Turnitin honorarium

Hi, I wrote a few months back on this noticeboard about an honorarium I was sent for giving a talk in January about Wikipedia and education for Turnitin's online webinar series. The gift was significant, a few hundred dollars on an Amazon gift card. After posting here at COI/N was no response, and I ended up keeping the gift and using it to by some books and other various trinkets. Again in March, I gave a second talk, and now Turnitin has offered another honorarium for the presentation (which I presume is another gift card), and I want to ask for community input once more.

I've been involved with Turnitin for the past 2 years, after I approached them for a donation of copyright-violation detection services (plagiarism-detection) and they offered to give Wikipedia and select editors access to their commercial products Turnitin and iThenticate. These services are in the process of being incorporated into some copyright-detection bots and some individual accounts have been given out to folks involved in the education program. I want to note that at no point has Turnitin ever been under the impression that their donation of services implied some exclusivity or contractual relationship--indeed, they've just given us virtually carte blanche access to their api and article-checking tools with no promise of any mention of Turnitin on Wikipedia at all.

In discussions about Turnitin, I made clear that I was not receiving compensation from Turnitin for advancing the collaboration (and also, critically, that any further action was dependent on community consensus to go forward).

Also, the talks I gave to Turnitin's audience only tangentially mentioned plagiarism and did not go into any detail about Turnitin's donation of services to the community. And I do not edit articles about Turnitin or other plagiarism-detection products.

Are these gifts--for speaking about Wikipedia but not about the Turnitin donation--appropriate? Does it create a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one? I recognize this is not the typical COI/N post, but I'm trying to follow best practices for disclosure and transparency and get some more input. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Ocaasi t | c 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You've done the right thing. Now that you're on record, any edits to Turnitin-related articles will be noticed. This gives you a good answer should Turnitin make requests of you in that direction. John Nagle (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"I do not edit articles about Turnitin or other plagiarism-detection products." If that's the case then there isn't a COI. If you did, then there might be a COI, but even then it might not be that strong of one since you don't work for Turnitin nor would you profit personally from promoting it. The COI would be weak. Your reporting here is pretty conscientious though. -- Atama頭 23:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

SugarCRM

The user has a username very similar to Jan Sysmans, an employee of SugarCRM at the time in charge of promoting SugarCRM online - as can be seen here. See links for promotional additions: 1 (adding promotional unsourced material and removing sourced negative material), 2 (addition of clearly promotional language], 3 (advertorial information sourced only partially, and only to a press release), 4 (similar to number 3), 5 (a particularly promotional addition), and 6 (the addition of direct sales information, including external link to purchase). While this largely occurred in 2011 and 2012, there is pretty direct evidence of more COI editing in late 2013 that I left on the SugarCRM talk page. Usually, as the main user account is stale, I would just put a maintenance tag on the page and move on, however at the time of these incidents the new head of Wikimedia Lila Tretikov was an executive of the company (and at least indirectly Sysman's superior). I would be curious to see if this was an isolated incident within one department at the company, or if this was an ongoing practice at the firm she served as vice-president for (there are a lot of SPA and IP edits that made promotional or nitpicking alterations to the page beyond the one other account I mention on the SugarCRM talkpage). It's most likely that she would not have known about this, but I thought a record of this in the COI/N archives and a short conversation here could at least be important to have. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 16:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Conor Mccreedy

Recent edits and revisions on this page are consistent with a conflict of interest and relevant information about bad publicity concerning the subject of the article were removed. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool and users need to be made aware of recent developments concerning the subject of this article. Recent edits were undone by what looks like a dummy account. CMJ 09:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Boomerang. Thandi is in the right in removing unsourced defamatory content. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hipocrite 1000%. I just had a quick glance but I'm checking for where that info came from initially, because that is clearly a BLP violation (a nasty one) and worthy of at least a warning. -- Atama頭 16:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This is what I've gathered so far... It does look like a promotional SPA, Biofuelsfreak, who possibly (but not conclusively) had a COI was responsible for puffery added to the article. The editor has not made any changes for 7 months, however, and the material that was overly promotional was since removed (especially the material that was unsourced or sourced to Mccreedy himself). Later, ArtWorldWatchDog made an obvious BLP violation in changing the lead from saying "artist" to "conartist". That was the account's only edit (it seems like a throw-away account that was either a vandal or had a grudge against the subject). Directly afterwards 41.160.27.2 further expanded on this (the IP may very well have been the same person as ArtWorldWatchDog). The attacks and/or vandalism continued with 41.135.182.245. That seems to be the initial source of these BLP violations.
CMJ (who opened this thread) made things a bit worse with this edit. It's debatable whether saying that Mccreedy "excelled at" soccer is unduly promotional (the suggestion is supported by the following reference) but changing "conservationist" to "conversationalist", unlinking "Chris Rock", and changing "founded" to "found" was either extremely incompetent or willful vandalism (WP:AGF suggests the former). this edit from Thandi.Zambo was helpful, and fixed some of the problems introduced by CMJ and the anons (and interestingly enough it removed "philanthropist" from the lead as well, which I'd argue should not have been removed because the article body does establish his charity work).
An IP removed the claim that Mccreedy was declared the 2012 "Best Dressed South African". While The Steeple Times also made that claim, the GQ link used as a reference on the article was no longer working properly, and I found this page on South Africa's version of GQ which lists Tyrone Keogh as the best-dressed for the year, so I support that removal. Another vandal/attacker IP 41.133.182.78 again reinserted the con artist claim but was reverted. Yet another IP 2604:2000:103C:7A:6432:31CF:C4EA:9D5C further vandalized the page. Hipocrite's latest change fixed everything back to a fairly stable and well-sourced version, though I still think the GQ "best dressed" award needs verification. I'm going to institute a two week semi-protection considering the repeated vandalism from various IPs; this is a BLP after all and it has had vandalism for almost a week.
In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, I'm looking into CMJ's editing history. What I see so far is pretty troubling. I'll go over a list of my concerns in a bit. -- Atama頭 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
So in evalauting CMJ's edit history I've found some major issues. To start with, one of his earliest contributions was this series of edits which was reverted as being unsourced original research including POV. No warning was given, however. Later, this edit was obviously a BLP violation. He was warned, and he apologized for it on his talk page, claiming that he was drunk. That makes the Mccreedy changes his second major BLP violation. I'm going to leave a more strongly-worded warning on his user talk page, but I don't think he can just claim that he was drunk as an excuse this time (not that it's a very good excuse in the first place). -- Atama頭 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Duly noted Atama, Thank you for the time you've taken to look into this matter but my intention was never to be defamatory. It seems you took a hard line on my "willful vandalism" (which was really an honest attempt to do away with some of the fluffery that the article contained) after you read the above exchange and mistake I made. I am admittedly a novice when it comes to editing and should have done more to remove the original defamatory content posted anonymously. This has been a valuable learning experience about how to approach the editing of an article correctly. CMJ 05:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Raelyn Campbell

Raelyncampbell (talk · contribs) signed up for an account today and began editing the above article. I posted a ((uw-coi)) tag on the user's talk page, but the user has been unresponsive. Since posting the uw-coi template, the user has continued to edit the article across 17 additional edits to the article. The user's only edits are to that article. I am inviting the user to this discussion. Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Look at this version from before that account started editing, and then this version from after. Horribly, horribly POV and promotional editing. I'm leaving a warning for that editor. I'm not sure if the editor is the article subject or a paid PR person but either way they can't do that. I'm leaving a level 2 template and reverting, there are WP:BLP concerns here even if the edits are positive. -- Atama頭 22:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please look under the rug and monitor after reviewing the evidence

A clear statement is written into an article in Wiki. The statement is nearly opposite what the high quality reference says, and the edit will probably promote financial interests. It says opposite what was there before. It's fixed. Soon, the opposite shows up. Is there a way to track who wrote what and track their future edits?

Look at the back and fourth here [[2]] going back to the beginning of 2011. Read it's not in the wilderness in 2011, then it is, then it isn't back and fourth. Bad references (the EPA, FDA and Mayo don't speak to wilderness, save one possibly. Note there are clear lakes and streams in the city). I'm not sure who's making the changes, so I don't notify.32cllou (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another scary edit [3]. Please read the review to find this edit makes the statement factual. Is there a way to track the editor who wrote effectively that medications (alone) DO work for severely depressed patients (they don't, according to the 2 reviews). That's a huge difference for a major topic!!!!

Basically, I have lots to learn, but I'm getting better. But is it a waste of time because I can't keep the text factual?32cllou (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WRT major depressive disorder this ref clearly states that they do work for severe disease [4]. So does this review [5]. And this one [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at before and after for accuracy with their supporting reference (only one review, and then two are used). If there are additional (not in MDD) usable reviews, they should added and the text fixed.32cllou (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead does not really need references. It is needs to reflect the body of the text. Thus one must take into account all the refs in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead had an incorrect sentence based on it's existing (needed or not) review reference. I read that reference and made it factual, and added another review saying same (doesn't help).
I have to assume (based on the timing) that this edit is basically to make me regret I wanted someone to look into gross factual errors in a major topic? [[7]]. Ellen G. White is a good reference for Biblical interpretation. The article makes no medical claims, and needs no secondary sources. Why the tag?32cllou (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This is in reponse to this by 32cllou "Look at the back and fourth here [[8]] going back to the beginning of 2011. Read it's not in the wilderness in 2011, then it is, then it isn't back and fourth. Bad references (the EPA, FDA and Mayo don't speak to wilderness, save one possibly. Note there are clear lakes and streams in the city). I'm not sure who's making the changes, so I don't notify." removed in this edit [9]

With respect to Giardiasis not sure what the issue is? We have conflicting sources. Some high quality recent sources (2012 Wilderness textbook) states Wilderness travel is a risk. Other quality but older sources (2000 and 2004) state the evidence for risk is not that great. This latter statement is different than stating the evidence does not show risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I pulled that one because it may just be a mistake. Please provide links. I didn't see a "2012 Wilderness textbook". We know it's not been found in the water in the wilderness of N. America in sufficient amounts to be a significant concern from the detailed review. Other references are not reviews, or they don't refer to the wilderness, but rather campers and hunters or lakes and streams. It's a function of population and animal (esp cattle, in my opinion) density (look up "wilderness").
You fixed that perfectly, thanks. Still begs the question which editor keeps making it a risk to go into the N Am wilderness and drink out of a clear water I would suspect is associated with a camping filter manufacturer.32cllou (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Now look at MDD [[10]], with a new review added (not as good / independent as the other two, in my opinion). The sentence now says meds do work for severely depressed patients, supported by that one reference. The other two reviews say meds alone are no better than placebo (basically really don't work) regardless the severity of the illness.32cllou (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
And other, what look to be errors, have been made.32cllou (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This may be a worse that waste of time (reporting potential COI) because of probable retaliation noted above, and there's nobody other that the interested parties involved in investigation. What a joke. Guess I'll be quit for some time again.32cllou (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
One ref says "Drug-placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients." and " clinical significance only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category" [11]
From the actual conclusions you found prior and I here again quote "Drug–placebo differences in antidepressant efficacy increase as a function of baseline severity, but are relatively small even for severely depressed patients. The relationship between initial severity and antidepressant efficacy is attributable to decreased responsiveness to placebo among very severely depressed patients, rather than to increased responsiveness to medication. My bold. Meds don't work alone.
Second ref says "For patients with very severe depression, the benefit of medications over placebo is substantial." [12]
That's a new (to the article) review. So we have two saying no and one saying yes. PlusOne is best by far.32cllou (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree the third ref is not really applicable as it is not looking at severity. It does state "Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials" [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Again go to the full text. Isn't active intervention controls basically pretending to do something? Meds alone don't work if they aren't any better than active (pretending) intervention controls.32cllou (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC) The sentence isn't about severity, it's about efficacy. For meds alone, the best reviews say efficacy is very low, which may or may not be limited to severely depressed patients.32cllou (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
With respect to Giardia we have this 2013 ref [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good wilderness book, but it's certainly not specific to the North American wilderness, right off the bat I see nordic skiing.

In the discussion about meds and MDD, I don't think it helps to add those new references to the discussion. The two that were there at the beginning (before your changes) are probably the best ones out there. Clearly independent. Broader coverage of research.

Anyone else reading this, the article now effectively promotes (overstate their benefit) meds for the severely depressed.32cllou (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC) See the small change [[15]]. But, then please watch it switch back in a week, month or two.32cllou (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We may need some more eyes on these topics I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's the review conclusion, again: "These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients. The findings also show that the effect for these patients seems to be due to decreased responsiveness to placebo, rather than increased responsiveness to medication." They also say "small effect". That color has just been removed, making the sentence misleading.32cllou (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes you wish to emphasise this one 2008 review and ignore the conclusions of three other more recent reviews mentioned here Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Effectiveness_of_SSRIs.2FTCAs There is no consensus for you to do this.
Feel free to accuse me of COI all you like. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Three reviews, two say no or just small, one new (added for this discussion) says yes. The article says yes. Which is POV.

And take a look at new misstatements in Giardiasis, using this reference [[16]]. Two years of CDC incidence data. Just two US cases (2005 and 2006), one pool exposure, and another a inactive fountain exposure. Unlikely the wilderness. Two cases, but see cases in the wilderness in Wikipedia! Here's the newest edit[[17]].32cllou (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Page 46 in the table it lists Giardia intestinalis (which is the same as Giardia lamblia. 6 cases from a Wilderness River in Colorado. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
WRT MDD that is not really correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Like you say, we need independent eyes. No idea what WRT MDD means. Missed the G. intestinalis. The giardiasis might read "the CDC found six cases in one incidence from wilderness river water in Colorado over two years data." Otherwise, it overstates CDC findings.32cllou (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(With respect to major depressive disorder). Yup it was 6 our of 96 cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

6 showing small effect.32cllou (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot that has been published on this (depression), and even the statement that "antidepressants don't work in mild to moderate depression" is controversial. A patient level meta analysis of 20 trials of fluoxetine and 21 trials of venlafaxine found clincially significant effects at all baseline levels of depression.
NICE seems to agree:
"In trials lasting 8 weeks or longer, there is strong evidence suggesting that there is a clinically important difference favouring SSRIs over placebo on increasing the likelihood of achieving a 50% reduction in symptoms of depression as measured by the HRSD (K 8; N 1764; RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79).
In moderate depression in trials lasting 8 weeks or longer, there is some evidence suggesting that there is a clinically important difference favouring SSRIs over placebo on increasing the likelihood of achieving a 50% reduction in symptoms of depression as measured by the HRSD (K 3; N 729; RR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87).
In severe depression in trials lasting 8 weeks or longer, there is strong evidence suggesting that there is a clinically important difference favouring SSRIs over placebo on increasing the likelihood of achieving a 50% reduction in symptoms of depression as measured by the HRSD (K 3; N 535; RR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.74)."
So does the European Psychiatric Assocation in an official position paper:
"The efficacy of antidepressants is clinically relevant. The highest effect size was demonstrated for severe depression"
NICE agrees with your statement that "antidepressants don't work when used alone" but the American Psychiatric Assocation doesn't. They recommend antidepressants alone or psychotherapy alone with equal weight. There is quite a diversity of opinions around whether first line therapy should be antidepressant monotherapy, counseling monotherapy, or combination therapy. There is no consensus that antidepressants don't work without concomitant psychotherapy, and even many of the professional societies that recommend combo therapy don't come out and say that monotherapy with drugs doesn't work.
One area where consensus seems reasonably solid is that antidepressants are useful in chronic depression (dysthymia). I don't recall seeing anyone explicitly denying this, and NICE very explicity recommends antidepressants for this situation.
There is a lot of diversity of opinion here. Taking the Kirsch study as the end-all final analysis ignores not only a large body of conflicting data, but also the official positions of numerous psychiatric and other patient care groups that have dug into these issues quite deeply. Its really best to tread lightly here and avoid broadly conclusive statements, as those who do this for a living have not yet reached consensus on most of these issues.
And BTW, I'd suggest forgetting the COI angle. Virtually all SSRIs are now off patent, manufactured by generics cos and sold as commodities for pennies a pill. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The accusations that "the edit will probably promote financial interests" is unfounded. This noticeboard is being misused. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The monopoly pricing of the scripting (writing prescriptions) is quite valuable.32cllou (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes best to go to the talk pages in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The reviews from Psychologists organizations on CBT, or the Psychiatrists on SSRI's, or the Urologists on PSA, or the Radiologists on Mammography, or National Organizations (notoriously late keeping up with data) in general should be less relied upon than independent reviews, especially those using underlying data. Here two (not one) previously referenced (by Jmh) highest quality reviews saying small or no benefit even in the severely depressed. FDA data. [[18]][[19]]. That's not what MDD says. Can I amend COI to include trying to maintain the status quo? I never accused anyone in particular of COI, just the pattern in Giardiasis and MDD of the text going 180 degrees back and fourth sometimes applying gross misrepresentation of the text being referenced. Bring more referenced into the body if you feel they are as good or better.32cllou (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
We all agree that the 2008 refs say only a small effect
The 2012 PLoS trial however says "Overall, antidepressants led to greater symptom reduction compared to placebo among both unpublished FDA data and published trials" Were does it say "small or no benefit in the severely depressed"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
From the 2012 PLOS Discussion: "More importantly, when the raters were blinded the combined treatment of psychotherapy plus antidepressants showed only a slight advantage to antidepressants or psychotherapies alone. Although antidepressants alone and psychotherapy alone did differ significantly from placebo controls, treatment-as-usual and waiting list controls, they did not differ from alternative therapies such as exercise and acupuncture or active treatment control procedures." "Active treatment control" ie If you give a severely depressed patient a lot of clinical feeling attention, they improve as much as taking the pills. And compared to exercise (small benefit). Again, small benefit, at best.32cllou (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with COI. This section should be closed. Take content discussion to the article Talk page. Zad68 05:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see ya again again Zad68. Looks like acupuncture doesn't work for depression [[20]].
Said from the start. All I'd like is monitoring.32cllou (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Have to note again, before we started the most recent 180 degree shift, text said:

Treatment of drinking water for Giardia is ordinarily indicated in wilderness regions in North America,{Cite journal|last1=Betancourt|first1=WQ|last2=Rose|first2=JB|title=Drinking water treatment processes for removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia|journal=Veterinary parasitology|volume=126|issue=1–2|pages=219–34|year=2004|pmid=15567586|doi=10.1016/j.vetpar.2004.09.002))Exner, M; Gornik, V (2004). "Parasitic zoonoses transmitted by drinking water. Giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis". Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz. 47 (7): 698–704. doi:10.1007/s00103-004-0863-y. PMID 15254826. although at least four researchers disagree with this statement.Welch TP (2000). "Risk of giardiasis from consumption of wilderness water in North America: a systematic review of epidemiologic data". International Journal of Infectious Diseases. 4 (2): 100–3. doi:10.1016/S1201-9712(00)90102-4. PMID 10737847.Derlet, Robert W. "High Sierra Water: What is in the H20?" Sierra Nature Notes, Volume 3, April 2004.Welch TR (2004). "Evidence-based medicine in the wilderness: the safety of backcountry water". Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. 15 (4): 235–7. doi:10.1580/1080-6032(2004)015[0235:EMITWT]2.0.CO;2. PMID 15636372. (Copy onn author's website.)Wood, T.D. "Water: What Are the Risks?" REI Expert Advice, February 2008.

Read the two cited references and compare to the text! Junk or worse. A vet and a german article. Remember it's N. Am wilderness, and 180 back and forth.32cllou (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I certainly appreciate that almost everyone has some sort of OOI on almost every subject. But I'm not clear on how your comment applies to NICE, nor do I see how psychiatrists as a group finanically benefit from prescribing antidepressants rather than prescribing ECT or melatonin.
There is a middle ground between being naive and using extreme COI arguments and/or conspiracy theories to explain away every data point and professional opinion that you disagree with. The fact that were here discussing scientific controversies on the COI board tells me that you might be a little further over to one end of the range.Formerly 98 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no middle ground when quoting or drawing directly from review conclusions. I recommend we just use two short quotes from those two best reviews.
I'd the same problems working to fix (serious misleading or grossly inaccurate statements) in PSA, and mammography. Best to quote directly when there is disagreement and avoid interpretation and color.
Maybe doctors don't know to offer ECT (another problem in MDD, which prior said it was a second line treatment), or chronotherapeutics, or bright light and SD with CBT. Melatonin doesn't work for depression (helps with sleep cycle, so I wonder why) and its' OTC. MDD was supposed to be a reviewed / clean topic (posted by Jmh)! Wiki is part of the problem, and should be part of the solution.
I haven't read the NICE, nor commented.
Middle ground isn't how it, currently overstating the benefit. Also, 1. How could that second ref have been left out in the first place?? 2. Why not just quote the two best reviews? 3. Why is exercise and chronotherapeutics either missing, or tucked down where it's less likely to be read? 4. Why does Jmh direct me to make chronotherapeutics additions to Depression (mood), and not the topic itself, or the main MDD topic? Why is Chronotherapy a badly written poorly referenced topic even though it works as well (or better) than antidepressants?
Jmh should not cherry pick from the body of the review (see his writing above in this discussion), rather use the discussion and / or conclusions.
Why have so many smart people quit wikpedia?32cllou (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
User:32cllou, please STOP commenting in this thread about issues unrelated to COI. Either present your evidence of WP:COI or move on. So far your concerns have nothing to do with COI. See WP:BOOMERANG QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Blogcritics

JohnValeron started his account in January 2010, and immediately began posting links to articles on Blogcritics:

These posts from JohnValeron's first three weeks on Wikipedia show that he was focused primarily on promoting the writing of Alan Kurtz, who was at that time writing for Blogcritics.
On June 9, 2011, JohnValeron added information to the Blogcritics page about a website called Save Blogcritics", with the URL http://saveblogcritics.blogspot.com (currently dead), a website that Blogcritics publisher Jill Asher called "a hateful site" for its attacks on Blogcritics. One of the URLs in JohnValeron's addition was http://sheposts.com/content/former-sv-mom-blog-head-attracts-supertroll , which in web archive form says that the former Blogcritics writers Alan Kurtz and Irvin Cohen were attacking Blogcritics with the saveblogcritics website.
Dave Nalle is another Blogcritics writer whose draft article, Draft:Dave Nalle, came under the attention of JohnValeron, who in September 2011 added the saveblogcritics website and attacked Nalle for "covertly" advancing his political agenda using multiple identities. After that attack was correctly removed, JohnValeron restored it in November 2011.
On December 4, 2011, JohnValeron went back through all the Wikipedia articles with links to saveblogcritics and the writer Alan Kurtz and deleted them, because they had all been taken offline and were no longer available. For instance, JohnValeron removed that information from the Blogcritics article with the edit summary, "Deleted 2011 blacklisting controversy due to shutdown of Save Blogcritics (saveBC), rendering discussion moot."
So we can see that JohnValeron has promoted Blogcritics at first, and then he has posted negative material about Blogcritics, and an affiliated writer, starting in mid-2011. He has promoted the works of former Blogcritics writer Alan Kurtz, continuing to do so at the Occupy Oakland page in November 2011. I hold that JohnValeron should be held to the WP:COI guideline at the Blogcritics article, at any section of any article which is related to Blogcritics, and with regard to the writings of Alan Kurtz. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
JohnValeron added another book by Alan Kurtz to the article on The X Files, in September 2012. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that Binksternet conveniently overlooks the most glaring recent example of an editor with a true conflict of interest at Blogcritics: User:Barbara Barnett, who is executive editor of Blogcritics and who on March 21, 2014, created a Wikipedia account solely for the purpose of editing Blogcritics, in which article she identified herself as co-owner of Blogcritics. So here we have an egregious case of a user editing the Wikipedia page of a website that she herself owns! But in all his exhaustive opposition research into my Wikipedia contributions, did the ever-vigilant Binksternet take notice of said COI? Of course not. Because Binksternet doesn't really give a damn about Blogcritics. He's merely using it as a pretext to punish me for my insistence that Edward Snowden—where Binksternet and I have come into conflict—be edited in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which directs: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." If anyone wants to know what's really at work here, simply read this ANI. Binksternet is out for payback. JohnValeron (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing the part at that ANI discussion where it says I have something against you, or that I'm in conflict with you. Instead, it says Bdell555 used a comment made by me to back up something he said.
I brought you here to COIN because you were edit-warring at Blogcritics. Barbara Bennett is not. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Please do not deliberately misrepresent what I wrote. I said that you and I came into conflict in editing Edward Snowden, not at ANI. As for "edit warring" at Blogcritics, I take it you're referring to today's exchange of reverts that you instigated and into which you lured me in order to now use it against me. You are duplicitous, Binksternet, I'll give you that. JohnValeron (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Watch your WP:NPA, please.
This discussion is about determining whether you have a conflict of interest. So far, you have not addressed anything on that topic—you have not defended yourself at all. Instead, you have brought in other concerns from other articles, or pointed at other people. Eventually, this discussion will settle the question about you. If you would like to have a say in the matter, you should directly address the question of your relationship to Blogcritics. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no relationship to Blogcritics. Accordingly, it stands to reason that I plead innocent to your vindictive, trumped-up charges of COI. JohnValeron (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
JohnValeron, are you absolutely sure you don't run saveblogcritics.blogspot.com? Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Establishing an editor's conflict of interest can be difficult. The WP:OUTING section of our harassment policy insists that privacy trumps any COI concerns (a principle repeated at our WP:COI guideline and at the top of this noticeboard as well). This means that any editor who does not self-disclose a COI can almost never be definitely determined to have one. It does make these kinds of discussions difficult.
However, identifying a conflict of interest does little beyond providing context for an editor's actions. It rarely changes the helpful or disruptive nature of an editor's contributions. Barbara Barnett seems to have a clearly-identified (and self-disclosed) COI, and yet if she has not been disruptive then it isn't critically important. Conversely, JohnValeron's initial editing history is that of someone who seems to have been here initially for promotional reasons. That does hint at a COI, but isn't conclusive. But it was disruptive. That was years ago, and over 1,700 edits ago, and many (probably most) editors make mistakes when they are new so I think it's forgivable. But in combination with the later behavior shown in 2011, I think it's reasonable to conclude that COI or not, JohnValeron has a strong POV in relation to Blogcritics that is worth noting.
The top of this noticeboard does include the warning, "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." This does happen frequently, so I understand JohnValeron's concern that this COI report could be retaliation for the dispute at the Snowden article. But JohnValeron, calling Binksternet "duplicitous" is clearly a personal attack. You've been blocked for harassing editors in the past. This comment at the ANI report that you yourself linked to was another personal attack. You're heading for another, and much longer block for this behavior. Whatever your POV, whatever your COI may or may not be, the way that you're treating editors that you are in conflict with is unacceptable and has been a long-standing problem for you. Be very careful not to attack other editors personally in the future. And I'll note that whether or not Binksternet has evidence of a COI (at this point I don't see it), there is enough to suspect one so I don't feel that this COIN report is itself an attack on you personally. (I thought I'd mention that before you suggest that your attack was a "tit-for-tat" response.) -- Atama頭 17:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences

A massive load of spam was created and pushed into article space on 24 March 2014 by an employee of this museum, User:Nate J E [21], and it now reads like a giant advertisement. I'm not sure whether to AfD this article, since much of this spam has existed since shortly after it was created in 2007 or if it should be trimmed to a stub.--v/r - TP 20:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The user's other work has been to spam this museum onto other articles: [22][23][24][25] to show a few.--v/r - TP 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

News America Marketing, et al

Posting here because the pattern of conduct has been ongoing for several years. The pattern goes like this: User:NinaSpezz working in their capacity as a Public Relations manager, suggests flattering edits for an article related to one of their clients. In doing so, the user (usually) notes the conflict but then indicates they will edit the page directly, incorporating their own suggestion, within a short amount of time if no objections are raised. This seems to violate WP:NOPR which permits edit suggestions and requests when conflicts exist, but does not permit paid advocates to directly edit Wikipedia by accepting their own edit requests.

From a practical perspective, most of the talk pages User:NinaSpezz edits appear obscure and relatively low-traffic, and so the user's 'deadline' is likely to pass (and their edits be incorporated) without serious scrutiny. This might be less concerning if the edits were objective, but in most cases they plainly are not.

If this is an accepted custom or I have misinterpreted the COI rules, then I apologize for my ignorance. Omaharodeo (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For those researching, I have corrected the username in the userlinks above (NinaSpezz, not NinaSpazz). --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. I corrected the other references to "NinaSpazz" as well. --Omaharodeo (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not, in general, in favor of allowing paid editing on Wikipedia, but as things currently stand, neither the community nor the WMF has banned it. Given that, I feel that a paid editor clearly identifying themselves as such is to be preferred over surreptitious editing. I told NinaSpezz as such when we interacted on One Madison, and the results were, I believe, beneficial to both Wikipedia and NinaSpezz's clients. If my memory is correct, we added some sourced information that I agreed was pertinent and essentially neutral, and I did so using my own wording. My recollection is that not everything she asked for was accepted, but I could be mistaken about that -- in any evenet, the material that went into the article, even though it originated from a paid editor, was sourced and neutral. I thought at the time, and continue to think, that this was a legitimate way to handle paid editing - but then, NinaSpezz was not asking for the addition of material that was radically favorable to her client, and I imagine other paid editors, under other circumstances, could want such material in our articles. Knowing that it was unlikely that a neutral editor would agree, they would be more likely to try to insert the stuff without declaring their COI.

The one point that concerns me is the one that was made above, about posting the material on the Talk page, and then inserting it after a time if there no objections show up. As was noted, editors don't generally check the talk page when they go to an article (although changes to it will show up if they have the article watchlisted). I think it might be preferable for the paid editors to wait until there is approval of the material from an independent and neutral editor, gather then inserting it if there are no objections. Another solution is for paid editors to specifically note on their edit summaries that they are paid editors and include a pointer to the talk page. Although this might work a bit against them in the short term, I think the increased transparency is a long term benefit to both her clients and to us.

So, in short, paid editing is not something I'm at all comfortable with, but identification by paid editors of their COI in various ways is to be preferred over their editing surreptitiously. BMK (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I concur with everything BMK said above. If an editor is not being disruptive, they are allowed to participate even when paid to do so. This is especially true when the editor self-discloses their affiliation and motives, is cooperative with other editors, and the end result is an improved article. Keep in mind that paid editing in general is not forbidden, and the WMF has been considering a new rule (that applies across every Wikimedia project) that requires paid editors to disclose their affiliations (which has the simultaneous effect of condoning paid editing in general but allowing us to sanction editors who edit while being paid and not disclosing it). If you look here you'll see the drawn-out discussion about the proposed amendment, and the note that the WMF is currently reviewing the comments and making a decision. (That note is over a month old, I have no idea when they'll reach a decision.) -- Atama頭 19:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Very good idea, wish I'd thought of it. BMK (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Ninaspezz also asked me to look at this discussion after working on the article Superfly Presents, one of his/her clients. I'm in agreement with BMK and JohnCD. I would hate to see policies put in place that discourage full disclosure. If the content suggested is neutral and well sourced, and the COI is disclosed, then I don't see any problem in general. I think that the deadline approach may not be appropriate, and I like the "helpme" solution. It might be a slower approach than a PR agency would be used to, but it should work. I found that the tone of Ninaspezz's edits was too promotional, which I'm sure is just a natural result of working in the field of PR. The content itself was all good, and the edits that I had to make were not heavy. It was easy and fast to take the approach we had on that article, where Ninaspezz made his/her edits and I followed behind to improve them. However, if I hadn't been available and seen the edits in my watchlist when I did, then the article would have stood with a promotional tone for awhile. That's the reason for engaging on talk pages first. If someone has content to add to the encyclopedia, then we shouldn't stop them, even if they are paid editors. COI is a serious issue, but I think it can be handled appropriately, especially on non-controversial articles. —Zujine|talk 11:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sheppard Band

I am an editor of this article and I am closely related to the subject matter of the article. I have made the edits in neutral terms and verified each reference as far as possible. Do these edits comply with the neutrality policy, or is there a general prohibition on my editing this article? Greg Sheppard (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Greg Sheppard (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Greg, and thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. It isn't actually prohibited for you to edit the article; it is however strongly discouraged. Editors in your sort of situation are invited to use the article talk page to make suggestions for corrections and improvements (supported by reliable sources, of course). This is because people who are close to a topic may have a different view of it from that of impartial editors. To take an example, "Sheppard have had the strong support of Chugg Entertainment's Founder & Chairman Michael Chugg" may seem fairly neutral to you, but might seem unduly promotional to others (it does to me, I'm afraid). Your close knowledge of the band is valuable to this project, but it'll probably be better to let others do the actual writing of the article. You can add the template ((Request edit)) (exactly like that, with the curly brackets) at the beginning of your talk page posts to attract the attention of other editors. If that doesn't work, leave a note on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

The user has a self declared conflict of interest [26].

as can be seen by the article talk page, they have filled it numerous times with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT repetitious discussions on such topics as asserting that Chopra must be identified as an endocrinologist in the lead sentence and in unending bouts of declaring that we must discuss what "neutrality" means, rather than accepting that Chopra's fringe medical theories will be treated as fringe theories because our WP:NPOV policy does NOT mean that we present every claim under a "neutral" light, but rather we frame things as they are seen by the mainstream academics in the area WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID / WP:FRINGE.

the tendentious editing has now spread beyond just the article talk page and the users page to another tl;dr post at WP:BLPN.(Wikipedia:BLPN#Deepak_Chopra_representative._Biographical_bias.2C_overtly_critical.2C_UNDUE_BLP_concerns)

The tl;dr circular discussions by someone who is working on behalf of the subject and known to be editing the article (of which Chopra himself has publicly stated he disapproves of) means that the SAS81 cannot edit neutrally because of the risk~ of their archiving project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

I'm not here to edit on Dr. Chopra's article. I am here to represent the concerns of Dr. Chopra per BLP and participate in talk discussion only. SAS81 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
also, this feels a little like retribution for me posting a BLP noticeboard which are exactly the required steps I am to take as a BLP representative. I've encouraged TRPOD to try to engage with me in a more productive manner - and these sort of things just make me feel harassed, regardless of his intentions. SAS81 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The article Talk page is indeed too long to read, but I have been looking in on it from time to time. I see numerous proposed article edits discussed in detail and relevant policies thoroughly explained both in general terms and as they specifically relate to the proposed edits. Contrary to what's asserted here, I see no evidence that this COI editor is being stonewalled or brushed aside, or that the BLP is written using unfair negative bias. The community needs to carefully consider that a promised campaign of polite but constant filibustering by a Chopra employee (supported by their dedicated project team) is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this is a COI noticeboard and not a place to discuss BLP. SAS81 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I also don't appreciate the many aspersions this editor has charged my way since I have arrived. When I ask him for evidence of his aspersions, he provides nothing. I've revealed my COI, informed the community of my direct representation of a living person and have raised very reasoned and pragmatic concerns regarding the article in relationship directly to WP Policy only. We're archivists, not PR or marketers. SAS81 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All of that being said, as an open COI acting as a direct representative of the subject matter, I'm willing to work within whatever the restrictions for COI are. If I have somehow overstepped them, I hope someone can kindly and specifically point out where so I dont make the same mistake twice. I'm signing off for the day. SAS81 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 has declared a COI and is operating with in the boundaries set out by the Wikipedia per COI. He has declared his intention to operate within NPOV. That he asks for specifics on what others consider to be neutral is an act of good faith given that he is dealing with a group of self-declared skeptics who believe the neutral middle point of this article is to label Chopra in pejorative terms. I believe he has a right to request a discussion on establishing what is the center point of neutrality before trying to go on. With out that information the editors on this article have been talking past each other. He has also posted on the BLP Notice board requesting input. This is a BLP and a request for uninvolved eyes is an appropriate step in dispute resolution. (Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
Agreed that SAS81's COI prevents them from editing the article, but have they? There seems to be some uncertainty on that issue, butI don't see any edits on the article. As far as being a filibusterer, let's WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH until we see evidence of intentional disruption. I offered on the BLP noticeboard to help mediate the sourcing issue; I'll check out the references and we'll see if/how many are workable. That way we don't have a flood of citations (how many are we talking about, actually?), SAS81 doesn't get involved in inappropriate editing and everyone has someone to yell at if they don't like the references on the page. I'd prefer to avoid that last part, but I also don't want to see honest editors get blocked if there's a resolution. The Cap'n (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Askahrc: I can confirm that SAS81 has never made a single edit to any article space page, either through deleted or non-deleted edits. Every edit has been to user space, user talk space, article talk space, or Wikipedia (noticeboard) space (and one edit to WT:FRINGE). They have faithfully avoided all direct edits to any article. I can also assert that SAS81 did not make any article space edits when they had accidentally logged into the redundant account created after their initial username change request. -- Atama頭 19:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Advice for SAS81. Before you again complain about the lack of "neutral" editors who will help implement your proposed changes to the article, you may want to read this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo's opinion is just that and does not give us permission to do anything except what our policies and guidelines dictate including to behave in a civil way to other editors. This comment by Jimbo has been brought up three times so far, so....(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
But it illustrates well what wikipedia thinks of woosters, and is well worth bringing up again and again. Our policies and guidelines forbid us from framing woo as anything other than what it is. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No, Jimbo's comment does not speak for Wikipedia's editors. It only speaks for him and those who agree with him. And this is a BLP article first. We do have to keep that in mind.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
There are no "BLP issues" in framing a woo meister as a woo meister when the framing is well supported by mainstream academic sources. BLP rests body and soul on NPOV which clearly advises us to present such framing: WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID .
Now back to whether the perpetual tl;dr and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing by a COI editor is appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
While this particular paid by the article subject COI editor still hasn't got their head round even the most fundamental of WP policy and guidelines, they have had the decency not to edit the article under their two usernames. They also now appear to have mastered the basic procedures of logging into a WP account, always a big bonus. As suggested by TRiPoD, they should now work on IDHT, and perhaps recognise that Chopra's notability lies in his woo beliefs, where he may well be a "thought leader", and his ability to promote unproven medical ideas and sell them. It would also be nice if they could recognise that an avalanche of unreliable sources (Clinton? Gorby?) is worthless against the sources we already have. I am not optimistic that this editor will ever lose their COI approach. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There does come at point IMHO at which politeness is by WP:IDHT indicated by repeatedly making similar requests on talk pages, WP:FORUMSHOPPING and posting polite but WP:TLDR requests on talk pages that essentially either ignore policy or try to WP:WIKLAWYER out of them. I'm sure we will reach this point sometime sooner or later. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • As an uninvolved editor (with no intention of involving himself) I have to say that there's a problem where SAS81 is up against a bunch of involved editors with clear bias against the subject, judging by the repeated use of pejoratives here and elsewhere. That is not to say I disagree with the systemic bias we have in this particular case - I also think that Dr. Chopra is a snake oil salesman on any good day. But that's exactly the reason I would never involve myself in editing his biography. But we need to come up with a better solution than having a user with a declared COI and valid intentions go up against a small army of vociferous skeptics and wiki warriors. This should be handled neutrally from both ends. We can't ask SAS81 to be "nice" to us when they are assailed at every turn because they have a COI (!), or because we don't like his boss. As to how to do that... I have no idea. Maybe there's a kind soul amongst our more experienced editors that doesn't think badly of Chopra and can help out SAS81. But this situation tends to reflect badly on us as a community. And MastCell has a point, but all that excessive posting and forum shopping might simply be a reflection of SAS81's frustration at running into the same walls over and over. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What relevance does the status of "Involved administrator" have to this discussion, exactly? Perhaps the paid PR editor should stop running at walls if he wants to stop running into them? For instance, for the low, low price of $1,000, I'll agree with anything he says for a period of 7 days. I mean, that's pretty much his impetus, right? Why can't I get mine? Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with FreeRangeFrog's assessment; it seems like there are a lot of very strong opinions on this topic that aren't terribly conducive to neutral editing. I also agree that SAS81 has presented a huge pile of information, but as long as they're not making corresponding edits to the actual article this doesn't seem disruptive to me. WP is a hobby and the editing is done by volunteers, but that doesn't mean we get upset at the people who are able to spend more time on it than others, whether paid or not. I mentioned on the BLP of this topic that I'm willing to step in and work on the sources, see which are relevant and try to build some consensus on the article. That said, given that I have limited free time for WP SAS81 will need to be patient with the progress, assuming there is a good faith effort to examine their sources and arguments. I don't particularly care about Chopra one way or the other, but I do feel like his rep is acting in the way we'd want paid editors to act (openly, honestly and without editing), and I'd like to encourage that kind of behavior. The Cap'n (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in Askahrc. And you've made some excellent points above. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC))
Yes, thanks Cap'n. Unfortunately your assessment of Sassy's sources on the article talk page leaves an awful lot to be desired, and I'm not certain is helpful. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think MastCell's assessment of the situation nailed it. It should not be surprising to anybody that a Chopra employee and their team whose job it is to come up with sources to facilitate the insertion of puffery like "best selling author", "thought leader", "prominent endocrinologist" into the article lead are encountering some stiff resistance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog, I understand there's still a lot to be done with these sources, but I'm just taking it one step at a time. I have limited time on WP, so for now I'm working on a few source categorizations, then I'm going to try to get consensus for a best practice for establishing source reliability so that we can narrow down the scope of material and curtail meaningless sources. I welcome any feedback/help on the page. The Cap'n (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just completed reading this thread and made an effort to listen to the concerns here. I'm going to make an effort to pace things slower. I think the actual ratio on the talk page is a number of editors, 5 or so against me, so naturally I have more editors to respond to making my posts more numerous. I actually felt all of you were overwhelming me so a bit relieved it was the other way around.

Thank you FreeRangeFrog for sharing your thoughts, I was relieved to read them. I would like to ask Mastcell, LuckyLouie, Roxy the dog, and hipocrite to extend good faith towards my participation. This is challenging. I think a few of the things riling everyone up is the assumptions that this is a PR list and my contributions are PR motivated. I would ask that you stop referring to my participation this way, not only is it not true, it probably riles up other editors and then everyone just assumes I am a marketing rep. I am a researcher responsible for an archive and for building Dr Chopra's biography along with a number of others. I also have very strong ethics and the ethics of building the archive are just as conservative if not more so than Wikipedia. I think if you could come to see me as more of a biographer and less of a alternative medicine practitioner, it will probably be easier to focus on content and not the people discussing it. Also very very much appreciating the help from the The Cap'n who just joined. SAS81 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Add some critical material, also, then, as opposed to just the PR spin you are attempting to wheedle in. Surely you have some in your archive, right? What negative sources have we failed to find? Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
SAS81, a "biographer" employed by his subject is essentially indistinguishable from a PR agent. You are paid by Chopra, directed by him to collect material, and meet with him frequently to discuss how he'd like this material presented to the public. If you dislike the term "PR", then I will try to find a different but semantically equivalent term for what you're doing. But "biographer" is not it. (By the way, public relations is not an inherently unethical enterprise. No one is impugning your personal ethics by using the term, only exploring the obvious conflict between your goals and the goals of this encyclopedia). MastCell Talk 15:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm acting as an archivist. By a 'biographer' I mean as in building an account of historical facts around a subject matter in a repository, not as an author writing a book. I'm sorry if that was confusing. The point was that 'biographical' information is not 'autobiographical' information and I am responsible, just as much as any editor here, for building the repository with primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. As an archivist and as a repository, we of course have ethics and we do not build archives with PR spin or marketing spin. The process is an academic one and to refer to our motives and work as PR is, I believe, putting aspersions on our work where they are not warranted. I meet with Dr. Chopra to obtain sources for an archive and yes of course I consult with him to discover his narrative of his history, but our archive is not formed for the purposes of presenting Dr. Chopra's 'side of the story'. Our job is to collect and archive all historical facts and then represent them. Just like Wikipedia, we archive ALL the information on the topic through quality sources. Secondly, I am employed by the archive, and the archive has a grant from the Chopra Foundation but we are also fundraising from other sources and are equally responsible, as a repository, for representing that knowledge on Wikipedia and elsewhere, including other notable subjects other than Dr. Chopra. I did assume this was more common on Wikipedia and such a position is not controversial but rather appreciated. SAS81 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81 I don't think anyone here sees you an alternative medicine practitioner. It's likely that you're seen as the media representative you initially described yourself as. Can I assume that the "We" in "We believe the nature of this article is to serve to the discredit not only of Dr. Chopra - but to discredit the philosophy and practices of world religions, worldviews, and millions of people of all different cultures" [27] means Chopra and his corporation? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The archive is responsible for representing this knowledge to the media - and I take responsibility for any confusion that my introduction may have caused because at the time I was not able to mention anything about the archive and I had to get sign off to just give you all a courtesy heads up before we make official announcement. By "we" I mean specifically the archive team, and of course Dr. Chopra - who is not apart of our team but he informs our team. We also informed Dr. Chopra that we can only represent this knowledge to the encyclopedia to the standard of our ethics as well as Wikipedia's, i.e. as researchers and collaborators of an encyclopedia. He was informed that we are not a PR company who hires paid wikipedia editors to prop up articles. If I am making an argument here on Wikipedia, it's because I genuinely believe my argument is informed by my ethics and Wikipedia's, not by a PR agenda that I was not given and that I do not provide. I can tell you, personally (and this has been interesting) is that before we started working with Dr.Chopra, I don't believe he or his organizations actually understood how Wikipedia works. Once we explained how it works, he actually became very interested in Wikipedia and somewhat impressed with the principles. As you know he has been vocal about his problem on Wikipedia along with Rupert Sheldrake. Personally I am proud that we were able to diffuse a possibly contentious situation and Dr. Chopra is 100% on board with our approach. We are genuinely here as contributors. I understand you're suspicious, but I am hoping over time we can come to build some trust and help the encyclopedia gain more respect by handling these very sensitive issues responsibly. I dont just want to work with you - I want us to build a great article and hopefully use that as a standard to diffuse allot of the contention out there floating around. We're here to help this situation, not enflame it. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
One follow up question. Are you the only member of your team with access to this account, or does the team share the one account? I saw that in one post you added some "notes" you'd been given, so I wonder if your function is to compile various material from the team, e.g. notes, policy arguments, potential sources, etc. and post them to Talk pages. (Sorry, that's really two questions) I hope you understand that expressing some amount of reasonable suspicion is perfectly aligned with the purpose of this noticeboard, i.e. to evaluate if your COI poses a significant problem to Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
SAS81 requested a name change because the previous name (ChopraMedia) implied a shared account, and they wanted to assure the community that only one person had access to the account (see here where SAS81 - then under the ChopraMedia name - responded to a suggestion to change the name to reflect that it represents a single person). But I guess this isn't unreasonable to ask anyway. Also, for SAS81, my suggestion to you is that you add something on your user page assuring people that only one person ever logs on and uses this account (and that when you say "we" you're referring to the team you're working with, and/or Chopra Media as an organization, not multiple people sharing the account). -- Atama頭 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

these are fair questions. I am the sole user of this account. technically my team, at this point, is comprised of two paid researchers, a handful of advisors (advisors are university professors for the most part) and one or two volunteers but we will be expanding over the next few months. At this stage, most of us are over worked just getting the archive formed and building our infrastructures. I'm the only representative on Wikipedia for now but this will change in the future. All arguments are my own. Advisors do send me links to sources to compile, and their assessments of various sources and of course the researchers are just compiling everything and usually that is who I am referring to. We're responsible for archiving an unusually large collection of knowledge over all. Once the (non profit) repository is announced the board of advisors will be as well. For now this is all I can say but will update my talk page as more comes in. SAS81 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

SAS81, your team members or other people are more than welcome to edit Wikipedia as well. They just need to be sure that their usernames are compliant (just as your current one is), and that they are open about their affiliations (they don't need to post personal information about themselves in the process, we actually discourage that to preserve your privacy and prevent you from being harassed outside of Wikipedia for what you do here). Other than that, if they are cooperative to the extent that you are I believe they will be welcomed. Oh, one other caution... Try not to have people share computers, if someone has a concern that multiple accounts are operated by the same person and we check technical data it may give the impression that they are the same person operating multiple accounts (sockpuppets). -- Atama頭 21:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
While everyone is encouraged to create their own account, please note WP:MEAT that everyone from Team Chopra espousing similar Chopra centric views will be considered as one for the purposes of consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atama - thank you. @TRPoD - If another editor from our organization contributes, it wont be to puff up consensus - they would be participating on another article all together. SAS81 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

break

What I find unwarranted is the over-focus on the opening words of the article. I'd expect any half-decent PR team to work very hard to change the first few dozen words into favourable ones, because thanks to Google's Knowledge Graph these words now show up under pictures at the head of a Google search for "Deepak Chopra". Since captions draw the eye, it probably the case that these words are currently the most read words about Chopra on the planet. The lede should simply reflect the article body content. I'd be less inclined to question SAS81's interventions if they weren't focused on trying to spin these opening words: currently, that's essentially all we're seeing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm focusing on the lead section to begin, yes. I focused on the first sentence first because I was requested to show a sentence where the problem existed. Naturally a first sentence frames not only the entire article, but also the individual and is therefore the most obvious. But the problems I have are all over the article, everywhere. So I am focusing on the lead sentence because it seems more expedient that way. Work with me on the page to find a better approach, I'm willing to follow your lead too. SAS81 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd add that the opening 2nd sentences SAS has suggested is far more pejorative than what is in place in the article now. Not sure how that second sentence can be considered favourable by anyone. There does seem to be a disconnect between what is stated here and the actual discussion and suggestions on the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC))
True, SAS willingness to include an unfavorable view in the lead was encouraging, but I was disappointed to see it was encased in the context of a "to some he's A, while others see him as B" false dichotomy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a false dichotomy, LuckyLouie it's an accurate statement that sources support. Clearly Dr. Chopra has both mainstream supporters and mainstream detractors. The article should reflect that fact instead of choosing one over the other. That's how I interpret neutrality anyway. SAS81 (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Two points:

  1. SAS81 is not violating our COI guidelines as such, he's following the advice to stick to the talk page and be honest about who you are. If we do not allow this then we leave no route at all for commercial enterprises and article subjects to address real problems with their articles. I know very well that OTRS has nowhere near enough manpower to handle such things by proxy and in any case I think it is vastly better to conduct such business out in the open.
  2. SAS81 is engaging in problematic behaviour. There is a limit to how long we should have to spend explaining to a subject's media representative why we will not rewrite the lede of the article so as to improve their Google presence.

Chopra is, according to excellent sources, a leading proponent of pseudo-religious pseudo-medicine. Perfect health is a matter of choice? That is deeply offensive nonsense, implying that everybody who gets sick and dies has only themselves to blame. The only think that wishful thinking can do, medically, is make you marginally less anxious, and this is independent of any need to dress it up in mysticism.

The current lede is well balanced. We do not call him a fraud and a charlatan, although many scientists who have studied his claims think he is exactly that, and we don't pretend he has anything wonderful to offer either.

Patience with attempts to skew the lede towards a version more acceptable to the Chopra marketing empire will, I think wear thin, but I do not think this is a matter for the COI board because in that respect at least SAS81 is playing a straight bat. An honest shill, as it were, and I cannot find it in me to object to that. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Brandon Cyrus

User Brandon Cyrus Has made the page Brandon Cyrus As part of a COI and paid editing from here. There has been discussion and debate here,here,here and here This guy has wasted my time where i could have been continuing to patrol new pages and i haven't been able to find a noticeboard until now to post a request on Dudel250 (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that this is a shared role account, and I have therefore blocked it. Yunshui 雲水 09:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! This guy has ruined my day, i'm admittedly happy to see him get blocked @Yunshui: Dudel250 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Now unblocked, since it appears that only one person has access to the account. Advice given about COI, UN, ROLE issues etc. Yunshui 雲水 10:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional eyes requested

I have also requested this at WP:BLPN.

I encountered this article recently at the copyright problems board, and rewrote it to address copyright issues. The article had been under the attention of Youngren's business, it seems, and the rewrite (which is unfortunately mostly negative, since that's all the sourcing I could find) is not pleasing to them, as a result of which they have been blanking content. I would really appreciate assistance if anyone is able to help out to make sure that the content is properly balanced - I suspect that there must be more positive out there than I have found. It would also be helpful if any uninvolved editors can assess the sources being used. I checked WP:RSN but didn't find any discussion of them; however, ChristianWeek is cited in a number of articles already and seems to be widely referenced as a specialty publication on the web (for but one example, see reprint of a story here: [28]). I'm not really familiar with specialty Christian publications of Canada. :)

Thank you for any help anyone can provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jaywud

Jaywud is editing the Jay Wud article. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Gruntfuttock115 and Palamades PR

This user was previously reported here in 2011 but did not respond. Based on these image uploads: [29] [30] they work for a PR agency and are creating articles about clients [31] [32] who are often not notable and they are not disclosing that they have any conflict of interest e.g. [33] and [34]. I'll assume for now that they believe that the subjects are indeed notable, and in that case would request that they review the notability guidelines about people and companies more closely. The quality of sources is important, precisely because we know that articles published by tabloids are churnalism that comes from PR agencies such as Palamedes. Given their obvious COI I would like to request that Gruntfuttock115 follows WP:BESTCOI from now on and in particular declare their interest and submits articles for review before they appear in the main article space. Their edits so far make it appear as if they are more interested in promoting their clients than writing an encyclopedia and if it continues, I think that blocks may be necessary.

I have already sent some articles to AFD but more need reviewing for notability, neutrality and sourcing. Help would be appreciated. SmartSE (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear SmartSE, I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yes, I do work for a PR firm and write Wikis about clients, but I have never submitted a wiki if I did not genuinly believe that the subject met the notability criteria. Hopefully, in reviewing my past wikis you and others will have noticed that I go to some pains to provide suitable third-party sources to back everything that is being claimed. Furthermore, I do not employ bias or advertorial-sryle language in my wikis. I apologise for not declaring any potential COI - this I was not aware of, but will certainly make sure to do so from now on. Regards the quality of sources, I will not say anything more than that tabloid or broadsheet, there is always an editorial decision involved in what is, and what is not, printed, and that if a story is published in a national newspaper then it should be evident that it concerns a subject or development that is inherently newsworthy on a national, and even international, scale. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

InterProse

User says on his User page, "I work for Interprose Public Relations. While we do not intend to directly edit our clients’ Wikipedia entries, we are happy to act as a resource by providing factual, non-advertorial information and accompanying third-party citations." However, it doesn't look like he is at all abiding by his own intentions. 2601:B:BB80:E0:98BC:35DC:5C46:ECFE (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Loretta Yang

Promotional texts have been added twice in Loretta Yang, ([35], [36]) and many other times on Chinese Wikipedia). The major contributor, User:Atonny, as he declared on Chinese Wikipedia, is an employee of Liuli Gongfang, a company run by Loretta Yang. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mys 721tx: I agree that this is problematic. But is it possible to salvage any of that text? The article is barely a stub before Atonny's additions, and the text includes a couple of (what I assume to be) independent sources for part of it. -- Atama頭 15:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Atama: I would doubt that. The Zhiying Fu's book, which was published in 1999, is cited by the list of academic positions which includes the ones Yang received in 2002, according to their own website. Andrew Brewerton's book is cited for the conversation of Liuli Gongfang staff and Yoshimizu Tsuneo on the similarity of the artifacts. A written analysis by Yoshimizu Tsuneo would be more relevant. The news article cited has nothing to do with that paragraph. -Mys_721tx (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Popcorn Time

Lots of SPA's promoting two competing, tangentially related websites. Probably either meatpuppetry or off-wiki coordination. Either way, some additional eyes on the article would be appreciated once it comes off of its current full protection. VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Currency Press

Taking over from Currencypresssydney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Tobyleon (Toby Leon [37]) is promoting Currency Press, readding copyright material (close paraphrase of) and many links to their shop. Links to their shops have also been added to many other articles and other articles have been created to promote other products they publish and to include more shop links. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Noelybot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (tobyleoN backwards) was previously used solely to promote Currency Press. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Society for Human Resource Management

Fairly clear case of organization and employees thereof "sanitizing" the article. Look to the history; it ought to be fairly clear. Both users have edited exclusively in connection with this article. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

SHRMPress has been blocked as a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy.
Vanessa at SHRM is an acceptable username, and the user has been advised on proper conduct with a COI. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ

Forum creep. This drama is in more than enough places already. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. MrBill3 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Targownik openly claims to be Russell Targ but continues to edit the article with unsourced content that is contradicted by sources.

Multiple notifications have been made but the behavior continues. This has deteriorated into what has been perceived as legal threats made by both named editors. Brian Josephson has also made his connection to the subject public in multiple posts. I think this situation deserves some oversight. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The 'legal threat' issue has been discussed and dismissed. Both 'named editors' have made declarations that they do not intend to persue legal action. All edits by Josephson have been justified in the description. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you often talk about yourself in the third person? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll note that Atama never talks about himself in the third person. All kidding aside, Brian Josephson, are you the sole user of that account or do multiple people log in and edit with the "Brian Josephson" account? I just wanted to clarify that. -- Atama頭 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
JUST A NOTE: There is a discussion at the admins' issues noticeboard about this issue, at this section. -- Atama頭 20:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sofa ett

OP was blocked as a COI/promotion account, article speedily-deleted per G11. -- Atama頭 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Carol Tanner Art (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Dear Wiki, Fantastic that you exist. I have had to explain what a Sofa ett is and say how it is differ com a sofa....this is why I have made a page on wiki as advised by several people. I do not understand why my page no longer exists...I am glad that you are so interested and active in your response to new wiki pages, this is good! I wish to copy to what you request, I feel I have. Please see previous talk pages on Sofa ett.

Kind regards Mrs Carol Tanner Cornwall UK

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

Sofa ett

OP was blocked as a COI/promotion account, article speedily-deleted per G11. -- Atama頭 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Carol Tanner Art (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I am the person who created the Sofa ett, please refer to my face book page Carol Tanner, go to photos, go to mobile installation read some of the photo comments. These demonstrate I have by my own hand made the Sofa ett. I understand your comment about conflict of interest and feel this is not an issue, others can edit, no problem...I wish to comfy to your regulations. I wish to make a page so that I do not keep having to explain what a Sofa ett is. Please allow the Wikipedia to demonstrate what a Sofa ett is. Many thanks Mrs Carol Tanner

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

Dawoodi Bohra

Wrong venue. This is not a COI but an editing dispute between partisans. Please use dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

[38]:

‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 'Comment:'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The user user:Summichum as per above, has gone up to the extent of making allegation on community invention and recognition. This fellow is attacking on faith of a community,and joined Wiki after the declaration of claim by Khuzaima Qutbuddin. This editor is only editing article related with dawoodi Bohra especially where claim of Mufaddal Saifuddin is described. He wants to forcefully add his favourable material and delete unfavourable material he can.

This editor was blocked recently twice in this period for disrupting the editing. This is clear-cut case of conflict of interest and strong action requested to control the editor.--Md iet (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Md iet You can verify from history about his edits. And also from his article 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra).Rukn950 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of a chat platform [39], where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam[40].--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This User want to put the report in such a way that the thing is not explicit and don't clash with his POV. We don't want to add any original research, but put forth this important information in such a way that fact is directly clear in addition of quoted statemnent.



You were already added your material, why didn't you waited for administrator reply? You could have raised new edit war request, just below it, instead you have tried to overrule and hide the previous judgment. Don't try to make fools of other and desist from poking your nose in others matter, if you don't like it. Behave in Wikipedian manner, it is just a request pl and Sorry for using harsh words.--Md iet (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum has not desisted of his COI activities. As per advice of admin at [45] some material which was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article was added at controversy article[46]. Rather amending, this fellow is reverted the complete material twice, just on one of his plea and stopped only after my warning for avoiding block for 3rd consecutive revert.--Md iet (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. [58] my request: I would request check on User:Summichum for sock-puppetry and also review on all the related talkpages for his SPA. user:Rukn950 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. [59] Spenceroodi's history: (cur | prev) 09:23, 8 May 2014‎ Spenceroodi (talk | contribs)‎ . . (283 bytes) (+283)‎ . . (←Created page with 'Hi, I am Summichum, this is my new account ,I was blocked due to error in judgement as I am a victim of sock puppetry as proven from the investigations here: [h...') (thank)"

Just compare the timings, complain for sock puppetry made at 08:51 by user:Rukn950, and self acceptance of duplicity accepted at 09;23. This fellow User:Summichum is ready to do sock-puppetry in the name of user:Spenceroodi for pushing his POV, and blaming all others (targeting me now becoming user:Spenceroodi). The case is now becoming clear and clear of COI. --Md iet (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Additional eyes at Telly Award

Someone is replacing the full article with PR material that uses fluffy words. I don't see much salvageable, and I have reverted a couple of times. Am I being too harsh? Do you see any material that I should salvage? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the first order of business is to deal with the uncooperative editor who repeatedly adds WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE material from the Telly Award website. No use in salvaging content if your efforts are repeatedly undermined. --Drm310 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Rodger Ford

Can someone look at this article? Apparently a raft of lawsuits involving Ford and Bill Birdsall (editor is named bbirdsall) are coming down the pipe and I'm too close to the subject to intervene; I grew up with his kids. - Richfife (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CombatWombat42! - Richfife (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, might want to mention this at WP:BLPN CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
My gut feeling is that that was a drive-by, but if they come back, I will. - Richfife (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've left the editor an advisory note. Hopefully that should be the end of it. --Drm310 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Kanban Tool

I tagged Kanban Tool with G11, SPA JustynaLaskowska removed it. I restored it. SPA Xian youang removed it again and made some edits. Article's creator and primary editor for a long time was SPA BradBradleySecond. Someone else had tagged it with COI in November, Xian youang removed that one too. Some of the content making it so clearly a G11 was removed by Xian, but it still fits and the three SPAs and two CSD removals reek of COI. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I really wanted to delete the page. With the problematic history of the page, the apparent COI, and the promotional intent in creating the article it would feel good to delete it. But I couldn't in all conscience, because G11 deletions are for articles that would require significant rewrites to no longer be promotional. I removed one sentence that was clear puffery, and the "Reviews" section that was just a bunch of links to testimonials, and the article appears to be somewhat neutral (in my opinion). I've declined the speedy, but I'm not convinced that the subject is really notable enough for inclusion (I haven't checked into how reliable the three references are, or looked for other coverage). In which case AfD may be the best course for this article. -- Atama頭 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microbiology#Request_for_COI_review_of_John_Postgate_.28microbiologist.29

Please note this, which reads: "Could someone please look over this article, as both contributors have a COI; me as Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Royal Society, of which Postgate is a fellow (so basic notability is not an issue), and him as the author of most of the text, which I edited slightly and posted. Ideally someone could add more on the significance of his research & publications, which I rather downplayed in view of the COI situation. I'm no expert but I see he crops up in basic accounts of nitrogen fixation, microbial survival, and sulphate-reducing bacteria etc, and is described as a "father figure of British microbiology" on the first page here. " I think this is best done by someone who understands, and can add to, the science here, so I would suggest waiting to see if such a person comes forward. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael "Atters" Attree

Given that Douglas L Smythe declared here that he was editing with the "full permission and blessing" of the subject of this article, I placed COI tags on the talk page and on the article itself. The editor has since posted an explanation on the talk page, and I'm now wondering whether either or both of those tags should be removed. I'd appreciate the views of others on that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

It seems we have a person inside the facilities of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration editing that article. No idea if it's an employee or not but it seems highly suspicious. The person is already reverting edits to make the article look like a WP:PROMOTION.

IP address resolves to 39.2904, -76.6122 which are the geocoordinates of the agency.

Can another set of eyes and an administrator get involved on this please?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

TV Tropes

User @Speededdie: is the cofounder of website TV Tropes (as he self-identified here) and primary contributor to our article about it, which is written mainly from primary sources. He has repeatedly removed the ((COI)) and ((Primary sources)) templates that warn readers about the problematic content. What is the expected course of action in this situation? Diego (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, reporting it here is the best course of action, currently. Ping the user (and notify them as that's what you're required to do) and let's see where it takes us. However, a COI should not be editing the article directly. I've restored the maintence tags.Tutelary (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I am indeed one of the 375,000 editors of the TV Tropes wiki, as well as one of the co-founders. I contest the idea that all of us have some conflict of interest with Wikipedia and its intention to have accurate, sourced information. This maintenance tag makes it looks like the article has dubious information. Which it does not.Speededdie (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We have no problem with the other 374,998 editors who are not co-founders. If you bother to read the policies linked from the tag you'll see why it's not enough to have sourced content; as I explained to you in the talk page, it's important that most of the article is referenced by independent sources that can provide a perspective of the relative importance of the various aspects of the site. Being too close to the site, you can't provide such perspective. Diego (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Speededdie: Please consider reading WP:PSCOI, it should help explain some of our concerns and advice in it might also help you avoid coming into dispute with other editors. -- Atama頭 22:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Erento

This article describes erento, a notable company that has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. As per the references, there has been coverage of considerable depth in multiple and highly reputable press including international, national and regional media. The article is based purely on material from independent sources and has been written in such a way as to make it as objective and informative as possible. I cannot see any evidence that the article is advertisment.MeikeFedermann (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You created a new account today just to post this? Why? And what is your association with the company, or with the user account Eddaline? ~Amatulić (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, that message is basically a quote from the initial posting to Talk:erento from 2009... which was by a user whose conflict is suggested by the fact that his user page, User:Tobiasmelrius, is a redirect to the Erento page. (And if you look at the Erento page, it certainly has some POV phrasing and unsourced claims introduce by Eddaline.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Meike Federmann is an author at Erento News. I believe that Meike is self-disclosing the COI by posting here. As to the tags on the page, the article should just be cleaned up to our standards and they can be removed. -- Atama頭 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

This user has admitted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:This_is_Paul#Suzannah_Lipscomb that they are related to the subject of the article. 82.18.156.67 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They kept removing details of the subjects marriage, saying that Ms. Lipscomb was getting divorced. However there is no Reliable Source for this. The user also keeps attacking another editor who disagrees with them.82.18.156.67 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the above contributor, if s/he knows so much a bout Wikipedia's processes, not giving their name? If the whole history of this page is looked at it can be seen that it the other editor referred to is called a WP:Bludgeon by User_talk:This_is_Paul. Many other things have been removed from the subject's pages and the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzannah_Lipscomb has comments from people stating that e.g. 'Most of her achievements have been removed from her page'. Whilst I admitted a relationship to the subject, Wiki states that that is not always a problem, and now that I know that changes and additions should be passed through another editor I intend to do that in the future and User_talk:This_is_Paul has said he is happy to do this. Any changes I have made to the page in the past have been strictly factual, except to remove the constantly inserted reference to her marriage, as (as I have stated) the marriage is over. The current situation is that she has been separated for 15 months and is seeking a divorce. How can one prove this to Wiki's satisfaction? The other editor though has sought to 'attack and demean' the subject. These words are, at this time 22.56 on 19/5/14, taken from the final pages at the above link that discusses the possibility of deleting the page. The final comment on the page says 'If the article is not to more honestly be allowed to report her actual status then please move to deletion. Can you not see how demeaning and attacking it is to create a story about someone so qualified and yet only report such trivialities?'MdeBohun (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

while having a relationship with the subject about whom you are editing is not always a problem, it IS a problem when your edits are serving only to skew the article in a promotional manner and its clear from your edits to the article that that is what is happening here. You can solve that issue by following the recommended procedures for those with conflict of interest by not editing the article directly and rather making suggestions on the talk page. You would also do well to read and follow WP:CIV and WP:NPA an stop casting aspersions at other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Nicely explained by TRPoD. There is no need of any more evidences that the user is related to the subject, the bigger fact is that the user has registered only for editing this particular article. OccultZone (Talk) 12:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I have examined the history of the article, and while I am convinced that POV editing has damaged the article, I do not see much reason to think that MdeBohun is much to be faulted. At present, a number of editors appear to be engaged in obscurantism, insisting on sources for matters on which there is very little doubt and edit-warring on trivia such as whether the lede must carry her married name since one source, from a secondary-school dinner, mentions it. The article is currently at AfD, where it appears headed for a WP:SNOW keep. There is bad blood here, and there may be bad faith, but I'm not convinced that MdeBohun deserves censure -- especially since WP:BITE applies. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In cases like this, I think that it can be a fine line between treating a COI editor respectfully and letting them control the content of the article to favor the subject. That is, unless the COI editor proves to be disruptive. I don't see that MdeBohun has been, not excessively so at least, aside from an outing attempt that I already warned her for previously (and that I don't think was malicious). -- Atama頭 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Internet telephony service provider

Single-purpose account repeatedly adding WP:COI links promoting one voice-over-IP company. K7L (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely for a username policy violation. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla Raid and Greta Berlin

User:Tecspk@aol.com has been heavily editing the Gaza Flotilla Raid article, as well as the Greta Berlin article. Since May 20, 2014 the Gaza Flotilla Raid article and Greta Berlin article have been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com who has a clear conflict of interest [[60]]Drsmoo (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Is this not exactly what User Drsmoo has just done? It's not who an editor is but the quality of the edits that should always be the focus. --Akayani (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The "quality of the edits" has already resulted in the editor being criticized for blatantly POV editing. [[61]]
By the standards you describe, no conflicts of interest would ever be namedDrsmoo (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the WP:OUTING per policy; however, the conflict is readily discernable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Nat Gertler I don't see how the WP:OUTING has been deleted, as nothing appears to have changed. It wasn't my intention to harass anyone or contradict policy. Please feel free to remove anything that's in violation or let me know if I should remove anything. Drsmoo (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, must've hit an extra undo when undoing something. Have now really deleted, I think. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Not only did Drsmoo 'break a Wikipedia rule, but he also stretched the truth about editing the page called Greta Berlin, suggesting that the article has been 'dominated by user, Tecspk since May 20, 2014." There is one posting, the death of Greta Berlin's second husband. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect Drsmoo to be more careful in his/her accusations. They do not bode well for any of us. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I should have been more clear. It is the Gaza Flotilla Raid article that has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since May 20,2014. The Greta Berlin article has been dominated by User:Tecspk@aol.com since January 23,2014. Since then, of the 33 edits to the article, 24 have been by User:Tecspk@aol.com.
Some edits that reflect possible POV are:
[[62]] - POV
[[63]] - inserting a hate video as a reference in a wikipedia article
[[64]] - POV
[[65]] - POV

Drsmoo (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yandex

I want to propose changes to the article on Yandex, which is my employer. I intend to use edit requests. The recommended procedure includes: “Propose a specific change on the talk page, and get consensus for it”. My experience with Wikipedia suggests that if I simply start a new section on the Talk:Yandex page, I’m unlikely to get any responses within a few months. Would this lack of responses indicate a consensus? Would it be appropriate to post edit requests without prior consensus? Should I seek consensus elsewhere? Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vasiliy Faronov:, you're fine for coming here. You can use edit requests to request edits, and you're strongly discouraged from editing the article yourself. If you want something changed, you can use the talk page to request that the edit be made. If it's something about the history of the company, back it up with a reliable source. If you want to remove any controversies, you should get consensus for that. If it's something minor like fixing a typo (and not changing the meaning of a sentence), you can edit it to fix that. Tutelary (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Tutelary: Thank you for your reply, but I’m afraid it doesn’t answer my questions. I’ve been on Wikipedia for years and I’m comfortable with the main principles. I’m seeking guidance on a specific point: is it a good idea to post edit requests without establishing prior consensus, and if not, how to establish it. --Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is no need to have consensus to make edit requests. In fact, WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to be gained by persuasion on why your edit should go through, whether that's removing content or adding it, and if there's a conflict, you're supposed to explain why you think it should go through. So in short, no. You don't need consensus to make edit requests. Tutelary (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
To expand on what Tutelary said (which was all 100% correct), generally the process would be that you make an edit request, and if it is accepted them it would be implemented in the article. If it's rejected, then you can either accept the rejection if you agree with the reason for declining your request, or you can try to convince the person to accept the request with good, policy-based (and/or common sense-based) reasons. If you can't come to an agreement, there are dispute resolution options available. As long as you aren't overly disruptive with your requests (harassing people, filling up the talk page with endless arguments, discussing off-topic issues, and so on) then you shouldn't have any problem in making those requests. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I think folks are missing what the editor is putting forth; it's not that his requested edits get accepted or rejected, it's that there are not enough eyes on the article, so the request simply gets ignored. He's not asking if it's okay to make edit requests, he is asking if, when they are ignored, it is okay for him to assume consensus due to lack of objection, and insert the edit himself. (If no, we should find someone willing to put eyes on the article, so that his requests are not just ignored.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
(Slap my forehead.) You're right. Well... Technically, WP:BOLD suggests it would be fine. Really, Vasiliy Faronov I don't see how anyone can fault you if you propose a change, nobody objects, and you implement it. Especially if you give it a month or more. If someone reverts you, you can ask them to go to the talk page and address your original proposal, and explain why you reject it. I do see that you've been using edit request templates and they've been getting answered, so maybe this is a bit moot, but in the future if you get ignored I think that you're safe in implementing them yourself if you establish on the talk page the reason for the edit you're making and as long as you respond constructively if you get reverted (don't get into an edit war for example). -- Atama頭 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No, that’s not what I was asking. I was asking whether I needed consensus before posting an edit request. I’m not going to apply any edit requests myself. Thank you for your input anyway. ~ Vasiliy Faronov (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so then read my original reply, when I'd made that assumption before. :) -- Atama頭 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
More