Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voceditenore (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 24 February 2016 (→Youth Time: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:44, 24 February 2016 by Voceditenore (talk | contribs) (→Youth Time: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    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
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:EnterpriseDB Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Jo Ann Jenkins Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Parexel Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Phil Waldrep

    Single-purpose account, judging by the username and their edit history focusing only on this one topic, plus their content being added to the article is unsourced. Have posted COI template on talk page. sixtynine 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

    I do think she intended to disclose that she works for Waldrep with her username - we just need to make sure of that and then teach them how to follow the COI guideline. I have left a note on her Talk page to start that discussion. Thanks for bringing this to the community's attention, Beemer69 Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    I removed some PR from the article. Phil Waldrup Ministries might deserve an article (Ex-President Bush Jr gave the keynote speech at one of their events), but the person himself doesn't have much independent coverage. John Nagle (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    hm. i agree. I don't think either makes GNG ( a passing reference about the Bush visit to the church that you mentioned, is all i found in independent sources) I won't nominate it as I would like to speak with Hannah without getting into content. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    New SPA, "Wikipedia824", doing what looks like resume inflation. I took out "Waldrep has also received a State of Alabama medal of honor for contributions to the lives of senior adults.", which was cited to a Waldrep ad in a brochure. There doesn't seem to be a "State of Alabama medal of honor" known to Google. Checked the Congressional Medal of Honor list, just to be sure. He's not on there. John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for calling that up. I cleaned up the article, looked for sources, found few, nominated for AFD, tagged the article Talk page, and notified the new user of COI guideline. Have also notified both users of the AFD. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    That seems a good call. This guy just isn't very notable. Since the article is mostly about his books and other products, WP:AUTHOR is the proper notability criterion, and he's not close to passing that. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

    just noting here, we did an AfD that ended up dying because an editor pretty much completely rewrote it during the AfD and now it is decent. The Hannah account seems abandoned but Wikipedia824 was active as of 2/16 and hasn't responded yet on their Talk page. I just followed up there and I am hoping they respond. At some point, one of us will end up talking with them, I am sure. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    Jason Graves

    The user is an SPA on the article of the same name. Added copyvio material to the article from Jason Grave's internet site. No response to multiple attempts to discuss the COI, username, and COPYVIO situation on his talk page . The article had been tagged for having been edited by a probable COI editor but the tag was removed by Jason Graves . When the tag was restored it was immediately removed again by an IP (just 2 minutes after Jason Grave's last edit) . After a two month break Jason Graves has returned to the article, removing the COI tag again and copying more material that is already online elsewhere. I have not yet determined if this is material that was at one time in this article and was mirrored before being deleted here, or if this is another copyvio.

    It seems very likely to me that this user is indeed Jason Graves and thus has a COI. It's also likely that he has edited this article recently using at least one IP. Note that the article was created in 2008 by another SPA, User:Jasongmusic, who granted permission via OTRS to use copyrighted material in the article. I contacted OTRS about this article and was told that the original ticket could not be applied to the new material added by Jason Graves.

    So, either we have a COI editor who is aware of the permission issues but is choosing not to follow the correct procedure for granting permission this time, or less likely, we have a case of WP:IMPERSONATE. Meters (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

    • I'm debating giving them a short block for adding copyrighted information. They've been warned multiple times prior to their last edits and they've still continued adding copyvio. I'll try reaching out to the website itself to ask them to update permission. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Tokyogirl79 is more generous on this than I am. The username (a violation of the username policy) and the repeated removal of the COI notices would be sufficient for me to want a block on the user. In addition, the article is barely referenced, so as far as I am concerned it could be deleted for not meeting notability. It is unacceptable to state that the music has been licensed for TV shows without some verifiability, or to claim awards without proper references (that one goes to an interview). It seems clear that he has composed music for many games, and may be notable, but the WP skills of the editor of this page are seriously lacking and bordering on fraudulent. Since this has gone on for quite a while, I don't see how any more warnings are warranted. LaMona (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)p
    In what way is using your own name a violation of user name policy? I have an obvious curiosity on this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes LaMona please do reply to that. If you got a bit carried away that's fine - please just REDACT accordingly. It is important here at COIN that we talk about blocks with care and only for clear and repeated violations of policy with no sign that the user is "getting it". Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    There's no username issue unless the user claims not to be Jason graves. That's why I brought it to COIN. I don't usually post here, but my understanding is that is the right thing to do with a suspected COI editor who has not declared said COI. I'm looking for a consensus that this is a COI, so that for a start, the COI tag on the article can stick. Meters (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, under the "Real Names" section: "Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person. If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided." So the problem with the username is that it is 1) either proof of COI or 2) could be construed as someone masquerading as the person. I obviously should have worded it that way in my message. LaMona (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    The article subject is notable, with lots of awards and credits. There are better sources than the one in the article. The subject of the article is in the position of having been heard by hundreds of millions of people who have no idea who he is. While the editor behavior is a problem, the article seems mostly legitimate, although it needs better citations. John Nagle (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    User:Nagle I didn't suggest that the article's subject wasn't notable. Why are you bringing that up? I'm simply asking for consensus that this user has a conflict of interest in this article, which is what this board is for. He uses the same name as the subject of the article, he continues to add material from the subject's webpage, he removed the conflict of interest tag on the article, and he refuses to discuss the COI issue. My understanding is that this is the place to bring such concerns, so that a consensus may be reached whether a user has a conflict of interest in a particular article or not. Meters (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    It is obviously a case of COI. I just opened a discussion with Jason to try to teach him what he should be doing. Generally talking to folks nicely gets you pretty far on these things. But we'll see if he responds and how that goes. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Can't hurt, but don't hold your breath. I tried several times before I brought it here. Meters (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Re: "Why are you bringing that up?" Because COIN is about both article content and editor behavior. When promotional editing is suspected, one of the first questions is, "is the subject notable"? If not, the article can be deleted, and the COI issue becomes moot. Here, there's no reason to start an AfD. A next step is a quick review of what article repair work is needed. This article isn't too bad. (Far worse cases come up here.) Others are already trying to engage in dialogue with the editor. The COI editor hasn't edited in over two weeks, so there is no immediate need for a block. The idea is not to bite the new editors merely for not knowing the rules, and to assume good faith. See WP:BITE and WP:AGF. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

    Antony Coia, again

    Reopening discussion; the prior case petered out (see archive 93). Specifically, there was no response to my entreaty to clarify the apparent COI. But the editor is still making problematic contributions. I just did some cleanup of copyvio where someone had apparently scanned a number of articles, uploaded to a file share website under the name Antony Coia, then Pizzole inserted the website as sources here in contravention of WP:COPYLINK. These insertions were made since last COIN case: and . This is a significant problem. Note Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pizzole when evaluating contributions to article(s). – Brianhe (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

    Although the COI may be of interest, the movie database article fails decidedly on sources, which are all informal fan sites. The same is true of the article about Coia. While he can just assume another username and continue creating these articles, removing the articles through the deletion process may be the more effective approach. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    No COI. I added sources because they are important newspaper sources and aren't written by the subject of the page.--Pizzole (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    The first bullet in WP:NOTHERE is "narrow self-interested or promotional activity": perhaps there is no COI and Pizzole is just a fan, but the editor is a clear SPA, and their behaviour is indistinguishable from an editor with an inappropriate COI promoting their own work. I don't see that having other editors take time to respond to timewasting arms-race AfDs (with hard-to-follow Italian-language sources) every time Antony Coia starts a new project would be "more effective" than blocking the user as a not-here-to-build-an-encyclopedia promotional WP:SPA. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    It's not my fault if you don't understand italian language. Sorry.--Pizzole (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm with McGeddon here (except that I don't have any trouble reading Italian). This is serious, long-term disruptive behaviour and the usual waste of editor time, a precious resource that could better be spent on building an encyclopaedia (see the current edit-warring at Antony Coia). Indef-block as WP:NOTHERE so that we can all get on with something more interesting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    The article is nominated for deletion. It strikes me that is Pizzole is blocked from editing, they may not be able to explain why the article is notable. Shritwod (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

    Canadian Association for Equality

    I'm posting to ask for help dealing with a number of apparent SPAs who have been making problematic edits to our article on the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), a Toronto-based men's rights group. These accounts all share a singular interest in our article on CAFE and (in some cases) in our article on the group's founder and director, Justin Trottier. Each of these accounts edits almost exclusively on these subjects, and on closer inspection, many of the edits that they've made to other pages often turn out to be related (eg, adding Trottier as a notable alumni to our article about his high school), or removing criticism from our article on Katherine K. Young, a men's rights activist who has participated in multiple CAFE events.

    These accounts' edits are problematic because they have been continually removing any suggestion that CAFE is a men's rights group (which is how the vast majority of RS describe them), removing extensive, well-cited material that reflects negatively on CAFE (here's one example), and adding large amounts of material that reflects positively on the group but is most likely undue (eg, sourced to the groups own website or youtube channel, cherry picked quotations from a small number of opinion columnists who happen to support CAFE, etc.) They often use misleading edit summaries to try to try to hide what they're doing .

    Note that the names of these accounts all fit a particular pattern (first name, last name, 3 digit number), and that a couple of them have been found to be sockpuppets in the past. Most recently, 2 of these accounts have cooperated to upload a set of images, with a second account re-uploading images which had been deleted from wikimedia. The images all appear to have either been drawn from CAFE's own website and publicity materials, or to have been taken by someone who was physically present at a CAFE event - see this one and this one, for example.

    The article has very few people watching it and I am not comfortable continually reverting these SPAs (they rarely, if ever, engage on the article talk page). Any/all advice is appreciated, and the page desperately needs more eyes on it. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for bringing this here Fyddlestix. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and continued sockpuppetry also looks likely so to start with I've started another SPI. It's unfortunately difficult to review what actually changed in this diff but if you are confident that the version your initially reverted to is better sourced and more neutral I'd advise you to go back to that. I'll keep an eye on it as well. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks Smartse, will do. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    bunch of blocks were handed out.. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    Gun trusts

    Two very similar articles seem to be packed with references that could be considered refspam. Examples:

    • guntrustdepot.com
    • guntrustlawyer.com
    • secureguntrust.com
    • 2atrusts.com
    • utahtrustattorneys.com

    Not sure how bad this is or whether cleanup is necessary. More opinions wanted. – Brianhe (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    At a minimum, I think these two articles need to be merged. Much of the text is identical and there is nothing to say why one is different from the other. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    The subject is covered at National_Firearms_Act#NFA_Trust. Gun trust and NFA trust are mostly sales pitches and coatracks for promotional links. Proposed deletion of both. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes there is something going on with the editors - I just listed them here, and opened discussions on each of their talk pages. Also did what you would expect. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Jytdog: I'm adding to the list Rald17 who seems to like 2atrusts.com and utahtrustattorneys.com. Could you do your magic with that editor as well? - Brianhe.public (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    Done, on their talk page and at spi Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    The Hollywood Reporter

    Our rules allow paid editors to draft articles in their own user space and then propose them for placement. CorporateM has done so in this instance and he is not to be faulted. However, I believe hat his draft is imbalanced by not even mentioning the subject's acknowledged and widely publicized role in the Hollywood blacklist. I request additional eyes on this article. See Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter#Draft. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    The paid editor omitted the blacklisting material (sourced to the Hollywood Reporter) on the grounds of WP:SELFPUB, which I view as shaky to say the least. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    The precise claim in this instance is as follows: "Wilkerson's campaign against purported Communists was widely believed to have sparked the Hollywood blacklist." The only provided source for such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is a self published source. Given the lack of secondary sources to support this claim, it appears likely to me that article-subject has exaggerated the significance of their role. I don't have the energy for all the COI drama, so I won't fight it... Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    Your own employer, the people hiring you, have published information that you do not want to use. You just completely ignored it, and as SlimVirgin pointed out on the talk page, there are other reliable sources. SELFPUB is very clear in exempting material published by article subjects about themselves, in this instance dealing with history. This is similar to the New York Times mea culpas concerning the Holocaust and its treatment of Stalin by its correspondent Walter Duranty. Coretheapple (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Ontario Civil Liberties Association

    This is just a quick note to direct your attention to a discussion already happening at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_editor_CafeHellion_on_article_Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association_.28OCLA.29, where a COI editor launched an attack thread at another editor. There is some additional material/conflict at Talk:Connie Fournier. Rather than post here again, I just want to point you to ANI: the discussion needs some more eyes, and since I've edited a few of the articles in the last day or two, I don't feel comfortable taking administrative action myself--but I think action is called for. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Yank Barry

    Strange edit at Yank Barry. New editor Benjamin Weinthal has added a reference to an article in the Jerusalem Post by Benjamin Weinthal. John Nagle (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

    New editor also seems not to understand that the lead is not the body of the biography, but is a summary only. Collect (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    This article has been referred on a really astonishing number of noticeboards multiple times. Examples of the latest for several boards:
    Note the last especially, this was part of a COI nexus reported by me mid 2015. Nagle and I tagged/untagged the article for COI in connection with that case. – Brianhe.public (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    Article seems to be a COI nightmare and should be watched. In this case, the COI appears to be secondary (a writer hyping an article he wrote), unless there is a connection between the editor and the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    Oh wait a minute. I see that there is a reference in the article to his suing Misplaced Pages editors. In such a situation I wouldn't touch such an article without an assurance of being held harmless in the event of a lawsuit. If the Foundation isn't willing to extend such a guarantee, it can edit that article itself for all I care. Volunteers shouldn't. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    There's been an encouraging discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page on our response to libel generally, so I may watchlist this after all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

    Associations and Societies?

    I've been looking through the CoI page, and I haven't seen a specific section referencing non-profit associations and societies. I'm a member, not an officer, of the Triple Nine Society. I haven't edited the page much in the last few years, aside from some minor cleanup. However, I have worked to translate the page into other languages. My questions are:

    • Are members of an association automatically conflicted from editing articles?
    • Are members of an association automatically conflicted from translating articles? (Scary thought: Could CoI policies vary language-by-language?)
    • Are officers of an association automatically conflicted from editing articles?

    Obviously, the people who are most motivated to update/correct an article are those who are closest to the subject matter and members are a significant source of information for less well-known societies. However, I also understand the other side of the coin, where wanting the society to grow could constitute a CoI. Thanks, samwaltz (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

    samwaltz (talk) just told me that this "COI Noticeboard" exists and that he had posted on it the fact that he maintains membership in the nonprofit 501(c)(7) Triple Nine Society. I now follow his example (16 February 2016, 8:09 PM Pacific Time). I have been a member of various High IQ Societies including Triple Nine Society and American Mensa (which both have Misplaced Pages articles about them) since around 2007; I also have held membership in the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (which does not have a Misplaced Pages article as of the time of this writing). TNS is a 501(c)(7) nonprofit social organization whose membership is restricted to adults with an IQ at or above the 99.9th percentile of the general population; ISPE is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit of similar type; Mensa is (I believe) a 501(c)(3) whose members have an IQ at or above the 98th percentile. I currently hold Life Memberships in both TNS and Mensa, and hold the rank of "Senior Research Fellow" in ISPE. I have served in the uncompensated volunteer Appointive capacity as the TNS Membership Officer from February 2011 to the present, which Office carries with it a position on the TNS Executive Committee and Governing Board, and a Board position on the Triple Nine Society Foundation, TNS's 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit subsidiary. Neither I nor any other TNS Officers receive compensation for our work and, therefore, no member or officer has any cognizable COI that I can discern. Out of an abundance of caution, however, having now learned of the existence of this Misplaced Pages "COI" page, feel it prudent to disclose that for the past few years I have, from time to time, made minor revisions to the Triple Nine Society Misplaced Pages page, generally in the way of correcting out-of-date and therefore no longer accurate information (e.g., numbers of members, etc.) and providing new information that had not previously existed (e.g., locations of past and future annual meetings in the US and Europe, called "ggg999" and "egg999" respectively. I have also added accurate and objectively verifiable content, and corrected inaccuracies when I notice them, on other pages that reference TNS, Mensa, ISPE, and the various high-IQ societies to which I do not belong (e.g., Prometheus Society) with regard to their qualifying tests and scores, with links to the respective organizations' Misplaced Pages pages when available. Though I do not view my volunteer M.O. role in TNS as triggering a COI (in fact, the more TNS grows the more uncompensated volunteer time the M.O. role takes away from my ability to engage in activities that would benefit me financially), one could also argue that every nonprofit Board Member has a COI relating to his fiduciary duty. For that reason, I take special care to make only factual edits to ensure accurate and up-to-date information, and to avoid adding content of a subjective or judgmental nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inabendis (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

    These kinds of questions come up now and then. The thing to keep in mind that is that COI is a guideline, so if in fact you are a member of MENSA or some other association or even an officer, you won't suffer major consequences just by dint of that fact. I know one situation in which the co-founder of a website edited the article about her website, and that practice was in fact permitted, even celebrated. So for the sake of consistency it's hard for me to get worked up about the situation described above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    Question on how to handle possible COIN for Tim O'Reilly, Jennifer Pahlka, Todd Park, and Maker Faire

    Wanting to assume good faith and not sure how to best proceed, on Talk:Tim_O'Reilly, User Tadghin Special:Contributions/Tadghin supposedly self-identifies himself as the subject of the article about Tim O'Reilly on that Talk page. I am not sure what steps were done by Misplaced Pages to verify this identity or not, however the edit history shows that this user who supposedly self-identified themselves also has edited the subject page of which the individual is the topic of with the self-written comment “Corrected companies I am on the board of” (note the "I am on the board of" in the comment) and edited the pages of his wife Jennifer Pahlka, to include creating the article and commenting “Added Jen’s role as Unted States Deputy CTO” with the White House, see Special:Contributions/Tadghin. How should this apparent possible conflict of interest be investigated since it seems to span years? The same user also has edited the page for White House CTO Todd Park which if this individual is the person that Special:Contributions/Tadghin self-identifies himself as, has a close professional relationship with per and edited Maker Faire that the subject's company spun-off the organization that sponsors these events. WatchDogUS (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC

    Related to this, if you look at the history for Jennifer Pahlka, not only will you see edits by this supposed self-identified user, you will also find edits by a user using the same first and last name, which incidentally is also this person's exact same Twitter handle, as a government agency CTO that worked with the subject of the article: see Revision History. Again, wanting to assume good faith, it may be an editor is just using the same name however it is the same exact name and Twitter handle? Not sure how to handle this second editor's possible COIN? WatchDogUS (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    DNS Made Easy

    Bringing this up here because the article's history has been so troubled, and past content so promotional, that DGG suggested at AfD a short time ago that it be salted. See also Sam Sailor's analysis of article/draft history here; socking is a strong possibility. – Brianhe (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    In fact, I said "delete, salt, and not move to draft space. Having it there did not produce any improvement in the past, and there's no reason to expect any in the future." The draft was previously deleted at MfD Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:DNS Made Easy (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    Devon Energy

    Can someone (preferably, someone familiar with the US energy industry) take a look at Devon Energy? As a Fortune 500 company it's obviously notable, but removing all the puffery from their PR department—let all the edits sourced to press releases—would literally reduce it to a couple of sentences. ‑ Iridescent 22:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

    I've done some trimming and added some content about the layoffs announced yesterday. - MrX 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    I've removed some PR-speak from the lead. I see that this article has been around for many years and has had quite a bit of COI ending in the past, though I don't see anything blatant recently. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
    One major long-term problem is excessive reliance on corporate press releases as sources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    User:SpokenReasonsFF

    User:

    Articles:

    SpokenReasonsFF has been informed repeatedly about Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guidelines and the requirement for paid editors to disclose their employer, clients and any other relevant affiliations:

    SpokenReasonsFF has acknowledged a number of conflicts of interest:

    None of these acknowledgements provide the details required by WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, and none of them used the prescribed method for doing so.

    As SpokenReasonsFF has acknowledged working as a publicist for several individuals in the entertainment industry, it seems likely that edits to the other articles listed at the top are also the result of undisclosed conflicts of interest.

    SpokenReasonsFF continues to create articles with a promotional tone (Jimmy Tatro, Omar Dorsey, Cyrus Arnold) and make edits that clearly should not be made by an editor with a conflict of interest. For example, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest#Supplying photographs and media files states that "In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is not uncontroversial." Nevertheless, when SpokenReasonsFF's attempts to replace File:Paul Scheer by Gage Skidmore.jpg in Paul Scheer with a promotional headshot with unclear copyright status have been challenged by multiple editors including myself, SpokenReasonsFF has simply reinserted the challenged image:

    —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

    User talk:Mitchradio

    The user has edited the article for Mitch English who is a tv and radio personality. By their name, I take them to have a possible WP:COI. Their edits may, so far have been benign as KrakatoaKatie thinks, but I think the situation needs a look and possible caution, etc. CrashUnderride 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

    Cardenas et al reference spam

    Incomplete article list

    I've stumbled across this IP updating some URLs and realised that they have been adding citations to the same papers all over the place since at least 2014 with the account Ibsen_13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are hardly cited by other researchers and are included in many general articles where they are irrelevant, making this a case of WP:REFSPAM in my book, although it may well have been done in good faith. There are a lot of articles affected that need cleaning up e.g. these. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

    More IPv6 addresses added. - Brianhe (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    The short list of editors at Uncertainty modeling makes the link between the registered accounts and the IP fairly compelling. - Brianhe (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    Noting that Cardenas has very low h-index (4) so may be trying to increase that. LaMona (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

    Raheja Developers

    This is regarding the undisclosed conflict of interest of Leoaugust with Raheja Developers Misplaced Pages page. He has made several edits to the page which has made it look like a completely negatively biased piece of article. When I tried to balance it by presenting the complete picture, I was forbidden by Sitush from doing so as I myself have disclosed COI with the subject. While I agree with his point of view, I also believe that this does not justify the condition that the page is in at present. Now for every argument I present he says I'm pushing my agenda while no one notices the actual problems that lie open with the page. I have several evidences that prove the COI of other user. I only want to discuss the problems objectively that remain with the page not to remove any correct information positive or negative. Mr RD 16:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Mr RD: it was requested by Sitush in this edit summary that you make edit requests on the article's talkpage. That seems the appropriate way forward, but I don't see that you've availed yourself of that opportunity yet. - Brianhe (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks Brianhe (talk) for reiterating Sitush (talk) suggestion of carrying out the discussion on the merits of the content rather than the artificial COI issues that are being raised as a red herring. So, my discussion on @Mr RD:'s suggested changes are at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Raheja_Developers Leoaugust (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Brianhe: I did make edit request on the talk page. Here is my request. @Leoaugust:, do you deny having any COI with this page? From your edit history and by the evidences that I have found, it clearly seems otherwise. Mr RD 17:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    Mr RD. In general, it is really foolish, and a waste of everyone's time and energy, for editors locked in a content dispute to try to engage editors on "the other side" directly about their potential COI. You have opened it here, now please let other people address it. Please focus on content, not contributor. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I have looked into this, and I believe that Mr RD has a point, and have raised that with Leoaugust on his talk page. As I reviewed things, it also became clear that Mr RD has not disclosed his employer, client, and affiliation with regard to his paid editing work. He has disclosed that he has edited for pay, which is what we want, but he has not complied with the Terms of Use, and he needs to do that. He has also directly edited the article, which the COI guideline strongly discourages. I have raised those issues with him, on his talk page. I have added both of them to the headers of this posting. I also reviewed the history of that article, and it has a really sordid history of promotional editing by socks. I added headers to the Talk page reflecting that. Jytdog (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    Sudip Bose, again

    This has become a slow-motion back and forth between those trimming promo from the article, including admins Doc James, DGG and JzG; and several anons and at least two SPAs adding it back. One registered editor named above never answered my questions ( and ) about being a paid editor. It's the third time this article has been brought up at COIN: see also Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Sudip Bose and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 93#Doctors and surgeons. It's increasingly difficult to AGF over this. – Brianhe (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    The article was obviously created by the subject and has been subject to heavily promotional editing. I say we nuke it from orbit. It's a net drain on the project and the guy really is not so notable as to make the effort worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps AfD 2 is the best solution Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. I !voted keep at AfD 1,but the subsequent history showed I was wrong about that. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    I missed this before; a detail caught by teb728 . Sitaray claimed to have created the article which means he's editing the article under multiple accounts and is also using the name of the subject of the article. - Brianhe (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    Indeed. It is hard to find anyone adding content tot his article who is not at the very least part of the subject's PR team. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    Astronomer145

    I went on Elance a while back and saw that Adam Shai was soliciting an article, and watched the blank page. Three days ago, an article popped up there, and the editor who created the article opened that account on Jan 25 and created all the listed articles, each of which is badly sourced and promotional, in a flurry. I asked them here if they wrote the Shai article for pay. They have not responded and have done nothing since I did that. It is highly likely that this is freelancer and each of these articles is a paid editing job. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    It seems like this editor Jytdog is harrassing me and accusing with prejudice ? As a wiki editor I have rights to create articles of my choice and I love writing articles. Seeing a bundle of messages and poped in and saw this editor Jytdog tagged speed del for almost all articles I created. I dont know why he is attacking my articles ? They are days old and could be speeded by editors who reviewed those articles previosly . I doubt Jytdog's intentions . I want some help !!! Astronomer145 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Nice to hear from you Astronomer145. Would you please disclose if you have created these articles for pay? I asked you this before and you didn't respond there. As I wrote there, there is a place for paid editors in the community, but you need to disclose that you are paid, and do some additional things. So please let us know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Astronomer145, if you are new to Misplaced Pages, you may find it less frustrating to create your articles at Articles for Creation where experienced editors will help you improve your articles before they go out to the main space. I looked at some of your articles and they do look like many of the first attempts that come to AfC, and that are not yet suitable as WP articles. Creating new articles is difficult, and it takes quite a while to learn how to create an article that is appropriate. At AfC you have the time to edit your draft until it is deemed likely to avoid deletion. We cannot allow poor quality articles to remain in Misplaced Pages, so these must be deleted. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, LaMona is right, you should submit your articles though AfC so that they can be peer-reviewed. You also must disclose it, if you are editing for pay. This is not optional. So please do let us know if you were paid to write any or all of the above articles. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alwayssmileguys. There is a chance this is a sock of a banned editor. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    Nice catch! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
    No worries. Note that they've also apparently edited as 116.68.121.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since this started based on adding an image they uploaded to commons. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    SinemArt ‎ and Indonesian TV shows

    SPI closed identifying these as socks of Natly 88; users indeffed and articles speedied. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 23 February 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.

    Came across this due to the removal of a speedy tag from one of them. The two editors appear to be socks of Natly 88 and I have filed an SPI here. I cleaned up the articles a bit and tagged them for content and COI. Don't know if others want to speedy them or not. I am not in a good place with that, so I won't. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 22 February 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.

    Youth Time

    SPA account adding promotional content (extensive self-sourced information about the organization's mission, belief, objectives, etc. - see recent edit history). Attempts to inform the editor about Misplaced Pages's COI and anti-promotion guidelines () have been ignored. To avoid more back-and-forth reverting, I'd appreciate any additional advice. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

    an admin blocked them for the username violation. that should get their attention. :) I'll also try to open a discussion with them. btw, GermanJoe if you try to make it a dialogue - ask a question nicely, and ask them to respond nicely, they are more likely to reply. most new editors have no idea that what they are doing is wrong, nor how to do the right thing...) strike, i think that editor was hopeless. ack. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) (strike !Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC))
    I cleaned up that article. what a promotional mess it was. let's keep this open to see if the editor does a new account or rename and the problems resume. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    They're still trying to WP:OWN the article: . I've adjusted the users involved and if I wasn't already involved would already have used some tools. SmartSE (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    yes they are. I tweaked the userlisting above. Programsyt is SOCK or MEAT i reckon. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    I've reported Programsyt to AN/3RR, and frankly the lot of them should be taken to SPI if they keep this up. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    679699sof

    Account has helpfully admitted to conflict of interest . Insofar as they're translating content from German Misplaced Pages and adding properly sourced material, the edits are constructive. However, there have also been repeated attempts to add trivial content about non notable family members, which I've deleted from several articles, and copious promotional and copyright violations at Adriana Sanford. Taken in all, the articles are a mare's nest: some may fail notability, others are replete with sources that can't be easily referenced (do they refer to the subjects in depth, or in passing?), and all need to be double-checked for neutrality. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

    I agree that Adriana Sanford is a promotional mess, but the others are long since deceased and so this is probably more of a WP:NOR issue rather than COI as I can't see what they stand to gain from writing about them. Obviously if they aren't notable they shouldn't be included and WP:NOTGENEALOGY is relevant to some of the content. SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    I've just started Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Adriana_Sanford. SmartSE (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    Deceased they may be, but since the editor claims to be related, there's the uneasy sense that Misplaced Pages is being used to publish articles on their family tree--it's notability by extension. Must every bio expand to give us family history, as here and here ? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    Agree, they're a single-purpose account for creating their family tree. Almost every bio has a very similar family life section, and almost all of the newly created bios are about non-notable people. I've AfDed a few of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you, Joseph2302. I think Philippina Espenshied is awfully flimsy as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'll just note here without excessive elaboration that the year of birth birth date of the subject was divined by the article author without any apparent citation, and appears as part of the username of the article author. They also have access to a previously unpublished image of the article's subject (according to TinEye) and sufficient proximity to get it released through OTRS. - Brianhe (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    Under Armour

    I have no experience of COI reports, but I just noticed this guy claiming to represent the company that is the subject of that article, making changes to the article and requesting changes. I have no idea if that is an issue or not... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Add topic