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 06:56, 28 December 2015 editNagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,106 edits →European Graduate School← Previous edit Revision as of 06:57, 28 December 2015 edit undoNagle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,106 edits →MaxxsonicsNext edit →
Line 158: Line 158:
Maxxsonics, now in its ] had only 1 reliable source and a bunch of press releases as sources. I edited it to 1 of each, and there is nothing left of the article. I asked {{ping|Hcparvin}} if he is a paid editor and he said no., but this doesn't appear to be correct. I can e-mail an admin on this if necessary. Maxxsonics, now in its ] had only 1 reliable source and a bunch of press releases as sources. I edited it to 1 of each, and there is nothing left of the article. I asked {{ping|Hcparvin}} if he is a paid editor and he said no., but this doesn't appear to be correct. I can e-mail an admin on this if necessary.
]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC) ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
: Article deleted via AfD. ] (]) 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


== Chris Williams (DJ) == == Chris Williams (DJ) ==

Revision as of 06:57, 28 December 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Andrew Hoffman Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:US Wind Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Charter School Growth Fund

    It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

    CobraNet

    In July 2013 I removed a "Licensed manufacturers" section from the article

    A few days ago Scottywong, the creator of the article, a retired editor and admin with an impressive list of contributions to Misplaced Pages, reverted the deletion.

    Kvng, who has declared coi and claims to be the inventor of CobraNet , has twice restored the content, even after declaring his coi.

    I don't believe Kvng should be adding material even remotely like this per WP:COI. I've not reviewed Kvng's other edits to this article.

    I'm also concerned that Scottywong's professional interest in the topic (identified here along with his declaring he has no FCOI), his being the creator of the article, and his creating the article as his very first edits from this account; is interfering with the need to focus on content, sources (of which there are no independent sources at all), and the relevant policies.

    Discussion about the content is here. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    This seems unnecessarily antagonistic. We're trying to have a discussion with you about the content, and you're just wiki-lawyering yourself all over the place. This is going to make it a lot more difficult to have a discussion about the content. User:Kvng has no financial interest in CobraNet. His thoughts on the subject are no less valuable than yours or mine. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    COI covers interests other than financial, which is why Kvng needs to restrict his editing, and why I mentioned your editing. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

    Looking further, Scottywong has a definite conflict of interest with the content he restored. I've asked him to respond or revert. As there have been some WP:OUTING problems concerning Scottywong's identity, I hope we can resolve this without evidence, but no matter what I will not divulge his identity. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    I agree that COI issues are apparent here and it is worrying that Kvng has edited it heavily and has been edit-warring recently. COI rules weren't so prohibitive back when it passed GA so I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to hide the COI or promote the product, but they shouldn't be editing the article directly from now on. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Scottywong's coi, though a financial one, isn't to CobraNet as a whole as is Kvng's, so I don't think he needs to restrict his editing to WP:COIADVICE except with the content where he has a direct conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've had no financial interest in CobraNet since 2006 when I amicably left Cirrus Logic. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for repeating that. How about addressing how closely you think you should follow COIADVICE given you are the creator of the product, which is the issue? As an expert on the technology, you've much to offer and I don't think your biases would be a problem if you restricted your edits to COIADVICE for everything other than the technology. Your biases are clearly interfering with the need to have high-quality, reliable, independent, secondary sources in the article; which the section your restored has none of 11, and the article has one of 32. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I see a distinction between making changes to the article and restoring the material Ronz deleted without consensus. I have opened an RfC to help resolve this. I may not have stayed abreast of changes to WP:COIADVICE but it looks like the last time I made a significant change to the article was July 2012. ~Kvng (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    COI doesn't make the distinction. If anything, edit-warring making multiple reverts where you have a conflict of interest is a bigger problem. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC) --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't appreciate the edit-warring accusations. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Struckout. Are you going to address the issue? --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think I have any further issues to address with you here at this time. If anyone else has a question or something I need to hear or respond to, please {{ping}} me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not about me, but about whether or not you are able to follow COI. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    Given Scottywong's behavior, I've opened a discussion at ANI. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    Bed and breakfasts

    A new discussion at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions concerning B&B marketing via Misplaced Pages led me to check Category:Bed and breakfasts. It isn't pretty. The two articles listed above are the first two I checked; each has exactly one reference. – Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    What are the WP:COI issues?
    Glancing at them, AfD is probably the way to go if a PROD or Db-promo doesn't apply. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe that one of these articles was created by Starwars57 a CU-confirmed sock of Webdesignbb. See for further details of the commercial/COI issues. The greater issue that there's advertisers specifically telling B&B operators to get a Misplaced Pages page, and this was brought up at Signpost newsroom. I'm not claiming that any of this editing was recent, but at the same time the articles in this category haven't really been checked yet. – Brianhe (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    To clarify, it was this example that brought this up. w.carter-Talk 09:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, all the BnB articles should be reviewed and considered for deletion. Any extremely likely socks added to the sock report. The meatpuppets and others that appear to be following bnbwebsites editing advice should be given a COI notice and directed here if their editing is at all recent. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Proposed deletion for the two bed and breakfast houses listed. John Nagle (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Also proposed deletion of The Old Wailuku Inn at Ulupono. The claim of being on the Hawaii state register of historic places doesn't check out. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    PRODs timed out without objection, articles routinely deleted. Done here. John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

    Donald J. Mitchell

    This hagiography on late congressman Donald J. Mitchell was primarily written by a family member. It's full of positive raves about his life and packed with barely related photos. I've tagged it as COI but nobody really edits this article. What am I supposed to do? Should I just completely rewrite it? The editor has not admitted his COI so I don't know if I'm supposed to report him or what, but this would be outing if I identified him. I asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#"How to handle COI" section and it seems nobody knows. —Мандичка 😜 17:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

    While BLP doesn't apply, it still has plenty of good guidance: Follow our content policies, follow our dispute resolution policies.
    Identify the editor here, notify the editor of this discussion, hopefully we can come to an agreement on what restrictions the editor should have on editing the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you to the users who have already started fixing it. The user with the COI is Professor JR who has been the main editor to the article. It would be nice if he openly declared a COI if he wishes to continue editing it. I will notify him. —Мандичка 😜 20:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have notified him again and am pinging him here: @Professor JR: do you have any intent to continue editing this article? If so, please discuss your plans here. The article has a thick "multiple issues" template and probably needs to be WP:TNTd. The article relies heavily on an offline obit in The Herkimer Evening Telegram. Meanwhile another ref in the NY Times archive attesting to his multiple awards failed verification (I have full access to their archives). —Мандичка 😜 17:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

    The Hut

    Minor and small scale changes by SPA COI editor on the Hut Group. Previously they had tried to create a page for Coggles, a subsidiary of the hut group, but this was rejected on notability. Editor is not disruptive or making large scale changes, but they are unreferenced. Clear links between editor and article subject can be found easily. Rayman60 (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    Amusingly, there are many recent news articles about The Hut Group, including one in the Times (London), and they're rather favorable.. This could be a much better-referenced article, and the company is doing some interesting things not mentioned in the article. Clarepotts is an SPA editing only this article. If they are editing on behalf of The Hut Group, they're not doing a good job. John Nagle (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    COI-related RFC at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)

    Recently an editor with a self-disclosed financial COI went through the proper channels to request edits to Marsy's Law and to request creation of a new article, Marsy's Law (Illinois). As a neutral editor I reviewed the proposal and made some suggestions, and the article changes were accepted. Overall I felt the draft text to be well-written, neutral, and acceptable by Misplaced Pages content standards. I believe the COI editor has been making a very good-faith effort to comply with our COI policy and that the result has been an improvement to Misplaced Pages's coverage of the subject.

    I am here to ask for additional neutral editors' input at an RFC at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)#RFC: External link to Marsy's Law For All website to evaluate whether the article should include an external link to the website of the organization connected with the drafting editor's COI. If anyone could take a moment to offer their view there, I'd appreciate it. alanyst 19:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

    One option is to merge Marsy's Law (Illinois) into Marsy's Law, and just have short sections for each state which passes something similar. John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    The HomeSlice Group

    This article on a holding company their bar in Sturgis SD was just created by one brand new editor. Another brand new relatively new editor added a bunch of links to it, the same day. – Brianhe (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Update on the University of Chicago gift information

    I have suggested edits to both the University of Chicago and Robert Zimmer articles regarding a gift that the University recently received under their Talk pages.

    As I work for the University of Chicago, I have a conflict of interest and hence the request for a review by Misplaced Pages editors. I believe the updates are factual and represented without bias.

    Thank you in advance for helping these two Misplaced Pages articles stay accurate and up-to-date. Michikog (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

    Those edits read like press releases. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to provide PR for donors. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    The entire article Housing at the University of Chicago reads like an apartment brochure. John Nagle (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Atlantic Coast Brands

    The wikiwashing has started anew. Brianhe (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Right. Undid SPA edits, reverting back to Brianhe's last edit. Andr8 has been given detailed warnings. Let's see if the problem recurs. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Whitewashing by Tcohn01: . Undone, warning template on talk page. Please watch article for further problems. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Rod Davies

    I've recently been editing the article on Rod Davies, who passed away last month. I have a COI here as I knew and worked with Rod over the last 5 years or so, e.g. see and his last scientific publication at , and I currently work at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics at the University of Manchester. I believe that I can contribute neutrally to this article, and my edits have been made purely to try to improve the already-existing Misplaced Pages article (notability is not a question here), as a volunteer, and outside of my paid employment. I would like an objective review of whether that has thus far been the case in practice or not, and about how to proceed in future with this article. My edits to the article to date can be seen at , , and . I would like to continue to neutrally expand the article based on referenced material in the future, if that would be acceptable. I'm happy to answer any questions about my edits thus far, and my intentions for the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    I think this is the first time someone has "reported" themselves Mike Peel, so I must thank you for your transparency! I'll have a look over those edits, as I'm sure other editors will - but provisionally I cannot see an issue with your continued contributions, as you've proven that you're being upfront with the whole situation. Obligatory links to WP:COI and WP:NPOV -- samtar 21:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages biographies are built from source material that is independent of the topic. Source material by Davies himself is not independent of Davies. Delete any material in the Misplaced Pages article sourced to Davies, R.D. You can create a scientific publication subsection containing a representative quantity of Davies scientific publications. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Jreferee: Thanks for having a look. :-) I agree with your first two sentences. With the fourth, that's how those references started off in the article (they weren't added my me), and personally I'm never too keen on such sections, as they're never particularly useful (I wonder how many readers just skip over them). I turned them into refs to support what I think are undisputed statements about the general areas he researched rather than anything more specific. Perhaps they can simply be removed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Maxxsonics

    Maxxsonics, now in its 2nd deletion discussion had only 1 reliable source and a bunch of press releases as sources. I edited it to 1 of each, and there is nothing left of the article. I asked @Hcparvin: if he is a paid editor and he said no., but this doesn't appear to be correct. I can e-mail an admin on this if necessary. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

    Article deleted via AfD. John Nagle (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Chris Williams (DJ)

    I initially came across this user via the article for Williams, as it was up for speedy deletion via A7. I noticed that the article had some promotional puffery, but decided to let that slide since it was slightly ambiguous. Things that stood out include the sentence "His role at iHeartMedia, formerly ClearChannel, has continued to evolve."

    I nominated the article for deletion via AfD since A7 didn't really qualify and took another look at Kazmandu2's edits a bit later after noticing that they referred to themselves as a "we" at the AfD page. I quickly noticed their second page in the draftspace, which I nominated for deletion. It was very, very unambiguously promotional and looked to be taken directly from marketing materials. Content from that article included peacock language like "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" and "There were lots of companies catering to small to medium businesses, but Bryan wanted the challenge of working with the Biggest and Best names in the industry." There was also a list of people they'd worked for. A further look into matters shows that they uploaded this image as fair use, which implies that they own the copyright to it.

    I flat out asked Kazmandu2 if they had a COI, only for them to claim that they don't. To be very honest, I don't believe them. Their edits and the way they spoke at the AfD suggests that they are someone hired to create an article, likely someone from Rockstar Marketing. I should probably block them for the "we" comment, but I wanted to give them one last chance to come clean. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    • I usually assume better faith from people, but this all feels a little too dishonest for my tastes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I ended up just going with my gut reaction and just blocking them. There's far, far too much evidence to suggest that they're a paid editor. The image uploaded to the Commons is concerning somewhat there's a walkthrough that goes over the various policies for images (so they should've been aware that they couldn't upload something that wasn't fair use or that they didn't own the rights to) and that they did this separate from Misplaced Pages suggests that they're passing familiar with Misplaced Pages. I don't think that this is something of Wiki-PR proportions, but I do think that they'll likely be back. Again, I normally try to assume far better faith of people, but this just seems like a WP:DUCK scenario since they're pretty much engaging in all of the stereotypical paid editor habits but were trying to claim that they weren't a paid editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Copy reading "one of the Nation’s leading Advanced Social Media and Search Engine Optimization strategy companies" can safely assumed to be PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    • It looks like there are some IPs coming in to edit now, so I think that this might require some further intervention. The following IPs have begun editing:
    @2602:30A:2CF0:90:492F:4F51:A343:4DBF: This editor created Draft:Daswise, which has just been started and has the same spam issues. They also ask for the draft for Rockstar be restored here.
    @2600:1:A140:546:C106:385E:D6B9:935D: Another IP, edited Kazmandu2's talk page and appears to be the same editor. They'd made a pretty bad faith comment towards me asking them if they were a paid editor. That's usually a pretty big sign that I'm correct, given that innocent people are rarely this defensive.
    I'm debating taking this up to SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm bringing it to SPI. Now there's Scottdaddy2222. A search for the name and Rockstar Marketing shows that he's very obviously the company's owner. This pretty much shows proof that it's this company. What makes it worse is that they're trying to hide it, which is extremely unethical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    Added one more editor and a draft. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that! I'm leaning towards blocking this one as well as a block evasion and an undisclosed paid editor. This company is turning out to be another example of what not to do if you own a marketing company. I mean, if Kazmandu2 had just been honest about their COI I would've just warned them about making promotional edits and mostly left it at that. However lying is pretty much one of the worst things you can do on here since it's the epitome of unethical and deceptive. There's not much more that they could have done to make their company look terrible. I really hope that they're not ramping up to be the next WikiPR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    Protect the article maybe? --Ronz (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    • I'm tempted to say that we should leave it just so we can pick them off one by one. I wonder if they're just trying to make themselves look bad at this point, given that they don't seem to really be looking at any of the warnings. I think it's safe to say that this company has zero scruples. Do you think that we should reach out to some of their clients to ask them to stop? Daswise has a facebook page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    Abhishek Agrawal

    Editor Krish512 !voted in deletion discussion at Abhishek Agrawal , and re-created the article on 15 December at Abhishek Aggrawal (note doubled letter "g"). Anon editor inserted link to article under first name at , and Authorabhi added it under second name at . Appears to be self-promotion by nn author and/or cohorts, and attempts to circumvent the community-based article review process.

    ManyAll of these same editors were warned in November at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_94#Abhishek Agrawal. – Brianhe (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    Belly (loyalty program)

    Article was created fully formed by a one-edit account; then maintained by a string of SPAs. Best I can tell it has ever had only one substantive editor who is neither an SPA nor anon. It has a telltale list of unknown awards and company social media links. Needs a thorough scrub at least. Brianhe (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    European Graduate School


    This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism in the past by accounts that seem to be linked to the institution. These accounts take issue with the fact that the Misplaced Pages article for the European Graduate School references its lack of accreditation as a degree-issuing university in the United States. The edits usually involve deleting links to credible and sourced U.S. government websites that record this institution as unaccredited. The EGS website was previously protected from edits to halt this abuse under WP's Conflict of Interest policy (See case here: ). Since that time the EGS has taken to misrepresenting its status with Misplaced Pages on its own website (link: ), which claims:

    The entry on Misplaced Pages has been vandalized and is inaccurate. We are in formal communication with those responsible at Misplaced Pages and have asked them to lock the site until it is replaced with a correct page listing.

    A review of the edit history on this article reveals that this is exactly the opposite of what happened. Several EGS-linked accounts were repeatedly vandalizing the site by removing sourced references to its lack of US accreditation, and the page was temporarily locked from editing to prevent EGS-affiliated accounts from continued vandalism. In light of this pattern & given a clear indication on this institution's website that it is trying to remove relevant and sourced but unfavorable information about itself from its wikipedia article, I'm reposting it here and asking that a permanent Conflict of Interest notice be placed on the article's talk page to govern further edits from a persons that are formally connected to this school. Thanks - Contextualist (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    There's always a problem is saying lack of accreditation, which is something that usually cannot actually be documented. But just as Contextualist (talk · contribs) sys the article history illustrates he repeated efforts of publicists for the school to improperly use anything that might possibly suggest accreditation way beyond their proper meaning. (A good indication of this is anything suggesting accreditation in Switzerland. That country only accredits the schools listed in List of universities in Switzerland, but. like most places, will register almost anything as a business. It's routine in such cases for people to use business licenses as if they mean accreddited. It's routine for state ment about links with other colleges to be used, when they can not actually be demonstrated to be current. We really need a proper way of wording to deal with this sort of situation. (one way is to delete the articles, but that can remove useful smd sourceable NPOV information about a widely publicized "university"). DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    We went through this in October. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#European_Graduate_School. The current article text seems reasonable. They really do seem to be accredited in Malta, but that may just mean that Malta recognizes diplomas from them. The recognition by the canton of Valais is much weaker. They're in category J, "Private schools of tertiary level recognized by the Canton", along with two schools of hotel management.. This seems to be related to an European Union convention of which Switzerland is a signatory. There's a EU distinction between diploma acceptance for cross-border employment, and diploma acceptance for academic purposes. The certifications mentioned here seem to be for the first purpose. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    IsAnybodyDown?

    Resolved – No COI evidenced presented. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    Conflict of Interest - User NatGertler is clearly being paid to edit the article in question on behalf of outside antagonists. --98.165.218.244 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what "outside antagonists" would be here, but no, User NatGertler (who, by the way, was not notified of this discussion) is not being paid to edit this or any other article by outside antagonists, inside antagonists, stateside antiquarians, cowhide anteaters, or anybody else, despite the towering lack of evidence that has been presented against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    98.165.218.244 and Nat Gertler, No COI evidenced has been presented, so I marked this thread as resolved. No issue was listed either, but the article talk page raises an issue of whether Chance Trahan should be connected to the website. I added references to the article talk page, which support connecting Chance Trahan to the IsAnybodyDown website and supports writing a biography article on Chance Trahan. Dryvyng being associated with Chance Trahan does not thereby associate Dryvyng with IsAnybodyDown. I read the articles on Dryvyng and there is nothing in there to support including Dryvyng in the IsAnybodyDown article. NatGertler, User:98.165.218.244's edit summary advise is correct, so I suggest that you may want to consider undoing this edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    Categories: