Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 9 January 2017

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

"SEO Friendly Misplaced Pages Backlinks" ad

• EBY3221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From an ad for Wiki Editors United:

I am very experienced with Misplaced Pages and I have an extremely reputed and trusted account with over 40,000 edits. I am a[REDACTED] editor and all my links are guaranteed for a minimum of 6 months and they will be on wikipedia. It takes much time and effort to get links on wikipedia, especially links that I guarantee for 6 months.

As you may know it is almost impossible to get links into Misplaced Pages without an extremely trusted and authoritative site and most links get deleted by moderators the next day! With my reputation, authority, and ability to stay under the radar in Misplaced Pages I am able to get stable long term links.

I will add a link to your site in Misplaced Pages, on an existing page related to your subject. I will pick the best page allowing for both a high chance of the link sticking as well as maximizing traffic to your site. There are a lot of moderators and editors watching all the content so everything I do has to be thoroughly planned out.

420 successful links placed. 155 customers and counting. 11 years of experience. 98% stick rate.

Is this a known paid editing company? John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've come across them before. Will send you an email. SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm also interested. 11 years is a long time to go unnoticed (if they did as they say). - Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I read this as saying they have 11 years of experience on Misplaced Pages, not necessarily that they've been running this little commercial enterprise for 11 years. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That may be correct. Domain creation date: 2015-11-04. First Internet archive copy: 2016-01-17. John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nagle: This looks like the return of gotwikipedia.com Annoyingly there are no copies of the live site at archive.org, but I'm fairly the site is similar. A quote here is the same as User:JzG noted in that ANI thread "They helped me beat my competitors within a few months!". SmartSE (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Assuming they are giving accurate details, there are about 400 accounts with between 40,000 and 50,000 edits. Fewer will have around 11 years of editing, narrowing down the possibilities. Could those accounts' edits be checked for adding links in say the last year using a script? Fences&Windows 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added EBY3221 as the account involved here, per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#gotwikipedia.com, and COIN archive 87 and archive 89. - Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Allen Meadors

• Allen Meadors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Juno771 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite repeatedly being advised (see User talk:Juno771#Managing a conflict of interest and User talk:Juno771#Meadors's residence) to suggest proposed changes to the article on its talk page, paid editor Juno771 continues to add promotional, poorly sourced material to this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

How are my articles poorly sourced when some of them are from Wiki pages already published? Each is an online article, not a vanity site, everything you've asked for. I continue to be aggressively attacked for trying to add any information to the article. I have spent hours researching online and giving the full reference source information. Allen is not a personal friend and I have been working on the article for a month now. Everyone has been rude and condescending to me from the start as though I am trying to get one over on you rather than to learn how to get this process done as it is my job to do so. I have stated so on the page as you requested.Juno771 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Examples of the poor sourcing include the claims made in the edit linked above, that "Dr. Meadors has over 50 publications and has spoken both nationally and internationally on a wide variety of health care issues" and "Dr. Allen Meadors has helped raise well over 100 million dollars in external funds for the institutions in which he has played an integral role", both unsourced. Where you have used sources, they include this, which is a wiki site and therefore not a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, another sourcing problem: "Meadors participated in outreach efforts with UNCP's local community of American Indians in 2015", which is cited to two sources, both from 2009 (he was no longer at UNCUP in 2015). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much sourcing as your promotional, conflict-of-interest additions though, Juno771. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Juno771 finally started to request edits on the article talk page. I made the requested edit, and this is the thanks I got. Sometimes I don't know why I bother... Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

World_Financial_Group

• World_Financial_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lztfas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

During Vandal Patrol, I saw a change made on World_Financial_Group | which changed "World Financial Group is an MLM" to "World Financial Group is NOT an MLM" along with other changes to paint the company in a better light.

I placed a note on the user's page alerting the to the fact that I'd reverted them with a personalized explanantion as to why. They contacted me on my talk page with a list of reasons why their change should stay.

The reason I believe there may be a conflict of interest here is, this user is brand new |user created today , and his | first act was to go to that page today before he went anywhere else.

Secondly, based on his post on my talk page, (specifically his point #2) he shows very specialized information on how that company works, such as would available to someone who worked there).

Thirdly, his edit on the article painted it in a positive light, despite the sourced rreferences stating the contrary.

I believe this user has an undeclared COI on this article. If you think I'm wrong, let me know, I'll drop this like a lead weight. KoshVorlon 20:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not World Financial Group is a MLM is an issue for the Talk:World Financial Group page. That came up in 2010. A quick look indicates one could make reasonable arguments for and against. This is probably a "discuss on talk first" kind of issue. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an old discussion and affects many articles -- MLM style companies feel that the term MLM is derogitory and try to get it removed. This article has had at least two major discussions about this, and one lastest several years. Essentially every once in a while someone will pop up and try to change it, and there isn't much to do except revert and point out their error. It has been a few days since they edited, so it might be a dead-issue - for now. I tried to find a guideline or essay on the topic, but couldn't... Does anyone know about one regarding MLM labeling? TiggerJay (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:XTRDC and Mobile Phone Models

• XTRDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC) User:XTRDC apparently has the objective of creating as many stub articles as possible about various models of Sony mobile phone running the Android system, and has made no other edits. See contribution history at https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/XTRDC. In spite of no previous editing experience, this is a knowledgeable editor who has carefully avoided no context, because the name of the mobile phone is context, and avoided no content by providing minimal content, sometimes only an infobox, and avoided advertising or spam by providing so little content as to hardly be advertising. I submit that Use Common Sense overrides Assume Good Faith, and that we know that this editor has a conflict of interest and should be mandated to declare it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a main Sony Xperia article, with a table of all the variants. Proposed deletion of all the variants as duplicative of the main article. The main article is more useful; readers get to compare all the models. John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree; but that doesn't address the question that the editor hasn't declared their conflict of interest. Any claim that they don't have a conflict of interest is incredible in the etymological sense of unworthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that they are now creating and editing Huawei phone model articles. If it's COI, who are they doing it for? Anyway, user XTRDC, please talk to us here. Several editors think you're overdoing the phone articles. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Jpbowen

• The Rutherford Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jpbowen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor's investigating the notability of the article The Rutherford Journal at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Rutherford Journal discovered what appeared to be an article written by Jpbowen in the journal. Jpbowen has been very open about their identity both on their user page and in the discussion. However, Jpbowen created the article, before this information seemingly became apparent, and argued heavily at the AFD for the article to be kept. As far as I can tell, Jpbowen did not disclose their relationship to the publication either in terms of WP:COI (and potentially WP:PAID if applicable). It's unlikely that PAID came into this particular case, even as a stakeholder, but it does need to be assessed whether this COI, and the editor's unwillingness to disclose their COI (perhaps including other times), has interfered with the deletion and building a neutral encyclopedia. Mkdw 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have a previously published article in The Rutherford Journal. I believe the publication is notable and not because I have a paper in it. I have not been paid by The Rutherford Journal, this is an academic peer-reviewed and respectable journal. I would argue the journal as notable in any case, as I have for other journals, in good faith. In particular, it has been independently reviewed. Of course I accept the Misplaced Pages process, but will argue for any article that I believe is a deserving case. I hope this helps. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. Conflict of interest editing is highly discouraged and it is expected to be disclosed when seeking to affect an article's content. While this is not mandatory, it is considered best practices to do so. Mkdw 05:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps somebody should also have a look at Virtual Library museums pages. Reference bombing seems to be a favorite strategy here... --Randykitty (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SOCAN Awards

• C-ritch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since June 2016, C-ritch has been just adding the SOCAN Awards to numerous articles (example 1, example 2, example 3). The source, www.socan.ca, is not a third-party reliable source, but a self-published source. The user appears to be a single-purpose account, existing for the sole or primary purpose of promotion of the non-notable awards. I am concerned that C-ritch has a conflict of interest and is using Misplaced Pages to promote the SOCAN Awards at the expense of neutrality. I would like to know whether {{uw-coi}} should be added to the user's talk page and whether the user's additions to the articles should be reverted. 153.203.98.8 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The concerns I have is if SOCAN Awards are actually notable. If we presume the awards are notable enough, then I don't see a specific issue here. For COI we're more concerned about bias and controversy in these senses. For a comparison, take Academy Award for Best Director. There is no problem with using primary sources for the purposes of showing specific people won the official award. And even if someone from the Academy did edit this page to include a link to the offical website, that would not be considered controversial and is not prohibited. Although COI editing is discouraged. The question that needs to be asked and answered is if SOCAN Awards is notable enough award, and if not, then the links could be considered WP:SPAM. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If the awards are notable enough, then the award resuls should be mentioned in a WP:RS reliable source. Are they? John Nagle (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say probably yes. Billboard covers them. Been around since the 1990's. Canada's premier music industry awards from what I can see (akin to the UK's Brit awards). So I would say notable for Canadian's, not necessarily for everyone else (this sentence has no real policy backing however). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If they are Canada's premiere award, and it is RS as you have with Billboard, than that sounds good enough. And with that being the case, then COI really isn't much of a concern because it is uncontroversial edits which are permitted. TiggerJay (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

They aren't Canada's main music awards though. That is the Juno Awards, which get way, way more attention. I've lived in Canada my whole life and am interested in music, have never seen the press pay attention to the SOCAN awards at all, whereas the Juno's get tons of coverage. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking further, I can see that they do get some coverage , but note that these are very brief, cursory articles. Personally I would not call this a "major" award at all, and I don't think it's something that automatically needs to be noted in the bios on artists who win or are nominated (as I would expect for the JUNOs). Fyddlestix (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Paxful

• Paxful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Paxful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paxful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JasonNort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HarleyTomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These pages/users were reported at SPI but don't seem to be related to that case, nor to each other in certainty, however all have made dissimilar edits promoting this company. I don't have a very good nose for sniffing out paid editing, but this looks like it. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is paid editing or not, but it really doesn't matter. It was put up for PROD, but then after doing more cleanup of this article, it ends up widdling down to nothingness. Even the "History" section was puffery to make it sound more than what it really is. At this point this page is really CSD#A7 material. I also put the draft page up for CSD since it is a copy of an existing mainspace article. TiggerJay (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think these three accounts are all connected to each other but not necessarily to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I'm not entirely sure its a PAID sock farm. The accounts do not really overlap and one of them was blocked for a promotional name so a new registered account would be expected. That being said it has the appearance of being routine COI/SPAM from someone at the company or someone closely associated with it. Mkdw 21:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Jason Pontin

• Jason Pontin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jpontin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Refer to prior discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 108#Jason Pontin. Mr. Pontin mistakenly responded in the archive, which I will copy below. Brianhe (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the "depeacocking" and demands for citations, and Wiki's editors can debate my notability (although I clearly meet the standards as editor in chief and publisher of the world's oldest technology publication, the chairman of the MIT Enterprise Forum, the founder of Solve, and a long-time well-known technology journalist).

But I strongly object to the implication that I've been editing some of the pages associated with Aubrey de Grey. I don't live in Boston, Virginia, and have never visited there. I have never edited a Wiki page from Washington DC. I've never edited Aubrey de Grey's Wiki page, nor the now defunct Aubrey de Grey-Technology Review page except to correctly quote the terms of the challenge and, if I recall, to correct the spelling of the word "foment". My TED Talk, which has been seen more than 1.5 million times, has nothing whatsoever to do with Aubrey de Grey and SENS: it does not claim that "projects like SENS cannot succeed." I said that technology can solve big problems if we really understand the problem. (Not to get into the whole stupid SENS debate again, but we cannot say that about aging at the moment.)

But more importantly, none of my disagreements with Aubrey de Grey activities have any place in the discussion of the notability of my page. The SENS Technology Review was a decade ago. Furthermore, Deku-shrub seems to have his own preoccupations and COI, as someone strongly interested in trans-humanism, which almost guarantees sympathy for SENS. (No working biologists are "transhumanists.") I really don't think my Wiki page should be drawn into the SENS debate by another of Aubrey de Grey's disciples. User:jpontin (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2016

Skyler Page

• Skyler Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Clarence (2014 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Simonsontanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)

The artist's web site links to Misplaced Pages as the sole source of biographical information . It is possible this page is being maintained for this purpose. I am listing one blocked account at this time, but others are readily apparent from the edit history. Brianhe (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought on odd sort of COI situation

I have come across an odd situation. An editor has prepared a series of articles, declaring clearly on the talk page of each that there is a COI situation in each of them because of his connection with the organization featured in the articles, but giving detailed reasons why (in his opinion) his articles do not breach the COI standards. He does not state the nature of his COI - it is in fact that his paid job is to publicize the organization to which the articles refer. In my view it could be argued that the articles do not pass standards for WP:NOTABILITY, and are extensively packed with WP:UNDUE material, but that is not my main issue here. One by one this editor has been putting up these articles for WP:GA and WP:FA. They have been passed by editors who stick to the letter of the rules for promoting and have not bothered to consider whether or not the articles meet notability standards; nor have they considered any COI issues. My point is this: is not the seeking of promotion of these articles to FA and GA status a form of unacceptable WP:PROMO? - and should not the editor's acknowledged COI be a bar to seeking to advance these articles to FA and GA status, thereby reflecting some sort of glory on the organization he is paid to promote? I would welcome views on this, and also advice on what (if anything) should be done about it.----Smerus (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Has the editor declared that they are a paid editor, Smerus, or have you discovered that through your own detective work? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - the editor has himself included, in the 'external links' of one of the articles he wrote, a link to an (online) newspaper article about himself, which centres on his extensive Misplaced Pages editing activities; it states that he is a paid worker for the organization I refer to and notes that he has specifically written articles concerning the organization. Thus it didn't require any 'detective work' on my part. I would say that he declared himself, albeit indirectly, by including this link. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds like they've violated Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution disclosure. I would report them. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Smerus To be honest, any kind of paid editing requires a straightforward disclosure. Nominating them for GA/FA is not a problem in itself, but due diligence needs to be done. Would it be possible for you to share the articles with the problem? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Another Believer

Following the comment of Lemongirl942 above: -

User:Another Believer has created a large number of WP articles.Some of these deal with the Oregon Symphony. They include: Music for a Time of War, Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda, Tragic Lovers, Spirit of the American Range and This England (album), all of which are albums recorded by the Oregon Symphony. AB has also contributed extensively to the article Oregon Symphony. These articles, with the exception of 'Spirit of the American Range' and 'Oregon Symphony' contain on their talk pages a statement by AB entitled 'COI' (sample here). This statement includes the words " I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details" and gives a list of criteria according to which, in AB's opinion, he is avoiding COI issues in his creation or writing of the articles. AB has sought to promote these articles (except for 'Oregon Symphony') to GA and FA status, and has been successful. As far as I can see none of the promotion discussions has undertaken any considerations of COI.

I first became aware of the articles on 30 December when AB posted to WP:CLASSICAL to notify his application to nominate This England (album) for FA status. My initial feeling was that the article was not WP:NOTABLE (and I believe that most or all of the articles I have mentioned, except for 'Oregon Symphony', fall into this category, being no-notable and packed with WP:UNDUE material), but that is not the substance of the issue for this page). I made my comments on the FA nomination, including comments on COI, here.

I then discovered that AB includes on his own user page, under his WikiCV, a link to this article from The Oregonian, 11 May 2013, (as note 1 to the page). This article contains the words "You'd never guess his passion for Misplaced Pages from looking at his day job. Moore, 28, helps raise money for the Oregon Symphony." These presumably are the "details" which he "spared" readers in his own COI summaries. As AB has included this article in his own home page, I trust I cannot be accused of 'outing' him.

I think therefore there are two COI issues to be considered. Has AB breached the existing COI rules? And if he hasn't, is not his advocacy of these articles for FA and GA status (regardless of their quality) also a form of WP:PROMO, and should not COI guidelines be specifically revised to cover FA and GA promotions?

I am notifying AB of this discussion, in accordance with COI noticeboard standards.Smerus (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Smerus. There is a slight difference between WP:PAID editing and WP:COI editing. In general, any edits for which compensation is given, falls under WP:PAID. This applies to employees/interns in a company if they have to edit Misplaced Pages as part of their regular employment. In this particular case, I see a WP:COI (which I notice has been mentioned at Talk:This_England_(album)#COI). Whether this falls under WP:PAID is debatable. I'm not sure if AB's employer has asked them to edit the article or if their job involves editing the article. It would be helpful if AB can clarify this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there are two things here. First is that if AB has been paid/employed by the organization, that should probably be more explicit (i.e. the community doesn't typically want to be spared that detail :) ). Second, however, is the GA/FA. I don't see any problem at all there. If anything, we should be encouraging paid/COI editors to aim for such standards, which come with a built-in peer review that should catch and problematic promotional content. If the articles look like an ad despite best efforts to shoot for GA/FA, then the problem was with the reviewer(s), not the nominator. — Rhododendrites \\ 14:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand. As regards the articles themselves, I may or may not challenge them under WP:NOTABLE. The COI issues I leave to the experts to deal with. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I have copy-edited many of Another Believer's articles as part of the Guild of Copy Editors. When I do copy editing for GA and FA candidates, I always check the formatting of citations, which often involves clicking through to the sources and evaluating notability. I have always found that the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG. Feel free to ping me on an article's talk page if you have notability concerns about a specific article, and I'll come take another look. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 - For information, I've now nominated This England (album) (as an example) for deletion here.Smerus (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Please allow me to explain. "Outing" is not my concern, but I do value privacy. I went with the wording "I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details" because I did not want to make my exact employment location known across multiple Misplaced Pages talk pages. However, I knew the Oregonian article connected me to the orchestra, and there were many Misplaced Pages editors who knew me in "real life" and were aware of my affiliation with the organization. I never denied this connection, but I did prefer to maintain some level of privacy. I do not work for the Symphony any longer, but I did for less than 2 years a couple years ago. I created and expanded these articles when I worked for the organization because I thought they were notable, had access to resources, and was interested in the orchestra's history and works. I don't see anything wrong with this, and editors reviewed my work knowing a conflict of interest was present. Maybe they didn't know I was employed by the organization, but I assume they reviewed the articles with a bit more skepticism, which is totally appropriate. I believe my COI note was posted on articles that I worked on while employed by the Symphony, except the Spirit of the American Range article, which does not have a COI note because I was no longer working for the organization. (If anything, I thinking working on Oregon Symphony-related articles after leaving the orchestra shows that I was working on this content for Misplaced Pages's sake, and not the orchestra's.) I am fine if the talk page templates need to be changed or updated to reflect this information. My intention was never to hide anything, but just to be a bit less revealing about my exact name and current place of employment. Surely this can be understood and forgiven. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Lemongirl942, Rhododendrites, and Jonesey95: Pinging everyone else who has contributed to this discussion thus far, just in case. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, my primary concern is with whether you breached the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use by failing to disclose that you were employed by the organisation. I'm not an expert on this matter though, and don't know whether being employed as such means you would have been considered a paid editor or not. Lemongirl942 seems to have a better clue about this and could perhaps advise. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I understand. And if I did something wrong, I do apologize. I was acting in good faith. Were the terms of use disclosure requirements even implemented when I worked on these articles? I don't remember when that change was implemented, and I did not follow that conversation very closely because it was not a primary concern of mine. I hope my above comments help to explain my actions, and again, I am fine if the article talk pages need to be updated to mention this COI/paid work, but I was not trying to circumvent terms of use requirements at the time I posted my COI disclosures. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The addition to the Terms of use was in march 2014: meta:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment. Regardless, given he admitted COI, has not denied that form of COI, and has now made the connection explicit, what course of action would you be pursuing here (@Larry)? I.e. seems to have been in good faith, all of the information is disclosed at this point, and the articles are receiving some additional scrutiny just in case. We're not talking about a professional paid editor -- just a Wikipedian who remains interested in the organization he used to work for. I'm not sure I see what benefit there is to pushing forward (although this is largely with regard to any action taken on the articles after the terms were added and/or articles he wrote after that point). — Rhododendrites \\ 20:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites. I wasn't suggesting any course of action before getting to the bottom of things, which it looks like we now have. I agree that it seems that Another Believer has done everything required of them. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Oregon Symphony recordings, if they charted or were otherwise notable, they can have an article, per WP:MUSIC. Music for a Time of War, which charted, looks like a keep, while This England (album) is at AfD. As to content, this material reads like a concert program, and needs to be trimmed. John Nagle (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed down Music_for_a_Time_of_War. They had award nominations and the entire orchestra roster in there. John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nagle: I disagree with some of your edits, so I posted a note on the article's talk page and invite others to participate in the discussion. I don't want to come across as resisting article changes, but mentioning Grammy nominations and including complete Personnel sections is consistent with other album articles. I guess I just want to make sure other editors find these changes improvements to the article. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the deletion of the AllMusic review; that was a reference error problem I introduced. On the other issues, would any uninvolved editor of the classical music persuasion like to comment? Are un-won Grammy award nominations worth a mention? John Nagle (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a classical music person, but: As per our notability guidelines for bands, a Grammy nomination is in itself sufficient notability for a musical group to merit an article, the answer is definitely yes - a Grammy nomination is worth mentioning even if the band did not go on to win the trophy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Re: "AB has also contributed extensively to the article Oregon Symphony": I'd like to note for the record that I'm not really a major contributor to the Oregon Symphony article (yes, I've made edits, but not major content additions/deletions). I did promote Oregon Symphony discography to Featured list status, however. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Since no one has commented in a couple days, I am going to stop coming back to this page as often to look for new comments. Please ping me here or on my talk page if needed, otherwise I'll consider this resolved. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:President High School

President High School very recently created an account, and wrote a few sentences about the President High School on their userpage. I deleted it under WP:U5 and advised him to change his name to an individual one. This is obviously a quite new and well-meaning user, and he responded by giving his full name and indicating he wants to create a page for his school, pointing out that neighboring schools do have a page. I presume he works at the school, or he could be a well-spoken student, I suppose. What should I tell him? Besides, of course, telling him that COI editing is discouraged. But it seems kind of harsh to tell him he can't create a page on the school. Would somebody better with schools than me (that would probably be most people here) like to talk to him? I'll link him to this page, but contributing here may be hard to handle for him, so better on his page, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC).

Frankly I don't see much harm in this, especially if it's a kid and not an employee. If the article turns into "President High School rocks and $RIVAL_SCHOOL sucks and Johnny is teh gay" we can deal with that on its own terms. And if it turns out well, we will have a decent new article written by someone who knows the subject, and whose positive experience could lead them to contribute in other topics. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

S.B.H.B.'s "watch and wait" above is probably best. Other than the username I don't see a problem here. Writing neutrally about one's school is possible. If they are a district employee (assuming that it's a public school along the American model) there may be a financial COI problem. But we don't know that. - Brianhe (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

When is an 'out' an (involuntary) exit

So I check I've got my wikilinks correct creating a user talk page message, and scan the verbiage again at WP:COI and the scary words are scary. As in the bold red note above

When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.

Checking recent changes I'd noticed an editor making a minor formatting error, and so dropped them a nice note pointing to the WP:MOS section about that. Later I checked to see if they'd fixed things and saw they'd continued editing w/o fixing the nit. That drew my attention to the fact every edit they've ever done was related to one person, and to the point it really was stuffing WP with all conceivable possible links between pages.

The editor's username is formed from first+mi+last+year, and so on speculation I looked that name up, finding a LinkedIn page describing them and their relationship with the person.

Now how the heck can I do anything about it? If I make at all clear to them (and everyone) that it is known there is a concrete COI, isn't that 'outing'? If I merely indicate to them my astonishment at the single-mindedness they are free to ignore the conflict. Or does the fact the username is so transparent mean they can't be 'outed', as they have specifically identified themselves? After all, AGF, that honest username lends weight to the possibility they simply are ignorant of the problem. Ideas? Shenme (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:COI, "If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email." Basically, there are times when one can email the information to admins and the like without making it public information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really private though if they are editing under their WP:REALNAME? Would Shenme be in the clear to post to the other editor's userpage with something like "I noticed you have a name similar to someone close to" whoever it is? @Shenme: I encourage you in the strongest possible terms not to link to other websites anywhere you are discussing a Misplaced Pages editor, it's just too much of a minefield vis-a-vis WP:OUTING. - Brianhe (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• {{Uw-coi}} on the user's talk page, and wait for the user's response, before discussing hypothetics on this noticeboard? Since the template has been posted I'd set this talk page section "on hold", because one can't continue discussing a particular editor without them knowing they are being discussed (in which case the OP already disclosed too much to make this a hypothetical discussion about a john doe editor). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps Forces, Europe

• United States Marine Corps Forces, Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 192.156.25.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MARFOREURAF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A large number of uncited, unreferenced edits have taken place at the above article. The IP has made a series of Marine Corps-related edits and MARFOREURAF has exclusively edited this article. "MARFOREURAF" is the acronym for the subject of the article in question. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Blanch Law Firm

• The Blanch Law Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Damion Douglas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor created the article today. Misleadingly, they posted the {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} template on the article talkpage. Article history shows it was created in mainspace. I assume this template is an attempt at dissuading any question as to the topic's notability- an incurious editor may just assume it has been independently reviewed. No answer yet to my question on that. This has all the hallmarks of a paid editor- and an experienced one, seeing as how professional their opening few edits were. Also, given the speed with which they made all their pages blue-linked, it's probably a paid editor which creates throw-away accounts for each article created. Socking, of course, is for elsewhere. O Fortuna! 18:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Coliving

• Coliving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coliving (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed the article Coliving, which was created by User:Coliving. This edit for example shows evidence of a COI due to the addition of coliving.com as an external link. I have softblocked the account for a promotional username. That edit also removed some in-line references and a merge tag, proposed to merge to Co-operative living arrangements (Co-living already redirects there). I would merge myself as Coliving seems like a promotional content fork, but having blocked the account that does not seem correct as it might seem I blocked to get my own way. I'd like a review of the promotional nature of the page and the merge proposal. Fences&Windows 09:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bogus PROD contests by sockpuppet

• Uniphore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Ministry of Utmost Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hello (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nairspecht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jean Stair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (CU sockpuppet)

Heads-up to Doc James who posted this dirty article list in archive 108. Two of these were de-PRODded by his sock, Jean Stair. The list might need a looking over to see what else he has been up to. - Brianhe (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the agreements that paid editors have is often that the articles need to be kept live for a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Association for Chemoreception Sciences

Association for Chemoreception Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would other editors like to take a look at this, which has twice been moved to draft space (once by me, once by Brianga). I can't comment further because of OTRS confidentiality. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is, but this appears to be an established and legit scientific subject association. Its meetings are announced in multiple scientific journals, and papers presented at its conferences appear to be seminal in their field. I'm sure at an AfD discussion there would be editors arguing that it is too niche to be notable, but I certainly don't see any CSD/Prod rationale. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

After I saw the notice here, I took my machete to it and pared it down. It was close to G11. Some sources (especially independent ones) would be nice... --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The version I moved to draft wasn't an article, it was a speedy explanation, and a statement that they wished to develop an article. I don't have any interest in the topic otherwise. Brianga (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. What I saw wasn't what provoked the concern expressed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN

• FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spur Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Might as well start this now, I guess. FoCuSandLeArN has been community banned for massive undisclosed paid editing. The full scope is unknown. I've started a contribution surveyor analysis at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/FoCuSandLeArN.

Have boldly proposed speedy deletion of Spur Corporation. Call it a test case if you will. - Brianhe (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a more focussed analysis in User:Smartse/notes as well, but I've only scratched the surface of their contribs. Looking through their deleted user contribs is helpful as a lot of their edits were drafted there and then deleted. It might even be worth us undeleting their sandboxes for the benefit of non-admins. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Adamson (adventure racer)

• Ian Adamson (adventure racer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Obstacle racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leah Lynn Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ianadamson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor was warned of COI concerns in September 2016. Brings unquestioned knowledge to the subjects, but in creating articles about himself and his wife, and editing related articles (I especially like referring to himself as an 'icon' at Obstacle racing), conflict of interest is both overt and problematic. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Abyssinian people

• Abyssinian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EthiopianHabesha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His username shows a personal connection to the Abyssinian also known as Habesha peoples page. The Abyssinians are known as Amhara people mainly but user denies this and instead misinterprets the source by replacing Amhara people with Amharic speaking peoples , this is a common Amhara nationalist motive to deny the existence of Amhara people and equate them with Ethiopia. This method was used to oppress the Oromo who contribute the majority and other Ethiopian groups that werent Amhara. He has expressed his dislike for my balanced edits and prefers only positive Abyssinian portrayal.

Insinuates censoring material if it will help prevent "resentment or ethnic violence" He claims discrimination never existed in Ethiopia. He removes citations that portray Abyssinian labels to Oromo in a negative light Duqsene (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Duqsene: This looks to me like a content dispute playing out at Talk:Abyssinian people#Abyssinian people are the Amhara mainly, not a conflict of interest, at least not such a sharp one that the remedies available here apply. Have you tried modes outlined at dispute resolution? - Brianhe (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Brianhe: No I have not used DR. If I wasnt in a content dispute, how would you interpret the comments made? This isnt just about content but deliberate blanking and altering what the reliable source says. In his dispute resolution with another user, the volunteering member @Robert McClenon: called his comments nationalist outbursts. I dont see how DR will solve the behavior of the user. Duqsene (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will comment. I tried and failed to mediate a dispute to which this editor was a party. I don't think that they have a conflict of interest. I think that they are a combative nationalistic editor. I tried to caution them that they risked being blocked for nationalistic rants. I don't think that there is an issue in the scope of this noticeboard, although there is a disruptive editing problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Might be good to send this to ANI for a warning. I don't think he's quite reached the level of a block yet unless he's been spouting racist nonsense that I missed.74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I respect everyones opinion and if some users think I have nationalsitic outbursts and perhaps If I was told for which nationalistic group I am being accused of then I very much appreciate it if I was told precisely. What I know is that I am not defending any nationalistic group in the Horn of Africa. My beleif is that people need to get balanced information that makes sense based on wikiepedia rule WP:Impartial. True, I have been dealing with several sockpuppetes such us these created to disrupt Ethiopia related articles and because they use intimidation and bullying (as can be seen in my talkpage), rather than make a little effort to convince one another, to include unbalanced stories then I deal with them accordingly while respecting[REDACTED] rule. I tried to convince the editors by bringing sources written by neutral and relevant experts, by bringing other related examples and by explaining to them what they are arguing about does not make sense and contradicts with other professionally researched works. All these is so that we build a high quality encyclopedia. And if this is wrong way then I will appreciate it if I was advised to not use this kind of dispute resolution precisely and use another better alternative way to deal with disputes. — Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Duqsene, with respect please do not paraphrase my statment out of context. I never said Amhara people do not exist. What I said was the role of people speaking Amharic and Tigrinya language in the kingdoms before 13th centuary such as Axum and Zagwe is unknown. If you have a source saying Zagwe and Axum inhabitants spoke Amharic & Tigrinya language then please bring them and there is no way I will not accept your argument. What you are saying is the Spanish and French speaking people ruled the Roman empire, or the Roman empire identity is based on Spanish and French identity while these languages do not exist at that time and while historical documents show that the Romans identity is based on Latins language, culture, rule of law and religion. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I can tell that the subject editor is struggling to engage in dispute resolution in English. Maybe they don't know how to explain in English without coming across as strident. Has the subject editor considered editing a Misplaced Pages in their first language? I recommend closing of this thread because there is no valid case for conflict of interest, and it is not the purpose of this noticeboard to decide on disruptive editing or competency in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not know for who that message is for. As said everyone has their opinion but in my opinion convincing points matter. Instead of repeating over and over one beautifully written point that does not make sense it's better to have one badly written convincing point to reach consensus and edit collaboratively. Some of the sockpuppet editors I was dealing with do not have interest to read multiple books and enlighten themselves but come in here to disrupt with just one point that they themselves could not be able to clarify when asked. If I may use related example, since some may not be familiar to Ethiopia related articles, when I said it does not make sense to say "The Spanish speaking people led the Roman empire" user Duqsene is claiming I have said "Spanish people do not exist". That is the issue in a nutshell. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Shalby Hospitals

• Shalby Hospitals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mukesh8120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been a string of attempts to introduce promotional material onto this page. Mukesh8120 has been involved with doing this and has today revealed a COI, but has also copy-and-pasted an entire version of their suggested version of the article to the talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution