Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 100

Jpop73

 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD
 * sent to AFD.
 * sent to AFD
 * now a redirect
 * list (including deleted articles)
 * list (including deleted articles)
 * proposed deletion
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * sent to AFD
 * now a redirect
 * list (including deleted articles)
 * list (including deleted articles)
 * proposed deletion
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * proposed deletion
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * proposed deletion
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * merged to John Currie (athletic director)
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER
 * same person as John A. L. Currie - submitted for copyediting WP:GOCER

TBH, I am bringing this up as I do not know anymore if this editor is really is a legitimate editor or a COI paid editor. The heading is given as this is the only article this editor have declared as a paid editor.

It appears that either this zoology enthusiast have been corrupted by paid editing or has been a paid editor since day 1. His edits is either written like a resume or in a promotional manner. Whilst these are different to each other, they appear to have their similarities to one and the other.

appears to be at best a one of those or a SPA editor since he has a 4 edit history. Other than those listed, there appears to be more paid editing by this user. Donnie Park (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick check of some of these articles and share your concerns. I'm seeing unverifiable, promotional content about barely (or not) notable subjects which are hallmarks of undisclosed paid editing. Thanks for bringing it here - it needs a lot of clean up work. I'm tempted to block them now, but it would be good to hear explanation. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another AFD started and added some other stale accounts with similar editing habits and one article that needs attention from them. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This group of articles/editors came up here before back in 2010. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some connections between the group of articles and the editor. I just saw this article on Huffington Post written by Jordan Schaul about Linx Dating and Amy Andersen. Incidentally, the article also links to the Wikipedia pages of Jordan Schaul and Amy Andersen. This could well be a way of promoting a business/establishing that it is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is another one: Jefery_Levy - There is a HuffPost article/interview by Jordan Schaul about this person as well. Jpop73 started working on this existing article on Feb. 22, the HuffPost article is March 1 (both 2016). Prior to Jpop73's involvement, the article was minimal diff. The coincidence of mutual interest between Schaul and Jpop73 is ... interesting. I'm having a sudden thought about Schaul, a zoologist and animal rights person who writes for HuffPost and sometimes ventures into writing about dating service, and Jpop73, who writes about zoology and yet sometimes ventures into writing about dating services. Some of the uncredited info in the Jefery Levy article appears in the HuffPost interview by Schaul. And Schaul was born in 1973. Am I crazy? LaMona (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have made clear that the uncredited info appears in the Levy article prior to the publication of the HuffPost piece. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I get what you are trying to imply. You might wish to see this as well, where the user states "In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created". I'm afraid we cannot go any further without violating WP:OUTING. At the moment I think it would be better to ask the user for clarifications about the accounts. If all the accounts belong to the same person, then it needs to be noted. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editors, I'm really not conspiring to establish notability for anyone and I'm sorry if I have drawn such negative attention. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and recently, in a few cases, I have been offered compensation, which I accepted and noted on respective pages. It has caused much more trouble than it was worth, as I've learned this week. I'm not unscrupulous or even that smart to plan such a PR stunt. On some other pages, I have added articles I've written just because I'm aware of them. I will take them down if they are of concern. For instance, I wrote an article on Jef Levy for Huffington Post. It occurred to me that it could be added to his Wikipedia page, but I doubt he needed it to add to his notability, I just thought it was a helpful and interesting addition.

Amy Andersen is a social media contact and I approached her about writing for her blog. I wrote a few articles for her blog, which she compensated me for. I did suggest that she get a Wikipedia profile for both her business and herself because after learning more about her industry, I noticed that a lot of matchmakers had Wikipedia pages. After I started contributing to Huffington Post and learned that they encouraged reposting articles from other sources, it occurred to me that one article I wrote for her blog would be a good article to repost on Huffington Post. If I added it to her Wikipedia page, which I don't think I did, it was really just an afterthought. I don't see it on her page. I'm really sorry for raising such concern. I really liked contributing to Wikipedia and I regret that I accepted compensation to do any. It has been fun to contribute, but now I'm kind of afraid to create any more articles, which I've really just done on occasion. I do come across people who I think are notable and I have been approached by people to do biographical articles. It is fun to link articles, and I enjoy writing biographies, but I really don't want to create any trouble. I'm sorry that I raised concerns. I hope this helps. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you let us know if any of these accounts (Zootrainer/zooaction/Zookeeper4u) are/were operated by you or anyone known to you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I had one other account that I think I used to contribute to a page for Dr. Grey Stafford and Sandra Dee Robinson when when I first started. Is there a way to find out out what contributions those accounts made. I don't recall the name I used before. I didn't know anyone associated, though. I could have had zoo in the name, but I don't remember. Is there a way to find out any more information. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I found another "crossover" account User:Wallabyguy, which edits some of the same articles as Jpop73, zooaction, Zootrainer and Zookeeper4u, e.g. Grey Stafford (where Zootrainer and Wallabyguy are SPAs). One thing they all have in common, at least on the histories I've seen, is not providing an edit summary. LaMona (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear LaMona and Lemongirl942, I do know Grey Stafford very well. Would it be helpful if I asked him if he has a user name and logged in to make changes. I believe I'm the one who created his account and it wouldn't surprise me if he or an associate of his updated the account at a later time. Forgive me, but I'm really not clear on why this would be against policy or a conflict of interest, but I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I thought what I added was neutral and objective. In addition, one reason, I suspect there are no edit summaries is because I was pretty new at this. I can't really speak for why others didn't add them. By now I should know to add one, but I still often forget and didn't know they were required. Do you need the IP address of my old computer. Would that help?Jpop73 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I found something additional which is most probably COI though perhaps not related to Jpop73. User:Eatyler did 4 edits in 2013 to Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. The list of staff mentions "...entered into a mentorship under our then Director of Sales and Marketing, Ethan Tyler". Mentioning it for record, although it seems the concerned person is no longer associated with the center. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when I was curator I contributed updates on the BEAR CENTER, which actually never came to fruition so that could be removed, but I did warn E Tyler about removing factual information, albeit it negative about the center. I think it involved the acquisition of black tailed deer that we shouldn't have had in our possession. He's is a marketing person and did not seem to grasp that you can't just delete something because it is negative. We had a heated discussion about it, which I remember clearly.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) At the same time, I should have been carelful about mentioning the bear center because it was only in the planning stages.Jpop73 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about sending COI articles to AfD

 * I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service  More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable.  If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out.  Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create.  When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place?   - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write.  What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny?  This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that this was done in good faith but that doesn't change the fact that many of the subjects are not notable. It's true that our attention was drawn by the disclosure to look at their other articles but if they aren't notable it is only a matter of time before they are noticed as was the case back in 2010 when Zooaction (which Jpop73 has indirectly admitted was him e.g. ) made similar edits. What are we supposed to do, ignore problems we find because they made a disclosure? Surely the point of the disclosure is to allow us to scrutinise potentially problematic articles? SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * More of the AFD'ed articles are notable than are not notable, it just takes searching sources thoroughly. Unless a comprehensive search of sources was done here (and I intend to do what I can as these AFD's run, and already have enough sources to significantly exceed notability requirements on at least several of them - and I have done far from a comprehensive search,) then AFDing pretty much all articles not created for pay without doing a thorough search of available sources, including newspaper archives and offline sources, because someone actually followed our TOS is actively promoting blackhat paid editing. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 02:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Amy Andersen and her company, they have received more notable press than just about anyone else I created an article for (from the New York Times to Vanity Fair). However, these articles have been the first to be deleted, presumably because I was compensated for writing about her. These seem to be really quite discriminatory actions against people like me who were just trying to follow the rules.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandra Dee Robinson's article was already created when I elected to make some edits and update it. She is a notable and veteran daytime and Primetive television actress and she was Miss Pennsylvania USA. Her bio is another that was tagged AFD, and yet she is the subject of one of the more prominant profiles I've worked on, and only made edits. I feel this is clearly becoming a punitive effort to punish me and in many cases people I 've tried to help who have done nothing wrong. I may have inadvertently imposed a conflict of interest in some cases, but I have spent a great deal of my time this week trying to be helpful, honest and transparent. I don't know what more I can do to try to cooperate with people who are adamant about deleting my article and those that I have worked onJpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Eden Sassoon is more than just the daughter of Vidal Sassoon. She gets more global regular press about her hairstyling and and cosmetics empire than most in her industry. Try a Google news search on her. Again, she was quickly deleted, when she is quite notobale. I just don't understand where all this AFD tagging is coming from it seems unfair and personal.Jpop73 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

General John Michel was the the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108791/brigadier-general-john-e-michel.aspx. Again, I don't understand why he was tagged AFD. This seems very suspicious to meJpop73 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me thank you for cooperating and being transparent. We appreciate that a lot. It is of immense help to us when editors tell us about a conflict of interest. I would like to let you know that article are nominated for AfD not just because there is a COI. There have been multiple articles involving COI editing and yet the articles were not send to AfD, but they were just edited to remove any overtly promotional content. I had a look at some of the articles you have written and (as far as I saw), there was nothing overtly promotional in them. Once again, this is something I appreciate a lot.


 * However, the problem with some of your articles is that the article subject may not satisfy the notability guidelines. For example, if you see Sandra Dee Robinson, you will notice that the article contains just 3 references, none of which could be counted as a third party reliable source. One way to find an article subject is notable is to see if they have multiple references in independent sources (which have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy). In this case, you might wish to evaluate yourself (see WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR) if the article subject is indeed notable. I would be happy to hear your feedback. Please rest assured that we are not sending these articles to AfD (or undoing your edits) as a form of vengeance or punishment. AfD is a mechanism to seek community input whether an article subject is notable or not. If by chance someone sends it to AfD and the subject is indeed notable, you will find that other editors will vote keep. I hope it clarifies your queries. In addition, nothing prevents you from contributing to Wikipedia even now. Apart from the articles with which you have a COI, you are welcome to contribute to other articles. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear (talk). Thank you for your reassurance. It means a lot. I have been very distressed by this whole thing. I'm am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia because I don't want to inadvertently incite anyone or create another conflict of interest. I just feel that my article and others I have worked on met the notability requirements before and I don't know why they are now more heavily scrutinized when they have hopefully only been improved over time. I worked with editor Tenebrae for two years to not only improve my article but others and they passed reviews by other editors. So I am a bit perplexed, but I thank you again. SincerelyJpop73 (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the question that I have, which I will state as a hypothetical. Let's say that someone is a writer for a newspaper or magazine, or even a book. In the course of their writing they obviously run into interesting people and subjects, and they decide to create (or edit) Wikipedia articles for some of them, in part using research that they've done for their writing. That doesn't seem to be a problem. Now let's add to the hypothetical that as part of writing the article the writer creates (or edits) a Wikipedia page for the subject of the article, and links to that in the article. This case seems more fraught to me. Is the Wikipedia article being used to 1) validate the subject of the journal article? 2) promote the subject of the journal article? 3) make the subject of the journal article seem more important? or 4) is it none of these, and therefore is not considered promotional? The gist of this question is: if you are doing paid-for work and you create or edit Wikipedia articles related to that work coincident with the work, is that COI, and is it considered promotional? I realize that this reads like splitting hairs, but I think it is a real question. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand your questions, I think, but I was not paid by National Geographic nor am I paid by Huffington Post- I was an invited courtesy contract contributing editor for NGS. In one case, I was paid by one of the bloggers, who I later contributed a Wikipedia article to. At the same time, I can see how adding an article to a Wikipedia entry could be a conflict of interest if it is used specificically to increase the notability of the subject, but I'm not sure how you determine its specific influence or whether or not that was the intention. In the cases, I can recall where I added something I wrote to the Wikipedia article, the subjects were already deemed notable (I think in almost every case) and the articles I added were used to expand or support more information.I'm not sure if this answers your questionsJpop73 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jpop73. I don't think I mentioned "paid", but that's ok. I think that the question of COI is extremely complex, and that there probably are very few articles on WP that haven't benefited from a kind of interest that might show some conflict. Most of us have areas of our life that bleed over into WP in ways that we cannot easily define. In this case I'm convinced of Good Faith, and that we're seeing Interest that I couldn't confidently call Conflict of Interest. I also looked at the articles and some look like reasonable candidates for AfD. That said, most times when my attention is drawn to a group of articles, at least some portion turn out to need work or to be AfD-able. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy to help however I can. As much as I enjoyed contributing, I'm not so sure I'm prepared to confront this kind of experience again. This has been more critical than scholarly reviews. But I will gladly provide any information you need. As I mentioned, I've seen tons of articles, which only list primary resources (tagged or not) in my research when I'm looking to find templates for how to draft an article. Hence,I still feel like my own article has been very critically reviewed considering it was reviewed and accepted and because another editor worked closely with me to improve it. In some ways, I see that the issue of my own article stems from a deemed conflict of interest, which I apologize for. However, we did everything under the sun to address such concern. There are some articles that I created, which were probably done in haste and need work, but from my impression those that did not meet the notability requirements were quickly deleted or removed in short order.thanks againJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have unearthed three more that I've listed above. I've noticed there is an in-common within; most of these are those their late-40s to mid-50s, its like if he is acquainted with them. I doubt highly that he would do articles about 20-year olds. Donnie Park (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

An unsourced portion of Jefery Levy I removed got reverted by (presumably a COI user hiding behind a private network), just saying because this user could be one of those, considering there have been no recent editors other than that concerned. Donnie Park (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, this user is trying to engage in a revert war over this article. Donnie Park (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * An editing dispute with Jefery Levy last night brought me into more — and The Key (2014 film). Donnie Park (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also discovered another article (John Currie (athletic director)) that briefly worked on before proceeding to create John A. L. Currie to get credit himself. It transpires that this is the more than once this happened for the benefit of his own credit. I can see the list of COI editors out there is growing and growing. There is another three editors, whilst they could be good faith editors, they appear to be WP:SPA editors (presumably like so many IP users). Donnie Park (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are some serious copyvio with some articles by ; note, I ignored all the AfD nominated articles and those that has a low copyvio score.
 * Sujoy Banerjee, whilst a CSD contsted article, reports a 47.6% copyvio
 * John A. L. Currie reports a 30.6% copyvio
 * John Currie (athletic director) whilst the COI editor did not actively involve himself in, reports a 80.2% copyvio
 * Grey Stafford reports a 29.1% copyvio
 * Laurel Neme reports a 45.1% copyvio. Donnie Park (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, am I upset about your edits? No, the problem is why did you create a duplicate article when one already exists, just admit it some new editors make this mistake as well except you were a few years in. Did I say I treat you like a "malicious criminal", obviously not, you just bring this to yourself by repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Compared to what you edited, tell you what, in that years of editing as yours, I had 27 WP:DYK and counting, recently been listed in WP:DYKLIST, never had one article successfully deleted except one that was merged which was one of my first and why, because I follow guidelines and play by the rule. Plus unlike you, I have never been paid to do any of the edits. On a footnote,, and other are totally spot on about you, the problem with you is your attitude, you come off as some guy who is so arrogant that he is unwilling to learn from mistakes. Donnie Park (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cont. Dear Donnie, Again, thank you. Jef Levy and me and none of my friends, colleagues, organizations, etc. which are subjects of articles that are deemed a conflict of interest because of my misuse and understanding of policy are not trying to abuse or take advantage of Wikipedia. In fact, after personally apologizing to many of them for placing their pages in jeopardy, by accident, many of them are indifferent some are uninterested and some want to be removed altogether. You and some other editors have correctly identified that my articles (and probably all of them) contain a conflict of interest, for which I have apologized repeatedly. The only articles I write about are things or people that I know about. I clearly misunderstood how articles get written and by whom. I had no idea that it is a crime to write about subjects I know personally and I also didn't know that cross promomotion was prohibited. Furthermore, this wikipedia crisis all came about because I was honest about being paid for some articles that I created. I thought getting paid was the only issue that was relavant to a conflict of interest and I thought I handled it correctly. Instead, I have been publicly accused of intentionally violating policy, I have been humiliated in public discussions and treated like a malicious person, an outcast and labled a COI editor, as if I was operating under some contingent of underground evildoers. In addition, my own page, which I carefully worked on with an editor for two years following its acceptance has also been proposed for deletion. I don't know what else to say. Again, I have tried to be cooperative and helpful and you insist on trying to make defamatory remarks about me. I would ask you again to please stop the negative commentary.thank youJpop73 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What negative commentary, I'm just being blunt. To cut this short, I won't waste my time arguing with you but I'll leave you in the hands of other editors and your clients to sort this out. Also please refer to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia and Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia, now you could say you've done no worse. By an editor who've been branded a troll and after failing miserably to get Jimmy Wales to get me banned via Twitter, he had a change.org petition made to get me banned (in November) just because I've nominated his article for AfD. Donnie Park (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Donny, this is jpop73 responding from my phone that I'm not logged into. I'm sorry if I come off at all arogant. Im not arrogant. I have trouble following certain written and oral directions because I have Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism. It is not intentional that I dismiss things, it is part of continual battle with a neurodevelopmental condition. You are welcome to read my story about it it the Huffington Post. It is a disability, but it does not excuse all behavior, but it does lead to misunderstandings. I'm sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:B9E1:5466:643D:FAF7:916F (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a wider question raised by this case about what to do when an editor is communicating and cooperatively working with a COI investigation. First, just my evaluation of this particular case, Jpop73 has been cooperative. Second, to the wider question, should we treat articles they created any differently than a concealed, uncooperative editor or even a non-COI editor? For myself I haven't sorted all this out in my mind, but I do know that any deletion debates must be policy-based and don't need to include the editor's history unless it supports a pattern of clear advocacy, in which case the advocacy content is a valid part of the deletion debate. In no case should deletion be punitive or reactionary. Maybe there's a case to be made in separating editors doing the investigation from those proposing follow-up action, just to avoid this kind of appearance of bias against the COI editor. – Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to say that Jpop73 has been cooperative and has responded to all queries. Personally, I quite appreciate this and I would like Jpop73 to continue contributing productively to Wikipedia (except perhaps for the articles in which there is a possible COI). As for the question about deletion debates, I personally nominate articles for AfD only when I am convinced that it doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines, regardless of any COI editing on the article. I do mention in brief about the COI (particularly if paid), but this is just for the record. Other editors can then respond to the AfD and decide if it is worth keeping based on policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I thought to respond to your queries again. Firstly, according to the COI policy, a conflict of interest need not be paid: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.. Additionally, it is also stated that Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
 * Regarding the concerns about sending your articles for deletion, let me reassure you that the articles have been sent only because someone doubted the notability of the subject. The articles are not being sent to AfD because there was COI editing. (In many cases of COI editing, the article is just edited to return to a Neutral Point of View. However, this is only when the article subject itself is notable). I would also like to state that you are not being "targeted". Any article which doesn't satisfy notability is sent to AfD. Let me bring your attention to this comment you made at the AfD of Jordan Schaul. You correctly identified the fact that the article subject was not notable. You will notice that other editors have already sent it to AfD. I hope you understand that you are not being specifically "targeted". Any article, not notable will be sent to AfD once it comes to the notice of editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942 Thank you very much for repeating. I have Asperger's Syndrome/ High functioning autism (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jordan-schaul/i-cant-fake-it-till-i-make-it-im-autistic_b_8583670.html) and sometimes need things repeated. I also as mentioned above sometimes have difficulty following direction. So I apologize for the misunderstanding. As far as notability regarding my article, my only reference or basis for reference is from what some other editors have stated. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others marginally notable, others have said it is within the criteria of notability. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective on Wikipedia and I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions.thanksJpop73 (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

John Currie, etc.
Dear Donnie, A representative for John Currie, who is a friend of Michael Hutchins (a colleague of mine) asked me to create a new page for him and as a favor I created one, which has since been vandalized. I'm sorry that this upsets you so much. I would guess that every single article I've created has a conflict of interest. Please stop treating me like I am a malicious criminal. I don't even know what you mean when you mention credits. I don't know what they are and I'm not interested in accumulating them. I'm not interesting in competing with other editors or ascending the hierarchy of Wikipedia. I enjoy writing and I'd made the mistake of documenting two instances for which I was paid to create articles, which I thought was an important to policy. I was afraid of creating a conflict of interest and instead it as created all this controversy. Little did I know, every article I have created is some kind of conflict of interest, albeit unintended. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my guess is that there are a lot of people who contribute to Wikipedia and are inadvertently making these mistakes. There may be some people with mal intent, but for the most part I don't think most people, like myself even know how it works.

As I said before, I didn't even understand the concept of a conflict of interest, except in the cases where I was paid. That was where I thought there was concern. I only understood a conflict of interest to be an example of someone getting paid to create a profile and even then I learned that there is a simple protocol of noting that a payment was made. Even on my own article, I don't understand the concept of a conflict of interest if I'm required to adequately and accurately source information. As I requested on your talk page, please stop making accusationsJpop73 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a COI is that hard to understand. Let's say I'm writing an article about my wife, who is reasonably well known within a certain circles. Now, I might think, as she's my wife, that she could benefit from a wikipedia page. I might, therefore, find it difficult to assess her notability independently (because I believe it is in her, and my, interest to have a wikipedia page) and I might get rather angry when others try to edit the page I've written about her or suggest that she's not notable. Clearly she is notable and important to me, but that doesn't mean she is really notable to the rest of the world who read wikipedia. In fact, in a purely objective world, I wouldn't write about my wife at all on wikipedia and would instead allow those who are uninvolved and/or knowledgeable about the field decide whether she deserves a page or not. I could say similar things about myself, my employer and so on.  Generally speaking, humans find it pretty damn hard to be objective about things and people we are that close to, so WP:COI states clearly that COI edits are highly discouraged.  Because it just ends up with silly emotional arguments and because in general it tends to make shitty pages.
 * Paid edits are a type of COI which, to my mind, are hard to untangle. The main problem is as above: a financial relationship with the subject makes it hard - or near on impossible - to be objective. But there are degrees of financial involvement in a subject as shown by the fact that Wikipedian in residence exist.  As far as I understand those guidelines, one can write about the content of (for example) a museum but there might be a problem with a page about the finances of that museum if one was actually the finance director of it,
 * In terms of what you've said above, if your friend asked you to write a wikipedia page about him, the first COI question is whether you'd be able to write objectively about him. Would you be able to write about anyone who disagreed with something he said?  Would you be able to write about any conflicts or crises he has been involved with if that could jeopardise your relationship with him?  On a fundamental level, are you able to make a judgement about whether he honestly meets the WP:GNG in the borderline cases? Personally, I wouldn't ever write about a friend who asked me to write his wikipedia page. Because who cares what I think about him? JMWt (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Purple WiFi


A hyper-slick advertorial for a company called purple Wifi. Editor declares no COI-- yet. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have any connection with the company, I have been using its product. I declare that I have no connection with the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyasal (talk • contribs) 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is concerning that the very first link I checked is about a regional industry award, issued by an industry publication, citing the same publication. This has been noted as a hallmark of WP:PROMO articles about businesses. - Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably worth widening this to &  who has interests overlapping with User:Meyasal --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Paul Wager/ Eleesa Dadiani


User:Eleesa_Dadiani, art dealer from the UK admits being Paul Wager's dealer, creating a page for him and to having a strong COI Paul Wager. S/he's up to two reverts and counting. We need a magic wand for these things. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "I wrote the article, therefore I can edit it", now graciously offering to allow it to be deleted because it doesn't present the subject to this editor's liking. Oy (channeling jytdog). Where did the idea get spread that Wikipedia is an open platform for client promotion? HappyValleyEditor, you're right. — Brianhe (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "we're having Paul Wager's solo exhibition at my gallery, Dadiani Fine Art, on the 14th of April (in less than a week) and we really must have this information out there before the exhibition opens." At least the COI aspect is clear from this. Putting aside the COI though, I have doubts if the article subject is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With some effort I was able to find only this and this, possibly not enough for notability. Unfortunately, his own web page here doesn't have much content, either biographical or links to reviews. Perhaps someone has better access to arts magazines? I'll list these sources on the talk page to make them available. LaMona (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the four huge public sculptures that have been on the Loughborough campus for a few decades, I figured he was notable. However there's next to nothing available in terms of references. I would tend to say notable and keep, despite the delte request, as the four sculptures are public, permanent and part of a public collection. I think he was probably very notable in the 70's, but things trailed off after that. Of course, notability is not temporary. Also, thanks for the support. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: seems to have created a new article Nina Mae Fowler and Wikilinked it here. I have a hunch that this is somehow linked to "Dadiani art allery" again. I would recommend keeping a watch on the content. Thankfully, Nina Mae Fowler seems to be notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Coupa


Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Coupa Software, and I've proposed a few edits to the article, here—adding a few sentences to the lead, and reorganizing some information in the article into a new History section. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly, so I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look and provide feedback. I've spelled out all my suggestions in as much detail as possible so they should be easy to implement if you agree with them. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article looks rather like an ad now. I had to trim it back a bit. I also added a section on "Misappropriation of trade secrets", covering the admitted use of competitor Ariba's trade secrets and IP. There's also a redlink reference to "Spend management", which may be a newly coined term. "Accounts Payable" and "Financial Supply Chain Management" are closer to being standard terms. We need to either create a "spend management" article or use an existing term.  John Nagle (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Trimmed back a bit more. I'm starting to think we need a guideline for corporate awards; this is a good example of why. - Brianhe (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, here! on the "awards". There are a gazillion of these "Top n" type articles, and I think those should be declared to not be "awards". They aren't any more authoritative than the various top ten lists that mainly function as click bait. Then there are the "send us your entry and we'll give you an award" sites, e.g. Stevie Awards, and local Emmy awards. I'd be willing to contribute to a list if one were begun. Even if we can't create a binary yes/no it would be helpful to add more information that would speak to potential notability. LaMona (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A great starting point would be an award has to be issued by a notable organization, as established by an enduring Wikipedia article on the org. I think this came up before in the context of media industry (film etc.) awards. Probably for this business awards we'd need additional criteria, such as scope, i.e. non-local, and selectivity, i.e. not a "top 1000" type list. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and.

As a starting point, I've found sources for some of the unsourced information that was removed from the article.
 * For "Coupa has partnerships with international advisory firms. On April 10, 2013, the company announced a formal partnership with KPMG. It also has partnerships with Deloitte, Accenture and IBM Emptoris Commerce."—
 * For the "Funding" text removed in this diff—Series G and $169 million total raised, Series F, and Series E.

I also would love to hear any feedback pertaining to my initial request, which is still outstanding.

As for "spend management"—I see this is no longer a redlink, so we should be all set there.

And for what it's worth, I would find a standard guideline for corporate awards along the lines of what you're suggesting very helpful.

Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, checking in again here before this gets archived into the abyss. Has anyone had a chance to take a look at my initial request, or the additional info provided above? Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc


User:SMCKINNON has similar name to CEO of Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival in Toronto, and highly promotional article includes statement "approached us about a new brand" which confirms COI. Draft article contains serious POV problems like "In 2014 the Operational Management of Steven McKinnon & Alison Guerin-Cameron Associates Event Services Management partnership started to breakdown and one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else." As this is a draft it can be blocked, but user has been adding promotional material related to Steven McKinnon activities since at least 2012 to various articles, one of which is Caribana. I removed promotional material and was immediately reverted by this user diff. User has been warned in the past about COI (see []) and has not responded, but continues to add promo. Username was permanently blocked per username policy User:SMCKINNON SBCCT in 2012, however, promo editing was evident and COI warning is on talk page. Note that user also has made what I read as NPOV edits to numerous articles about Toronto and Toronto businesses, as well as other topics, so convincing them of ending COI editing would be better than blocking, if user can be convinced to engage. LaMona (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict of interest- this matter was deemed accepted by other users that is accurate, further more it was objective and not promotional in any way. Furthermore I am not involved with organization its just information I have knowledge about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMCKINNON (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Hi SMCKINNON. So your username is very, very close to that of Steve McKinnon, and you have written a great deal about Steve McKinnon.  So one thing at a time, and that has to do with your relationship with Steve McKinnon. There are only two possibilities here.  You are not him, but are impersonating him.  This makes your account name a violation of WP:IMPERSONATE and we would need to block your account.   The other option is that you have an unambiguous COI here and you need to acknowledge that and work with us to manage your COI.  So please clarify which it is.  There are other issues here, but that is the primary one, as it has to do with the existence of your account.  So please clarify.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss this situation, I wanted to clarify your concerns, the information pertaining to Caribana page is nothing that is conflict of interest nor anything promotional, this information is valid and accredited and wasn't deemed promotional as it has been on that page for last 3 years and now a concern.Now on to my page, there is nothing promotional, how you expect to get information if you do not have contributions from people involved to input them in. Yes me being a CEO of my company we own the festival and have new sources and reliable citing in the document.

2. I am Steve McKinnon ( STEVEN MCKINNON ) there is no COI, there cant be a conflict of interest, because one I am no longer part of the organization of Caribana so the COI is mute and void, the material that LaMONDA removed was not promotional, nor was COI. its been on the page for well over 3 years and now for some reason its a problem.SMCKINNON (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON
 * Thanks for clarifying what is going on with the account, that is helpful.  It would be really helpful if you stopped making declarations and just talked with us a bit and explained the relationships you and your company have; this whole thing is here at COIN so the community can look at what is going on and make determinations.  OK, so you are CEO of Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc, and what your company does, is put on help others put on events, is that right? Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is correct JYDOG - we are a not for profit incorporation, like Festival Management Committee that runs the Toronto Caribbean Carnival - we also launched last year our own festival - Scarborough Community Multicultural Festival. The Other thing we do, is we help put on events that contract us to do it.SMCKINNON (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON


 * As an FYI, Draft:Kinron Community Event Planning Services Inc has been re-sent to AfC review with virtually no changes, and still contains statements like "one of the co-owners started to have personal life crisis" "one of the owners stopped communicating and didnt do anything else". Much of the article is still unreferenced. I will take a pass, but it's going to be serious work, and I am reluctant to do so if the COI issue isn't resolved. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I did a big edit, taking it down from 19K to 12K, removed lots of unref'd and a lot of redundancy. It still needs work. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

LAMONA I noticed a big edit, I appreciate it, some of the material such as Letter Patent and Change in ownership can only be validated by the Business License and the Articles of Incorporation. I did some work on the article and made it netural. Some of the references are there in respect to the various items have been done.SMCKINNON (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)SMCKINNON


 * SMCKINNON, the purpose of this COI noticeboard entry is not to facilitate the editing of the article in question. You have been asked to appropriately declare your conflict of interest, as per the COI policies here. Should this article be accepted at AfC, an editor with a conflict of interest is asked not to make any further direct edits to the article, but to describe requested edits on the talk page of the article. That way, other editors without a COI can make (or not make, depending on their judgment) edits with particular attention to neutral point of view. I do not believe that we have your agreement on following the policy on COI editing. I would appreciate if you would comply. The page Conflict_of_interest gives instructions about COI and how to make the necessary declarations. Thank you. LaMona (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * has declared COI here and made no further edits. Recommend closure of this case. - Brianhe (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard S. Newcombe


User Gabriellemh has stated on my userpage, "Good afternoon,

I am new on wikipedia but I have some important information to update on Richard S. Newcombe. I was working on the updates and it seems that half of my submission wasn't saved correctly due to Kasperbot's rejection to the first save. I was saving because I didn't want to loose the information we had typed in. I realize I could have avoided this however I am in this situation of trying to recover valuable information. Also I do have sources to back my information I just didn't get around to updating them as I am slow to because I am new. I would appreciate your kindness towards this matter.

I am the marketing specialist for Creators Syndicate."

I replied both there and on her page, "In response to your comment on my page, I suggest you immediately read Conflict of interest as your statement indicates you have a fundamental COI and should not be editing the Wikipedia pages in question."

I note that one of the edits appears to downplay alleged child sexual abuse. Ogress 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the user has declared their COI, and you have advised them of COI guidelines, what's the problem here, or in other words, what exactly are you asking us to do at this noticeboard? - Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had two concerns:
 * to note the COI (telling me, a random editor, they have a COI in passing without being aware of its import - hence my quote above - is definitely not the same as declaring a COI)
 * I do not know the procedures around editing with a COI and the user does not appear to understand how to edit under the constraints of the COI and they are clearly doing it as their job, which means it's not likely they are going to go away
 * Their reply to my comment was, "I understand your concern for COI however I am providing facts. I just didn't provide the links right away before I submitted the information. I am not editing to take a specific side or steer away from facts. I am uploading information regarding the company and will be providing references for that information." At this point, I'm hoping someone can give them some direction as I have never dealt with COI issues in my 10 years here and they definitely don't seem to understand it. Ogress 18:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael S. Smith II


User's edits are mainly laudatory contributions to Michael Smith article and his company Kronos Advisory. User is responsible for most of content on both pages. COI and sockpuppet concerns previously raised. 91.217.91.54 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Menon Holdings Group

 * - proposed deletion
 * - proposed deletion
 * - proposed deletion

Menon Holdings Group was quite the work of masterful obfiuscation when I fist came across it. I can only assume that this is what the work of paid professional editor looks like. I removed some promotional copy, and was promptly thanked by the creator, who then added back the removed material with the opposite edit comment: "removing advertorial copy". I had a go at the article again and found a mass of bogus references (Histopedia,World Heritage Encyclopedia). Most of the activity seems to be centered around propping up causes of Shilpa Menon-- ie. her book, company and bio. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is pretty straight-forward COI editing. Ashleymillermu has created a page for Menon, for her company, and for her "acclaimed novel" and has added Menon to various pages, like List of Mauritian writers, Mauritian literature, List_of_alumni_of_the_University_of_Cape_Town, Index_of_Mauritius-related_articles. The "acclaimed novel" is self-published (Notion Press), and doesn't even have an ISBN, so even if the Menon business is retained, I would remove the page for the book as well as any of the pages referring to her as an author. This could be the work of a dear friend, but it is a good simulation of professional PR. LaMona (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect for you User:HappyValleyEditor I think what you are indulging in is plain slander against me. And since this piece you posted here refers to me, I need to clear the air on all the issues you raised. I am only trying to help build more content about Mauritius and I am new to Wikipedia. I am not paid to do any of the contents featured there so your allegation of COI is not well founded. Yes, you flagged a few sections for advertorial language and I promptly tried to correct it. I repeat, I am new to Wikipedia and am open to suggestions on improving articles I post. However, I don't agree with you that the references I have cited are bogus. All are live links. AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As regards User:LaMona's views - there is an ISBN number featured for the book at if Amazon has featured an author with an ISBN number, I don't think that is bogus !AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I rest my case and request User:HappyValleyEditor to help make the articles I am submitting to have better content than to raise unfounded insinuation and indulge in disparaging work that has taken time to make. What you are doing borders on targeted harassment. AM (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have simply cleaned up your articles, which had a lot of unreliable sources.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of your edits - yes. They were good. But removing some thousand words from the plot summary from Scars Do Heal how is that cleaning up ? I read the book and I know it is reliable. What do you have to say in your defence when you claim it is unreliable ? It will help me see from your perspective. Cheers AM (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ouch. AM, Two things. First. This board is not for discussing article content.  It is for determining if you have a COI or advocacy issues, and to try to work with you on that.  I took that to your talk page, and we can come back here when we are done there, if you like.   Second, in a conversation in Wikipedia discussing content (which is again not what this board is for) "I read the book and I know it is reliable" is kind of... nonsense, here in Wikipedia.  Please just disengage for now, until you are better grounded.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Quick note on the COIN filing. "Shilpa Menon" is not an uncommon name. That user only did one thing here - created an article on  Innomantra Consulting, which was deleted.  if you google "Shilpa Menon Innomantra Consulting" you will see that a young person with that name from India interned there not long ago.  The Shilpa Menon that AshelyMillermu wrote about, is a different "Shilpa Menon".  So I am striking the user Shilpa Menon from this case. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Long story short - I do not have any COI with the articles/issues featured above. And thank you Jytdog for all the learning. Cheers AM (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The story is not over. You have said that you believe you have no COI.  Great.  You and I can talk more, and we can come back here when we are done.  You don't seem to understand the issues that led to this thread arising yet.  As long as you don't, these issues are very likely to arise again. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

New checked= variable
A new  variable has been added Connected contributor and Connected contributor (paid). That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Domenick Nati / NatiCelebs.com

 * - deleted at AfD
 * - deleted at AfD
 * - deleted at AfD
 * - and multiple sockpuppets

I noticed this after I saw it at ANI. The user seemed to have created multiple sockpuppets to vote at AfDs and recreate articles multiple times (with variant spellings). I am reasonably sure that "Nati Celebrity Services" is the one behind this. The strongest evidence is this twitter account of the CEO Domenick Nati, which contains a link to the deleted Wikipedia article Domenick Nati. The profile pic is incidentally a screenshot of the Wikipedia page. Bobo Norco seems to be linked to NatiCelebs as well. It would be great if others could keep a look out for any more sockpuppets/promotional articles by this agency. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added Ryan Totka to the list above, which is another article that appears to be associated with JellyfishFilms+socks and which has been deleted several times. I've also fixed your link to ANI, hope you don't mind. Also, yes indeed, Domenick Nati's twitter is pretty damning -- I've been using it for the past week or so to find the link to his newest salt-dodging article title, because it was always updated immediately in his Twitter bio. - Iago Qnsi  (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was in a hurry and wasn't able to link it properly haha. Thanks for your help. Anyway, coming back to NatiCelebs, I have a hunch they are not going to stop so easily. So I recommend keeping a watch out for any similar articles. If you find anything, please update here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe a edit filter is in order here? Happy Attack Dog (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Michael Savage


COI Editor SPA whitewashing well-sourced content SPECIFICO  talk  22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor (Zendug) replied on the talk page. See.
 * Let's continue the conversation here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, since you stated that you are "a friend of someone who works for Michael Savage" and "who asked you to try to edit the page", it is still a Conflict of Interest(COI). As a first step, please read our guidelines on COI. Since you have a conflict of interest, it is useful if you suggest edits, instead of editing the article directly. To answer your second query, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which merely collects information already reported. Sometimes, this includes information which may not be to the article subjects liking (for example information about controversies someone was involved in). However, we do not remove information simply because the article subject doesn't like it. If something has been reported widely in reliable sources (Newspapers, books etc), it may merit inclusion in the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, legal threats wouldn't work here since Wikipedia merely reports what has already been said in reliable sources (please also see our guidelines about "No Legal Threats"). If you have any concerns about the content on the article, it is best if you let us know (on the article talk page) and tell us about your concerns, rather than removing the information directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think i understand, I am trying to figure this out as I go along. The lawsuit question is one I have to ask since i am sure they will bring it up. so basically what I am understanding is there is nothing someone can do about heving their privacy protected once it is up on wikki, because it was in a new article? Zendug (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "having their privacy protected" you mean controlling what's in the article about them, then certainly they cannot! Can you imagine what fluff and horsefeathers would be left if the subjects of articles got to control what was written about them? Content of articles is expected to come from verifiable, reliable sources, and may be challenged on that basis on the talk page of an article. As to the lawsuits: we really don't tolerate even tacit threats of legal action against Wikipedia, so please don't mention such a thing again, as it could easily get you blocked. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  08:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Zendug is it now clear to you have that you have a conflict of interest here in Wikipedia with regard to Savage? Please confirm.  Once you do, we can discuss what you should do from here on out.  It is fine for you to be here and participate, but we need to establish "ground rules" and if you are going to be productive, you need to understand how the policies that govern content, which we can talk about after we get done with this COI stuff.  But please reply, acknowledging that you have COI for Savage.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Betsson


User:Stephaniefiteni is a SPA of someone who by their own admission works for Betsson ("changes [...] by the Betsson Group's Communications Director" and "we will [add] more accurate official content") The user have already been warned about having a COI issue (by someone other than me), the article talk-page have also already been tagged, yet the account have continued to repeatedly make changes that amount to nothing more than removing sourced text, adding wikipuffery and introducing new unreferenced material   The edits have all been reversed by User:Doc James, but maybe it's time to ban this user? / Gavleson (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see if we can get her to talk with us. She may be able to make some good suggestions on the Talk page, if she is interested in working with the community. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Shaun Gladwell et al


And here we have a nice little garden of articles on Shaun Gladwell, his exhibition publication Patafunctions, his "masterpiece" video work Storm Sequence and Barbara Polla. By my count, the account User:Gladderz has logged 250 diligent edits on solely these three articles. Images of Gladwell's work added to the pages are mostly credited as "own work". It might be the artist in question editing the pages, or the gallery/dealer as suggested on the Gladwell talk page. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * may have (inadvertently?) outed himself by in this diff and per his contributions to commons. Mduvekot (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! Seems obvious that we are dealing with the artist. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At least User:Gladderz is amusing. From his/her user page:  "An escalation in my activity has aroused COI suspicions from very capable and astute wikipedians. Suspicion is called for due to my unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, including artistic output, hardware, correspondence (both personal and professional) and itinerary etc."HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, HappyValleyEditor and Mduvekot Incriminating as it may seem, I am Gladwell's biographer but totally unaccustomed with WP protocol and made contributions specifically on  Gladwell and associated work with possibly the worst Nom de Plume. Regardless of the issue of identity, I'm now too close to the subject due to four years of research and unrestricted access to Gladwell's archive, thus open to the COI charges. I am however looking for advice on NPOV and feel it could be someone like user:Zaddikskysong. Am I on the right track to neutralizing this bio and editing out puffery? Apologies for distraction. Should I just let go and avoid WP:OWN charges as well as blundering into COI?

additionally: User:HappyValleyEditor, I only mention user:Zaddikskysong after seeing they describe themselves as "a glorious dictator of NPOV", and hold and interest in Art history, have contributed to Australian artist bios such as Brett Whiteley et al and alma mater of two institutions connected to Gladwell– UNSW and Sydney College of the Arts. user:Zaddikskysong is also badged for verifiability. Incredibly qualified! Gladderz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladderz (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gladderz, a couple of things. First, please do actually sign your posts with four tildas like this ~ .  This isn't done for amusement nor aesethetics - we actually use the date stamps for stuff.  If you don't sign, there is a bot that will come and auto-sign for you.  Please don't delete that if it happens.  Second, it is clear that you are here representing the artist.   Would you please acknowledge that, and acknowledge that this creates a conflict of interest for you with regard to editing about him in Wikipedia?  We can walk you through how to manage that but the first step is that we agree that the relationship creates a COI here.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for this response. and apologies for not previously signing. And yes, as Gladwell's biographer,  employed independently but professionally engaged in this task, and with the access i have, there is COI  and i have stopped editing the bio accordingly and will await   feedback  on COI management. Just read your own story WRT COI and the use of an oversighter etc. But I have stopped editing Gladwell and will hope the page can be neutralised. My impartial attempt was to add the 'criticisms' section. Thanks. (talkGladderz (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! I will pick this up on your Talk page as it will get too long for this board.Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic

 * Articles
 * Users
 * - tagged for username violation here (name of company)
 * - tagged for username violation here (WP:IMPERSONATE)
 * - blocked (name of company)
 * - tagged for username violation here (name of company)
 * - tagged for username violation here (WP:IMPERSONATE)
 * - blocked (name of company)
 * - blocked (name of company)

There appears to be a years long promotional effort associated with these articles. Charles Parks Richardson is a doctor that is affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and Reliant Heart. The four accounts named above are essentially single purpose accounts adding promotional content to these articles. The username DRCRichardson matches "Dr C Richardson". This user claims not to be Dr Richardson himself, but is rather creating articles "on behalf of Dr. Charles Richardson" (diff). DRCRichardson created Charles Parks Richardson. The user Cleveland Heart, with an obvious username connection, started a second version of Charles Parks Richardson. The user ReliantHeart, again with an obvious username connection, has edited at ReliantHeart Inc. The user Jlambert1984 connects all the users and articles with promotional editing at each article. Deli nk (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require editors who have been paid for their contributions to say who is paying them and who the client is. See WP:PAID for details. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two of those accounts should be blocked per USERNAME; I have tagged them, and opened a discussion with JLambert on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you wrote to him or her: "There is a place for paid editing here." There isn't really a place for paid PR editing, at least not direct editing, per WP:NOPAY. That some people get away with it doesn't mean the community wants it. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that I wrote sloppily there. I just fixed it.  Thanks again.  Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the change, but it's still misleading. You wrote: "There is a place for paid editors in the community, but getting paid to edit absolutely must be disclosed per WP:PAID and you must follow the other policies and guidelines as well." The terms of use advise that local policies or guidelines may have stricter requirements, and they do, namely WP:NOPAY. Why not point that out to these SPAs? We do make exceptions for non-PR paid editing, but given that you're dealing here with paid advocacy, why not just advise them to stop editing articles directly? SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your issue seems to be that I didn't say the part about "not editing directly", at this point. With JLambert we do not have a disclosure of paid editing yet, nor a self-disclosure that JLambert has a COI.  WP:APPARENTCOI is very clear, for sure. You will note that in what I have currently on their page, I did not actually say that they are editing for pay nor claim that they actually have a COI, because I don't know yet. I said it appears that that they do. The first step is to get a self-disclosure.  Cramming everything into the first step of what I am hoping becomes a dialogue is not something that promotes actual dialogue or voluntary disclosure, which is what I am after.    I left the door open so that in subsequent turns of the discussion I can bring up the no-directly-editing thing.  But getting folks to disclose is the first step, and enables management that doesn't run afoul of OUTING.  Bringing a heavy enforcement mentality before we have a self-disclosure is unwise and unproductive, in my view.  Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems pointless to tip-toe around it when it's so obvious. Lots of other people read those messages too, so saying "there's a place for paid editing" without explaining what you mean risks misleading them too. Better to stick to what the policy (WP:PAID) and guideline (WP:COI) say. SarahSV (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Reliant and Richardson articles contain(ed) a great deal of background information that is not directly related to the subject of the articles. I have removed that from the Reliant article - The Richardson article will take a greater effort, but in the end will be much briefer than it is today. LaMona (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * LaMona, I had a little go at Charles_Parks_Richardson and was able to reduce the character count/obfuscation by 50%. I'm actually finding that rewriting promotionally-toned articles in very simplistic (aka bad) prose creates very objective Wiki articles. E.g. "He started company X. He was the director of X. In 2010, X was sold." HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cloudnine Hospitals

 * - SPA creator
 * - SPA
 * - SPA
 * - SPA
 * - SPA

Article is target of suspected advocacy editing ("[the founder's] resilience and perseverance saw his brain child grow and expand into a country famous, super-specialty chain of hospitals") with usual dubious awards section, etc. I did some cleanup in January, now it looks like an anonymous editor is back on it. Brianhe (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey Article
Hi. I've never edited wiki, so I'm not sure where to direct this, but just noticed that there is an article for the individual Benjamin Wey which is entirely self-promotional, lacks any reliable sources, and asserts patently fraudulent information about the subject. According to the following Bloomberg article I just read in my Longreads queue, Wey is an established con-man under criminal & civil investigation for fraud and is notorious for waging relentless on-line smear campaigns, doxxing & harassment of his whistleblowing victims, including the author of the Bloomberg article. The article should be quickly deleted for lack of reliable sourcing, fabricated content & conflict of interest. If this complaint belong in a different forum, could someone direct me to it or better yet just go ahead a move it there? Thank you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

75.137.237.5 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the entire article carefully, you will see it is has been extensively edited by multiple editors since its original self-promotional creation in 2014 and in its current state is not remotely promotional, nor is it a fabrication. The conflict of interest editors and their sockpuppets have all been blocked for over a year. I also suggest that you carefully read the extensive discussions at Talk:Benjamin Wey. The Bloomberg article you list above and its allegations were added to Benjamin Wey on March 17th, 2016 nearly a month before you posted here . The article's current references are all from reliable sources. The majority are highly critical of the subject beginning in 2002 when he was censured and fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. They go on to detail his indictment by the United States Department of Justice on charges of securities fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, and wire fraud in 2015; the award against him by the Manhattan Federal District Court for defamation and sexual harassment in 2015; and the current lawsuit for defamation of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority regulator and Georgetown University law professor in 2016. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Finasteride


If you look at Doors22's contribs you will see they are a WP:SPA for articles related to this drug and its side effects; this has been going on a long time and there have been many content disputes, in which I have been involved. I actually brought a long-term POV pushing case at ANI here, exactly a year ago, that drifted off into the archive because the case I brought was tldr and it got derailed.

On the Talk page of the article, Doors22 recently mentioned  litigation against Merck and here  mentioned being affected by the side effects and mentioned that they at least read PropeciaHelp (a support forum which has right in the middle of its menu, information on class action lawsuits) (The site is here: propeciahelp.com - I cannot link to it as it is blacklisted)

Involvement in that litigation would constitute a COI, and when I asked Doors22 if they were involved in the litigation, they said they would not answer in this discussion on my Talk page.

The COI is pretty clear; the advocacy is very clear. I am looking for the community to advise Doors22 that he has a COI and that he should declare that, and should stop directly editing the article. I am not looking to "win" by eliminating the competition through COI, what I want is that the disruption stops and I will agree to walk away from the article if Doors22 will follow the COI guideline.

This has become personalized and tangled up in content disputes which is never good, so I will not write here further unless asked to reply to something. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I and many others have been the subject of Jytdog's WP:Harassment and Wikibullying over the years. The very fact that he refers to me as "competition" is strong evidence of such. He also references that this is a personal matter for him. His bad behavior has gone so far that he has been banned from editing GMO articles due to his battleground mentality and he came close to a full site-ban.
 * In the past, he opened a NPOV case against me and threatened to take me to arbcom but it was initially closed. He proceeded to re-open it and it was ignored.  Now he is trying to bring a conflict of interest case against me in this forum.  His "proof" of a COI is that I mentioned litigation and admitted to visiting a website that briefly references the litigation.  Ironically, he is now guilty of the same accusation.  I did reference that there are 1,400 cases filed for a cosmetic drug causing permanent side effects in order to debunk Jytdog's claim that we are talking about a "sliver of a sliver" of people.  I looked this information up in Merck's most recent annual report which you can find here: http://s21.q4cdn.com/755037021/files/doc_financials/annualReports/2015/MRK_2015_Form_10-K_FINAL_r879.pdf
 * Jytdog has abandoned his duty to assume good faith about other editors. I believe he has taken this action against me in order to deflect from his own bad behavior - I believe I effectively demonstrated he misrepresented a medical source in order to make a claim that was not what the original article intended.Doors22 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe Jytdog's behaviour is problematic take it to WP:AIN. It is off-topic here. Now: could you please answer about your involvement in litigation around Finasteride? Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, Alexbrn has been closely affiliated with Jytdog for quite some time and they both have tag teamed my edits. Here is a good example of it from the GMO arbcom case. Doors22 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you like, my editing does not intersect with jytdog's on medical topics, but it does intersect at COI. Please answer the question. This is the COI Noticeboard and the concerns are about you, not him. - Brianhe (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I do appreciate your willingness to help moderate this dispute. As far as I can tell, Jytdog has not provided any proof of a COI and has no standing to bring this investigation. I disclosed a long time ago that unfortunately I got permanent sexual side effects from taking Propecia, a hair loss drug, and my goal is to keep the Propecia article up-to-date with the latest medical research about the drug's risks. For years, Jytdog has tried to intimidate me by bringing several failed cases against me. If he is able to show proof that I have a COI that is a different story, but I prefer not to legitimize his unsupported accusation with a response.Doors22 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is of course absurd to demand that "proof" be produced against an anonymous editor, as that is impossible without knowing your identity. You have not answered the question about your involvement with Finasteride litigation. I think at this point it is more than reasonable to assume you have a hidden COI, and are here to promote your interests. You must therefore abide by the requirements set out at WP:COI and if you don't it will be necessary to have you sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What's absurd is that your accusations are entirely unsupported by any evidence other than you "think its true". I have disclosed my medical history in good faith, which is much more personal than anybody should have to do, and disclosed my reason for editing wikipedia. Although I don't believe the same holds for you, I have made it a clear point to uphold NPOV in spite of my very clear personal experience with the drug. This is supported by the failure of Jytdog' relentless efforts to prove otherwise. I do recognize the medical literature can lag the general body of scientific knowledge by several years and Wikipedia is conservative in its approach. But your influence in the article seriously lags the medical literature by several years.Doors22 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your medical history constitutes a COI. You were harmed by a product and now you are here to tilt content related to that product. If a person had harmed you, it'd be more obvious that you shouldn't be writing about them. The fact that it is a pill that harmed you and not, say, another human being, does not change the nature of your COI towards it. You're still under that policy. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your feedback. As a token of good faith, this was disclosed as soon as I started editing Wikipedia in 2011 and while I do agree with you that it could certainly affect someone's editing, I would call attention to WP:COINOTBIAS. Even though I have suffered terribly from the hidden risks of this drug, I still make an effort to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and uphold NPOV. I also am not interested in that I am not personally impacted by what is on Wikipedia, unfortunately I have already suffered losses. As a separate note, hypothetical plaintiffs don't really have a reason to influence wikipedia because jurors are expressly forbidden from researching cases outside of court.Doors22 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(Disclosure:I do not have any particular interest or specialised knowledge about medical science. I have also not edited any medicine related articles. My evaluation of this is purely based on policies/guidelines.) From what I understand, you seem to have suffered from this drug and you want to mention (in the article) that there are hidden risks of this drug. The problem here is that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Unless a study concludes that there are hidden risks of this drug (and this is validated by a majority of the medical community), it would be improper to mention that the drug does cause a particular side effect. I personally think this edit is fine. It doesn't try to hide the fact that there may be side effects, but at the same time states that according to current studies, it is "unclear" if the drug has side effects. This satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT in my opinion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your input. I recognize that Wikipedia is not a forum to right great wrongs and that is not what I'm attempting to do. As I have mentioned, I want the most up-to-date secondary sources to be given proper weight on the finasteride article. My concern is that it is dismissive to say it is "unclear" when there are more than 51 separate scientists who have published articles in the medical literature on this topic. I think a more thorough summary of the medical literature is warranted.  It is a topic that has received a lot of press over the years, especially because it is a potentially dangerous consumer product and not a medication. Why don't we just present all the current facts and let the consumer draw conclusions for himself, rather than concluding for them that it is "unclear"? Jytdog and his coalition have been intensely obstructionist and tend to help each other out on a wide variety of different articles.  On numerous occasions, he's tried to get me banned from Wikipedia unsuccessfully, and this is just his latest unsupported effort. Doors22 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, anyone involved in litigation against the manufacturer has a conflict of interest; see WP:COILEGAL. If someone were suing you, you wouldn't want him to edit a Wikipedia article about you in case he were to do so in a direction that furthered his case. Given your close interest in the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation, and that editing in this area is almost the only thing you do on Wikipedia, it's reasonable to assume that you may be involved in one of the lawsuits. Therefore, I think it's important that you tell us you're not.


 * Having a COI wouldn't mean you couldn't contribute in any way to that article. You would be expected to avoid direct article editing, but you could still make edit requests on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your input. I don't feel comfortable disclosing whether or not I am involved in litigation because it further narrows the population and I want to preserve my anonymity. Even saying I am not party to litigation makes me much more identifiable.  If I were the drug manufacturer, I wouldn't want anybody to edit a page on Propecia because the article is somewhat out of their control.  However, I have always thought JYTdog was somehow professionally involved in managing PR for products and businesses on Wikipedia based on his aggressive, biased and intense editing history.  If you take a look at his most recent edits on the Propecia talk page, I simply can't believe that he honestly believes the arguments he is making.  Despite the FDA suggesting not to use of ambiguous words like "rare" and "frequently", he is protesting to protect this misleading but pro-business language in the article. This is just the latest example of his NPOV editing style.
 * JYTDog said he would leave the page if I agreed to stop editing directly. Dealing with him has been a huge use of my time and I would prefer to improve this process.  If only JYTDog goes away, the problem will not stop because he has several allies that will step up on his behalf.  Is there any way we can find a 3rd party moderator who would be willing to objectively steward the page? If somebody who truly cares about the quality of Wikipedia but has not previously edited the page would be willing to step up, this whole problem would be solved.  At that point, I'd be willing to agree to stick to editing the talk page only. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As Doors22 is claiming they are a victim of this treatment, that is a clear COI without even getting into what appears to be likely involvement in litigation on the matter. Not being involved in the topic, I don't know much more for details, but even not being directly involved in litigation could likely still be considered a COI if it's a class action lawsuit. As others have mentioned, Doors will have to realize that they should no longer be directly editing articles, and they will need to realize that if an idea of theirs isn't getting traction, they will need to drop the WP:STICK.

I'm seeing quite a bit of battleground behavior here with the it's not me it's them attitude while still not acknowledging this pretty straightforward COI. I think it's fair to say that a topic ban will be likely if such battleground behavior continues while also having a COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having used and been harmed by Propecia is not an inherent COI, however I felt it was the right thing to disclose so I did. I don't personally benefit or get harmed by the state of this article, which is the definition of a COI.  You are right there is a lot of battleground behavior here, but its truthfully is JYTdog.  JYTdog has been banned for uncivil, battleground behavior and warned many times.  He has friends that are helping him here that are contributing.  It is not clear how close he actually is to them as they collaborate across many random articles.  I think there is good reason to believe that he "actually" is conflicted because he has a very long history of making pro-business edits where he will remove criticisms and blemishes, especially in the pharma space. His arguments are at times seemingly disingenuous and he claims to have a full time job but literally posts 500 edits a day all throughout what would be his work day.  It is crazy to think they are one in the same?  Anyway, there has been major gridlock here and it is too painful to make any incremental change to this article so hopefully we can find an arrangement that fixes this whole problem.Doors22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , I agree that having had a good or bad experience with a drug does not in itself create a COI, though it may lead to advocacy. But the reality is that the editors on that page see you as a conflicted SPA, so your edits are unlikely to be accepted. See the recent reverts as an example.


 * Please consider suggesting edits using edit request—say which sentence you want to change or add, supply the source, and quote the part of the source that supports your edit. It will be faster to do that to go through all this arguing. If, after doing that, you feel you're not getting a fair shake, you can go to the RSN or NPOVN to request other views. SarahSV (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to note here that along with making claims about me, Doors22 is claiming here that User:Doc James and User:Zad68, two admins and longstanding WP:MED editors, are shills for the pharmaceutical industry. I don't know about others but in my view that is a level of personal attack that is not OK here.  It is sadly typical of advocates to depict mainstream editors as being part of a conspiracy that is doing the bidding of Big Money.   Those claims are repeated also at SV's Talk page here.  I encourage admins to put a stop to this. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't true. I didn't specifically mention editors by name and in fact User:Doc James has been very helpful and objective in the past. I don't have much of an opinion of User:Zad68 at this point, but others including but not limited to AlexBRN and Formerly98 (now banned) have been very closely aligned with you in the past and caused problems. I'd just like to point out you are clearly not behaving in good faith when you put words in my mouth. I didn't attack you and call you a "shill", but I do think your editing behavior indicates you may have professional ties with industry. Otherwise, I am having difficulty explaining your erratic behavior across many different articles. Also, I privately posted that message to SlimVirgin's talk page and while it is obviously available for anybody to see, you wouldn't have come across it until you were stalking my or her edits.  It's just an example of your aggressive nature that obstructs productive discussion around here.

Doors22 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is exactly true. No one from WP:MED has agreed with the content you want nor your efforts to bring an interview in as a MEDRS source. My editing is consistent and in good faith, and your accusations are not supported by diffs and and are not supportable with diffs.  They are just personal attacks with no basis, and nothing more.  The personal attacks are making your situation worse, not better. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , re: the note on my talk, it's better to keep things in one place and to stick to dealing with your own issue. I'm going to make a suggestion on talk that might move the most recent dispute along. SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SarahSV I am going to say this to you directly. While telling Doors "it is better.. stick to dealing with your own issue" is great, that is not really sufficient.  We have been through this before, where editors wrote this kind of crap about me on your Talk page and you did not stop it, and allowed it to continue.  I am not putting up with it this time.  If you are not going to stop Doors from making these attacks, clearly, then you are actually allying yourself with him. So what will it be? Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the page again, what I was going to suggest is already in the article, so cancel the above. SarahSV (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Doors' position on the content is completely unreasonable and he is pushing it to unreasonable lengths this time, for some reason. I did not bring this behavioral issue now for nothing. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I'm not sure what you expect me to do. I can see that he's accusing you of COI; I can't see where he's accusing James and Zad.


 * Doors22, if you want to discuss any other COI allegation, please open a separate report, but make sure you have evidence, not just innuendo. If you don't have evidence, please don't mention it again. As for this report, I think you do need to stick to the talk page and edit request, and you may find that things move faster if do that. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that Jytdog changed his post after I'd written a reply, which is why I mentioned James and Zad. SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-affirming that SV.  To answer your question, his attack on me is not OK on its own.  But  just above and at your Talk page he mentions "several allies" and "his friends".  Plural.  The only people he can be talking about are Doc James, Zad, and Alexbrn who have been saying the same to him on the Talk page and rejecting his edits in this current dispute.  Depicting the consensus of some of the strongest WP:MED editors as a conspiracy is mostly sad and wrong but also just ugly.  Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is larger than just the current state of the article. New information and articles come out frequently but JYTDog meets each and every  new piece of information with aggressive resistance.  The article is currently in OK, but not great shape.  My concern is more about the amount of aggression that JYTDog exerts when trying to get his way.  It is very clear WP:Battleground behavior and he has been banned for this elsewhere. I also don't need to say this a second time, but I have found Doc_James to be helpful and have not interacted much with Zad68. He's clearly trying to pull these two admins into the conflict when they haven't been mentioned before. One example of his POV pushing is his magnification of the word "rare" despite other 3rd party editors disagreeing with him and his denial that "rare" is a weasel word. His constant editing throughout all work hours indicates to me that editing Wikipedia is his full time job. Otherwise maybe he is a whiz at his day time job or else he is shirking his responsibilities to edit Wikipedia. If problems continue, I'll solicit your feedback at a future date but thank you SlimVirgin for your input.  Doors22 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , if you've found James helpful, perhaps you could address edit requests directly to him and observe an informal interaction ban between yourself and Jytdog. SarahSV (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is fair. Doc James has been helpful and objective. This is not a 100% perfect fix because he is extremely busy and doesn't always have the time to fully investigate each source but he is a great contributor here. Per JYTDog's original offer, I am willing to try working through suggestions to other editors if he agrees to "walk away from the article". This entire experience has not been working very well so I am willing to try something new if he upholds his original word. By the way, I was mainly referring to AlexBRN as you can easily see from the Editor Interaction Analyser but there have been other editors that have come and gone over time.  I'd really have to dig up more evidence to see how closely JYTDog has worked with specific editors and it is not the most relevant point right now. Doors22 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds like progress. Jytdog, Doors22 is agreeing to stick to talk. You wrote above: "I will agree to walk away from the article if Doors22 will follow the COI guideline." Can you confirm here that you'll do that? In addition, I would suggest that you both stay away from each other's talk pages. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not done here. Doors22's personal attacks are not OK. He needs to strike them here and at Slimvirgin's page; the issues here are not symmetrical and SlimVirgin it is not OK for you to frame them that way.  You are again giving shelter to FRINGE-pushing editors who attack me and this is not acceptable.  Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My comments were not personal attacks and do not resemble anything on WP:PA. In fact, my concerns are much more substantiated than your allegations that I have a COI. It is also very clear that I am not advocating "fringe" views as I pointed out there are more than 51 distinct scientists have published articles in support of finasteride's persistent adverse effects. My main grievance with the page is you have falsely represented this view as "fringe" and this POV is littered all over the article. With each published article, the viewpoint is becoming increasingly accepted. I'm willing to confirm that I'll adhere to the guideline so long as JYTDog agrees to walk away from the page as he originally offered. However, even though I do not feel comfortable narrowing myself to either a population of finasteride sufferers is either involved or uninvolved in litigation, I will still refrain from posting directly in the article. If somebody "spontaneously" jumps in to take JYTDog's place, this good faith attempt to problem solve will clearly be a failure.Doors22 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You both believe the other has a COI. Neither of you has evidence, but in Doors' case there is clearly an issue because he's an SPA (no one is suggesting symmetry). Therefore he's agreeing to stick to talk; the assumption is that you'll respond in the way you suggested above and walk away from the article. I've advised Doors22 to open a separate COIN if he wants to pursue a case against you rather than confuse this one, and you should stay away from each other's talk. There's no point in trying to keep the dispute going beyond that. SarahSV (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Local Politician Shaping Views Using Wikipedia: Conflict Of Interest
Sorry to be so bold as to delete another person's post, but this is very serious. This edit needs to be blocked out. Whatever your feelings towards Alansohn, NO ONE should have their real identity "outed" on Wikipedia. This can be dealt with via email. Can an admin please remove this? This is serious. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some - any - evidence of problematic COI postings from the user would be handy, without which, there's really nothing to see here, . --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Tagishsimon, it took me about two minutes to confirm this is true. "Outing" someone's identity is about as nasty as it gets.  This can be dealt with by admin via email.  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll permit me,, to think the less of you - indeed, very very little of you - for suggesting that I have outed anyone. At best your post, above, is clumsy and thoughtless. Given your concerns about nastyness, I'm sure you'll now want to take the opportunity to set the record straight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing we can really do now, since the OP was oversighted. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I emailed Admins my concerns. The rest is in their hands. My hope is that there will atleast be a topic ban on Alansohn for state of New Jersey. This could easily make local papers, but I am gonna let the admins deal with it. Wasickta (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, Magnolia677 were you aware of this (which is still very visible on the page) when you called OUTING? People call him by his full name here all the time. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just some old note that can only be found by lots of digging in page histories; it's still present at WikiProject New Jersey/Introductions. The WP:OUTING policy is clear: If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing.  This self-disclosed information has not been redacted: it's still existing.  Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * [Redacted persistent personal attacks by Alansohn. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)]
 * Alansohn seeing how none of us here - including you know what was written originally, please don't attribute motives yet and please don't react. I don't know if this is content dispute gone sideways, or if W has a legit point, or both.  It is in the community now and we'll see.  Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wasickta you are pretty new in Wikipedia. You have been asked to show examples of edits that concerned you with regard to a potential conflict of interest.  Do you know how to show a diff?  If you don't, then just say so.  if you know how to show diffs, then please show some.  Really.  You don't have to give commentary; just provide diffs.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is late here. Will gather diffs best I can tomorrow. I do want to bring to the admins eyes this newspaper article that shows Alan Sohns political opponents complaining about him abusing his Wikipedia privelages. http://patch.com/new-jersey/teaneck/to-the-editor_6eea5423. Wasickta (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you bring tomorrow better be much, much stronger than that. First that is a very weak source  - a letter to the editor; secondly, it actually says that alansohn made only one edit and didn't do anything like what the Mayor said he did.  Not helpful. Like I said be sure what you bring tomorrow is better than that - diffs that reflect COI.   This is not a rumor-mongering board. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example of what Jytdog is looking for, see the investigation at the top of the page regarding edits made by users linked to FP1. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to point out that Patch.com is not a newspaper. It's a site that invites residents in an area to post news about their area. I don't know if there is an editor, but this looks to have been posted by the person writing it, not by an editor who received this letter. We already know it's not a great source, though, so I don't know how much that matters. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Opening Statement

 * Shouldn’t being involved in politics of city and state automatically make Alan Sohn declare conflict of interest? I will include a couple of diffs, but I don’t have time to go through every single case of bias that Alan Sohn has shown.

Definition

 * Conflict of interest is defined a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

"Real Estate" Taxes

 * 1) Examples of abuse of power by Alan Sohn including editing Wikipedia town page to use diction targeting real estate taxes(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teaneck,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=586714468). Mr Sohn ran on an agenda to cut real estate taxes( http://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/council-adopts-2016-municipal-budget-1.1554081) and editing his towns Wikipedia page to use diction to produce bias in perception of town taxes.

Targeting His Political Opponents

 * 2) He has edited his political opponents Wikipedia page right before the election of his own seat(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Hameeduddin&diff=450101787&oldid=450095790). This includes changing where is political opponent is from(from Teaneck to Bronx NY).
 * A change that appeared to be verified by reliable sources, until you prove otherwise. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the author is using verfiable sources, can there be a conflict of interest? If a political/corporate opponent is using verifiable sources to covertly edit the biography of rivals, that is okay based on this logic? Wasickta (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Another political opponent Adam Gussen had his Wikipedia disappear right before Mr Alan Sohn took his seat. Must be a coincidence? We are unable access to record.
 * I don't know who "we" is, but I do have access to it, and there's no there there. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have the admin tools and can't do the research. I found this odd to say the least. Wasickta (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have the tools. Alansohn never edited the Adam Gussen article, ever. A tag for a proposed deletion was posted by Onel5969 on the grounds of "Non-notable local politician as per Wikipedia:Notability guidelines" on March 11, 2014. The article was later deleted by Atama on March 19, 2014. I don't suppose you are Peegee11 are you? He/she was the editor who created the article and it was their only contribution to the project.
 * For what it's worth, hundreds of articles on Wikipedia get deleted every day. I have deleted 8,862 pages and I didn't have a conflict of interest with any of them. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I trust you Liz. The article deletion was probably a coincidence. I just found it weird. Wasickta (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Selective Highlighting

 * 4) Mr Alan Sohn is adamantly against Rezoning of a building on Teanack road(http://www.northjersey.com/community-news/town-government/rezoning-could-net-3-5m-1.1526866). He uses his influence on Wikipedia to highlight that the road is part of the county(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teaneck,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=706500304).

Drawing Contrast

 * 5) Another example of abuse is when Mr Alan Sohn drew a contrast between the number of paid police department vs fire department members when it was an issue in the election he ran in. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teaneck,_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=586714468. The controversy over switching to volunteer fire department being debated can be read here: (http://jewishlinkbc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3351:teaneck-candidates-gather-at-forum&catid=150:news&Itemid=562).

Closing Statement

 * These are only three examples of abuse of Wikipedia by Alan Sohn. The fact that he is active politics in Teanack, NJ should have been enough of a conflict of interest for it to be addressed earlier. The truth is that the real shady & covert stuff he is doing probably cannot be caught by anyone here because we are experts in the affairs Teanack, NJ. I am new to Wikipedia and not an expert- but I know conflict of interest when I see it.   Wasickta (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well. I don't have the time to investigate all the charges or the inclination to respond to what appear to be overblown charges. I think I'm on the record as critical of Alansohn from time to time but that's irrelevant here. I can confirm that my special admin eyes found nothing wrong whatsoever with the history of Adam Gussen (PRODded by ), and Alansohn had nothing to do with it. The edit to Mohammed Hameeduddin looks fine to me and unless I'm missing something it seems to improve the article. I also looked at their 2013 Teaneck, New Jersey edit, and see nothing wrong there. So that's items 2, 3, and 5. I'm not new to Wikipedia, and I think I can smell a smear campaign when I see one. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia official is stating that there is no conflict of interest if a politician is covertly editing articles that affect his opponents and public perception? Got it. Wasickta (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wasickta, the evidence I looked at did not support your claims. For instance, that Alansohn was not involved in the Adam Gussen article should give you some pause to reflect on that particular charge. Simple. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the rest of the evidence? You are ignoring the overwhelming evidence presented above. Instead, you choose to pick a topic that I would not have information to because I don't have admin tools to do the research. I am assuming good faith but I am really questioning how you got your tenure for doing detective work like this. Wasickta (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, nixing three out of five isn't bad, I think--and only one of them require my special admin glasses, for which I had to bribe over 200 people, it's true. So please don't tell me you're assuming good faith, cause you're not. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith. What I am having a hard time believing is that you are an academic. Wasickta (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're in good company then. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This COI notice seems like an attempt to attack User:Alansohn, not for the actual coi, but for other behavior. It's pretty much the way Alansohn operates, attacking other editors with unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS, so maybe turnabout's fair play, to some extent. But, is the encyclopedia really harmed by an officeholder making constructive edits to his jurisdiction?  I'm more concerned by his other behavior, such as being uncivil, asserting ownership, bullying, use of ethnic pejoratives etc. The community has tolerated all this, so what's a little conflict of interest between "friends"?  And as far as user:Onel5969 is concerned, at the risk of further outing, there seems to be a special relationship between Onel and Alansohn, a bit of collusion going on between these related editors. Jacona (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No JaconFrere - Drmies can clearly see that Onel5969 is also from Teaneck and grew up there(as stated on his profile page). I am sure there is no collusion at all between Onel5969 and Alansohn at all - since Drmies thinks this is all a smear campaign. How dare you insult the honor of these great men? It is clearly just a smear campaign. Maybe a local newspaper would think this was a Wikipedia scandal, but to Drmies this makes perfect sense as a smear campaign. Wasickta (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual evidence for collusion? If Onel5969 is from Teaneck, it's hardly surprising they're going to be interested in local candidates, and as a wikipedian, it's hardly surprising if they're going to PROD articles they feel aren't suitable for wikipedia. Even in the unlikely event Onel5969 was colluding with someone, why don't you think it was some other rival? Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, the WP:AGF of certain editors in this thread is outstanding. A real sterling example that every Wikipedia editor should aspire to. Second, don't know Alansohn. We run across one another from time to time since we both have an interest in certain NJ articles, particularly Teaneck, where I grew up. Just about as much as I've run into JaconFrere. Don't know them either. I think I've been back to Teaneck twice in the past 20 years - both times to go to Bischoff's (whose mint chip ice cream I highly recommend). Regarding the COI, I actually happen to agree that office holders have an inherent COI and so should be barred from editing articles with which they might have some political/financial stake in. But in order for that to be done, the current COI policy would have to be changed, which doesn't preclude COI editors from editing, simply strongly suggesting that they do not. Did not know that alansohn was a public official, in that case, I believe as per WP:COI, they should declare a COI on their userpage, as well as on the talk pages of any articles they edit.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just a general comment but Alansohn uses his real name and his contribution history is open for all the world to see. I think what Wikipedia has to worry about are conflict-of-interests where the editor is not so readily identifiable. How, for instance do we know that you, Wasickta, aren't involved in the same local political area, or me or any other editor? The general guideline is that what Wikipedians should be concerned about are undisclosed conflict-of-interests which are not so apparent when the editor does not use their real life identity. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Full Disclosure: I have never lived in Teaneck, NJ or have any affiliation with the town or its politics. I do vacation on the shore in the summers occasionally, which is far from Teaneck. No I am not a Benny. Wasickta (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard for a section I started on AN concerning what appears to be a retaliatory edit by . Drmies (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion of this closure. I hope he follows it. Wasickta (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Snehilsharma
More articles in contribution history, the above are the recent ones.
 * -- obvious COI with reference padding – nominated for speedy deletion
 * -- reinsertion of promotional material originally inserted by a PR firm Sockpuppet investigations/AshokaChadha
 * -- promo content, now cleaned up by an IP.
 * -- upcoming film produced by the editor, reference padding
 * -- looks like PR editing
 * -- PR (now at  Articles for deletion/TemplateToaster}  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * - blocked sockmaster
 * - blocked sock

Has been a longstanding PR editing account, with a lot of such articles and deletions in 2011/2012 including blocks for disruptive editing in this PR venture. I've just warned about COI editing and disclosure, but a deep look is required and possibly more articles have to be nominated for deletion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some kind of collaboration apparent at Saksham - everyone is capable & Snehil Sharma (director), re-created Snehil Sharma.
 * Nominated Snehil Sharma (director) for speedy deletion per repost criteria (g4). — Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that connection, SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Snehilsharma‎, the IPs in the two SPIs are in the same range so it's the same PR agent. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed that connection, SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Snehilsharma‎, the IPs in the two SPIs are in the same range so it's the same PR agent. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we could appropriately block for apparently violating the terms of use.  DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's one more account involved here, I've updated the SPI: . &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you take a look at this reg any possible admin action? &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry haven't had a chance today, but I will try tomorrow. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Socking by Snehilsharma/Tanishrao2015 confirmed by checkuser, no surprise there. Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The SPI needs admin action, no blocks have been done yet. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Snehilsharma was blocked at 19:06. - Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a boatload of stuff around SOMA (architects), it appears that these chaps have a contract to promote that company and their projects, a lot of titles have to be redirected or deleted. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Gianfranco Lotti

 * - more active on commons
 * - more active on commons
 * - more active on commons

First report. Please be gentle. Feedback appreciated.

User seems to be heavily promoting in the Gianfranco Lotti article, and is injecting the business name into other articles. He has also redirected a long-standing redirect page GFL (reverted by me since) and created generic redirects (Florence Leather, Luxury handbags which would appear to be candidates for speedy deletion).

A couple of users attempted to engage the user via talkpage in February, without obvious reciprocation (ping )

Username suggests involvement with the company. Would appreciate experienced CoIers taking a look. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this! Redirecting names for generic products to your company is blatant spamming and the kind of thing where you can't say that you just didn't realise that it isn't allowed. They've only added one genuine citation to the GFL article so constructive activity is basically non-existent. I think they should be given a final warning or blocked. I haven't tagged the redirects for SD yet so people can see them. Blythwood (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict&#32;× 2) Thanks for bringing this up. The user seems to be clearly trying to promote a business by redirecting generic terms to Gianfranco Lotti. I am tagging the redirects for speedy deletion at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted a couple more of the user's edits at Italian design and History of Italian fashion where the edits were clearly misrepresentative and not supported by sources. Is the image inserted at Rick Yune acceptable? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The photo there is unrelated to the article, other than being a picture of Yune, but it doesn't support any content in the article. I see it as promotional and think it should be removed. Note that all of the photos are listed as "own work", which I somehow doubt. LaMona (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've temporarily removed the image at Rick Yune. I agree with that the license for the image files need to be verified.  has uploaded multiple files to Commons as "own work". For all we know, the photographer could still have the permissions. There doesn't seem to be any copies on the internet so hopefully it is not a blatant copyvio. I'm not particularly familiar with files so I don't know how to proceed (speedy deletion or nominate for deletion). Would appreciate if someone else can help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The photo is from Lotti's web site: here. The Lotti company may own the rights. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link! Tagged it for speedy deletion as I cannot find any evidence that Lotti has released it under a compatible licence. I've initiated a conversation here . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit at Via Monte Napoleone seems to me to be ok, other than that they added the street number to the photo. I have confirmed the facts and there are sources that can be used. There is also a factual edit to Quadrilatero della moda that should be allowed to stand, although it could use a reference. All of these "upscale shopping district" articles are intentionally promotional, but there are dozens of them so it's easier to just let this stand. LaMona (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Page recreated
It appears the page was CSD'd and deleted yesterday. User has recreated the page this morning and has suggested on his talk page that it will be unbiased. Still looks a bit like an advert to me. Gricehead (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the new one for speedy as an advert as well. "The most distinctive detail on every Gianfranco Lotti bag: the iconic key-lock shape, dipped several times in gold, as it is a precious jewel. A symbol of bold identity, taken from one of Florence’s historic city gates." Yeah, that's an advert. All but one of its facts (that a new store opened in a given location) are sourced to the subject itself. (There's another third-party source listed, a Who's Who, but it's for a field in the infobox tag that doesn't actually appear in the display.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Promise I'll get brave enough to do it myself. Soon. Maybe. Gricehead (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed promo from Gianfranco Lotti, added sources (mainly from Italian fashion magazines, although more may be needed). That it is one of the luxury stores along Montenapoleone is significant. If the GFL COIs cease direct editing, then at least that article may be salvable. LaMona (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Mike Savage (radio personality)

 * - up for AfD here
 * - speedy tagged here
 * - account is blocked for promo
 * - tagged for username violation
 * - account is blocked for promo
 * - tagged for username violation

Autobiography/COI/puffery centered around Mike Savage. Radioexpress is also likely username volation. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: kudos to Orangemike for noticing that the now blocked Msav123 had outed himself in edit comments as an artist management company with the same name as the article title! Sharp eyes. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Worse yet, his edit comments over nine years of editing make it quite clear that he was only here to make articles conform to his and his clients' preferences, rather than NPOV, etc. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User Msav123 identified himself or herself as the manager of Meiko (American singer) with this. They have edited the article from 2007 until late last year. Same editor created Mike Savage (radio personality) about ten days ago. - Brianhe (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's Mike Savage (insert role) week at COIN.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually got confused seeing the similar name and was wondering where did the legal threats go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * updated articles etc and have filed an SPI. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Jytdog!.......HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

009o9 and direct editing of WP guidelines etc

 * 009o9's edits to it and to its Talk page
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it
 * 009o9's edits to it


 * User:009o9/Speedy Delete (reads like a press release) - an essay they are developing
 * User:009o9/Draft Interviews which is a draft rewrite of the current Interviews, which argues that interviews do count toward N, while the current version doesn't
 * Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128 - an effort to raise this essay (which was favorable to anyone including conflicted editors removing tags under certain situations) to a guideline

I have recently encountered 009o9 who has been here a long time and goes by the book in disclosing that they are a paid editor. Kudos for that. For the most part, they submit drafts through AfC and propose changes on Talk for changes they consider major. Kudos for that too. They are also a tough negotiator, not afraid to argue strongly for what they want. I respect that. They do push it at times (e.g this) but generally they are being a decent citizen.

What I am struggling with is that 009o9 has been directly editing guidellnes/help documents/template documentation/essays etc in ways that aid their ability to meet their client's objectives. Namely making it harder to get tags to stick and easier to take them off, and in my view working to lower the Notability bar, or perhaps better, making it easier for subjects to clear Notability.

For example they made this change to the Help document, adding "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features" in bold to the Help document and the same content here to the documentation for the Advert tag. And here pushing hard for easing requirements to remove tags, etc. These changes are all of a piece.

They then are using those edits at the article and AfD level, negotiating toughly. See for example the edit summaries here about removing tags:
 * Anthony Marinelli - a slew of them.
 * For an AfD example (not on an article he was paid to edit but that he is clearly trying to use as a precedent) see this AfD which they WP:BLUDGEONed and tried use the principles they were arguing for at WP:ORG - for example here - that if a company has a notable product, the company "inherits" that notability.   This is an argument that is really, really important for a paid editor to be able to make when trying to get an article created/saved for a marginally notable or un-notable company.  Their argument for that view, has been met with no consensus at WT:ORG yet they continue to push and here directly edited the guideline, reverting me, to support that argument.

I am sympathetic to paid editors having their work tag-bombed and understand the motivation to make it easier to have marginally notable companies declared notable, but at the same time conflicted editing of key guidance documents is not OK to me, and my sense is that it will not be OK to the community either. I have asked them not to directly edit these documents, and they (unsurprisingly) believe that they should be free to do it, since a) that editing is not actually paid and b) the COI guideline doesn't actually forbid direct editing of anything by anybody. (009o9, please feel free to correct that paraphrase if you find it inaccurate)

What I am asking here, is that the community let 009o9 know that they should not directly edit WP policies, guidelines, essays that are widely cited, help documents, and template documentation but should only offer proposals on the relevant Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

009o9 response
Let's start from the bottom up. For starters, nobody can really be certain of the current state of the COI guidelines, they are in a constant flux with the wiki-cop and prosecutor (Jytdog) also being a substantial contributor at or around the time of the perceived crime. As of this writing, WP:COI does not contain the word "forbid", but Jytdog should have a very clear my commitment to the Wikipedia guidance from when he was canvassed by User:Lemongirl942, and he interrogated me on my talk page. I claim he was canvassed in that COIN discussion, because his personal page contains a few hundred words regarding his position on "managing" COI editors and makes this statement: '''"In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more."''' So it seems that lemongirl942 could be assured on a non-neutral assistance with her COIN case.  Additionally, when Lemongirl942 went to pruning an additional volunteer article I am involved with, Jytdog took that conversation private.

Again, working up Jytdog's list. Tag bombing is just the beginning, slap a couple of tags on it with Twinkle, delete any content and associated references that support notability (in the lede per WP:LEAD) and then see if you can get a quick PROD or AfD. Removing the editor's ability to revert and challenge is ridiculous, what's next? Remove the editor's ability to remove a PROD?


 * Maintenance tags and notability:
 * 1) IMHO banner tags are extremely unhelpful, there is no guideline, nor policy concerning their placement, but longstanding essays state that editors should start a talk page discussion addressing their concerns and some template guidance docs, prescribe summary removal without the tagger starting the discussion. Many Twinkle users can't be bothered to start the discussion and a sample edit summary is often simply, "Placed XYZ tag (TW)". In a complicated biography, I can spend a month piecing together a person's life, so after your three minute read, it would be a lot more helpful if you could place section and inline tags, informing me which part of the article is flawed in your opinion.  Moreover, I nominated WP:TAGGING for official elevation to Guideline, per WP:PROPOSAL this is to be done in a wider forum, like the Village Pump. So, if the white hat paid editor is not allowed to contribute to policy and his volunteer works are going to also be discriminated against, please explain the downside of being black hat.
 * 2) I've started several talk page discussions on various Project pages, mostly concerning notability issues where the guidance does not align with the WP:Local consensus or the GNG. I generally bring my AfC or an AfD as an example,(My copy and the recent closed AfD mentioned by Jytdog) in an effort to understand the wider consensus (deletionists are primarily active in AfC/AfD the same names are prevalent in both areas -- a couple dozen out of 125,000 active editors). I've learned that guidance talk pages discussions are largely ignored, the WP:BRD approach generally fixes that.


 * I'm not going to disclose how, but I could (without cheating them) make more money off of organizations who cannot establish notability than the ones who can. My interest in starting this discussion was to try to reconcile the local consensus with the guideline. The article that Lemongirl942 originally attacked, is an ill-fitting AfD merge to a parent article, by none other than DGG presiding.  Corporate articles are basically impossible and I don't want them, my interest there is to clarify the guidance for the unfortunate employees who have the unenviable assignment of writing them.  At least if the quideline was clear, the employee could show the boss that it can't be done.  All the boss sees is hundreds of articles about companies that are less notable than his.
 * I'm not going to disclose how, but I could (without cheating them) make more money off of organizations who cannot establish notability than the ones who can. My interest in starting this discussion was to try to reconcile the local consensus with the guideline. The article that Lemongirl942 originally attacked, is an ill-fitting AfD merge to a parent article, by none other than DGG presiding.  Corporate articles are basically impossible and I don't want them, my interest there is to clarify the guidance for the unfortunate employees who have the unenviable assignment of writing them.  At least if the quideline was clear, the employee could show the boss that it can't be done.  All the boss sees is hundreds of articles about companies that are less notable than his.


 * FYI: I don't want book articles either, but at least the people in that project shared the (unwritten) information that reviews have to be NYTimes calibre (4 of them) and the book should be in about 300 libraries. (Unpaid book articles seem to go unmolested, AfC is the problem.)


 * A song article, where I have an unpaid COI. The theme song to the film Teen Witch a minor cult classic. The soundtrack masters were lost and the song is the only one to survive on a semi-notable album. The song can't get through AfC because it is a song that became popular a decade later, and is not a single -- the fact that it is a theme song for a cult-film, supposedly cannot be used for notability. In addition to being nonsensical, WP:NSONGS should be a subsection to WP:NALBUMS, not a stand alone section. BRD was the only way to attract any input.
 * A song article, where I have an unpaid COI. The theme song to the film Teen Witch a minor cult classic. The soundtrack masters were lost and the song is the only one to survive on a semi-notable album. The song can't get through AfC because it is a song that became popular a decade later, and is not a single -- the fact that it is a theme song for a cult-film, supposedly cannot be used for notability. In addition to being nonsensical, WP:NSONGS should be a subsection to WP:NALBUMS, not a stand alone section. BRD was the only way to attract any input.


 * 19:50, 21 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit to the essay while it is being discussed for promotion. Template:Proposed is in the article's header throughout. Jytdog reverts, I drop it and make a note in the proposal.
 * 19:50, 21 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit to the essay while it is being discussed for promotion. Template:Proposed is in the article's header throughout. Jytdog reverts, I drop it and make a note in the proposal.


 * I added the following to the help page in a passage about unjustly placed tags,19:06, 14 May 2016 unless maintenance tags are being used specifically to punish COI editors, I see no conflict with editing there.
 * I added the following to the help page in a passage about unjustly placed tags,19:06, 14 May 2016 unless maintenance tags are being used specifically to punish COI editors, I see no conflict with editing there.

For instance, the public face of the Advert tag says, "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement"; however, the template's documentation says: "The advert tag is for articles that are directly trying to sell a product to our readers. Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." In articles marked with the Advert tag, check for passages that, "tell users to buy the company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, or use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords", and if none exist, remove the tag.
 * 1) 19:06, 14 May 2016 I added the above passage to
 * 2) 21:40, 17 March 2016 Jytdog changes the verbiage Template:ADVERT/Doc (in response?)
 * 3) 20:26, 20 May 2016 Jytdog removes the passage from
 * 4) 18:54, 22 May 2016‎ I inquire why the doc is not also protected.
 * 5) 20:30, 22 May 2016 Five days after his change, Jytdog responds/opens a discussion.
 * 6) 04:04, 23 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit after being advised to use BRD.
 * 1) 04:04, 23 May 2016 I revert Jytdog's edit after being advised to use BRD.

Finally, when you have the same person writing the guidelines, enforcing them and becoming insulted when their guidelines are not follow to a "T", the result can become embarrassing in the press. This is just the short-list, I was expecting this to go to ANI, saving the rest for later. Regards and have at it! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional investigation This guidance on this (COIN) page states:
 * 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.
 * WP:BRD and reverts of edits, especially in guidance areas, are commonplace and not controversial edits, the revert indicates (and documents) that the edit does not have consensus -- thus, returning the passage to the long-held presumed consensus per WP:STATUSQUO and elsewhere. (I.e., if an editor adds guidance and it is not contested, consensus is presumed. Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) The accusations brought against me here, are expressly for reverting edits made by the two tendentious editors I've named in this response. As for WP:TAGGING and Help:Maintenance template removal, they are neither policy nor guidance, they are both essays, i.e., advice pages. Otherwise, in addition to a couple of reverts on Guideline pages, I am guilty of placing the "under discussion inline" tag in WP:Product,  and adding a "See also" and using a BRD to promote participation in a discussion in WP:Notability (music).
 * What actually brings us to this point, is that I am contesting Jytdog's lack of foresight in forcefully sustaining his edit that could create an entirely new "Product type" classification/article.My revert was to restore the long-standing consensus. A careful evaluation of the edit history will reveal that this complaint is a simple escalation of Jytdog's edit warring. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 06:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What brings us to this point, is your editing of the guidance documents in a way that favors your paid editing work. I just happened to notice.  009o9 as I have mentioned to you a couple of times, it is not going to help you to attack me; it just makes you look worse.  You will of course do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are long on generalizations and short on diffs, always avoiding issue at hand. As for the rest of you comment, so what? They are provided to improve the goals of Wikipedia and unlike you, I'm more than happy to have them reverted and discussed. For instance, the ill-placement and proliferation of unexplained perma-tags is not good for the Wikipedia, the more prevalent they are, the more they are ignored by the readership. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that permatags are good for no one. But a paid editor should not remove them from articles they are paid to edit, and you should not be directly changing relevant guidance documents, and then citing those documents, to justify you doing that. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE. Apparently, your protegee had never read the guidance on WP:ADVERT.(Version in effect at that time -- aka before you edited it.) (Incident diff) Still not seeing any diffs with your accusations. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 07:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting User:009o9:"Unjustly placed tags are vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES, and as such, perfectly reasonable to remove per WP:COIADVICE". Sorry, this is just incorrect! WP:VANDTYPES specifies Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as, ,. So content tags are not included in vandalism. Per WP:COIADVICE#1, COI editors can "remove spam and unambiguous vandalism". Since content tags are not counted in unambiguous vandalism, a COI editor cannot remove these tags themselves. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Lemongirl942 You've misrepresented the passage: "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as, , , or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." there is no period after sprotected in the guidance. If the tag placement does not meet the criteria supporting it, the placment conforms to VANDTYPES. Current version 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an Oxford comma after which would imply that "other tags" refers to "other non-content tags" apart from the 3 examples given. My argument still stands. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the term "such as" refers to the non-content tags, "other tags" refers to other tags -- exactly as stated. The term "such as" is a preposition and the comma-aside follows. You could remove the "such as" and enclose the aside in parenthesis with the same meaning. "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are again incorrect here. But let's agree to disagree on this point. The other important fact is that the policy only talks about "bad faith" placement. Unless it can be reliably demonstrated that the tagging was in bad faith, we tend to WP:AGF. Also per WP:COIADVICE#1, only "unambiguous vandalism" may be reverted by a COI editor. If such a revert is done, it puts a burden on the COI editor to demonstrate consensus that the tag was "unambiguous vandalism". In most cases, only the COI editor considers it unambiguous vandalism while others do not term it as such. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, when you add WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #3 to the mix, and you delete 8000 bytes of content, starting with an edit summary of (Added tag to article (TW)), with no comment on the talk page until after I reverted you, we are beyond WP:AGF. This was a prime example of disruptive editing and you, with your experience at COIN, have to know that it takes months to get an edit request answered to repair the public facing version -- I might even have one edit request that's over a year old. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 009o9 and Lemongirl, this is not the time or place to be re-litigating old things. The question here is whether it is OK for 009o9 to directly edit policies, guidelines, etc.  It is simple.  If somebody wants to go offtrack, please consider just not responding. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Again you are raising issues that are off-point. The only question here, is whether you or any paid editor should directly edit guidance documents about removing tags and notability. So far the answer from others is "no". Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Add me as supporting that "no". From 's involvements with guidance/template etc. pages I'm most acquainted with, as I have that project page on my watchlist. I saw 009o9's initiatives on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), and below). Every time I thought WP:SNOW would apply to their proposals, so I didn't get too involved in the talk page discussions. It is indeed disturbing that after a discussion going nowhere 009o9 attempted to rewrite the guidance nonetheless (which in both instances was quickly reverted). This COIN discussion has helped me understand where the initiatives came from in the first place: initially not undertanding where the initiatives came from was another reason why it was difficult to respond to the initiatives on the talk page of that guidance.
 * On the other issue, 009o9's mainspace edits, I was initially prepared, without prejudice, to accept Jytdog's favorable analysis that they showed due diligence. Seeing some personal attacking here in this COIN discussion led me to think that the issue is maybe less straightforward, and might need further scrutiny, if not preventative measures if it would appear that 009o9's mainspace content disputes exhibit a similar pattern when not getting what they want. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Francis Schonken about my opening remarks - please do note the qualifiers that I gave. What I was trying to convey is that 009o9 actually does disclose their paid editing, does put new articles through AfC, and does work the talk page.  When I said "tough negotiator" I mean they push the boundaries very hard and step over them not infrequently, especially in discussions.  I fully expected the outpouring and attacks that they have laid out here.  I be no means intended to endorse their approach to paid editing.  There are several people I would point to as models of great citizens who are paid editors.  Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read that, didn't click the "push it at times" link though, as your last comment above was "The only question here, is whether you or any paid editor should directly edit guidance documents about removing tags and notability". Seems you seem to think the "step over boundaries" (in mainspace content discussions) needs to be discussed here too, and that's what I started to think too – or did I mis something? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis, my intention was not to bring in general article editing. I did want to set the table a bit, and note that 009o9 mostly is compliant with the COI guideline. I am not out to crucify him/her but just deal with one specific issue - direct editing of the policies and guidelines.  Sorry if I misled at all. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Francis Schonken Yes, I'm pushing to get the customer facing guidance to conform to evolving consensus, or otherwise discover if the POV at AfC is not the wider consensus. You guys are not required to use AfC, but Jytog's latest article would have been summarily declined for notability. My contention with NSONGS is that it allows AfC to cite it as narrowing the notability option from 7 line items to 3. The article in question was about a theme song for a film (a minor cult classic) that became popular after film flopped, 10 years later, it became a Halloween/80s classic. Anyway, those in AfC will not consider that it falls under "other recordings" in WP:NALBUMS (incidentally, the shortcut NALBUMS is also not in the Albums section, it's in the Recordings section -- more confusion.). IMHO NSONGS still needs to be reconciled and integrated within NALBUMS Recordings section, being in a stand alone section adds to the confusion. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 09:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONLIMITED, then take your proposed content to WP:PROPOSAL, I don't think a Noticeboards is the correct forum to support your desired changes, they have implications at the Foundation level. The consensus I see here is a tiny group (reading a specialty forum) that "wishes" they could ban paid editing altogether. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 08:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there is some difference between finding agreement on what needs to be done, and finding the most appropriate method on how to approach it. I'd say a first gauge on the first aspect goes rather in the direction of 009o9 better not editing guidance-related pages directly: discuss on the respective talk pages if you see a problem, but don't determine consensus in your favour – let someone else decide on whether there's a consensus for the proposed update; For the second aspect: 009o9 could say, I understand the message, and matter solved. Maybe some attention could be drawn here (WP:VPP, user talk:Jimbo Wales,...?) if a broader consensus is needed before that happens. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't reckon Jimbo's talk page would be useful; that's just devolved into a sounding board for the disaffected. This is the board for handling COI matters.  My hope is that as this discussion develops, 009o9 will hear the WP:CONSENSUS that is already pretty clear and I am confident will only get stronger as more people comment, and that they will agree to stop directly editing policies/guidelines/help/templates/existing essays.   If they don't yield, we can take it there from there; there are several in-process avenues to pursue when folks won't yield to consensus. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't consider a BRD to get some participation in an unanswered discussion, nor a revert of POV driven edits (to document that the edit is contested), is advocacy in any form. The presumption is that the prior (long standing) edit had consensus. Additionally, when a tagger leaves an edit summary of "Added XYZ tag (TW)" and can't be bothered to explain their contention with the article on the talk page (per most guidance and required on some tags), the best way to get them to discuss is revert the tagging edit. Finally, I'm not trying to get the notability requirements lowered, I'm trying to get them observed or perhaps just read in the first place. (There is huge comprehension gap in AfC and AfD, such as every reference must go to notability, or the subject must be the primary topic of the article.)  Having unwritten local consensus, like the canned "more references" declines in AfC for months on end, is biting the newbies. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 009o9 I understand your strategy here is to get into the weeds are argue the pants off the details, but the actual issue is a high level one and I would urge everybody to stay focused on that and avoid the weeds - namely - is it OK for a paid editor to directly edit policies/guidelines etc? So far everybody but 009o9 is saying "nope". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)
 * 009o9 I understand your strategy here is to get into the weeds are argue the pants off the details, but the actual issue is a high level one and I would urge everybody to stay focused on that and avoid the weeds - namely - is it OK for a paid editor to directly edit policies/guidelines etc? So far everybody but 009o9 is saying "nope". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

End 009o9's response

 * You throw a lot of flak up there, but I don't reckon folks are going to be distracted from the key point here, which is simply - it is appropriate for paid editors to directly edit policies/guidelines/templates etc?  You are the test case here, and you have clearly done this in ways that benefit your paid editing work.  That is the test case. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go again, "clearly" making aspersions about the intent of the editor rather than the validity of the content. But I do have to raise the point that a debate without the opposing view is akin to masturbation and not a debate at all. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 13:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down. You have a tendency to be far too aggressive toward paid editors, even ones who have correctly admitted their COI. You should have made a comment on 00oo9's talk page, as he/she has edited constructively in the past. Both of you seem to be at fault. Please discuss according to WP:CIVIL. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am by no means a wiki-buddy of Jytdog, but in this instance I think his stance is 100% correct. Say what you want about him, he is anything but aggressive toward paid and COI editors. Frankly I think he has been too lenient. Really. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why it has been mentioned that I "canvassed" editors. I had a disagreement over an article with User:009o9 which I found too promotional. Since 009o9 disagreed, I invited Jytdog and DGG to have a look - two editors who have more experience than me at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:VOTESTACK which is under WP:Canvas. Jytdog's userpage is predominantly dedicated to COI topics. Not even close to a neutral un-involved opinion. DGG stayed out of it, and is (recently) more neutral, but he was involved with the AfD merge that hosed the article format in the first place. And, this type of merge is what the discussion at WP:PRODUCT is about. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 16:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This would appear to be deflecting the discussion away from the behaviour of a paid editor who is making changes to policy and guidelines regarding paid editing, without any consensus from the community. Does anybody else consider that more than a little fishy? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Check the edits for yourself, they are introductory BRD edits and Reverts of un-discussed changes (the Help page was friendly, operating mostly under BRD for ease of readability). Besides, the last time I read WP:PAID only the article space was off-limits, policy area were just fine with proper disclosure and mine is in my signature, my user page and my paid articles. Can somebody produce an RfC that widened the scope of the edit ban? 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My personal stance is that I am strongly opposed to paid editors changing guidelines/policies/help pages. First, because there has been a previous case where a longtime (undisclosed) paid editor actually influenced certain guidelines and later used it to defend their own stance in certain articles (See this). My second reason is because paid editing is a form of Systemic bias. I find it ethically wrong that certain individuals and companies can hire editors and have a nice puffed up article on Wikipedia. At the same time, volunteer editors also spend time trying to trim the articles and reduce promotional content. The encyclopaedia gradually gets slanted towards these articles. Although I dislike it, I can live with it as long as paid editing is properly disclosed. However, when paid editors start changing guidelines/policies/help pages, it risks introducing the bias into the very functioning of Wikipedia itself. This is much more critical. If the notability barriers for companies are brought down, it becomes easier to slip in articles and use Wikipedia for promotion. If it is made harder to tag articles for problems, editors may refrain from pointing out problems altogether, which serves the purpose of COI editors. If it is made easier to remove maintenance templates, then COI editors can simply remove the tags without fixing problems. On a long term, this risks transforming a free encyclopaedia to a platform hosting information about people who can pay for it (something like a paid web-host, with free volunteer customer service). Since I don't want that to happen, it is best that paid editors are not allowed to edit policies/guidelines/help pages directly. The problem needs to be nipped in the bud right now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone has some sort of systemic bias, from your article creation list, yours appears to be Singapore. Do you feel you can edit neutrally and take guidance concerning the topic? On the other hand, placing a banner with virtually no edit summary is not guidance. Pruning, where there is an interested editor is not guidance.
 * are all of the non COI article perfect at the time of submission?
 * the deletionists are the ones who are making the Encyclopedia a playground for the rich, small innovative startups are probably handicapped without an article, but why should you guys care about the economy? The stock market listed firms, have not created a net new job in the US for over 20 years.
 * the free volunteer customer service, baffles me. I certainly would be creating rather than spending my time patrolling edits. If it proved necessary, the NGO's would supply the third-world personnel to do what you do for free. Wikidata is too important to allow to be lost. Wikipedia is just the vetting service for the backend DB.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Point of fact, there was no demand for paid editing in days gone by, people threw up a stub article, other editors cleaned them up a bit, and the deed was done. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * you have a let's say unique use of the term "systemic bias". My definition would be something related to a system not an individual, perhaps "biases reflected by informal or formal rules under whose influence, when relating to issues outside itself, an organization responds unequally". In no way is this meaningful to apply to any single Wikipedia editor. Further, to label this way (as with your comments on Jytdog and DGG) smells like an ad-hominem canard to deflect attention on the subject of this noticeboard, which is your editing. Can we drop the wikilawyering and focus on that? This doesn't seem to me to be the right place to debate COI policy, procedure or guidelines as such. - Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A country is a system, borders, transportation, citizens etc., there has to be some sort of advocacy (associative bias) either for or against, otherwise the article would never be written. For instance, I've never written anything about Singapore, the association bias with a paid editor is money. A lot of people have died for their country, not many are willing to die for money.
 * Lemongirl942 instigated this episode by assuming bad faith and pruning rather than discussing, then took me straight to COIN for a revert when she refused to discuss.WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #3 She called in Jytdog who is also a wiki-cop and also plays rather loose with the rules and edits the guidelines as he sees fit for his purposes.
 * Is this not COIN? If I'm not mistaken, the COI part relates to COI policy.
 * As for the rest of your comment, I guess it's just going to be, STFU you're guilty of something and the wiki-cop's conduct is irrelevant, right?
 * Here is what Jytdog compelled me to agree to on 6 May 2016, The rules of the game change as one goes. Do you intend to not edit directly going forward on content you are paid to work on? That is the question. (of course where you are a volunteer it is a different story) What he did not disclose is that he would be the one changing the rules.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It says right at the top of the page that this noticeboard is "for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article". Not for developing COI guidelines. The focus is on you and your editing. Not on whether the rules we're working under are correct in some abstract sense, including your points about deletionism and "free volunteer customer service". Specifically whether you are willing to abide by the standards set by the Wikipedia community. I notice you haven't answered Jytdog's simple question to this point, i.e. do you intend to continue to directly edit articles you're paid to work on? - Brianhe (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Brianhe I only edit in the WP: area when I find that the "Wikipedia community" is not following their own guidance, I consistently start a talk page discussion and there is no compensation for this donated time. How about this: Specifically I am more than willing to abide by the standards set policies and guidelines published in accordance with WP:PGCHANGE and WP:PROPOSAL as I become aware of them. I can't make any promises about local consensus or advice pages, there are 125,000 active editors and this is where there is no oversight, nor official evidence of Wikipedia wide consensus. Finally, I provided the diff where I did answer Jytdog's question, I guess you didn't bother reading it.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that 009o9 did not edit help/policy/guideline/essay pages in ways that appear to be used to support his/her paid article writing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support Lemongirl942's clear description of the arguments against having changes to policy made by editors whose use of Wikipedia is WP:NOTHERE. That includes paid editors and those who are here to promote. The issue with paid editors is not simply that they are paid, it is that they often are paid to influence the presence and content of multiple articles and sometimes large groups of articles. Even if these articles adhere to NPOV, those articles change the nature of Wikipedia. I would like to see more restriction on articles for companies and BLPs so that Wikipedia does not simply become another advertising venue in a world where already advertising has too much influence. LaMona (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly support a ban on 009o9 editing guidelines, and maybe just a permaban period - the issue on NMUSIC has gotten to the point where it is very clear that, according to 009o9, it is the AFC and AfD editors (two separate groups of editors) who are wrong because he is right, and the changes he proposes to make to the guidelines are precisely to keep his article, not to benefit the encyclopedia. He's masking that by arguing semantics (a "topic" is not a "subject", and no one realizes that but him).  The discussion has already been had twice on NMUSIC, and 009's conclusion is that "everyone is misreading GNG."  Frankly, the user is WP:NOTHERE and probably needs to go - guideline warring is disruptive to the encyclopedia as a whole. MSJapan (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And now we have Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sebagr


User:Sebagr recently posted 148 edits as a new User, which I reverted all of them as per WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, where these edits clearly violate by "attracting notice" just to one solitary website. Furthermore, few of the linked had any editing comments. I started a discussion on their User Page.

It was clear to me that this was likely a certain WP:COI, and pointed out the problem here. In the lengthy discussion of the last few days this User has made many excuses but has not disclosed their association with this site even when asked. I.e. Responses like "With all due respect, what defines "promotion and advertising"?" and "How is it that my link is considered self promotion but that one isn't?" It is direct evidence of avoiding necessary scrutiny.

Exposure of these 148 reverted edits by this User show they were certainly deliberate made, which I found on an external site.. According to the words here, and also posted on 29th May 2016. "I'm constantly working on the site adding new features and pay special attention to user feedback."

This immediately discloses Sebagr as the actual owner of this site.

Further evidence of wanting to advertising the site. "If you find the site useful, please consider helping me spread the word among your friends, colleagues and clubs."

I have since found more than a dozen such places in a Google search made all in the last few days.

There is clear evidence that this User should likely be banned restricted for avoiding WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERTISING, and using Wikipedia as deliberate means just for promotional purposes. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, she/he has been adding promotional material. But, you are violating WP:CIVIL. Don't say "thanks for wasting our time, utterly disgusted", as you could be blocked for insults. You are being too insulting. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This was not an insult. It was how I felt. To violate WP:CIVIL you have to attack another user. I explained the problem straight up after I reverted the edits, Sebagr still did not properly explain his association with the website. After wasting time assisting this User, I find that he WAS associated with the site. Being restricted in not making unfounded accusations without actual proof.
 * Also if you quote alleged violations, you should not modify nor misquote statements, and so you could be equally blocked for making misleading accusations . Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, excuse me if I am not to add my opinion here, I'm not sure if I am to do this but I feel the need to answer to Arianewiki1's accusations. The whole point of adding those links was to improve the available information on Wikipedia. On my talk page I already discussed which information can be found there that's not on Wikipedia. I was not aware of the guidelines for WP:COI at the time of the edits (discuss in the talk page instead of editing the article), but I'm quite sure that I am being neutral and my intention was not ADVERTISING. I also discussed that the value of the links were not correctly assessed by Arianewiki1 at the time, even after I mentioned exactly what that benefit was and the information they provided that cannot be found in Wikipedia due to its dynamic nature (position of astronomical objects in the sky depending on the location of the viewer and time of year). So, I can confirm there is COI, but I am being neutral and I am definitely not advertisting. Sebagr (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You cannot add these links directly. Make a request on the talk page to ask an editor to put these links in. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * most of what you say above is quite false, and I request that you stop the misrepresentations.
 * WP:ADVERTISING was not mentioned, but WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTABILITY certainly was.
 * What did I originally write on this is perfectly correct The link I guided you too was WP:PROMOTION, which talks about what is allowed or disallowed with promotion, which also mentions problems of WP:COI under WP:NOTABILITY, the section says WP:ORGIND I.e.
 * "Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopaedia article. Qualifying published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service."
 * You have totally avoided the necessary WP:NPOV, and your statement of how 'valuable' this site is questionable. Who else says this? Where is the consensus?
 * By saying "I can confirm there is COI" makes my original assessment perfectly valid. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I replied to WP:ADVERTISING because you mentioned above in this page, not my talk page: "There is clear evidence that this User should likely...". Everything you said in my talk page might have been technically correct but you replied in a quite unfriendly manner after a short period of time (given that you are a moderator who should try to make people understand what's wrong and how to proceed). You cannot expect contributors to read, understand and know all those guidelines - that's why moderators exist. You've even been warned by your peers about being unfriendly and got a couple of editions reverted by them. If you are not comfortable explaining things patiently and how contributors can work around issues (as your peers did here, which resulted in a quick resolution), then I suggest you don't moderate at all. I hope you understand I won't continue this discussion as I value my time more than this. I will just discuss my proposed changes in as they suggested. Sebagr (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey and ! Let's just end this now. Sebagr has understood our COI guidelines and I have suggested them to propose links at Wikiproject Astronomy. I thank Sebagr for that. While Arianewiki1 could have maybe explained better, they still did the correct thing by bringing it here. I thank Arianewiki1 for that and also for identifying the links in the first place! Now that the matter is settled, let's all go back to our editing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * [SEE IMPORTANT NOTE BELOW] I strongly disagree. These edits were almost certainly made deliberately to avoid COI, there is much evidence to prove it. Seragr has claimed under the "Discussion about COI" "It's a non-profit website driven by donations, exactly like Wikipedia, so I never thought these editions were a problem." Yet this site is also likely commercial, as there is this link. He says above: "I never denied my interest in improving the website reach.", but notably never said it or disclosed it either. Moreover, the continuous deflections, avoidance and/or use of weasel words, even the alleged back down above is mostly a backhander towards me. It is full of the same falsehoods. I.e. Claim I'm a moderator where I never said that nor mentioned the word. As for "While Arianewiki1 could have maybe explained better", yet the first post I sent was exact and direct.


 * Yet when given the facts, the only plea was "It took me quite a while to add all those links which were actually providing information to amateur astronomers and you reverted everything! Is there a way to re-add them all at once? I don't agree with your accusations at all. I'm clearly adding useful information for fellow astronomers." None of the responses here were relevant, and I also made no accusations.


 * The problem with those in the discussions here is the arbitrators often do not appreciate the elaborate methods used to gain a profile, and the extend people will go. Commercial enterprises know if they can hit the first Google page, their profit and product placement can rise dramatically. [See NOTE 2 : Below] This explains the craftiness behind the desire to gain a foothold in Wikipedia. I knew immediately, the External links were not random but specifically targeted in order of popularity. As I explained, I initially found the discrepancies with a Google search, which is how I found the User and their multiple edits linked to the same site.


 * NOTE: Due to the wrongful and incorrect removal of my statements on Sebagr User page here under "Do not modify other user's comments!" stated by ThePlatypusofDoom (which I didn't actually do), Sebagr should have the right to freely remove or modify his statement above, as some of those words were then based on a false premise - based on the wrongful assumptions that the discussion were concluded, especially. (You can strike out words using HTML < / s >, which as a Programmer you should know,)
 * NOTE 2 : I suggest editors should be aware the kinds of tactics being done here. These things have been done before. This article "The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect", and many more like it, which adequately explains current actions. I, too, have act precisely as Search engine optimization suggests here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not prolong this. Now that Sebagr understands the COI guidelines, I see no reason to think that prolonging this will help. If he wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, I would suggest getting a mentor at adopt-a-user to help him. I trust Lemongirl's judgement, so I don't think warning him again will help. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOSHAME. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (Please read the Note below) Sorry. You are out of order here. Your deletion interfered with the flow of this discussion placing me in a difficult if not impossible position. You and Lemongirl's have made statements excluding me from the process and Sebagr has made statements they probably would not have made (which he can now properly retract). WP:NOSHAME here does not apply in this circumstances because I was excluded by your deletion.


 * As for "Now that Sebagr understands the COI guidelines..." where does that appear above here? In fact he says "So, I can confirm there is COI, but I am being neutral and I am definitely not advertisting." The precise problem is why COI exists, is because it defies necessary WP:NPOV and that in makes information to make it notable - either for profit or personal credit. I implicitly stated that, but you just deleted it without any justification, then make the problem simply evaporate!


 * Note: So please explain this edit by an unregistered anonymous user under "External Links" made on the 2nd October 2010 under Deep-sky object and this one on Messier 10 . This is a so-called sleeper link, and has been their six whole years. No one noticed. If you look at the linked site, it says "Copyright ® 2010-2016", yet our friend here has only been a "Member since Jun 2015", but admits to being both its creator and the owner of the site in 2010. (Very few knew about this site at that time.) Sorry, this does not gel. This is exactly how this promotion game works, and as stated in the articles I've already linked above, and designed to achieve long-term goals. Against all the current evidence, this is a remarkable set of coincidences. It fails on WP:PROMOTION, doesn't it? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First, stop blaming everything on us. You could have done a better job of talking to him. If Sebagr is editing from an IP address, file an SPI, and then we will get this sorted out. WP:BEBOLD and file the SPI, instead of making comments here, it's a lot more helpful. Just file the SPI, so we can end this. Also, I would advise you to WP:AGF, and keep a more level head, as some editors may not want to work with you in the future. Pinging Jytdog as we could use somebody else here, and he is very good at talking to editors with COI :  ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 11:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging HappyValleyEditor, as I trust his judgement and he is often at COIN: ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 12:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind invite, I will try to look at this later if time permits. Some real world commitments are calling!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

End This
I'm going to try to end this now and hope everyone cooperates. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No good can come of prolonging this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)