Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 99

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Infoiarm and agile management

Two articles created by User:Infoiarm reference books by Alan Moran, who has a company called "Institute for Agile Risk Management (IARM)" . User denies a conflict of interest here User_talk:LaMona#10:21:34.2C_21_March_2016_review_of_submission_by_Infoiarm, (notified on their talk page on March 20) but does not explain the username. The articles are relatively NPOV, although both make mention of Alan Moran (and no other individual) in the opening text. LaMona (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Infoiarm claims no COI as the articles do not refer to IARM or promote Moran (though authorship is cited). On point of fact other persons are also mentioned and cited in the articles and effort has been taken to create balanced and neutral content in spite of IARM own involvement in these fields. Some additional edits have been applied in light of recent discussions and a review of the articles to help improve them (e.g., recommend other changes or measures) would be very much appreciated.

Infoiarm (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Infoiarm you are new to Wikipedia and are not in a position to make judgements about whether you have a COI here in Wikipedia. Please tell us, do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? This is important - please answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
To explain a bit further (much more is on my
wp:NEOLOGISMS and it isn't clear if they mean anything different from the many "Agile" methods that exist in business literature. LaMona (talk
) 19:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Yes I am new to Wikipedia and in the interest of avoiding any sense of COI (or even commenting further on it if this is not desired) I will voluntarily remove both articles now. Please be advised that there is and has been no attempt to skew/bias content - I feel the material is in itself balanced, neutral and appropriate though I also respect the feedback and issues raised that any association or appearance thereof may imply. Thank you again for your feedback and clarifications. Infoiarm (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Infoiarm you did not answer the question I asked. Do you work for IARM or are you a consultant to them? What is your relationship to IARM? If you want to continue as a Wikipedian you must answer. If you want to resign and walk away, that is of course an option. Not disclosing and staying, is not an option. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking at their website, it seems to me that Agile Risk Management is pretty similar to Agile Business Intelligence (hard to tell without seeing the article) and Agile Financial Management is probably related to that as well. As suh, I don't believe either would ever warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog, first off my apologies for overlooking your question that you posed earlier in the thread. infoiarm is associated with IARM as was mentioned in another talk i.e., this was no attempt to hide this fact or mislead in any manner as evidenced by the user ID. It was mentioned somewhere else too that I felt there was no COI because it was not the intent to promote IARM (which was never cited in either article) or Moran (though authorship is cited and the person is named alongside others). I added that I would respect the opinion of reviewers if they felt there might be any issue at all. In light of some comments I updated the one of the articles as I felt this feedback led to improvements but if the prevailing view is still that of concern then I would rather not antagonise or add to these concerns (hence by withdrawal). BTW, I took a look at the Agile Business Intelligence but think the topics differ i.e., there is clear water between the risk and financial materials and this article (sorry, perhaps I removed the articles too quickly?). I did wonder if a separate article was appropriate (or perhaps a subsection in an exiting article) but was unsure how to judge this. To conclude, This was a genuine attempt to air an interesting idea in NPOV but my desire to avoid COI or its appearance takes precedence so I will refrain from writing about it or related topics on Wikipedia. Infoiarm (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Another long string of words and no answer. "infoiarm is associated with IARM" is non-informative nonsense. "infoiarm" is an account on Wikipedia. By policy there needs to be one single human being operating that account. I am asking a question about the relationship in the real world between that individual human being and IARM, which is a legal entity in Switzerland, so that we can determine what conflicts of interest are at play here. Please answer the question about the relationships, and do not write about anything else. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Technics Publications

The user is clearly affiliated with the publisher, and systematically drops book references into articles. The attempt to discuss this in WikiProject Spam was removed [5] instead of discussing with the commit message

"This addition is not spam. We are adding important knowledge to this page from some of our technical titles. If you feel the content is irrelevant, that is a different story. But it is not spam just because books from the same publisher are being quoted." [6]

This is nonsense: the additions contain no "important knowledge" but even are copied from the book (Edit by OnceAlpha: [7], book matches via Google and thus could violate the copyright). By any means, they also just reiterate what the article already says (and thus do not improve the article), but with a reference to a new book by this publisher (and thus are spam). We have at least 4 editors considering these additions to be worth reverting...

Given above commit message ("from some of our technical titles") this user and company appears to violate the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and, of course, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The user continues to ignore the warnings and pointers, and instead continues with copying excerpts from their books into Wikipedia (which likely constitutes a copyright violation): [8]. The uploaded image [File:MahalFaciltationFramework.png] is also straight from the book "Facilitator's and Trainer's Toolkit", Page 23. on Google Books, the text from pages 22 and 23. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep I agree that this is spam. I'm going to give them a final warning and block them if it carries on. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Central Area

Content disputes belong on the article talk page. Complaints about conduct go to AN/I. No conflict-of-interest issues exists here. Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has been updated by only one unique content contributor umpteen times in over 3-4 months. Recent edits by MageLam over nearly 3-4 months are one-sided individual edits without any intermediate review by a qualified Wikipedia editor or administrator. Cuss words uttered by user include cow manure when her competence is questioned. Manner in which the article is being unilaterally edited by the user appears as intentional spamming over months. Linrx (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@
WP:COI is for cases where the a contributor has some connection with the subject of the article. (In this case it is not possible). I understand that you have issues with edits by MageLam but there is clearly no COI issue over here. I have removed the tag from the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk
) 11:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@MageLam: Good. Keep the other two tags there. Thanks Lemongirl942.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Art379m

COI issues sorted. Notability issues may remain. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per their contribs, this editor is 100%

WP:SPA with regard to Alacris Theranostics. When I noticed that I reached out to them on March 30 to open a dialogue. They ignored that and kept editing the next day, so I followed up asking for a reply. They went away and came back today with more of the same, so I followed up with a last warning
, sharper, and they have continued to refuse to respond but kept on adding content about Alacris.

Please indefinitely block this editor as being

to promote Alacris. They are ~probably~ a paid editor as well, and therefore are probably in violation of the ToU. Jytdog (talk
) 11:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

They have now responded and state that they are not paid, so I don't think a block is justified atm. It is a little strange that the logo they uploaded is much higher quality than the one found on their website or elsewhere online, which raises the question of where it came from and I agree that the edits to personalised medicine are problematic. AFD is probably the best way to resolve this, since the company appears not to meet
WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk
) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
They are starting to respond... and have taken the step of disclosing that they are an Alacris employee, but said that writing the WP article is not part of their job. So that liminal case. And we are not quite there yet - it is not clear yet if they will come all the way through and agree to abide by COI - that is the key thing. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, the person has come all the way through and has agreed to follow the COI guideline. Sorry it took this drama to get them to pay attention. Haven't decided if the company meets NOTABILITY yet... I have worked it over as much as I can, and I think they fall short. But others should look and judge by this point. Would you please do? Feel free to AfD it if you think so. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard R. Fisher

Premature - editor did the right thing by presenting draft at AfC Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nthep's post at Signpost newsroom copied here verbatim.

See this thread at the Teahouse -

talk
) 15:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how to use his page nor do I understand what to do with this page. Could you please advise me if there is some action or information I might provide? Uchu RRFisher (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me either, as the reviewer who originally declined the subject editor's
there are also other non-notable biographies, but what does that imply for this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk
) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the COIN filing was premature. What the AIAA wants is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and Uchu RRFisher just needs some education about Wikipedia. I will open a discussion with them on their talk page. Closing. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian L. Jones

Article deleted. Watchlink the redlink and move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unremarkable subject, seems to violate

WP:NPOV. Username also indicates attempt to self promote . Music1201 (talk
) 17:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Symposim on Integrated Circuits and Systems Design

Article deleted. Watchlist the redlink & move on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FSillT seems like a decent enough person but they persist in editing the above page, of which they admit to being the organizer of. Is this kind of thing OK to let slide? User warned already but persists. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The conference does not seem to be a notable one (according to [9]). I wonder if the article is even required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rory Ridley-Duff

Article deleted & contribs checked by LaMona (thanks). All quiet for now, though we may want to watchlist the redlink against the possibility of its return. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User has been creating an autobiography since at least December 2012. His most recent edit was Feb. 15, 2016. He was warned about writing about himself in January, 2009 and about COI at that same time. I see no evidence of a reply. The article on himself is quite promotional (IMO). The article has been tagged for deletion but he has inserted his own works in other articles. LaMona (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Article on Ridley-Duff has been deleted, but in around 2009 he added his works to a number of articles. I spent hours yesterday removing some, but it's difficult because they've been there so long that they've become integrated into the texts in some cases. In each case I was able to verify that he himself had added the content and references. If anyone can take some time to look at what remains: Social_enterprise, Courtship, Worker cooperative, Social Enterprise London, Cooperative, Discrimination, Social Enterprise Europe,Anarchist economics. Some of those are articles when I didn't find a way to do a complete cleanup. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Follow-up - I think I got all of it. Removed those that he added but that were either not RS or didn't actually relate to the statement it referenced. Noticed that this person's work does not appear at all in G Scholar, oddly, although he does have some publications in Emerald journals. Not at all sure what the story is. LaMona (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Jolly

PR firm account blocked per USERNAME; article has been reviewed and the press has brought lots of independent eyes to it Jytdog (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

07:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Two news reports state that David Jolly's PR firm has been editing the article on him. He is a candidate for the US Senate in Florida. See Buzzfeed and The Hill. A staffer with a similar name has said s/he made edits to Jolly's page. They have only 2 edits, which look quite POV. They have disclosed in the Buzzfeed story.

I suppose there won't be further edits of this type from the staffer and suggest that if they make the required disclosure per

WP:PAID
that no further action be taken. But if there is no on-Wiki disclosure, then they should be formally banned. I've informed them on their talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and worked it over some; it seems OK now. Wasn't bad before i started as the POV pushers from both sides seem to have been cleaned out. The account is a username violation as Bascomcomm = Bascom Communications. I expect the account will be indeffed soon. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Messenger and Victoria Nixon

  1. Paulwest (talk · contribs) own userpage on Wikipedia states: "Hi I'm Paul West. I'm a marketing man and sometime website developer. Some of the sites I've built include www.michaelmessenger.com".
  2. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Michael Messenger, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Messenger.
  3. Paulwest (talk · contribs) created the article on Victoria Nixon, relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Nixon.
  4. Other listed users, above, are all
    Single Purpose Accounts
    on same articles.

Thank you for looking into this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Victoria Nixon = married to Michael Messenger, per this post to my user talk page: "I also would like to comment that my husband Michael Messenger has tried to help in resolving these problems for Wikipedia, but he is not fluent either, and now also is on the 'Deletion' list!". — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Henry I. Miller

The subject of the article is an MD, so the username Henryimillermd clearly seems to be the subject. The named account is a

WP:SPA who has been active on this article since July 2014. No response to attempts to contact him on his talk page or to postings on the article's talk page. Continues to make contentious edits to the article, claiming in edit summaries that material is "inaccurate, defamatory and libelous". Note that in this edit summary [10] the user states "I made the statement" when referring to a quote made by Miller. Meters (talk
) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is more a BLP than COI issue since the subject has been removing poorly-sourced content which is accusatory - an activist site such as this one is not a suitable source for BLPs. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
SmartSE I suggest that you take another look at this. I cannot agree that this is mostly a BLP issue. There are issues with a few of the sources that were used, but the user also removed material that was sourced to Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and directly to articles that Miller wrote himself. He appears to have a clear COI, he has a long history of editing this article without responding to attempts to discuss his edits, and his recent implied legal threats while removing material (and while doing so again without responding to the talk page thread)) justify this COIN thread. One of the purposes of this board is to determine "whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Any BLP issues with the material removed are already being dealt with (for example, the material you pointed to was not restored with the latest round of edits). Determining if there is a COI violation by the user is contingent on first deciding if he has a COI. Meters (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the section on "Controversial positions" is
wp:CHERRYpicked by the editors. I'm not defending the Miller's views, but the article's problems do not stem entirely from his intervention. LaMona (talk
) 17:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Having looked at the various sections in detail I see there is a definite bias against Miller in the coverage. It is being discussed on the talk page, and will be addressed (some already has been). I think the controversial positions section is worth keeping. It needs to have balanced, non-synthesized coverage so that readers can see why Miller takes these seemingly controversial positions. But, as I said, at this point I am simply looking for consensus that we are dealing with a COI editor. Note that the editor has now made his first talk page response [11], albeit with more implied legal threats, and he clearly claims to be Henry Miller. Meters (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As a policy BLP takes precedence over COI and in a case such as this where an article subject has raised questions about content we should examine our sourcing very closely. As LaMona has pointed out, much of it is
WP:SYNTH - citing articles written about him as evidence that his views are 'controversial' when there are no sources stating that's the case. It's completely understandable why Miller was driven to edit the article himself. Obviously, we would prefer him not to edit the article and I hope he will refrain from doing so in the future, but that's secondary to the BLP issues that need to be addressed. SmartSE (talk
) 12:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
There's been some work done on the page and it is getting closer to NPOV. I would advise more discussion on the talk page, and then this one might be resolved. LaMona (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Einstein field equation

User

talk
) 20:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that user has already removed the COI discussion notice from their talk page. That's a bit of a F-U. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Claiming to be a known expert does not allow you to
refspam
your publications across Wikipedia. Also, no evidence has been given that you actually are a "known expert in history of Einstein’s special and general relativity", and the claims on sexism in Wikipedia sources is completely barbaric.
I think the user should have a final warning for spamming on Wikipedia, and if they continue, then they should be blocked, and there publications blacklisted if possible. (Is it possible to blacklist names of books, or can you only blacklist URLs?) Joseph2302 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Your edits were not reverted because of sexism, they were reverted because of apparent
talk
) 12:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The editor was adding a book written by herself, published by Cambridge Scholars Press, to articles like this. A search of the interwebs leads to some interesting discussions on whether this is a vanity press. –
talk
) 13:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The two books by "Weinstein, Galina" are held in ~50 and <10 libraries, respectively. This tells me that these are not major books in the field, so adding them to WP pages may not be warranted. They also do not appear on G-Scholar as cited books, and of the articles by this author, the most cited one has been cited 4 times. All of this speaks to "known expert" and unfortunately the results are not positive. LaMona (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The above comments ("barbaric", "blacklist", "vanity press" etc) are an insult to scholarship and to a scholar and scholar's books and papers. Please avoid insulting scholars and their papers and books. In light of the above comments I no longer wish to be an editor on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.204.55 (talk • contribs)

Youth Time redux

talk
) 00:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a return of issues we had addressed previously, here at COIN that also involved a bunch of socks, dealt with in this SPI case, which resulted in all the Youth Time representatives being indeffed. (some of the socks had names like "Ytprograms" indicating they were part of the organization).

The group Youth Time has again turned their attention to Wikipedia. First Spaceludens made one edit, replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one" which is all they have done so far. Getting their mission statement into WP was a point of concern for the sockfarm.

Then F aristocrat showed up with a re-write of the article, overwriting it here and then edit-warring that version in here and here. That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page and press releases. It also removed negative content and added specific positive content - same edits that the prior sock farm had made.

They stopped when I gave them notice of edit warring. They left this note on my Talk page saying: "yesterday one of their representatives asked me to edit this article for them and provided information to add."

I did the obvious thing to see if issues similar to last time are happening. I also opened a COI discussion with them at their talk page,

WP:PROXYING for the indefinitely blocked users. They have filed an ANI against me here, simultaneously with me filing this. (NB - now closed
)

So I am bringing this to the community for discussion and action. Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (updated with ANI close Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC))

I leave a copy of my own thread on discussion boards.
Hello!
Unfortunately I am obliged to report Jytdog who prevents updating information Youth time article, removing inaccurate information and replacing it with verifiable and productive content.
[12] - current version diff contains inaccurate and at some point unsourced information, which is not structured.
The new version diff:
[13]
As you may see, the information has been divided into sections, almost every fact has been provided with an independent and reliable reference source such as Le Figaro (french newspaper), the official web-site of Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia, The Huffington Post etc.
The above mentioned user repeatedly reverts all of the modifications back to an older version without providing any actual reason or any examples of promotional content, WIkipedia rules violation except for Proxying.
In my turn, I must say that I do not belong to this movement, I do not work there and I do not act on behalf of some banned editor (actually, I do not know who this person is) and of course I AM NOT PAID for updating information. Though I fully support the idea behind this movement, the updated information on this movement has been partially provided to me by one of the movement's ambassadors. My point is to provide wider auditory with true information corresponding to WIki community rules, whereas Jytdog exceeds his or her authority, his behaviour is unproductive as it does not allow to develop and improve existing content.
As rules state:
"Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits".
I am not acquainted with banned users. Moreover, as the rule states, I provide proof and reference, that the new information is verifiable and productive.
Jytdog heavily excesses his or her authority in this particular case as if he or she is against this movement. F aristocrat (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Note - the stuff sourced to Huffpo is the same content that the prior socks tried to get into the article. And please note that I am not claiming that this editor is paid; they are however obviously representing Youth Time, per the note they left on my Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@
talk
) 10:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

talk
I see no way of engaging Jytdog constructively as he/she simply undoes all of my edits without even indicating which information is incorrect or inappropriate. What is more Jytdog addressed my edits from the very start with comment "oh gosh they are back again". This is actually impolite of an editor. It's a pity you support such behaviour. Why should I try to engage with Jytdog after that? No, you are mistaken. I am not misleading you. My friend who is ambassador if YouthTime asked me for help as she is not acquainted with editing Wikipedia articles. I agreed to help her because I think this is a great movement for young people and more of them should know of such an organisation. So I am not acting on behalf of YouthTime, it just my social position! Hope you feel the difference. And also please keep in mind that you don't have a right to accuse me of working for YouthTime without providing any evidence. In fact, every person who writes an article on some topic has some interest towards the subject. For instance, if a person writes about United Nations, it clearly means this person has some particular interest towards this organisation. However, he is not necessary a part of this organisation. So please do not mislead the readers, making them think I am part of YouthTime.F aristocrat (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not even begun to discuss content with you. You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted. Doing that is
WP:DISRUPTIVE and I haven't even gone there. It is even more disruptive if the content you are trying to add was already discussed months ago. You don't understand Wikipedia on any level. Jytdog (talk
) 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(
talk
) 10:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I cannot find the point Jytdog cancelled my edition of the YT Movement mission, since he/she found any promotional interest there. The version of YT's mission he/she prosed sounds promotional too, but its not YT mission. This editor had not provided any prooflinks for that. Any mission sounds promotional, its quite normal. This is sad to observe such a case on the Wikipedia. Jytdog is making efforts to downgrade Wiki's public image. Hope the community can do something with this user because I don't see any purpose to continue fixing this page. Looks like any attempts to make the information more objective there will be worthless if Jytdog continue this process without explaining the reasons of his/her actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceludens (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't copy-paste anyone's mission statement into WP. That is what your own website is for. The prior socks also were keenly interested in getting YT's mission copied into WP, and wouldn't listen to the community either. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Love his/her comments)))) Not much sense in them, nor truth.

"replacing our content about their mission with content from their website, with the edit note: "Replaced fake misson definition with the real one"" - well, undoubtedly, Jytdog, who is failry familiar with YT movement, knows their missions better))) rofl))) and someone dares replacing his composition with the accurate information from official web-site, what a disgrace for such a respectable wiki-editor!

"That content is sourced OK some, but also brings sources like their Facebook page". - hey, Jytdog , stop lying! You either didn't look through carefully or, rather, you didn't want to look carefully. The only Facebook link goes to... Polaris station page! (https://www.facebook.com/notes/polaris-station/enganging-young-people-worldwide-through-an-impactful-forum-youth-time-global-fo/778774128917211 ) Which is not a page belonging to YouthTime! It appears as if you're strongly willing to mislead people. Seems that the real idea behind Jytdog's words is "That content is sourced OK some, but I still don't want it to be included on WP".

"You should know that if you go into any article in Wikipedia and completely rewrite it as you did, you will be reverted". Oh, dear, Jytdog , you'd have been satisfied if I had added a sentence per edit?))) rather than adding the whole information altogether? Your argument is nearly ridiculous))) And, yeah, I've been on Wiki for a couple of time, and luckily I haven't encountered such... folks as you in the Russian version.

Brianhe
"Your situation is more tenuous and you really should listen to the community rather than telling us about what we or you should or should not edit". - and surely this community is you) and the community's opinion is limited to yours))) in fact, if editing YT article is not for the first time, it means there are people who disagree with your opinion. And there are quite a lot of them, I'm afraid) This makes you the person who dictates us what "we or you should or should not edit".

All in all, I have one unpleasant impression about English Wiki. Some users including

Brianhe
force others to keep false and inaccurate information on pages for some unclear reasons. What is more, for some reason they prefer keeping ill-sourced negative information rather than approving very well-sourced information which does not contain much negative reception. So is this the true policy of Wikipedia? All negative information no matter how false it is is a priori true for the editors of Wiki, whereas the information which is true and positive is regarded false compared to the above mentioned. I really hope this has no political context here and no intention of discrediting the YT movement.

Spaceludens, totally agree with you. F aristocrat (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @
    stonewalling or other issues then you will be topic banned altogether. You are also to stop hounding Jytdog, who is merely pointing out our policies. If you edit the article directly, you will be blocked from editing. If you continue pursuing Jytdog, you will be blocked from editing. Is that clear enough now? Guy (Help!
    ) 21:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy wonderful pseudo-free WP democracy))) or rather lack of her))) I'm afraid YT will have to submit this topic to public discussion and will make an announcement on Facebook and other social networks about bias and distribution of false information on Wikipedia considering a reputable international organisation. Sorry, guys, it was your choice) F aristocrat (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So now you are back to actually representing them. Thanks for making that clear. Please be aware that engaging in a public campaign to attract editors to change a Wikipedia article is a violaton of
WP:MEAT. Jytdog (talk
) 09:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Our policies on conflicted and promotional editing have been explained to you. It is now your responsibility to understand and abide by them. If you cannot or will not do this, then we will simply ban you. This is absolutely routine: Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your business. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • IP from czech republic where YT is, that was part of the fun last time around, has resurfaced. Youth Time has definitely got their attention on the article now. BWOT. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

<REDACT>

Yes, Wikipedia was built entirely to prevent you from promoting this minor charity. Ten years ago I was made an administrator by the Illuminati specifically so that when you arrived here I could prevent you promoting it. It's all about you. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy You don't really understand the essence of promotion. Having a page on Wiki with minor content is ALREADY promotion. Than you should delete all organisation articles. Believe it or not, no matter what you do, WIkipedia has been, remains and will be a tool of promotion. Unless you remove it from search engines results of course. Even having a link to any organisation's official web-site on Wiki increases this web-site's TIC which in its turn puts the web-site closer to the beginning in search results. Hope you knew that) Than do what? Delete all links from wikipedia? I also see that you choose a different way: contrary to promoting you undermine this organisation and do not allow anyone making information on them more objective, right? And once again I remind you that conscious distribution of false and dishonouring information is against law. You may block me as you wish and refuse to deal with it, but keep in mind that outside Wikipedia there are different laws in authority. It's kind of strange that my comments are being deleted whereas I'm being threatened with block for raising to the bait and speaking out loud about this outrages situation. You may rely on your rules when you speak about inner Wiki subjects, but when your public activity involves other events, personalities, organisation, forcing people to disapprove silently and bear with false information on them is illegal and is prosecuted by law. This MUST be made public. F aristocrat (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your valuable insight into how Wikipedia works. I always enjoy being lectured by recently registered
single-purpose accounts, as a ten year veteran I know very little of what constitutes promotion on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!
) 07:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Also,
talk
) 08:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy , rofl))) If you haven't spotted, my account is not recently registered, well, of course, not 10 years ago, and Youth Time was not my first contribution))) you shouldn't claim facts that you haven't checked, it turns against you) It's strange that you being an admin did not examine my other contributions)))

Brianhe you're welcome to report me as much as you want :) outside Wiki your reports are of no practical use) actually even here the only thing you can is block and collectively hate me :D such a loss for me, I'm gonna weep and sob for days and nights :D F aristocrat (talk
) 08:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have checked. Your account was registered in January, you wrote one very short article on an obscure Russian fashion designer, then you went dormant for months and popped up here. Normally that kind of editing pattern is done to game restrictions on new and inexperienced editors in controversial areas, here it merely indicates that you are new to Wikipedia and are here, as all your contributions in the last month show, to promote YouthTime. Your rather paranoid reaction is typical for rebuffed promotional editors. We are all well familiar witht he pattern. At this point you can either start asking questions and learn how things work, or drop it. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: This has gone to ANI now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy , the fact that you are not familiar with Lamanova's creations, doesn't make her obscure, so once again, please, check information before making any claims. I came her in the first place to contribute to article on Lamanova, initially on Russian Wiki, eventually - on English and French. And not to trick you and wiki restrictions. F aristocrat (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This is getting excessive. I think F has exhausted any resemblance of good faith.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • F aristocrat is blocked; noted that above. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Since
talk
) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
nope, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Machine Zone

opened discussion with them at their talk page. They disclosed their COI and are following the COI guideline, working at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PUBLICITY
) linked there and also on the COI editor's talk page.

Kenosplit began editing on the same day that Machine Zone rebranded itself as "MZ" and launched a new service. Consistent with the company's new emphasis, Kenosplit appears to be working to shift the article's current

third-party sources
have based their stories on MZ's publicity: a press release, and interviews with MZ's CEO.

Kenosplit's most recent edits to the lead paragraph appear to be intended to minimize the importance of the company's gaming products, which are heavily advertised (e.g., during

notability, in favor of emphasizing the company's most recent product announced one week ago, and in favor of MZ's desire to market or promote itself as a real-time computing platform company rather than as a mobile gaming company. I believe the edit by a declared COI editor does not meet the requirements of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Lwarrenwiki (talk
) 22:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 22:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NS1 (company)

user was responsive at their talk page; disclosed COI and expressed willingness to follow COI guideline. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am posting this since it could possibly be an attempt to promote a certain managed DNS provided named "NS1". NS1 is a startup which managed to get funding in 2015. I was twice reverted [14], [15] when I attempted to remove it from the List of managed DNS providers. It seems the IP 68.132.230.51 was also attempting to place information about NS1 at the same article. Could someone else have a look and determine if there is a COI issue? Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please note, I reverted back to your changes and removed NS1 from the list until the issue is resolved on the talk panel. Please if you can explain why it would legitimate to exclude NS1 from the managed DNS list but include other companies? As noted on the feedback for the NS1 (company) page, I plan on making edits inline with other company pages i.e. Dyn (company), etc --Cstate2002 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I opened a discussion with you at you Talk page - would you please reply there? Thx Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KORE Wireless

I did some cleanup on this article created by a sometimes-declared paid editor, now blocked. It was probably undisclosed paid editing in this case (see

talk
) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

CAcert.org

Essentially withdrawn by filing party.
talk
) 11:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First off: I myself have a conflict of interest with topics regarding CAcert.org, as declared on my userpage.

I believe that Neoeinstein (talk · contribs) is a member of the CAcert community (though, naturally, I shall not disclose their name without permission). They have also edited the CAcert.org article without disclosing this. I asked for the edit to be improved or reverted a few weeks ago, and after Neoeinstein didn’t respond, I asked COIN for guidance, where Roxy the dog very kindly helped me out and reverted the edit – see the section #CAcert.org above (not yet archived as of this writing). Back then, I had no information on Neoeinstein’s identity, so I did not know that a conflict of interest existed.

How should I proceed now? Should I send an email to the CAcert community member and ask whether they control the Wikipedia account Neoeinstein? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You should drop the matter imho. (Adding - and be very careful you don't fall foul of
WP:OUTING) -Roxy the dog™ woof
15:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright… thanks —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: the previous discussion has now been archived here. —Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NetApp

Edit request resolved by Timothyjosephwood.
talk
) 11:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I work for a communications firm that represents NetApp, and I've proposed some updates to the article on its Talk page, here. This includes major revamping of two sections (including the lead, which is currently flagged as inadequate) and some other minor factual updates—all itemized and formatted for review and straightforward implementation. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, and I would greatly appreciate any help or feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at NetApp the other day but all they gave me was a load of WAFL.
I'll get my coat.
Guy (Help!) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems innocuous enough.
TimothyJosephWood
14:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thank you Guy, I needed a laugh.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Close. Request answered.
TimothyJosephWood
13:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starfire glass

Nagle has renamed/reworked article to resolve COI/promotional issues.
talk
) 11:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

Any help would be appreciated in helping to edit this page, which is currently an orphaned, stub article with low quality citations. The information on low-iron glass is incomplete and the name “Starfire” glass is a trademark violation of Starphire low-iron glass from PPG. Should it be considered for deletion for any of those reasons?

If the editing community feels that the topic does meet a Notability Requirement, reorganization may help improve the quality of article—perhaps it could merge into a new page titled Low-iron glass or a section on the Glass page to provide more complete information to the general public. Low-iron Starphire glass (or, Starfire, as it is inaccurately labeled on this page), has numerous applications aside from aquariums. In fact, the world’s first low-iron formulation of glass was used by Frank Lloyd Wright at his famous masterpiece, Fallingwater.

As a PR representative of PPG, I am declaring COI and will remain transparent and forthcoming while providing objective, verifiable, and reliable content throughout this process. For more information on my COI, please visit my user page and feel free to post to my Talk page.

Some detail on this COI: In 1991, PPG trademarked Starphire glass, an ultra-clear low-iron glass formulation that was based on the aforementioned formulation of glass used by Wright. Since then, numerous manufacturers and distributors of low-iron/high clarity glasses have co-opted the trademark by changing the spelling of Starphire to “Starfire.” I have hyperlinked to some third-party news sources above. Bkorman PG (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Trademark violation is generally not a reason for article deletion. To my not-a-lawyerly understanding, Wikipedia is not violating the trademark for the simple reason that we are not doing trade under it. If it is the term commonly used, even if that use is against your trademarks, than that is likely the name that will be given to the article, and we have plenty of articles under names that were once trademarked and even those that remained trademarked in some areas (such as aspirin.)
None of this prevents notability from being a consideration; I have not yet searched to see if there is sufficient coverage for notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's notable. Added some finds from a quick Google Books search at
talk
) 02:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The generic term seems to be "low-iron glass". See this Google search: [16] Guardian Industries calls it "Ultrawhite". Pilkington calls it "Optiwhite". Spancraft calls it "Starlite". PPG calls it "Starphire". Other brand names include "Krystal Klear", "Diamant" and "Eurowhite". Suggest moving the article to "low-iron glass" and building it up based on references from that search. Any objections to that move? John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@
talk
) 06:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, renamed article, added appropriate references, added info about low-iron silica sand sources from USGS and glass composition from an academic article. Removed link to aquarium company. This should resolve COI/promotional issues. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tang Huawei

Filing party requested no action be taken.
talk
) 11:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems like an attempt by a certain "LYYF Visual Art Center" to promote an artist. They had earlier created the article Huawei Tang which was speedy deleted twice. Later they created Tang Huawei. I tried to ask Lyyf2015 about a COI but got no response. I have sent Tang Huawei to AfD since I am not convinced about the notability. No action is required at the moment, but I am posting this just so that we have a record in case of any subsequent attempts. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What Every Science Student Should Know

User has declared COI and committed to following policies and guidelines.
talk
) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrew H. Zureick is one of the authors of the book What Every Science Student Should Know and User:Azureick5 was the creator and editor on the article. I took the article to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know and notified Azureick5 of COI on 14 April after they commented on the AfD: User_talk:Science1guy1#Conflict_of_Interest. I pinged user again on the 16th. User changed their name to User:Science1guy1 (without a redirect) on April 16. User Science1guy1 then removed their own comment and my reply giving their username from the AfD discussion: diff. Warning was given on April 17: User_talk:Science1guy1#April_2016. The name change is listed as: (Céréales Killer moved page User talk:Azureick5 to User talk:Science1guy1 without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "Azureick5" to "[[Special:CentralAuth/Science1guy1|Science...). Also note that Azureick5 was the creator of the Dartmouth_Undergraduate_Journal_of_Science article while an [added for clarification/correctness "while Andrew H. Zureick was an" ] editor there. Science1guy1 has removed the AfC discussion of that from their user talk page. It looks to me like this person is trying to hide COI evidence that it exists. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@ LaMona: I cleaned up my talk page because they are old notifications that I've read. I changed my username because it was too similar to the author's name for the book page and do not want to be associated. Please discontinue referring to my old username. Too many notifications. I'll discontinue editing on Wikipedia as you are very fixed on my account recently. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the similarity between username Azureick5 and author Andrew H. Zureick was a coincidence? Listen, being an interested party on Wikipedia is not a crime - we are all interested parties in some way or another. The purpose of the COI guidelines is to encourage transparency so that we can all work well together. I'm not "out to get you." Your contributions here are valuable. All that COI requires is that you be transparent about any direct affiliations so that other editors understand with whom they are working on an article. With an editor with COI we look a bit more carefully at
the neutrality of their writing. We also encourage folks to work on articles throughout Wikipedia, contributing where they can. You do not need to leave Wikipedia, you merely need to engage with us here regarding the policies that exist. There are many long-time editors here who have a COI in one area and edit intensively in others. We do not hold that against them, we just ask that they declare their COI and avoid direct editing of those articles where they have an involvement that makes their view less than neutral. If you declare your COI and stop editing certain articles, this problem is solved. LaMona (talk
) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@ LaMona: Thank you for this explanation. I have declared my conflict of interest with the article on both the AfD talk page and the article's talk page, and will continue to work within the policies of Wikipedia, but will refrain from editing that page specifically going forward. -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you find lots of science articles to edit -- there are lots that need it. And Wikipedia needs scientists, there's no question about that. LaMona (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course there's a question! And it will only be properly resolved if we set up two Wikipedise, one with scientists, and a control version without scientists. And then after getting some doubly-blind users to evaluate them, we... oh, never mind. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
And here I thought we were aiming at The Library of Babel as our goal. :-) LaMona (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


Since this is resolved and I have declared the COI on the book's Wiki page, can we delete this thread from here? -Science1guy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science1guy1 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@
talk
) 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
note: I deleted the article as G11, advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luly Yang

I notified this user of COI (and autobiography) on March 3. The person has not replied but has resubmitted the article at AfC another 4 times. Two of those times I denied the draft solely with comments that the user has not replied to COI. Nada. Could someone else try to get this person's attention? Often this type of thing is a case of a new user not understanding the difference between a username and an article name, but it also is a near certainty that there is COI involved. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I requested for the information on the user's talk page. Let's see if the user responds. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to update, user sent article AGAIN for review; Lemongirl942 has reminded them on their talk page that they haven't responded regarding COI. They've now been contacted about COI 5 times; no response. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the user is deliberately not responding or cannot understand the instructions. Regardless, I don't think the article is suitable for moving to the mainspace any time soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Tabish q

SCIRP, but I think the COI may be a higher priority than the RS issue. I'm going offline and anyway need to stop dealing with this or else I'd be edit-warring myself, but it might be worth the attention of someone here. And, since Qureshi appears to be a legitimate academic, please go gently — it would be much preferable to get him contributing constructively rather than driven away. —David Eppstein (talk
) 07:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I tried. We'll see how that goes. I appreciate your desire to retain Tabish! Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ssa1990

Not sure if this is exactly the right place. But I have some concerns about Ssa1990. Two edits prior to today, one of which was on Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ). Then user blows up today with ~20 edits. This begins with adding social media contact completely inappropriately to the PWQ article (e.g., "Find us on twitter"), and continues to do nothing but insert links to PWQ articles on more or less random pages.

Seems a lot like this is an employee or a paid editor for PWQ, using the PWQ article specifically and further reading sections on gender articles generally as a marketing platform. I suppose they may just be a huge fan, but even if that were the case, they are clearly editing with an agenda, and are likely

talk
) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The use of the term "find us" as you noticed here and the linking to PWQ and nothing else strongly suggests a COI I believe. Perhaps reverting all of the user's additions as promotional spam would be appropriate? They only appear to be tangentially related at best. Elaenia (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a longterm interest in this article (I added another account to this report which was previously blocked). I noticed that these two edits [17] and [18] use very similar language. Both of them seem to be a toned-down version of a "Call for Papers". Ssa1990 could well be a reincarnation of Proximo9737 --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Most of the article's content was cut/paste copyvio of Sage's journal description. Tagged accordingly, pending review.
talk
) 17:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, apparently there's enough going on that I could have posted this almost anywhere and it would have been appropriate.
talk
) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Serious question: If I wanted to do search engine optimization for a site, and I sprinkled links to it all over WP. Even if all those edits were reverted, they still exist on the internet, on WP, even if it's not the live version. Would this still affect SEO in the sense that engines would see WP linking to my site over and over? Would the engine be "smart" enough to discount them because they weren't on the live version?

This is almost certainly not the place to ask this question, but it has interesting implications. If someone could point me to the appropriate forum, I would be very grateful.

talk
) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a good question but the efficacy is debated. Do a web search for "Wikipedia off-page SEO" for some of the answers. It's my sense that reputation management is more important these days; see
talk
) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:HEC SUPPORTER

user blocked Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Small stuff for this noticeboard. Usernames and edits made clearly show SPA for pointyism related to the username. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 09:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. user has been blocked, so closing. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charles Saatchi

Hi – I posted a while back on the talk page of Charles Saatchi with an edit request (see here) and linked through to my sandbox (here) where I've marked up a version with some additions (including some more sources where those are lacking) as well as a couple of things I'm proposing to remove. I've summarised and explained those changes here on the sandbox talk page. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look that'd be very much appreciated. My COI is that I work at Bell Pottinger and Charles Saatchi is my client – see my user page for more info. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Biofuel Research Journal

managed as well as we can now. We will see how it goes with WP:Advocacy Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meisam tab edits in a very limited area. He has created the following articles:

I have tried to tag Meisam Tabatabaei with an autobio tag, but the editor fights this stating that it is not an autobio. The editor has a few other edits, mostly trying to recruit other editors to support his articles, or adding Meisam Tabatabaei to some lists. A look at the editor's contributions at the Farsi WP shows the same pattern there. I would appreciate some extra eyes here, as I am currently pretty busy in RL and cannot devote too much time to this. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@
Meisam tab: Could you please let us know if you are in any way related to Meisam Tabatabaei or Biofuel Research Journal? (the subject yourself/student/family member/friend/publisher/any other relation)? --Lemongirl942 (talk
) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
talk
) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
impersonating him (that is a link to the part of the policy you may have been violating). Which is it? I will have more to say, but first things first. Jytdog (talk
) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
talk
) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Please take care of your username issue. Please do not continue editing, as there are other issues we need to discuss. Please just come back when you are done changing your username, which you can do here, to discuss those things. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Done as advised, Thank you!
talk
) 19:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog The new username is functional now; thank you! RenewableEnergy1 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
great, thanks for taking care of that. So you have said that you came to Wikipedia "to promote Biofuel and the notable activists/scholars involved in Iran and the Middle East". I appreciate your self-awareness and honesty there. Please know that using Wikipedia to promote anything is against Wikipedia's policies (more than anything,
WP:ADVOCACY
- please do read that).

But all advocates, working under a COI or not, tend to write poor content. They tend to put UNDUE weight on great things and say nothing about bad things or spin them away, they tend to use colorful language to really try to express how great X is; they tend to use no sources (just writing from what they know) or they use bad sources, like press releases. The writing of advocates and people with a COI is often indistinguishable. Bad, but indistinguishable. They also tend to resist feedback from other editors.

So here is what I see, and what the community generally asks in these situations:

  • Based on what you've said here, you appear to have an actual COI with regard to Meisam Tabatabaei because that person is someone you personally know (and have collaborated with an admire). Would you please acknowledge that you agree? Also, per the COI guideline, would you please stop editing that article directly, and instead offer suggestions on the talk page?
  • With regard to other biofuels-in-the-Middle-East topics, would you please let me know that you understand that using Wikipedia to promote anything is not OK, and strive to write really good NPOV content (using neutral language, and covering negative things as well as positive things?) And also, to make sure that everything you add to Wikipedia is supported by high quality source, and that you won't add any more content just based on what you personally know?

I'll have one more thing to ask, but those are the most important ones. I look forward to hearing back from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I would like to first thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with me and for offering constructive instructions. Very encouraging indeed!

  • I agree, but I also would like to highlight the fact that when writing on WP, I have tried to do it from a neutral point of view and have tried so hard to make sure that every single line is supported by high quality sources (this could be easily verified) and restrained from including any personal opinions. But sure, I won`t edit that article any longer and instead will follow your advice if I thought any changes would be necessary.
  • I will sure do that and as I pointed out above, I in fact have been meaning to do that but will try to double my efforts to stick to these lines. I appreciate it if you kindly do me a favor and please go through my edits again; I truly did my best not to include any personal opinions and write according to high quality sources. Nevertheless, I will be following your kind instructions seriously and will be double careful to make sure this will be best maintained. Thank you! RenewableEnergy1 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for handling this so graciously. I made a bad link above - the right link is
WP:ADVOCACY. The last thing I wanted to tell you is that the editor who brought this case, RandyKitty, is an admin here and probably the most experienced and smart editor who works on journals. Literally #1 in all of Wikipedia. The way you interacted with her on the Talk page of the journal article you created was not good. A mistake that new editors make, who come here very passionate, is that they are not good at listening. You have been great with me, and I appreciate that. You can do as you will, but I suggest you apologize to RandyKitty and ask her to help you! Good luck, and be neutral  :) Jytdog (talk
) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It`s been an honor to have been having this discussion with you and I have to say that you greatly help me with becoming a better Wikipedian; you are my role-model from now on; hopefully this won`t be considered promotional though (just a piece of humor to cheer us up ;-)). Resolving the ID issue so delicately was significant (if one got any real COI, and if they are clever enough, they would definitely try to conceal their ID rather than picking up a revealing one! as I have no doubt that many do that on WP as is the case elsewhere). I did try to talk to RandyKitty; it was unfortunate however, that she was provocative instead going: ".... Meanwhile, I see that you are the editor-in-chief of this journal ...". In my very humble opinion, such kind of tune and the tense used (grammatically: "are" as a final deduction) is not acceptable; nor encouraging constructive engagements but rather passing the sense of accusation to the other party. And honestly that`s how I felt but I restrained from getting provoked, persistently tried to be polite, and only reminded her that we had pinged other editors to help and that she should have waited for the them to respond before hastily switching tags while leaving the edit summary "better to go to AfD directly". It was truly more courteous to do so in my humble opinion. And if the sources provided are not sufficient, of course I am fine with the AFD too as we all want an accurate WP otherwise the whole thing is a waste.
Being good is relative and there always could be better people out there and that`s what one should never forget to avoid undermining other people`s works. People very good at doing something sometimes tend to make bigger mistakes than beginners as they believe they are very good; and they could be very good indeed and that`s a pitfall!
I again would like to appreciate your invaluable advice and hope to be lucky enough to pick your brain further in the future ;) RenewableEnergy1 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)

COI is no longer an issue here and the situation is already being discussed at ANI and now AFD. This discussion is therefore no longer needed.
(non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it
08:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reluctantly reporting this here as it is already being discussed at

talk
) 10:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This is true. I've declared my COI and followed the
WP:AUTO guidance to use AfC. And I have not attempted to make content edits to the page since it has become a main namespace article, nor will I. (I did remove some broken citations immediately after the page was moved from Draft). -- RM
12:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The article reads like it was written by the subject. This is why it is better to let other people write your article, if anyone other than yourself thinks it should exist. It has improved since being edited by others, but I do question if the subject itself justifies an article. While there is a COI in play I don't think any rules were violated, this is probably AfD territory. HighInBC 16:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Every Wikipedian (list) has been challenged at AfD, except AFAIK for Evan Amos. A number of those that have survived AfD have fewer sources or were debating the same exact types of issues and reasons for deletion. I do think User::DGG moved it from Draft prematurely, but I think the rationale was that by doing so it would force more eyes on it. Which it did. -- RM 17:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

By the standards of AfC I think DGG was correct to promote it. By the standards of AfD it very well may pass, but it also may not. While I don't think you should have been the one to write it I don't think there is a problem with a lack of neutral eyes on the article. Perhaps others may feel different but I don't think this needs attention from this noticeboard. I would say that any COI issue that existed is now in the past and the future concerns could be handled at the article talk page or if someone prefers AfD. HighInBC 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Danielle Sheypuk

Articles checked, one draftified, all placed on watchlists. User warned in no uncertain terms. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User's page clearly states that they are founder and CEO of Tranquility49 (a PR firm). Tranquility49's site lists Danielle Sheypuk as a client ([19]). User created article on said client. I have questioned user's relationship with subjects user has contributed to in the past ([20][21]) but received no response whatsoever. User's edits often tend to read more like PR than encyclopedia article. User has been notified of this discussion (rather clumsily, I'm afraid - [22]). Just looking to clear this up. Fru1tbat (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Little or nothing of the user's contributions to wikipedia have been other than COI and, presumably, paid editing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice catch. Their userpage was a violation; they had redirected it to User:PBerzinski04/Patrick_Berzinski. I broke the redirect. I also draftified the Danielle Sheypuk article as it wasn't ready for the encyclopedia. I also replaced the plain connected contributor Talk page template with the paid one. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Jytdog. I was uncertain whether to use the paid template, since PBerzinski04 has not declared a payment and we merely infer it from his user statement. But I'm happy to learn from your clean-up. It's a shame: PBerzinski04 can write well and in the handling of the financial scandal information showed good judgement. I hope he'll attend to his COI issue soon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rory O'Keeffe

Account blocked, article sent to AfD --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no attempt at deception here: Hygge Media is the publisher of Rory O'Keeffe's new book. I have blocked the account and explained the username and COI rules. Two of the references supplied seem to me good enough to remove the BLP-prod, and the article is not grossly promotional; I invite eyes on it with a view to clean-up, and opinions on whether the subject meets

WP:AUTHOR or whether the article should be sent to AfD. JohnCD (talk
) 20:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned the article. I am not sure about whether it meets
WP:NOTABILITY. Would be great if others reviewed that for consideration; it is marginal. Jytdog (talk
) 09:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I wish the publisher and individual well, but don't think
WP:AUTHOR is met, so have sent to AfD for its judgement. --Tagishsimon (talk)
16:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:ethereum

Concern about COI dropped. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:David Gerard appears to have a conflict of interest relating to crytpocurrency articles and is bullying other editors despite repeated warnings. User wrote this article http://newstechnica.com/2011/06/18/bitcoin-to-revolutionise-the-economy/ about Bitcoin and has shown up at ethereum edit warring, section blanking, and generally harassing editors (eg tagged a source from the New York Times, saying it was a bad source).

He has been the subject of the following issues over at the talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#D._Gerard.27s_abuse_of_.27policy.27_and_personal_crusade_against_Ethereum_and_general_bias_against_crypto_projects_and_articles

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#Many_bad_sources_being_added

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#BRD_on_recent_section_removal_by_D._Gerard

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#Request_for_administrator_review_Re:_editor_David_Gerard

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#BRD:_Is_the_New_York_Times_an_unreliable_source.3F_Does_the_tag_stay.3F

As I was the editor who started some of the above discussions, I think it best I take a step back and see if this can be resolved through the COI process. I am a little confused as well, am I Bludgeoning the processing by bringing up these questions relating to another editor on the COI page? Thank you!

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • As you can see detailed on Talk:Ethereum, this is the tail end of an attack by Ethereum holders organised on Reddit /r/ethereum. The COI is entirely on the part of the Ethereum advocates. (A few are finally declaring their holdings, after the Wikimedia Terms of Service were repeatedly pointed out to them.) There's quite definitely a substantive COI issue going on on the page, though so far Wikipedia sourcing rules are holding up against the conflicted editors. My apparent crime is understanding Wikipedia sourcing rules and not being an Ethereum advocate, and advocates with a financial interest thinking this constitutes a COI. The usual then - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • David is right. As someone interested in Ethereum and keeping an open mind about it, it is clear to me, having read the article and the talk page, that David does not have a conflict of interest, merely a difference of opinion. The advocates on the other hand, do in some cases have a conflict of interest.--greenrd (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Jtbobwaysf you are a pretty experienced editor. You must bring some actual evidence of a conflict of interest to this board. If you cannot, then you need to withdraw this. At face value this is an incredibly bad faith and thoughtless COI filing. I would not be this strict with a newbie. You are not a newbie. I am doubly concerned since based on your contribs you do a lot of work around digital currencies especially at NPP, and if you cannot discern the rank advocacy going on here stemming from reddit, you have no business being near NPP. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jytdog: I have no idea what NPP means. Regardless, it seems clear from your feedback, from @Greenrd: above, and a more reading on the COI page (which I missed initially) that as this COI claim cannot be substantiated by Gerard's bias, this COI claim is therefore without evidence and widthdrawn. (FYI, I was confusing bias to be a COI, and I understand now that I was mistaken.) Thank you for the feedback and advice and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The editors involved are describing a sustained difference of view as "conflict of interest". I regard the request above as another attempt to use Wikipedia processes to attack an editor the semi-organised group involved disagrees with and chill others (such as myself). A previous attempt used administrative review as the weapon, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethereum#Request_for_administrator_review_Re:_editor_David_Gerard and the whole atmosphere brings
    WP:HARASS to mind. ClareTheSharer (talk
    ) 15:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ramy El-Batrawi

named editor claims to be a fan. article has been cleaned and watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two users mentioned above seem to be in charge of maintiaining and reverting changes to the nauseating "ego-torial" article on Ramy El-Batrawi. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Henrich claims to a fan, see here. I have cleaned up the article and have watchlisted it. closing. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

J. Ralph

Last month I attempted

WP:OWN behaviour, as exemplified by this edit. Karst (talk
) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm unable to comment on the COI aspect at the moment, but there does seem to be a lot of puffery in the article. I have opened a new section on the talk page for resolving the dispute. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate your input. Parts of the previous content is included on the official J. Ralph biography page here - pointing to a possible
WP:COI. Karst (talk
) 11:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wormyseas1

Just putting this here so we have a record. Pretty obvious socking and paid editing - all stale now with the exception of one editor I am not going to list at this time. Neither listed editor shows up in a search at SPI Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Loubna Berrada

The User:Loubna berrada has been trying to edit the article Loubna Berrada and claiming that it contains false information. Some sample edits [23] and [24]. Given the username, it could well be the subject of the article herself. However, there could also be small possibility that it is someone else impersonating her. It would be good if the article is put on a watchlist. I am currently looking for sources to verify the information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this is a BLP issue. I didn't find any biographical information about her in the sources listed, and even checked the wayback machine for the staff page of the organization, but she's not there. I don't think she should be editing this page in the way that she has done, but I must say that the article does sound inflammatory. There's now a delete request on it, and I think that may be the best route. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand that some of the original information was not cited, but I am certainly not comfortable with her changing the article to a version she thinks is appropriate. I am listing some of the sources I found
I'll try to ask her to reply here so that we can look at what she is trying to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this is a BLP issue as well, I am not reverting her edits until this is clarified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the coi tag on this because there was no problematic content. I've also
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE since the subject is barely notable and they are obviously (and understandably) not happy with our portrayal of her. SmartSE (talk
) 20:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Mboland.phideltatheta adding unsourced promotional edits for Phi Delta Theta

Mboland.phideltatheta is an SPA that has been inserting unsourced edits in numerous biographical articles, all promoting Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Mboland.phideltatheta has been warned both about adding unsourced promotional material and about conflicts of interest, to no avail. 32.218.34.78 (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"silly" comment
This is silly.
TimothyJosephWood
01:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -PROUD MEMBER OF THE WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT FRATERNITY

Major League Fishing

The user who created this article stated that he works for them, how can this be handled? Laber□T 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This was a
talk
) 23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

myfundnow.com

Resolved
 – User has been blocked indefinitely.
(｡◕‿◕｡)
07:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Every edit this user has made has added content about a website called myfundnow.com. They were warned about spamming by another user here on March 28. I asked them to disclose their COI and work with us here the same day and gave them a spam warning here the same day. They kept on and were given another spam warning by the 1st user later that day, and i followed up on the COI disclosure request yet later that day, as they were continuing; I warned them they were likely to be indefinitely blocked there for using WP for promotion.

They were warned again today by the first user for spamming again. Nonresponsive to COI management, and

WP:NOTHERE. Please indef block this person. Jytdog (talk
) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I should also draw attention to this edit posted back on March 28 which affords some insight into the COI issues here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This account is still being used to add material along the same lines: here. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is time to indefinitely ban this user; they are here solely to promote myfundnow.com Please see their contribs and their lack of responsiveness at their talk page. The person uses this username on external websites in relation to this site. See:
    • here where they ask for advice about technical details in running the site
    • here promoting it Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them from editing. It'd take an awful lot for them to get unblocked, given their edit history.
    (｡◕‿◕｡)
    06:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Trans Studio Bandung

Here we have a bevy of SPA's devoted to adding and reverting long long long lists of commercial tenants, replete with a spam-farm of inline links, to this possible notable, possible not notable shopping mall/tourist area. Maybe Socks? Not sure.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Economist article

Need help from the community in deciding whether to list the SPA author of this article. The article itself had many indicators of promotionalism (see this revision before I started cleanup), including a 2014 fake award from the so-called WorldRenownedExperts.com organization, which now has a dead website.

talk
) 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The editor has stated that this was an "academic task". AGF I will presume this was some kind of course assignment and have reported to
talk
) 03:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Winterschild11

Editor says here that he is placing content on behalf of a celebrity. He never responded to

talk
) 01:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@
Brianhe: I took a look at the article... it's a masterpiece of nauseating obfuscation. It's like a pyramid built from a billion trivial ocurrences. I did manage to slice 10 or 20% off of the pyramid though. Not sure if that helps on the COI front, but it might rustle the bushes.HappyValleyEditor (talk
) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, and here is your answer on Winterschild and Jack Mackenroth... they met on Twitter.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_99&oldid=1044290099"