Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:57, 20 November 2017 view sourceSoetermans (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,785 edits →Mister Wiki: re← Previous edit Revision as of 13:59, 20 November 2017 view source TheresNoTime (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Administrators43,711 edits →Mister WikiNext edit →
Line 436: Line 436:
::::I've restored it since both parties have confirmed on-wiki that they are fine with the release. That was not immediately clear from your post. Sorry for any confusion. ] (]) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC) ::::I've restored it since both parties have confirmed on-wiki that they are fine with the release. That was not immediately clear from your post. Sorry for any confusion. ] (]) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::No problem, I should've said so right away. Thanks for restoring the link to the image. ]. ] 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC) :::::No problem, I should've said so right away. Thanks for restoring the link to the image. ]. ] 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Nice to see how pally and keen you are to "help each other out". I'm seriously concerned about this, and will be investigating these edits -- ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

*I'd be much less concerned about the Salvidrim/Soetermans interactions if Salvidrim were not an admin, and had he not recently run for RfB as well. It's possible that this should be brought up to the wider community. It's also possible that he should stop reviewing AfCs, and also stop NPP (if he is involved with that). Soetermans should stop doing either of those as well. ] (]) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) *I'd be much less concerned about the Salvidrim/Soetermans interactions if Salvidrim were not an admin, and had he not recently run for RfB as well. It's possible that this should be brought up to the wider community. It's also possible that he should stop reviewing AfCs, and also stop NPP (if he is involved with that). Soetermans should stop doing either of those as well. ] (]) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::I've from AfC. ]. ] 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC) ::I've from AfC. ]. ] 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:59, 20 November 2017

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Alan Emrich Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Roland Mertelsmann Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    More spam socks

    The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

    These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

    The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

    Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

    A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

    Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
    The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    This one is more of the same, including some of the same articles, which is what drew my attention here. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Looks like they've found a new webhost. Forgot to mention
    got CU blocked by being on the same VPN as these spammers. MER-C 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

    Damian Mingle

    This looks promotional to me. The author's other contributions also suggest possible paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

    I concur and also noticed that Sumitk c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously created Flyrobe. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

    Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

    The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

    Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
    Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
    Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
    Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    The problem with conflict of interest, is that the person with the COI is not a suitable person to judge what should be included in the article. In my experience with academics here writing about themselves or their projects, about half of them try to say too much, and about half too little. It is appropriate for you to add the information to WP, but according to our current practice, you should write additional articles about faculty in the department using the Article Wizard in Draft space, and suggest additions and changes on the article talk pages. If you wan to write about specific subjects in the field, I think you can do it directly and we're glad to have you, but be sure you do not write them to emphasize JHU people. Incidentally, according to our WP:PROF guidelines, there may be more notable faculty in your department than you think--in addition to members of the National Academies, very highly cited researchers also meet WP:PROF, and I would be surprised if this did not apply to at least all the full professors in your department. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

    SEO and PR on hotels articles

    For more context see

    Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

    One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

    Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Misplaced Pages. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. --Qwacker (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Misplaced Pages on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --Qwacker (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 , while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then ? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

    Accusations of UPE from Investigator87


    I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Looks like some sock/meat activity at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. At least two WP:SPAs have appeared to register Keep votes, and two others that left comments were blocked by Berean Hunter from a CU investigation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    SPI open now here: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

    On the same AFD we have:

    whose set of oddball promotional article creations reek of UPE. I've already declined an unblock request from this user for a very suspect mistake so I'll hold off blocking for now. MER-C 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

    • I concur that (Richardaldinho is likely a paid editor given the history of the articles. DGG had tagged some of them for G5, and I deleted one, but it was raised to me by Sro23 they are technically on a 2 week CU block for vote staking, not for UPE, so I've sent one of them to AfD currently. All of these articles meet the signs of UPE: , , and in terms of article style remind me a bit of this group, but that could simply be the likely UPE. Regardless, I would support a UPE block based on spamming, but won't do it myself given that I deleted and then restored a G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

    Richardaldinho creations and cleanup includes stuff listed above. I'm a bit confused -- can we g5 these or not? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

    The G5 has been contested by an SPI clerk as he is only blocked now for vote staking. That might change depending on the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka. We can either wait to see how that SPI plays out, or PROD/AfD when necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

    Tove Lill Løyte

    User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

    Draft:BLG Logistics

    I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

    The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

    About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

    Recommend waiting for AfC feedback and going from there. Please do not edit this article in mainspace. Have you read WP:Identifying PR to make sure you avoid common issues? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

    Cpicciolini

    Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

    Jama masjid chalakpur

    I can see a clear conflict of interest in this user. This user has been persistently creating pages related to himself. For example: this user has created Jama masjid chalakpur which this user's username. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

    The Software Toolworks

    I have, and have declared, a COI for these articles, having been the founder of Toolworks, although not associated with it or any software company since 1994.

    Is it permissible for me to make minor changes to this article, such as adding a lead section, references or graphics? What about clarifications that do not substantially change the meaning? I would like to polish it without burdening volunteer editors, but not at the risk of my reputation or the article's. Bilofsky (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

    It is advisable that substantive changes, such as adding text, references, and graphics, should be proposed by you on the relevant article's talk page. Editing the article directly for anything bigger than fixing a typo puts you in a minefield that you really don't want to be in. Thank you for doing this the right way. If you have trouble finding other editors to review things you put on the talk page, talk to me and I'll do it. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    Sport 360

    Pages
    Editors
    Websites


    All of the articles listed above, which appear to me to be non-notable events and organizations, were created by the account Events360 who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor focusing on subjects closely related to Sport 360. I have proposed deletion for a couple of the articles, but would like to have others have a look and see if prod or AFD would be appropriat for any of the others. Peacock (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    One America News Network ‎

    Editor is a WP:SPA in regards to these two articles about companies owned by Herring Networks. They have only used talk pages twice, once several years ago to tell an IP never to edit the AWE article after the IP had reinstated some critical material and once to reply to my question on conflict of interest on their talk page. Their answer their was unsatisfactory. As you can see on their talk page, I'd asked a general question about the text in WP:PAID that says "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, either directly or indirectly, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The response, in the section above my question, was "Freemediatv is NOT related to Herring Networks or any of its holdings." I have two problems with this. One is that "Freemediatv" could be the name of a website and my question was about the editor using the name. Secondly of course is that the answer doesn't rule out getting some form of compensation. I asked a second time and got no response. The editor has also recently edit-warred suggesting they feel some form of ownership of these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    At what point are we justified in adding Template:UPE to articles like this? Aside from the current activity OANN was originally created by a SPA who never edited on any topic other than OANN and AWE. Likewise there has been at least one SPA active at AWE. (I strongly suspect those two accounts are/were operated by the same person.) It's seems clear what's going on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Noting 24 hour block handed out at 3RRN. Block has expired. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    Abraham Zangen

    Appear to be paid editing. Refs added as an afterthought.

    The prior version of this Brainsway had issues.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    Seems like we have seen several things here lately driven by transcranial magnetic stimulation devices and technologies. Yes? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

    Maximiliano Korstanje

    This article was started by a WP:SPA, Vanrobert99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g. 186.129.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.1.250.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.

    Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press() IGI Global.

    I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

    Urban informatics

    Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but this article is flagged COI and the WP:SPA user is very keen to include a book published by notorious vanity press IGI Global -to the point of rapidly reverting removal despite not having any actual activity on Misplaced Pages (example: reverting in less than two hours, despite the user's last edit to Misplaced Pages being weeks before). also adds an IGI published book. I smell a COI, and at the very least a massive dose of WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

    Will be indulging in a massive cleanup/CE soon.Winged Blades 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Kent Tate

    The entire five-year edit history of user account centers only on Kent Tate, suggesting that she is connected to subject in some manner. The article itself is promotional in tone, including an upload of an excessive number of images to Commons. sixtynine 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    The user does seem to be able to use talkpages in the past, and I've politely (non-template) invited comment here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    Hello, I constructed this article and have been the primary contributor. I have made efforts to add content that is in compliance. If you can help me to resolve the problems on this page I would be very grateful. Cheri Brown (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

    Comment Article has been draftified. sixtynine 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

    Kuo-Chen Chou

    May be salvageable, but this looks like autobiography to me. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    Reedsy created by founder

    Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    @Bri::- Done Winged Blades 08:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    So this was just "re-floated" by User:Tomwsulcer bypassing AFC and the article history wiped clean, both of which I find problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    The subject Reedsy is clearly notable. I'm not affiliated with Reedsy in any way so there's no conflict of interest. I've been revamping Self publishing and saw the Reedsy link light up red, and scratched my head. That an earlier version had a COI problem is not relevant here. This is a rewritten article with appropriate sourcing and fluff removed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    From a quick glance, I think clearly notable is a bit of an exaggeration here. I'd give it a 50/50 shot at AfD, at best, maybe 60/40 in favour of deletion. Bri, I haven't run it through duplication detector yet, but I don't see a clear copyright problem in terms of prose. It appears to be different, and wouldn't necessarily require attribution if it was written independently. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also, per above, I went ahead and did a BEFORE search and took it to AfD to see what the community thinks. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Reedsy. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    Methinks you're clearly wasting everybody's time here at Misplaced Pages. It's clearly notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

    @Tomwsulcer: When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

    How is this relevant to the discussion? This noticeboard is Conflict of interest noticeboard. Regarding Reedsy, there's no conflict of interest at present. I floated the Reedsy article and I have no affiliation with Reedsy. You're wasting people's time here at Misplaced Pages.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    If the basis was the article created by a connected contributor, then it is relevant. Copyright is also usually very relevant on this noticeboard because there are questions of ownership of the material and reuse of text that might not be compatibly licensed. If you copied any text or remixed it in anyway from the previous article, you must attribute. If you did, you can place a note here and I'll make the edit summary attribution in a way that the draft can be deleted since there is a mainspace article. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    There are no copyright issues with Reedsy. I wrote it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thats not what was being asked: we know you wrote it in its current form. Did you use any or part of the text of the previous version/draft as the basis for the article and rework it? As Bri has pointed out, your edit summary suggests you did. If you did, there is currently a copyright issue until we attribute. Attribution is easy, and I can do it in less than a minute in most cases, and less than two when it is more complicated. We do need to make attribution if what the edit summary suggests is true, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

    Hungarians in the United Kingdom

    User:Gabor Bartos has added himself as a "Famous Hungarian immigrants and Britons of Hungarian origin". I've had some email correspondence with him, where he admits he is the man concerned, but he is quite determined to have himself mentioned. Nigej (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    He'll have to understand that people don't get mentioned on Misplaced Pages simply because they want it. If he's notable enough to meet WP:NPOL, then someone not connected to him can write an article. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    DJ MoCity and related projects

    Requesting second opinion/more eyes on this set of related articles. I think the artist has notability (hard to tease out from the incestuous media relationships) but maybe one or more redirects are in order? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

    User:ENKWMS

    This is a very infrequent editor, who began editing in 2013. On his talk page he describes himself as a music enthusiast.

    In 2014, ENKWMS left the following message here on an editor's talk page: "I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was asked to make edits on this article by representatives of this person. The information that I am submitting is factual and significant."

    This editor created two draft articles, the first about a band called "Live Footage" () in 2013/2014, and the second about the musician Hill Kourkoutis (), on July 6, 2016. Interestingly, Live Footage (band) was successfully created on July 19, 2014, and Hill Kourkoutis was successfully created on July 5, 2016 by a single-purpose editor.

    The concern about paid editing began following Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amadeus (record producer). ENKWMS began leaving messages on user talk pages--in one instance leaving his personal email address--inquiring about how to restore the deleted Amadeus article (see ). A caution about COI/paid editing was left for this editor here on Nov. 12, 2017. This editor denied any COI/paid editing here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

    Nimir

    He has admitted to his closeness to the production team of this film, through this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Username is the name of their website designer/host; automatic WP:CORPNAME block. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Proware

    Observe the ancient paid editor in its natural habitat. Keep quiet, it frightens easily. This is paid editing from back in 2006 and could use a look. I doubt it meets notability. ~ Rob13 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

    Wessex Institute of Technology

    Bluntly, I think this article is a scam. I am unable to trace any good evidence that this is an actual degree-granting institution, it's "WIT Press" is listed by Beall as predatory, its conferences flag up hundreds of disparaging comments on the interwebs, and virtually the entire article is the wok of two WP:SPAs. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

    The article is wondrous, including three (3) pictures of the building and such essential academic facts as "local commoners have the right to graze their ponies" in the adjacent national park. I cut out the travel brochure stuff and a bunch of other badly sourced or unnecessary material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

    KDS4444

    KDS4444 has been community banned for leveraging OTRS access into solicitation of paid editing. Concerns were brought up during that discussion that undeclared paid editing may have occurred. We probably should have some due diligence in checking over at least his most recent contributions. I've listed three creations just to kick off a discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

    I didn't see any evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Is there any evidence that I missed? KDS444 was very open about the articles they had been paid to edit. Of the list above, they specifically denied being paid to edit the now deleted Conso International Corporation article, and acknowledged payment for Tom Paradise. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    You are right, Paradise was declared. I have not done a significant look yet and just came across another editor's concern at AN. The specific comment was "how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not." BTW I was not involved with the KDS matter at that time, and did not contribute there. So this is kind of fresh for me and unresearched. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    No problem. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that there was undisclosed paid editing going on, and I'm left thinking that if there was KDS4444 would have declared it as they declared other articles which would not have otherwise been identified. Part of the problem is that we can never be sure that an article wasn't paid for, but similarly if there isn't anything to go by - such as a job ad, articles created by users who should not have had that much skill on their first edits, or self disclosure - it is almost impossible to tell if it is the case. Thus I tend to fall back on simply general principles - if it is overly promotional or of questionable notability, we should address the articles under those terms, but otherwise just go with what works best for the project. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe. I haven't wrapped my head around this yet, it is such an egregious abuse of a position of trust. Which is why I felt it must be brought up at the one noticeboard created explicitly for such abuses. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    The actions on OTRS were abysmal. My difficulty here is that there no evidence of undisclosed paid editing, and no method of determining if it did occur. So I'm not sure of how this can proceed. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

    Mister Wiki

    A newish paid editing company has been created called Mister Wiki (website). This company says that they honor the disclosure policy: "All of Mister Wiki’s jobs are fully transparent and disclosed on Misplaced Pages, in accordance with their paid editing guideline." (too bad they call it a guideline, but whatever)

    And indeed, the following two editors have disclosed editing for the company per this search:

    They have directly edited the following articles:

    rejected AfC submisssion was fixed up by Soetermans with disclosure and moved to mainspace by Salvidrim (Salvidrim said that this was prior to his being involved with them.)
    task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending)
    same deal as above, task was getting tags removed per this diff. Also per that diff, the strategy was to put through AfC. Was draftified by Salvidrim with disclosure, accepted at AfC by Soetermans. (no disclosure, have an inquiry pending)
    just some minor tweaks, directly made.

    Am posting here so folks can review the created articles especially, as they have not undergone prior peer review.

    Have been having a long discussion with Salvidrim at my TP at User_talk:Jytdog#Re:_people_with_privileges_who_edited_for_pay. Inquiry at Soetermans' TP at User_talk:Soetermans#AfC_moves. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

    Rgd File:Datari Turner studio.jpg uploaded by Soetermans, a) why is it hosted on enwp not Commons and b) where is the OTRS permission from the copyright holder? Bri.public (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Tagged as missing permission. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Hi everyone, I've tried to explain the AfC situation on my talk page. I am truly sorry for that mess. For the other articles, I'm just going to take a step back and let the community decide if they're okay. Further more, I've made edits to Arne & Carlos (diff), but I haven't received payment yet, which why I haven't added the disclaimer just yet. There is also an article in my sandbox on Overwerk, an article that has been deleted repeatedly. soetermans. 08:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've dediced to not do any paid editing until this is resolved (I might still receive a fee for Arne & Carlos, when I do, I'll update my user page accordingly). I've been a longtime member of Misplaced Pages and do not want to risk damaging my reputation and credibility any further. soetermans. 10:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh dear. This isn't going well so far. The swapping of "favours" between Salvidrim and Soetermans is particularly concerning and they are clearly conflicted even if they are not specifically paid for the edits. I'm at a loss to think how such experienced users thought that this would be acceptable. I also find this edit to Justin Bieber problematic (better seen in this diff) as it placed undue weight on the topic Soetermans was being paid to write about into a highly trafficked article - a classic example of spamming. I need to look in more detail, but the Shahidi brothers don't appear to be notable independent of their company. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I have no excuse. When @Salvidrim! asked me I had my concerns (see this screenshot) from our Facebook messenger conversation). I thought that the articles were notable enough and that it would be okay. soetermans. 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni, that image was used by @Salvidrim! on Jytdog's talk page with my permission. I assumed it would be okay to use it here as well. soetermans. 13:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've restored it since both parties have confirmed on-wiki that they are fine with the release. That was not immediately clear from your post. Sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    No problem, I should've said so right away. Thanks for restoring the link to the image. soetermans. 13:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Nice to see how pally and keen you are to "help each other out". I'm seriously concerned about this, and will be investigating these edits -- There'sNoTime 13:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd be much less concerned about the Salvidrim/Soetermans interactions if Salvidrim were not an admin, and had he not recently run for RfB as well. It's possible that this should be brought up to the wider community. It's also possible that he should stop reviewing AfCs, and also stop NPP (if he is involved with that). Soetermans should stop doing either of those as well. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've been removed from AfC. soetermans. 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    As far as I am aware, mere removal from a list of participants doesn't stop you or anyone from reviewing AfCs or accepting drafts or moving drafts to mainspace. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh right. Well, whatever the outcome of this discussion might be, I won't come near AfC for the time being. soetermans. 12:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic