name in an article.
'There are many who prefer the approach of marking names as 'citation needed' rather than deleting them. In deleting the list, this editor has lost potentially valuable information, which could be the source of research to obtain the citations.'
Whilst this might be appropriate on a personal website of someone who is interested in senior wranglers, it does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. A hugely important principle of Wikipedia is
living people
.
'Does the editor who deleted the long list still have them, or has this accumulated data been lost permanently?'
Previous versions of the page can be found in the article history (look at the tab at the top of the page).
'I am the 1992 Senior Wrangler, and I have provided a copy of the letter which was sent to me by my Director of Studies (Dr Richard Weber, now Professor Richard Weber, Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research) confirming this.'
We simply cannot take your word for this, sorry. In order be part of Wikipedia, the information must come from reliable sources. If reliable sources cannot be found, it indicates the information is not appropriate or notable enough for Wikipedia.
'If the links are followed to the citations given for many of the other Senior Wranglers, the link is to a profile page on a university website or similar, which it is very likely the person has written for themselves.'
If this is a concern for you, make a note on the talk page discussing whether these names should also be deleted.
'In the meanwhile I would invite the editor, as they are clearly very keen to have an accurate list of Senior Wranglers, to email Professor Weber to ask him to verify that the letter is genuine.'
This is absolutely unacceptable, sorry. All editors must follow the rule of
no original research
. If the information is to be included in the article, it should be documented in a reliable source: 'to demonstrate that you are not adding OR [original research], you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.' The unverified and unsupported letter does not constitute a reliable source.
'I cannot compete with the editor above who seems intent on removing my one achievement in life from Wikipedia, even though I have provided adequate proof that I have this achievement.'
I am sorry to read this. Becoming senior wrangler is a proud achievement for many. It is not your role to provide proof for the article, however. It is the role of reliable sources. If no sources exist, then there is no place in the article.
'I am feeling harassed by this person and very upset by it all and would appreciate your help in stopping them doing this any further, and allowing my edits to remain.'
I am also sorry to read this. My intentions are not to harrass you but to prevent Wikipedia from falling below important standards. I have removed numerous names, not only yours: it just happens that you are the only editor who has made an account to restore your name to the article. Because of the seriousness of a harassment claim, I have made a note of this at the
administrators' noticeboard
.
I strongly suggest you avoid further attempts to push your name into the article. I have explained quite clearly why it is completely inappropriate. I would welcome you, though, to begin editing Wikipedia generally, without a conflict of interest, in topics that interest you. This means having a
teahouse. 86.158.181.1 (talk
) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for? As for what Ms Hendry 'signed up' for, I very much doubt that anyone reads through the entire bureaucratic labyrinth of Wikipedia policies and guidelines before signing up - and I suspect that were people to do so, we'd have substantially less contributors. The facts of the matter here are that Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this. Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
A conflict of interest is defined at
WP:COI as an 'incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor'. Miss Hendry has added inappropriate references against consensus and without discussion, thereby disrupting the aim of Wikipedia, in order to satisfy her individual aims (as she has described above, 'I ... wish that the fact that I am Senior Wrangler 1992 be recognised on the page'). Advice has been provided on multiple pages, but her attempts to force through her edits have not stopped. This edit [33] suggests she is unwilling to consider this and is instead focused on her underlying aim, which is not an aim that benefits the encyclopedia. 86.158.181.1 (talk
) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Panda, the frequently grumpy Andy has spoken wisely above. And in fact the Terms of Service item that you may be referring to is only about paid promotional editing. Nothing like that appears to be going on here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(

WP:SPS). 86.158.181.1, please try to be less confrontational and more understanding. That said, Ruth: according to the article, the institution of publicly fêting the Senior Wrangler was done away with in 1910, so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner. 50.0.205.237 (talk
) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS is certainly not possible at all here: it states to 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. I apologise if I have come across as confrontational: it was not intended in any way. I gave a lot of detail above and directed Miss Hendry to relevant pages that give further information. I explained that being Senior Wrangler is a big achievement, but also on what is necessary when contributing to a Wikipedia article. 86.158.181.1 (talk
) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Now you're wikilawyering. This is not a contentious BLP issue and there is no need to treat it as one. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Not at all: it quite clearly says 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer'. It is so important never is in bold. No exceptions are made to this point on the page. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You continue to wikilawyer. It's not appropriate to argue over something like that unless there's an actual issue of contention regarding the info under discussion. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Not only is it Wikilawyering, it is Wikilawyering based on a clear misunderstanding of policy - written in plain English. There is no 'third party' involved here. The 'self-published source' only concerns the person who 'published' it - Ms Hendry. Not a third party. That section of BLP policy is a complete irrelevance here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
There are two possibilities here. The first, as originally suggested by 50.0.205.237, is that Prof. Weber posts a letter on his website. Prof. Weber is arguably an 'established expert', but the letter is about a living third party, since Miss Hendry is independent of Prof. Weber, so 'never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer' applies. The second is that, as currently, Miss Hendry posts the letter on her website. This is unacceptable becuse she is not an 'established expert on the subject matter'. Either way,
WP:SPS does not apply. 86.158.181.1 (talk
) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refer back to AndyTheGrump's excellent analysis of this situation:

  • Ms Hendry has seen a list which she considers she has a legitimate claim to be included on, and she has offered what she considers to be a reasonable means to verify this.
  • If being a Senior Wrangler isn't notable, why do we have an article on the subject which lists every one that we have a reliable source (in Wikipedia terms) for?
  • Failing to understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing does not constitute a 'conflict of interest' by any stretch of the imagination, and accordingly this should never have been brought up here.

The IP's comment here is unfortunate, unfair and sadly sounds too much like the kind of comment leveled at women in 1909.

  • so it comes across as unseemly for someone to promote themselves in this manner

If there is, what is considered by agreement to be a reliable source, and that is the real issue concerning this content, then content should be readded . That is the only appropriate discussion, in my opinion. Further, that discussion belongs on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

Just to clarify, the IP that made the comment about promoting oneself is a different IP to me. On a somewhat related note, I wholeheartedly insist this discussion is solely about an academic title: editors should be very careful not to let issues of sex, which are entirely unrelated to the matter at hand, to disrupt the discussion. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
About reliable sources, yes, the problem is that no reliable source exists and Miss Hendry has repeatedly attempted to place her name in the article despite this. Discussion has been attempted at
WP:COIN was made simply because the edits have continued. 86.158.181.1 (talk
) 16:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
No, the problem here is that rather than attempting to engage someone who is clearly unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia in dialogue, you chose to start a thread here in an entirely confrontational manner. Ms Hendry had provided what she clearly considered to be a legitimate source, and had been given no indication as to why it wasn't acceptable prior to this thread being started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether a reliable source exists is a discussion for the article talk page. A new editor, should any of use remember what that was like, should be walked, kindly, through the process of identifying RSs, something to keep in mind on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC))
More good comments from Andy and Olive. An old talkpage comment[34] mentions a possible source available at Cambridge. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor wants to add her own name to a WP article. How could that possibly not be a conflict of interest? This editor was invited to discuss the matter on July 30, and twice added her name back in after that time without discussing. I think bringing the matter here was a reasonable next step. I am sorry she feels harassed but I'm not sure how else this could have been handled. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • COI is an issue in Wikipedia because of how people sometimes try to compromise the neutrality of articles for self-serving reasons. The particular info under dispute was neutral and added missing info to a list already created by other editors, so the primary objection to COI editing doesn't apply. At most there's a secondary issue because of the slightly more difficult resulting discussion. I think Andy is right, this didn't need to be brought here. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly - there is no conflict of interest involved in adding encyclopaedic information to an article. A COI comes about when someone compromises article content for reasons of personal benefit, which clearly wasn't the intent here. Ms Hendry was reverted earlier because there wasn't a RS-compliant source given. She restored her name to the list while providing what she thought was a valid source. At that point, the correct approach would have been to explain to her why the source wasn't acceptable - instead the whole thing has been blown out of proportion by an entirely unnecessary escalation.AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
We should be very clear here: Miss Hendry repeatedly 'compromised' the article by attempting to place her name in the article with unacceptable references, against previous discussion and advice. Miss Hendry has admitted above that she is not interested in improving the list but just to have her 'one achievement in life' 'recognised on the page'. This is a single-purpose account that has shown no interest in improving Wikipediia, but only for a specific personal interest. As Kendall-K1 write, 'how could that possibly not be a conflict of interest?'. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, from the evidence presented here, you seem to show little evidence of actually wishing to improve Wikipedia yourself - instead you seem intent on harassing someone for no better reason than not understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I suggest that you drop the matter, and find something better to do with your time, before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the material because the lack of references means it falls well below Wikipedia's intended standards. It is ridiculous and offensive, as two other users have written above, to accuse me of harassment because I have removed unverified and unsourced content. As usual, when somone runs out of arguments, he lowers himself to accusations and threats. If you cannot sustain a civilised discussion, I suggest this is not the place for you. 86.158.181.1 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
A civilised discussion wouldn't have started with you describing one of the most significant academic achievements in British scholarship as "something this obscure and dubious", and nor would it have included you asking for a contributor to be blocked for no better reason than misunderstanding Wikipedia policy on sourcing. It should be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at
Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge) at which the appropriate sourcing of recent Senior Wranglers (including I have no reason to doubt, Ms Hendry) is being discussed. If you really want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you participate there, rather than continuing in this thoroughly bad-faith attempt to get your way over what should only ever have been a minor issue, more appropriately dealt with on a contributor's talk page than here and at ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 11:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is potentially a reliable source for this. It's being discussed at
Talk:Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge). There is a published class list for each year in which the Senior Wrangler is marked, but it is not online. It is, however, available in the British Library and at various libraries at Cambridge. Perhaps someone will check the source and cite it properly. It would be a nice gesture if someone in London or Cambridge did this. The reason we're having so much trouble with this is that most Senior Wranglers went on to a career in mathematics, and if someone wrote a biography about them, their being a Senior Wrangler would be mentioned. Ms. Hendry went into law, and it's not mentioned in her brief legal bio, which lists her Cambridge career only as "MA in Maths at Queens’ College, Cambridge"[35] John Nagle (talk
) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_77&oldid=1147870972"