Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 108

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change detection

User PhilOt repeated adds an uncited 2016 publication to the article, authored by Otto Philip. Clearly, this fails notability and COI guidelines and is Spam. Please semi-protect the page. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts without taking it to the talk page. Your edit summaries have misapplied policies - citing yourself is not automatically spam (see WP:SELFCITE), and notability is required for the topic of an article, not for the contents and references. That doesn't mean that the inclusion is due, but I suggest you and @PhilOt: discuss this first on the article's Talk page, before dragging it elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: I have tried talking to him on User talk:PhilOt, including:
> you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s)
he does not appear to have interest in talking about this, or reaching a consensus. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In other words, you templated him.
Perhaps one of the ways you might encourage him to have a discussion is to start an actual discussion, on the talk page of the article, where other editors of that article could see. That seems a better way of working toward consensus.
Also, if you are seeking page protection, this is not the best place to come. We have a separate page specifically for such requests. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The templates are well-written text, with relevant policies (for new users!) and invitations to discuss. By placing them on the user talk page rather than the page talk, it is usually considered to be less offensive rather than publicly saying "your work is not important enough to be added here" publicly on the talk page immediately. But yes, if he re-adds the publication yet again without discussion, I will go the page protection requests next. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nat Gertler: Thank you for the explanation of the Wikipedia Policies and recommending to use the Talk page. I was really wondering, why @HelpUsStopSpam: undid important revisions of the article for the reason of WP:SELFCITE or WP:COI. Now, I added a section on the Talk page in order to explain why revisions of the article are needed. My proposals are additionally added in this section. Moreover, I would like to point out that it is important to distinguish between WP:CITESPAM, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:COI. Not always, an uncited reference is not important for an article/section. The importance of sources must be evaluated in the context of the specific contribution (that means with regards to contents of the source), but not by a single view on the number of cites. PhilOt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mindcap - undisclosed paid editor?

This user is setting off multiple alarm bells pointing to undisclosed paid editing although they deny it. Kasha Mann was the first article I noticed as a recreation by a previous group of undisclosed paid editors. Particularly disturbing thing is the use of references that sound like they are RS but in fact are not and are seemingly operated by the same organisation e.g. links: [http://thetimesofmiami.com/kasha-the-national-and-international-award-winning-artist] (thephiladelphiajournal.com/worldwide/usa-sways-on-the-beats-of-kasha/ whois: [https://who.is/whois/thetimesofmiami.com] [1]. They've presumably been created specifically for use here in order to game the system. The content is obviously promotional (see The House of Angadi for example) and there are other hallmarks that I'd prefer not to disclose here. Given that they say that they aren't being paid, can others review their edits and comment on whether my hunch is reasonable or not. I've already sent quite a few articles to deletion, but others might need attention. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The user:Smartse seems more interested to deleting Wikipedia articles without knowing the subject. I noticed this user adding deletion tag randomly. I also noticed this user on his talk page for adding deletion tag for NDMC 311. This is a non-profit mobile application developed by Delhi Government for the sake of Delhi people. But the user:Smartse added deletion tag without knowing the subject.
For paid users, I would say i have created all articles for social interest not for my personal need or i never get a single penny for all articles i have created. You may double check my profile and all articles that i have created. I write articles on Wikipedia due to my personal interest in Wikipedia only. I have written all articles on Wikipedia by spending several hours of my life without any personal interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindcap (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted The House of Angadi - the reason it was so obviously an ad is that it was loosely copied (some paraphrase, some just copied) from the company's website. I'd suggest the editor try WP:AfC in the future and avoid company websites and press releases as sources. I see that NDMC 311 was deleted by User:SpacemanSpiff who suggests this is a sock of Smileverse (talk · contribs) blocked in July 2015 by SmartSE for advertising.
And @Mindcap:, what's this about? Doug Weller talk 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm very concerned with the fake refs. This seems to have occurred before - SEO firms creating false sites to house content farmed articless for clients that also work nicely as "relaible sources" if you don't look too close. Will look through my notes tonight and see if I can find the previous instances. Kuru (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • News Chicago news-chicago.com
  • Washington Journal thewajournal.com
  • The Times of Miami hetimesofmiami.com
  • The Times of Texas thetimesoftexas.com
  • Atlanta Times atltimes.com
  • The Philadelphia Journal thephiladelphiajournal.com
Same concerns here. The Kasha Mann sources (above) all look really similar, like there's a common template for creating fake newspapers. Especially compare the identical banner font on most of them, identical navigation bar, stock ticker, copyright footer, etc. and identical "contact us" pages (without any actual contact information, naturally). Is that somebody's business model? Perhaps These sites should be blacklisted so that (AGF) good editors don't get fooled into using these fake sites as citations. Listed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Multiple fake newspaper websites. - Brianhe (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There are more sites listed here - it's actually a different email to the one in the previous links but some of the other sites lead me there and they had identical physical addresses. I'm fairly sure I remember seeing The San Francisco Post and The Los Angeles Journal used before, but unfortunately I can't remember by who and the links are deleted now. @Kuru: The only previous case I can remember was in this SPI but I don't see any link between these sites. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
See my nom of this AFD which is confirmation that this set of domains is linked to smileverse. I'll start a new SPI to see if there is anything else to uncover. SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smartse: confirming that the Martino AfD includes a link to one of the bad domains, thelajournal.com. - Brianhe (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't find it in my notes. :( I remember seeing the usage of a fake news site and discovering two others that were not being used through a common registry. It may have been that AFD you list above. Kuru (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the account as an undisclosed COI/advert only account that was indulging in ref falsification (see the Angadi article for example along with the host of fake domains). Also this response indicates that it is indeed a sock. —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Indo Canadian Golf Association was created, apparently out of Mindcap's sandbox. - Brianhe (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Clean up

Appears to be needed of all these articles.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagged them all for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Accounts are here:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on why an obvious shill created Spaces (app)? This is strange, seeing stuff related to a large market cap company with plenty of organic marketing resources. Otherwise, the list is unsurprising composed of the usual COI borderline or non-notable startups, books, films, etc. - Brianhe (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

PaveGen

Promotional editing by an IP. Is this a notable topic? Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable, yes. There's considerable press coverage. Useful, no. Added "Criticism" section. The Register did an analysis and writes that it generates only "tiny, pointless amounts of energy". John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Milken

A new SPA has appeared at the two Milken articles above. The Milkens have previously used admitted paid editors to polish their articles. [3] This comes up because the two were involved in one of the big financial scandals of the 1980s, and M. Milkin did prison time. They would prefer this be forgotten. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So we have a brand new account, with no history on any other articles, making error free, complex formatted additions of philanthropy [4] and honors [5] to articles that have in the past attracted advocacy editing. Yeah, I smell a problem too. - Brianhe (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Just saw these changes were made to the page and I'm confused. A new SPA (or any user) cannot correct typos on a page without flagging for COI? There were no deletions by the SPA of any information that would suggest bias or to be "forgotten" in John Nagle's words, and the information I see referenced comes from sources that state facts about building specs and an event that took place with no language that describes positive or negative sentiment. Sonnet44 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sonnet44: without putting too fine a point on it, what do you think the role of "web content specialist and representative for Lowell Milken" (i.e. you) should be at a third party issue in this venue? My view is you are involved and should not attempt to act as referee here. Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Since Wikipedia is a website for facts to be discussed, disclosed and properly sourced (something you've kindly pointed out I do on my User page info affiliation according to Wiki guidelines), you will see that I was asking for clarification on how a COI flag is reflected in the edits from LBFLBF. It's not my job to determine such matters, nor did I make it so as a referee would (at least according to the definition on this website.) The only clear bias here is in your accusatory tone throughout this discussion. Sonnet44 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
When we see patterns of editing behaviour that match our previous experience of COI, we tend to suspect that COI may be afoot again. Let me turn the question around: why are you going to such lengths to insist that LBFLBF is not a COI editor? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thanks for chiming in here. Patterns of behavior makes absolute sense. Thank you for providing the clarification I was asking for in my original comment. That is a reasoned response and if there is a pattern of behavior from the SPA that you discover, the editorial staff will take appropriate action I am certain. As all my actions on Wikipedia reflect, I am providing fact-based information and encouraging others to do the same without positive or negative sentiment. As you can see above, the tone and tenor of the discussion was not going in that direction. It's odd that merely participating in a discussion is something you consider "insisting LBFLBF is not a COI editor." That's not my call to make, as I already stated, and I'm glad that other editors can weigh in for this discussion. Sonnet44 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As all your actions on wikipedia reflect, you are a paid shill for your somewhat dubious employer and, hopefully, a reformed COI editor. Not, again, to put too fine a point on it. We certainly respect your view, but don't find it very persuasive. Indeed, going back to patterns of behaviour, you jumping in here as you have done raises more red flags about LBFLBF and you, which probably was not your intention, but is certainly the outcome. So it goes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Regardless of the facts I present and regardless of the work I've done to present the facts clearly in my edits, you assume dubious intent by (assumed and unfounded) association. As such I will comment no further, accept to say that those who have presented subjective opinions on the Lowell Milken page in the past with no fact or sources have rarely been given such scrutiny. Sonnet44 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Your association is not assumed and unfounded. Lowell's association is not assumed and unfounded. That other bad stuff happens elsewhere has no logical bearing on proceedings here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That you refer to the Wikipedia volunteers as "the editorial staff" speaks volumes about your orientation towards us. - Brianhe (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm not a COI, I'm just new to wikipedia. I think the work you guys have done on Lowell's page -- in particular -- is great. I wanted to make a few edits to typos and add some updates. Would you all be up for making some other edits? I think that we could change Early life and Education to one section. Then we can add sub categories to Carrer: Irell & Manella, Drexel Burnham Lambert and Knowledge Universe. We could even add a Controvery section. I'm 100% not trying to undo the work you've put in. Let me know. Thanks. - LBFLBF — Preceding unsigned comment added by LBFLBF (talk • contribs) 18:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey all -- one other note -- I don't think I made any "complex" changes. I just added two lines with sources. LBFLBF (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone "new to Wikipedia" (your words) perfectly executes a complex and confusing template as their second edit. No cause for suspicion, of course; most brand-new editors are equally accomplished. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The 'visual editor' flag was set on that edit, maybe VE built the template using the auto citation builder? JerryRussell (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Philanthropies

For the record here are related philanthropy articles. There has been a history of SPAs and skulduggery at many or all. - Brianhe (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

From some of the same editors:
Some of these could probably be merged into the general Milken Institute article. John Nagle (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Proposed merges of Philanthropy Advisory Service and FasterCures into Milken Institute. Discussion at Talk:Milken Institute. Wikipedia usually does this for subsidiary business units, unless they're on the scale of Chevrolet. Also proposed deletion of Margaret A. Anderson. John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Dame (group)

Article deleted, image with suspected dodgy licence queued for speedy deletion or some other fate. Good call by 331dot to bring it here. I think we're done - though keep the deleted article on your watchlist, since it may well be back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

I would just like someone more knowledgeable than I to review this article and its talk page regarding the copyright of the image on the page and the comments made by Josmoke9. It's getting into matters that seem above my pay grade, so to speak. They have declared a COI but I'm not really clear on if the paid editing policy has been met, or if what that user describes is acceptable. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

With luck the article will be deleted soon and these questions will be moot. Clearly promotional guff for a not-yet-notable band. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
But, fwiw, 331dot, it is believable that File:Shawn Stockman and Dame.png was taken by the promotional person; it's less likely that File:Dame WIR.png was, and an OTRS permission for that should certainly be sought ... I've read the talk page. Whether the promotor has sent an email to the right place, heaven knows. We have a belated admission of COI on the article, which is better than nothing. But as I noted above, the article is promotional twaddle for a non-notable band. Unwinding all of this is easiest if we start with the deletion of the article. Were the article to stay, it woud need to be cut back to bare bones. I forget what the policy on commons is for an image with a dodgy licence, but I'll look into it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
and there it went :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the best procedure onthe Commons, so I've marked the image for speedy deletion, and presume a better informed commoner will deal with it appropriately now that it's in the speedy queue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Richard A. Fowler

Richard Fowler or his staff have repeatedly edited this article to remove contentious and controversial information. Paco8191 (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The COI is obvious, but more concerning is that a BLP is repeating allegations made in a student newspaper of sexual assualt. I've removed the content per WP:BLP and unless there are better sources which confirm that anything further came of the allegations, it should not be replaced. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems tenuous, I would agree if the allegations arose from a blog or similar source, but I disagree that the source can be discredited based on the reports originating in a student newspaper. The paper appears to be both established and credible, and published multiple reports on this topic. The incident remains relevant as it has continued to reverberate, at least in terms of the other individual mentioned, in other local media sources. I would cite the "Facts are Facts" segment, as seen in WP:CRYBLP. I welcome discussion on this, as I could see an argument being made for either keep or delete.Paco8191 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Paco8191: I agree that facts are facts, but allegations are not facts and we should avoid repeating rumours. If you think it should be included, I'd suggest raising it at WP:BLPN instead where you'll find more editors who are familiar with where the line should be drawn in cases like this. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

VinceLeibowitz

Per the user's talk page, the COI element of this case seems now to be settled; and I hope the copyvio aspects are behind us too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

This is an interesting case. This user VinceLeibowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) updated the following image. And than made large changes to develop this [7]

Others of their edits appear to be copyright infringement. I have never seen anything like this. Have blocked the account for copyright and TOU violations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

barndominium

Clear-enough COI, but all's quiet at the moment. As normal, add the article to your watchlist against the probability that Furqonab has not got the message. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I guess blatant is in the eye of the beholder, but when I see a wikitor whose user page links to commercial websites Hello, My name is Furqon. I manage some websites http://purwasuka.id/ - http://alwib.net/ add content that is sourced back to one of those sites, supposedly written by someone with one name, "Aldira Srour", but whose author contact "alzabar142", further links to evaluations of improving search engine hits, I get suspicious.

Headlines like All About Steel Buildings, a Great and Tough Kind of Building Ever do very little to convince me this is a source worth including. It's littered throughout with these suggestions of copy-and edit verging on plagiarism, and gives no proof -or even suggestion- of expertise. It also links at the first link to a few particular builders. Whether this is paid editing or an attempt to pump-and-dump a URL, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Anmccaff (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Polariton Interferometer

Article deleted as an advert. It does sound like a nifty bit of technology if the claims are genuine; I hope we'll see it back in other than a promotional form, someday. I wish Fred well with getting it commercialised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

There might be something funny going on here -- the article leads off with a table touting a new invention's superiority, yet has no source for that figure. Then goes on for an unsourced section on novel applications. And has been created by someone whose username implies they are connected, and apparently ignored a COI warning from LaMona. Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur that COI is most probable.
The source for the first row of the table looks like it might be ref 2, since the figure seems to form the final part of the lead sentence. However the abstract for ref 2 says "the sensitivity per detected photon is found to be considerably less for the polariton gyroscope than with competing methods. However, polariton gyroscopes have an advantage over atomic BECs in a high signal-to-noise ratio, and have other practical advantages such as room-temperature operation, area independence, and robust design. We estimate that the final sensitivities including signal-to-noise aspects are competitive with existing methods" and that does not chime with the table, which touts the polariton as x60 better than the nearest competitor. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics for a review of the article content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Note that the user deleted a note on someone else's user page asking for outside input to consider the notability of the article and thus whether it should be deleted. This is certainly inappropriate, and suggestive of someone who has a conflict. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Nat. Ping @Argyriou:, just so he/she knows that this thread is afoot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Mark viking helpfully points out that much of the article is copyvio from the Quantum Widget company and [8]. Always amuses me; if it's not copyvio, it must be COI, and if it's not COI it must be copyvio. Either way, the outlook for the article right now is bleak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the copyvio has now been removed, although the article looks very much the worse for it. Probably time to pause and await some input from Polaritonics ... although on reflection I feel a speedy coming on. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Now I see that the WHOIS record on qwidgetco.com matches an author on one of the remaining article sources. – Brianhe (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flemings Mayfair

There's a technical question about whether you should have informed the two users on their talk pages, but since you were largely reporting yourself, we can let that slide. I've put COI notes on both of their talk pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

I've just reduced the article to a stub, more or less. I've never done anything so drastic before. Have I been too harsh with the slash and burn? -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You did the right thing, Roxy the dog. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising puffery; when found, it should be removed without compunction. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica

Accepting Taesulkim's assurance that he/she has no COI, I can see no evidence of COI, but rather a content dispute over a URL. This board cannot help with that sort of issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Although a UNESCO Whed listing has been provided to list the University Website within the infobox, and user insist on the talk page the website should not be publish, and undo any edition. Taesulkim (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It's an alleged diploma mill. Taesulkim seems to want the website to appear in the infobox. Other(s) do not. Taesulkim, can I ask, do you have some connection with this institution? Also, do you have a connection with College of the Holy Spirit CDES. Note that I have widened the scope of this investigation to include the OP and the College of the Holy Spirit CDES. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon. I have no relation at all. In fact I run the program free rice for the poor, and I am a bit aware of several education institutions in third world countries, and I fell sometimes they become victims of all the bad publicity, doing even harder to them to suceed in a competitive world.Taesulkim (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No relation at all. I see. Okay. It's just that if we look at Vanjagenije's contributions, we see a history going back to 2007 and covering all sorts of articles and activities. When we look at your contributions, Taesulkim, we see a singular interest in two institutions which have reputations as diploma mills. I'm sure that you can see why we might have some residual suspicion. What is clear, is that if there is COI, it does not attach to Vanjagenije. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Will anybody here acuse a 47 ongoing College such as http://www.cdes.edu.uy for been a diploma mill? I did my best, to bring an article in my limited English skills, so other editors are welcome to contribute. What remain unanswered here, is why a UNESCO listing should be ignored, and a website vanish? http://www.unesco.vg/whed/detail_institution.php?id=17738 In the begining they ask for reliable sources, now I also ask for reliable sources, why we should not list the website. Taesulkim (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that User:Taesulkim is here partly by my mistake. They posed a confused third opinion request, which didn't raise a content issue, but alleged "malicious publication". I said that there didn't appear to be a content issue, and that a conduct issue involving malicious publication should go to this conflict of interest noticeboard if it involved a financial interest, or otherwise to WP:ANI. I don't see any claim of conflict of interest. If someone here can write in Spanish, maybe they can discuss what the real issue is. I don't see any claim of financial misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, my bad on cdes - there's no suggestion that I've seen that it's a diploma mill. And for both, if there is an official URL that should be included in the article; but I see for UECR the discussion is about whether any of the URLs proferred is the official website - concerns being expressed that domans resolving to Portugal are possibly not appropriate for a CR establishment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Smartmatic

It appears that Ciudadania Digital (ENG:DigitalCitizenship) may be involved in a potential COI issue. They have been warned of COI edits in the past and have continued to edit in a manner to defend/promote Smartmatic, a Venezuelan electronic voting company. Given multiple controversies surrounding Smartmatic's products and implementation, it would not surprise me if COI editing were occurring on Wikipedia.ZiaLater (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

All of the user contributions are for Smartmatic or related. Name is suspicious as well. I concur with ZiaLater. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Marcel

New editor AdrienMarcelMgr states on their own talk page that they are the manager of the subject of the above article? I'm not sure what to do from here, I placed a username policy tag on his/her talk page. XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So far, the user only seems to have one edit (to Adrian Marcel, obviously), and it doesn't seem disruptive -- other than the obviously good-faith-intended edit of messing up the infobox. The username is definitely a policy violation, but doesn't look like a whole lot of WP:PROMOTION going on........yet. User should also publicly declare their COI if they want to keep editing. They stated it on their talk page (again, probably good faith), but if it is declared properly and further edits are not disruptive, I see no real issue here. However, more often than not, COI and promotion user will tend to get out of hand. So best to keep a watchful eye on this. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
You could try reporting the username at WP:UAA as a role account violation. However they could just re-enroll with a new name. - Brianhe (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added {{Connected contributor (paid)}} to the article talk page. Mkdwtalk 21:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The original edit performed showed up on WP:STiki feed, I marked it as innocent (as there was no obvious vandalism or nothing that needed reverting in good faith) Thats when I noticed the name of the editor -v- name of article. Page and User are on my watchlist to see if anything else happens XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Symbiosis Society

More eyes on this, please. I'm afraid I'm seeing many of the signs of promotion for a private business school complex. I hope this isn't another Indian Institute of Planning and Management type fiasco. Stuff like "Symbiosis institutions are ranked amongst the top 10 institutions in India and they have a placement record of almost 100%" (from S. B. Mujumdar, inserted by SPA Rahul.mulgund) needs to be cleaned up ASAP. - Brianhe (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Reported Public.relationssibmb to WP:UAA for probably shared account. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pruned Mujumdar article a bit, aside from the gawd-awful puffery, parts were copied from here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Takata Corporation

Questionable edits (including removal of sourced content) by an IP address attributed to "TK holdings", the parent corporation of Takata. May require cleanup or other action; neither the topic nor dealing with COI edits are really in my areas of expertise. ʍw 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have rolled the article back to the 1 October state, pre 68.72.228.37. Sorry if that trashes any of your work, MW. Let's now go forwards from this base. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Successor (Dedekind Cut album)

I am requesting WP:TNT for the article Successor (Dedekind Cut album).
This album has yet to be released (slated for November 11, 2016) yet it was brought to our attention at WP:SPI that a number of single purpose accounts seemingly all coordinated created and rapidly expanded the article within a 24 hour period. Concerns about WP:PAID were immediately brought up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waterface2020. A check user determined that sock puppetry was committed for at least two of the accounts. There was enough behavioural evidence to block the other accounts under MEAT. Since that time, one of those MEAT accounts has admitted via an unblock request that they do have a relationship to the sock master. We already know that the sockmaster is already closely connected to the artist, if not the artist themselves from things like uploading File:Screen shot of Max-Msp during session for $uccessor.jpg where they tagged it as "own work" and described it as a screenshot from a 2015 $uccessor mixing session. This along with the sheer fact that a huge amount of in depth information has been provided about the album to which a reminder that the album has yet to even be released yet. All of this seem to indicate that this is an orchestrated attempt at PAID promotion.
Since, newly created WP:SPAs have continued to edit the article. I've had to block the accounts and semi-protect the article. I do believe the article meets our notability guidelines but considering the number of socks and the nature of the editing within a short period of time, I think it should be blown up and restricted to semi-protection editing. Mkdwtalk 05:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  • A series of files uploaded by these same editors were all deleted on the Commons for copyvio. Mkdwtalk 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Davykamanzi has disclosed on the article talk page that they've been paid by Fred Warmsley to edit and clean up the article. I've briefly looked over Davykamanzi's changes and they appear to bring the article in line with our policies and guidelines. I think the article still has balance issues, but no longer remains in a situation where TNT is required. I hope this situation will be taken by Fred Warmsley that PAID contributions are permitted if done correctly, as has been done with Davykamanzi, but the further engagement of sock puppetry and undisclosed paid editing will result in consequences to the articles and the individuals involved. I do need to note that Davykamanzi edited both Fred Warmsley and Successor (Dedekind Cut album) well before they disclosed their PAID editing conflict of interest. I've left them a message on their talk page for clarification. Mkdwtalk 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ripple

I started to clean this up but decided to wait a minute and see what others think. This stemmed from the investigation above concerning Panopticon and other articles referencing a non RS.

There appear to be serious sourcing problems here. Press release(s), non-RS blogs, SPS awards. This source "Finextra" is especially concerning, they describe themselves as "the leading independent newswire and information source for the worldwide financial technology community." Brianhe (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Brianhe,
you asked my opinion because I often edit this page. Honestly, I just try to keep the article updated. So I have no issue if you make changes you judge fit. --Keepx (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

General understanding of policy

I am trying to respond to a request for guidance on how to make paid edits (ticket:2016110310014171)

( I'm not quite sure where to post this but neither WP:VPP nor WP:VPR seemed quite right ) I am aware that Paid editing (policy) is a failed policy proposal, and Paid editing (guideline) is a failed guideline proposal.

That leaves Paid-contribution disclosure for guidance, which outlines a disclosure you must make if you are being paid for your contributions. However, that page goes on to note that editing is governed by the conflict of interest guidelines which advises editors not to directly edit articles.

I'm trying to determine whether there are any articles that a paid editor can directly edit. While I suppose, in theory, someone could come along and offer me a sum of money and tell me they are paying me to edit articles and I get to choose whichever article I want to edit in which case I am being paid but I don't have a conflict of interest. However, that sounds exceedingly unlikely and it seems that if you are being paid to write an article, the person paying you probably has identified the article and some general thoughts on content, and that constitutes a conflict of interest.


I'm trying to determine whether the advice to the question you should be that there is no article that a paid editor can edit and they should always post request for changes on the article talk page or whether I'm misunderstanding our policies and editors who fill out the disclosure form are allowed to edit some articles in some situations.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone is being paid to edit a specific page 'Here is $20, edit page X' it doesnt matter who is telling them to edit, if they have a direct link to the page etc, they have a financial conflict in that their continued employment is based on their editing. They could say 'no I wont edit it' but then they do not get paid. The motivation is to earn money not improving the encyclopedia. You can argue they may not be being paid to edit non-neutrally etc, but it still does not remove the conflict, or the perception of a conflict. AGF does not extend to agreeing that someone being paid to edit article X is doing it with the interests of the encyclopedia first rather than their employer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It's an over-reading to interpret that all paid editing is inherently conflict-of-interest. If an employer such as a university or library includes in your job description that you should be improving Wikipedia pages in your area of expertise, that's paid editing and should be announced as such, but is not COI. (It would be COI if you were editing pages about the university or library itself, or perhaps inserting references to the work of the university into other articles, but those are specific editing concerns, not general ones.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I think in the vast majority of cases, paid editing is inherently COI editing. I find it highly unlikely that anyone's job description would include them "improving Wikipedia articles" as part of the terms of service. What, exactly, would the point of that be? I can see this as being part of a school assignment. I found this article about students writing and editing Wikipedia articles quite interesting, as a teacher myself (and former student ;)). However, that is not paid editing, and there are certainly fairly glaring issues with student work and other non-paid COI editing as well. I do think that a paid edit is almost always a COI edit. There are plenty of non-paid COI edits as well to watch out for. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The thing that you think is "highly unlikely" is, like many seemingly unlikely things, something that actually occurs. You may want to look at Wikipedian in residence for more information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I stand entirely corrected! I did not know that existed. Thanks for the info, Nat Gertler.
All in all, however, I think it should oftentimes be easy to pinpoint paid COI editors from these kinds of legitimately paid ones. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it too late to move this conversation to WT:PAID? This is a noticeboard where we generally discuss specific incidents, not policy or guidelines in general. - Brianhe (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Julie Menin

This article about a relatively minor New York City politician, has been the subject of editing by SPAs for years. Some, clearly out to promote her career and others to do the opposite. This became particularly acute during her (failed) run for Manhattan Borough President in September 2013 [9]. Since May 2015, the editor in question has repeatedly attempted to add promotionally worded material to her article, much of which is also a blatant copyright violation [10]. The copyright problem and the issue of COI editing was brought to their attention in May 2015. I received no response. They have returned this month with more of the same [11] and edit-warred to restore it. I left yet another message on their talk page yesterday, again with zero response. The article needs eyes. I don't think we've seen the last of this. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:FactChecker212's sole contributions are COI. Very telling name as well. I suggest a block. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Toby Young

The subject of the page has been editing the page. Which isn't necessary a problem - and he says in the edit summaries that some of what he has taken out is material that is inaccurate. However some of the edits appear to be removing accurate (or at least not disputed) content because the editor doesn't think it should be on the page, such as [12] and including links to articles he has written [13]. This seems to me to be somewhat problematic. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Bless. The toadmeister is well known for his innovative approach to facts. In this instance he appears to be using his article "Why I am a conservative" as collateral in removing the claim "is a prominent supporter of the Conservative Party". Appears not to comprehend that when a "journalist" espouses conservatism and acts as prominent supporter of the Conservative Party, it is reasonable to describe him as such. Anyway, I'd have thought he'd be too busy right now acting as the evidence-free schools czar for the government. One has to admire his energy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I dunno, I'm not really saying anything about him or the content - just that there seems something of a COI when you're (apparently) relatively arbitrarily influencing the way that a WP page talks about you. Would he take out critical sections or references? JMWt (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well as a matter of sourcing on a BLP, 'prominent supporter of the Conservative Party' would need reliable third party sources to support its inclusion, however his personal political beliefs merely need a primary source (himself) stating what he believes (which he provided). So as it stands its not actually a *bad* couple of edits. We do not do 'sky is blue' statements with issues like politics. While you can get away with some unsourced statements in the lead, that particular one was not supported by content in the article - the only real link to the conservatives being that he produced a documentary about Boris'n'Dave. So it would have required an in-line citation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed (despite my earlier comment): he is a prominent tory (of some hue), but there's a distinction between that and being a prominent supporter of the party. As to COI edits: they're never ideal, but Wikipedia is not an ideal place. Better if they're not made at all, but when they are, it's ideal if neutral editors check them and revert where necessary. A revert in the case of the two edits brought here does not seem to be appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
His own writing says he is a Tory supporter [14] so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to call him a "prominent supporter of the Conservative party" and according to the edit summary the phrase was taken out by him not because if inaccuracy but because party support is not found on the WP pages of other journalists. JMWt (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Per my above. Difference between Tory and Party. Woud need to demonstrate prominence of his support for the party, rather than merely his conservatism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a moot point to me. RS state that he is a Conservative Party supporter [15], [16], is on the candidates list for byelection candidates [17] and [18] etc. And I underline, the edit summary made it clear that the removal was not because it was inaccurate but because he felt that this kind of information was not given on other journalist's WP pages. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
It generally isnt (included) because its rarely relevant what their political leanings are - unless someone comments on their journalism work being biased by their political stance. Which as far as I can see has not been the case here. As I said, the lede is a summary of the article and his political views are (were, not checked it since) not mentioned in the article at all. 'Prominant supporter' would need an inline cite by a reliable third party describing him as such. Otherwise its basically OR/Synth. You could get away with 'is a conservative supporter' based on a primary/self-disclosed source, but it would still not really be relevant unless it was mentioned in the article body. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Jason Pontin

Jason Pontin has been editing his own Wikipedia page for years as well as launching anonymous edits and attacks over an ongoing feud. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Background

Background. Jason Pontin has an long running public feud with uber-bearded life-extensionist Aubrey de Grey

As far back as 2005, he put up $20k to get SENS disproved, however this was a public failure and instead his dislike continued through channels such as Sniping on Facebook having lost the key battle.

Pontin has even given a TED talk implicitly talking about how SENS-like projects cannot succeed.

Anyhow, on to the page.

The editing subtley modifies several matters to Potin's point of view such as:
  • the ideas of Aubrey de Grey -> self-styled "theoretical biogerontologist" Aubrey de Grey
  • is working to expedite the development of a 'cure' for human aging -> has identified what he says are the seven causes of human aging
  • Pontin criticised de Grey's ideas -> Jason Pontin, the editor in chief and publisher of Technology Review
Much of the specifics of the challenge are reframed.
141.154.201.219 also traces to Boston Virginia
A number of minor edits to MIT Technology Review would also come from this account.
38.113.17.3 traces to Washington DC right now, but the mix of selection of edits leave little doubt in my mind this is Pontin again.
Same IP block.
Conclusion

There's evidence of years of COI editing. Not sure what actions should be taken in response to this Deku-shrub (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The first action is don't knack the COI noticeboard with superfluous H3s. Really. Show a little respect. Your comments refactored. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that Deku-shrub (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
No probs. I can see plenty on the Pontin article that might be trimmed. I've looked at some of the IP stuff ... yet to do it thoroughly enough to draw a conclusion, beyond that much/all of it happened a long time ago - last edits of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2014 ... nothing more recent than that in the list you've put together, though a good hard look at the history of Aubrey de Grey might (or might not) lead us to some more contemporary issues. And in particular, I don't know how much of the alterations made over the last 10 years still survives in the de Grey article, nor whether there's anything particularly problematic remaining in that article - do you have an opinion on that? Issues with the Pontin article amount to little more than puffery which belongs better on the Tech Review article than on Pontin's page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, much of the content never spilled onto de Grey's page, so I don't consider it an active or cross over issue in that sense. The feud background was relevant for the purposes of identifying the IP edits as Pontin, not that had lasting effect on pages other than the one in question. The main question to my mind is how to address the state of the Jason Pontin page given ~75% of edits have a COI. Is there a standard procedure? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Generally, for the subject's own article, a good de-peacocking is done. The entire section on Awards (or however its titled) should go - these mainly pertain to the publication, which has its own page. What remains should be checked with a view to ascertaining that it is factual & referenced; and a more general check made that the article does not omit significant bad stuff. I've not looked in more detail. I will tackle it a wee bit later, but right now I'm quite hungry and that's not a good state to be in when editing articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I did some minor cleanup on the article, and posed the question on its talk page of whether Folio Magazine awards are notable. Folio Magazine itself has very little press coverage and probably wouldn't pass the general notability criteria for Wikipedia. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Borderline. The awards definitely don't belong on Pontin's article as they are for the magazine and should be moved to that article though. Probably just as a table, not the full verbage they are now as these just don't appear to be major awards.Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Onus should be on the proponent of inclusion to show awards are notable enough to have their own article or to show the awarding entity (Folio magazine) is notable, at a minimum. And agree with Ravensfire that inclusion of the copious magazine related material in he bio is inappropriate. - Brianhe (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Section boldly moved and tagged with importance template. Gives us something for now. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Did a bit of googling on Folio and I think the magazine itself is legit. See their About page. It's a trade magazine focusing on the magazine print/web industry, so the awards probably have some importance. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Investment software stuff

Software companies

More to come; for now see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bob's Guide. Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Collect has provided an opinion at RSN that this site is basically a PR vehicle. I've expanded the list of articles potentially in need of scrubbing. List is held at User:Brianhe/COIbox39 for now. - Brianhe (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The whole group of articles in this list and this list are a mess but I didn't discern a single entity responsible. I'd invite other people to have a scan if they are able. Plenty may be eligible for deletion, here is a sampling:
Probably won't return to this topic unless someone has a question or comment for me about it. - Brianhe (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Problem, Nadimsaab has simply returned a bunch of promotional stuff after I removed it from Path Solutions, including the non RS bobsguide.com churnalism. - Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Square Yards

I tagged the article as NPOV since the article read like a PR release and was largely contributed to by Priyanca02. They have since stated that they represent the company in the article. I do understand that

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.

but I'm not experienced enough to fully take on the issue. The edits appear to have spanned a large time period from February to November, and the editor appears willing to cooperate, as stated in their disclosure. The article has been deleted before for similar reasons. Zupotachyon (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment : I can see why it was deleted...is this article even that notable? It appears to be an orphan -- its only internal links are basically sandboxes and User talk pages: see here. The contributions for the creator of the page, User:Nidasqy, are solely for Square Yards. This is certainly a case of COI, but I think it's a case for deletion as well. I'm going to propose it again. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Update : I am having trouble adding this to the Articles for Deletion page, as it was already previously deleted (but appears to have been resurrected. Any admin who can delete this, please do. The result of previous discussion was "Delete" FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the full disclosure of conflict of interest. Our intentions were only to update the page with new/correct informtion with relevant links. Please accept my sincere apologies for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanca02 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment At Priyanca02 (talk) — thank you for your full disclosure of conflict of interest. Nonetheless, I don't believe that this article meets Wikipedia standards, and should be deleted. I t was already previously deleted (but appears to have been re-created again). The result of previous discussion was "Delete", and I don't see any new information that can justify recreating this article, to be quite honest. Can any admin assist here? FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

VIPole

This user has created a page that seems to be purely promotional and there are no reliable secondary sources in the article and i could find none on the web so I nominated it as an AfD. in the discussion page his arguments contesting the nomination were

  • My acquaintances use it, but there’s no info about it in Wikipedia - that’s is why I added it.
  • Encyclopedia provides knowledge about what exists in the world and brings value for people.
  • I checked the list of secure messengers in Wkipedia, and to my mind it’s incomplete. This is why I took the time to create a small article about a product that is less known, but might be helpful for the people who care about their privacy.

I asked him three times on the AfD page whether he has any connection to the company and each time he avoids the question.

The only other page he has edited is Comparison of instant messaging clients and this was to add information about VIPole. he may have nothing to do with the company but has simply not noticed my questions about conflict of interest but I have my doubts hence this entry on the noticeboard. 

Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Pure promo, quite obvious the user has a COI. The article itself is an orphan besides for that page specifically edited to include this as an internal link. I second the AfD nomination as well. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

FOREO

This s.p.a. has never edited other than on this company, adds product detail and puffery, and restored content I'd deleted which had been posted by the account User:Foreo official. (I suspect a checkuser would reveal something of interest.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Added second and third SPAs. - Brianhe (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I have given FOREO a haircut. Removed the long list of "awards" and the weakly referenced technology section. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment Is the article itself even that notable? It appears to be an essential orphan (other than an internal link from Electric toothbrush), and I don't even see why it's worth keeping. It's apparently a Swedish company, but there's not even an article in Swedish concerning it. Quite honestly, I think it merits an AfD nomination. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shameless promotion of paid editor

Here; . Smooth pep talk with a pitch of a paid editor. I reverted it. Any more drastic actions on this? Like blocking, revdel, sock check? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a strange edit, but not direct COI editing. Can you list the related articles and users that need attention? Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Odd user edit indeed! I don't see any COI here, however—I looked at the user's contributions, and didn't seen anything COI-like. I can't even see a common theme. This line from this edit is telling: "I would also like to contact you regarding academic development and process, pathways & opportunities in psychology research." But telling of what, I do not know. Best to just keep an eye on it. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nagle:} @FuzzyGopher: I am referring to the suggestion to use paid editing, complete with the name of a ""wikipedian"" who will happily work for you. In my book this is a severe violation of the spirit of wikipedia. Do you really think it is OK to turn talk pages into a free advert space for edit-for-money? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: I don't quite understand what you are getting at here. All I said was that I don't see anything COI in the edits. I do think the line I quoted is suspicious, and said as such. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Nagle:} @FuzzyGopher: I am not quite understand why you keep ignoring the issue I am raising: using talk pages for promotion of a paid editor. The essence of the post in question is an advice how to promote oneself in wikipedia using paid editing. Yes there is not direct COI violation. However to write yourself about yourself or to hire a shill to write about yourself is one the same game of WP:NOTHERE. Therefore a wikilawyering advice to use a trick to circumvent our COI policy IMO is well within the interests of this message board. So once again, instead of one POV pusher you will have a POV pusher plus a paid helper. And this does not bother you at all? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: I didn't say it doesn't bother me. All I said was that I didn't see a blatant COI in his edit history. He also disclosed his identity, and said that he is not attempting "self-promotion of an artist or promoting of products - they are just knowledge/theories that I find very important for educated public to know". I mean, obviously, he is in COI territory, given that he is promoting his own theories. I agree with you that this needs attention. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@FuzzyGopher: And I was not talking about COI of this IP. (There is a little walled garden of COI/POV pushing in the vicinity, but I a not ready to talk about it yet.) Yes, any fringe theorist says they want to deliver important knowledge only they know. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: What exactly are you proposing then? I agree that it's troubling for a user to insert their own fringe theories. Maybe just a warn not to do it again. I see that that particular IP does not even have an activated talk page. I will leave a message there...no need to get upset, unless the user is persistent and unwilling to compromise. Admitting COI is a big step. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@FuzzyGopher: Sorry I was not clear. I mentioned "fringe theorist" by the way of an example. In this case we are talking about a couple of users promoting their research which quality I don't judge, plus a very aggressive user who apparently promotes his father's theories. But, as I said, I don't want to discuss it here. re: " I see that that particular IP does not even have" - I am sure you are ware about socks and floating IPs. And again, plain COI is not an issue here. Please read the section title. At the moment I don't see what can be done. This person reinserted the text from another IP, which I reverted again, but no more so far, so I guess this thread may be closed. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OnTheMarket

By way of light relief, would someone from this desk be good enough to look in on OnTheMarket and a request currently at the foot of Talk:OnTheMarket, where HarkenMotet, who is understood to have a possible COI and who is scrupilously complying with our COI policy, is requesting a change to the article. I'm afraid my judgement is too clouded right now to be of any use. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I did look into it. Second opinion may be handy. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it, I think the first half is okay, but the second half is a little negative in wording: "OnTheMarket's business model has led to a Competition and Markets Authority warning, and to legal wranglings with client companies; the number of visitors to the portal lags behind its leading competitor by an order of magnitude." I don't really think the last part is necessary. I see that this was removed, and think it should stay as such. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with taking that out, because the original article gives Hitwise stats for only one month, March 2016.[19]. That's statistical cherry-picking. John Nagle (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore PR

These articles were all created by the same editor who claims to be a PR instructor in Singapore. They all have problems with promotionalism and sourcing. In a quick scan, I saw sourcing to Forbes/sites, Facebook pages, corporate self-citations, video interviews with corporate execs, and CrunchBase ELs (CrunchBase is crowdsourced). Brianhe (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Smartse for adding the userlink. Since this editor agreed on 4 February to only submit new articles through AfC, and has not done so, I do not assume good faith. It's pretty plain to me that these are COI editing jobs. I have added an alt account that Lemongirl942 asked about, which inquiry was deleted from the talkpage without comment (along with a copyvio notice, several PRODs and another COI notice). - Brianhe (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Brianhe. Firstly, the claim by DigitalWizardry, that they teach PR at a university in Singapore (and the other userboxes like being an academic and having a PhD) should be taken with a grain of salt. I have seen COI editors add stuff like that to add a degree of authority to their profile. Creating the bunch of non-notable articles directly is clearly bad faith editing. I have moved all of the articles to draft space so that the editor can submit it again through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

NRMA Insurance

Article deleted and account blocked. Brianhe (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Account was created today, so far SUA for creating/editing article on an insurance company. Note per the article "NRMA Insurance is a brand and operating unit of Insurance Australia Group" (presumably the "IAG" in "Iaginsurance". Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • And article speedy deleted. Closing. - Brianhe (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sxollie Cider

Article has been deleted thrice, responsible editor has responded here and removed problem off-wiki content, admin has asked for closure. There doesn't seem to be any reason to keep this open. Brianhe (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sxollie cider has posted this on their face book page https://www.facebook.com/sxolliecider/

COMPETITION TIME!!

We need your help - SXOLLIE is not on Wikipedia, we want it there! Help us by creating a SXOLLIE page. First one to do this wins an awesome SXOLLIE hamper as well as a lifetime of cudos.

This will open up a ton of COI editing over the next few days/months. is there any way of getting the name salted until this dies down? Domdeparis (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We have removed the post and will not do this again. We just really want our page listed. Only 1 person had responded to the post. Apologies, please don't "salt the name" Laura Clacey (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good news but it's up to the administrators now..."hustling" as you put it on your now deleted post, to get your page on wikipedia is not a good idea. --Domdeparis (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems to have been a good faith mistake, and both the editors concerned seem not to intend to do the same again, so I think we can just drop the case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RemitRadar and others

Not sure what to do with this article RemitRadar. On the surface it has many COI hallmarks including fully formed creation by a brand new editor [20]. This is still suspicious, however, as I was on the verge of initiating some kind of deletion I noticed that the Forbes source does seem to be legit. Looking for second opinions. Brianhe (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It was worse than I thought, two of three sources were press releases disguised as churnalism. This is probably fully eligible for G11 deletion. Still waiting for a second opinion. - Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
You now have it - the article is up for G11. I looked at it earlier and thought it might survive a deletion; there are multiple sources, though how many of those are PR fluff, I'm unsure. With luck the G11 will see it off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like promo and COI...even if the sourcing was legit, the article is still an orphan. I would vote delete as well! --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news sites

  • Forbes/Sites is self-published, user-generated content. Its not reliable for notability, contentious material etc. Depending on the contributor concerned, it can be reliable for facts, opinions etc as some of them are experts in their fields, otherwise previously published journalists etc writing within their sphere of expertise. But you could not use a Forbes/sites page to assert notability as their contributors have next-to-zero editorial oversight and can write about whatever they want. If it went to AFD with just a forbes/sites reference it would be deleted due to lack of notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Only in death: You know, how I came to this article in the first place was the red-flag inclusion of finextra.com (see my private watchlist #40; I am going through the list to see what's worth keeping). It seems like a tool that would search for this kind of dreck sourcing, to include Forbes/sites apparently, would be really useful. There are tons of articles that explicitly use press releases via easy to discern domains as well (e.g. pr.com [21], prwire.com, prweb.com [22], businesswire.com [23]). - Brianhe (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Forbes/sites would likely fall into the grey area where an automated tool would not be incredibly useful. A lot of information on Forbes/sites (depending on who wrote it) can be very useful/useable. Its just one of those places that needs both material & context to be manually looked at to determine if its appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The so-called journalist writing in Forbes also has his own consulting company http://www.haggerstonmediatech.co.uk/ that says on its about page The aims of the Company are as follows:

  • To bring Companies to the attention of a wider audience and to build a roadmap for success;
  • To work with Companies to ensure that they achieve their goals;
  • To help businesses grow by developing funding opportunities;
  • To act as a sounding board for businesses in the Tech and Media spaces.

Which seems exactly what he is doing with Remitradar. How can someone whose livelihood is based on bringing companies to a wider audience be used as a freelance journalist? There's got to ba a massive problem of COI in there somewhere! Domdeparis (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This would be one of those cases where the author would unlikely to be useable in an article as he would not be considered reliable due to their inherant COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just found this on his website...at least he's open about it...it's like he's saying 80 quid and you can use me as an external source on wikipedia!!!
Edmund's rates start at £80 for an article of up to 1,000 words, but you can take advantage of his special offer of 10 articles for £600 if you wish - a great way to ensure somebody is thinking and writing about your company consistently and accurately, getting your brand message out there whilst keeping the masses informed about the industry as a whole. Domdeparis (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What do people think about putting the "Haggerston Times Newsblog" (haggerston-times.com) on the external links blacklist? It is currently used in one article, Carspring, created fully-formed upon the first edit of Ricky Octa. And it also uses forbes/sites as a source. - Brianhe (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
One more note, this is a Rocket Internet related article or set of articles appearing at COIN for the third time in under 18 months. See Archive 89, Archive 92. - Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Just throwing my hat into the ring here: Brianhe tipped me off to this discussion and I'd like to be included when it comes up again. We should have a discussion about collecting these blog sources into a master list of chronically non-GNG-worthy (or entirely non-RS) sites as a matter of policy. Does such a thing exist already, and is it possible to amend something so specific to GNG/RS? Jergling (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

AuthBridge

Creation of highly promo articles by SPA and sudden pile-on by more SPAs is suspicious. Note one is blocked for ToU violation. Creator is now messing about with Capital Float, linked to another blocked editor with prolific sockpuppetry. - Brianhe (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Real Vision

Just a notice - this article was recently recreated (after being speedy deleted as advertising some weeks ago) by User:Shomar103 who in this edit claims to be employed by the company. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Additionally user asserts that the previous page met WP guidelines before it was changed and deleted; I'm not an admin so I can't verify this, but perhaps the old page could be salvaged if this claim is true. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mr. Vernon. Happy to help however I can. Would be nice if the previous version could get salvaged. In the meantime I'll work on updates to the live version from an archived version.Shomar103 (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New promotional editing in the binary option/FOREX area.

(See also User Talk:Kenntybdv for rejected article creation.

This looks like promotion in the heavily spammed binary option/FOREX area. Not too bad yet, but some new editors to watch. John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I will reiterate that it would be really useful to have a tool that searched for additions of crappy pseudo-news sites like financemagnates.com, which was added repeatedly by one both of the above editors. When I say crappy, I mean non-RS as determined at RSN. - Brianhe (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
They also used Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency as a source, which now is open at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cyprus_Investment_Promotion_Agency. Brianhe (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Fusion Systems

AfD resulted in deletion. No further action necessary. Brianhe (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

A small company with local notability at best, SPA creator and co-editors. Smells fishy. Orangemike and I have trimmed kilobytes of promo [24][25], but I wonder if it even passes WP:CORP. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like some marketing staff have gotten ahead of themselves, and happy to revert their edits since Nov 14.
The company, while small in staff, develops technology that plays a critical role in capital markets and services a number of household-name global investment banks, with a storied history in financial technology. The page should be restored to its original, objective content, consistent with WP:CORP. Logo is out of date, will fix later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djnz00 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you stating that company employees are modifying this article without disclosing their COI? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Also the previous Fusion isn't really relevant. It was purchased. This is an entirely new company; that they share some employees doesn't seem relevant at all, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm going to AfD this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scholarxx

Editor ackowledged COI guidelines. Brianhe (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

... etc. through ...

An editor who has identified himself as the author of a paper has inserted it across many articles relating to the Olympic games - [26] etc. His response, when challenged, on KATMAKROFAN's talkpage shows a lack of understanding why this is a problem. - Brianhe (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am that editor. The wp guidelines ask editors to clearly state possible COI. I did that for each edit by including the following text: "I added data on cost from the Oxford Olympics Study. Please note I am co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that a wp-editor take a look at my edit to check and verify that it’s okay, many thanks." If this is not enough, please let me know what more I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarxx (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Scholarxx: Seems like adding the same reference to ~20 articles is poor judgment and you should ask for potential or actual COI edits like this on the article talkpages, as indicated in the guidelines for managing a COI. - Brianhe (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Will do, many thanks. Please note I did not add the same info twenty times, but different info each time, namely the cost of each Olympics in question. I would think that this is an important piece of information for a wp-article on a particular Games Scholarxx (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Scholarxx, thanks for your reply. Sorry for my apparent mis-characterization; unique information on each event is probably of value but it really is better to let others evaluate a document that you are personally involved with. I'll close this case quickly if nobody else chimes in. - Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd appearance of multiple accounts editing about pharmaceuticals

Grad class, not known to be COI or socking. - Brianhe (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Somewhat strange article expansions. Any insights or help from editors who are experienced with this sort of thing would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Listing accounts mentioned in your diffs to see if they want to talk about this here. It does seem odd that a whole bunch of brand new accounts start editing in such similar styles on such similar articles in November and all have a preponderance of 2's and 6's in their usernames. - Brianhe (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a SPI would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
These two overlapped on Gadoteric acid User:Madflo22196 User:Leme226 so they are associated somehow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Similar, but they don't all look like one person behaviorally. Pharmacy school class project? I don't know. I have a sneaking suspicion they will never reappear on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the articles they have edited don't have anything in common. Approved as well as experimental treatments for many different conditions made by many different pharma companies. So that doesn't seem right for a COI issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
User_talk:Kelltastic - Apparently a graduate level class project. Sizeofint (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Yes, this resolves it: a class from a Pharmacy school. Edits are a bit disappointing for PhD students, but whatever. (Also a strange coincidence about those numbers in the user names.) Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Integrated Environmental Solutions

Problem article salted by Orangemike. - Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This article has been deleted over and over, it looks like somebody off-wiki is trying to pay to have it recreated again; their Upwork ad includes a quote from one of the AfDs making it pretty sure this is them their PR firm [27] . Just a heads-up for watchers. All users with this page indicated on their talkpages are listed above. Paging DGG who speedied it once under G11. Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's now been salted by Orangemike. the quote they used was the deletion nomination by Chowbok. For a paid ed. to take it on with this record behind it is a new low of incompetence. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that a new high of incompetence? Just kidding, thanks for the update re salting. - Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kerio Technologies

Editor Special:Contributions/TheKarpati & Special:Contributions/Mlovato543 have extensively (and solely) edited on topics relating to Kerio Technologies. I've just removed massive amounts of promo & WP:MANUAL content (sample diff), but would also like for an experienced participant to have a look. The users have been notified of this discussion on their respective Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I do not quite understand, why you complain about this. As a person, using those products, you start changing one article and then you see, there are other articles, talking about the products you use. So you continue. So what is the problem? TheKarpati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

TheKarpati Do you have a WP:COI ? Are you paid to edit? See WP:DISCLOSE. Your account, as well as several others, are WP:SPAs, so other editors may assume, as I do, that a promotional article with several SPAs needs some explaining. Go ahead. Widefox; talk 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox No, I am not paid. I just use those products myself and thought, it is worth mentioning them, respectively updating the articles. I just saw for example, that also Microsoft is shown with separate articles for each of their products. So I do not understand all the complaints. As I am not a wikipedia editor professional, maybe someone (you?) can help me on that? Thanks TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, you have no connection whatsoever with the products, company, affiliates etc etc (broadly construed) in any form, per COI. Do you? (For why notability for other articles is irrelevant see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Widefox; talk 06:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati The COI question was asked by another editor on your talk page two years ago [29] but went unanswered. Explain. Widefox; talk 06:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox Thanks for pointing me to this. I added a comment. You see, I am not a wikipedia pro at all. And I only contribute to things I know. And I think I do not violate any rules of wikipedia like the COI thing you mentioned. Again: I am just a user of those products why I think it is worth, contributing to those articles.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Let me say, then, TheKarpati, that you find yourself in the unenviable position of having an edit history that looks absolutely indistinguishable from someone who has a conflict of interest - that it to say, your editing has the hallmarks of a Single Purpose Account interested in only one thing - in this case, Kerio. Our very long experience of COI editing is that users with edit histories like yours are generally connected to the product or service being edited. You'll forgive me - or not - in harbouring considerable doubt and reservation as to whether you are being completely candid in your responses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Tagishsimon So you would say, when contributing to other articles, even if I do not know at the moment to which, would change the impression? So you basically say, contributing to other articles just for the sake of contributing to others would be helpful, even if my opinion is: better contribute to things you know well instead of contributing to things you are not familiar with? TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) TheKarpati This early edit [30] (the accounts only use of the minor edit flag, used incorrectly as well) about the company (not the product) indicates to me, that your answer above isn't in any way convincing. Editors with a COI must disclose, they can still edit. Note: I've given this editor the COI template so they can read how to disclose any COI they may remember about in future.
Now, TheKarpati have you used any other accounts, or do you know the users of the other accounts that have edited these articles? Widefox; talk 06:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox No I have not used any other accounts. This early edit was just done, because I visited San Francisco/San Jose in that year and I just went to the place of the company, from which I use nearly all products. And I thought, it is nice mentioning them on this Silicon Valley page (San Jose is Silicon Valley, right!?). If this was a mistake, please accept my excuse. TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox So again: No, I have no relationship to this company, except using their products TheKarpati
TheKarpati how do you explain your only non-Kerio edit [31] - which attempted to delete a communication product not from Kerio? Promo edits on Kerio, deletion for an other. According to (what you said above) you only edit what you know/use. Explain? That appears WP:NPOV, COI, and promo / WP:NOTHERE. Why shouldn't we just block your account to protect our content from this - for failing to disclose (also see about violating the TOU here -> WP:TOU), and violating core principles of neutrality and transparency? Widefox; talk 07:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox that was basically a childish reaction after another user nominated a page I created for deletion. Check my contribution history please. As far as I remember, it was after my created page for "Samepage" got the deletion nomination. I was really upset, after spending much time for creating this particular page, that it got deleted, which I could not understand at this point, seeing pages like the "Yammer" page not being deleted. Apologies.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This is getting "curiouser and curiouser". Then why attempt to restore WP:MANUAL material as in this diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Samepage was created by User:Mlovato543. So you're admitting that account is also yours, yes? How many accounts have you used? Widefox; talk 07:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Here [32] a Kerio marketing employee User:Tromele asked if you were also an employee! You only answered that question when I pointed out that you hadn't answered it. Even the Kerio marketing department that has stated it wants these articles created thinks TheKarpati is/was an employee! Widefox; talk 07:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox I remember I created a samepage article I believe not being logged in as a registered user around 2013. Maybe you can check that from the history for articles named "Samepage"? I do not how. My only account here on Wikipedia is TheKarpati. No other account.You may check that by cross-checking the IP?
I personally get more and more the feeling, you are now only searching for reasons for blocking, deleting whatever just for the sake of getting a contributor blocked/locked out from this system. Proof me if I am wrong. But it really looks like a "user hunting game" at the momentTheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just an editor like yourself so I can't view deleted pages. All I can see was it was deleted in 2013 and then recreated (and at least two other editors were involved in the deletion). Admins can view deleted pages. I will ask no further questions, as some of them still haven't been fully answered (see above). Widefox; talk 08:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
WidefoxI really lost the track because of this immense text/answers published already. Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs)

TheKarpati editors are not meant to engage in protracted discussions with you per WP:COITALK. Your pattern of editing including trying to !vote more than once at a merge discussion, borderline WP:OWN, overly promo SPA account speaks louder than an absence of disclosure. Widefox; talk 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I nominated Kerio Operator, Kerio Control‎ and Kerio Connect for deletion as I don't believe that they meet general notability guidelines. This will give other editors the chance to determine if they should be listed. Shritwod (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I note that a user calling themselves TheKarpati took it on themselves to post a Kerio promotional video (redacted) - on the same day that TheKarpati was posting some Kerio stuff here. tbh, if Kerio employees lie & lie & lie, it's not much of an advert for their software/service. Major ethics 101 fail. Kerio not to be touched with a bargepole. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Redacted link to an off-Wiki forum. - Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati I'm still waiting. Answer to these above? Widefox; talk 08:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox And I already wrote, that I really lost track.Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs)
TheKarpati The evidence that you work at Kerio...? Widefox; talk 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WidefoxWhich I already answered with a No, but I am pretty sure, you will find something else, what you dislike, so the discussion will be endless. Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it... BTW: after thinking again about merge/no merge of the articles into on article I came to the conclusion, that it is maybe a good idea. So everything is in one place instead of several places. TheKarpati 09:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC) --TheKarpati 09:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the two product articles into the company article, and put the company article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerio Technologies (2nd nomination). Enough with these shills. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon Same comment for you: Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it...--TheKarpati 09:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs)
TheKarpati it is odd that someone with exactly the same username as you is uploading promotional videos for Kerio on a web site (profile deleted but still visible) and since 2012 you have contributed 248 times and every single time it was on a Kerio related subject. Even trying to assume good faith we can apply the WP:DUCKTEST here and if you were us what conclusion would you come to? Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Domdeparis I partially agree: the fact with the same username on Reddit is odd, but I cannot solve it. The fact with my only contributions to Kerio: I only contributed to this, because I use those products for years now, as I wrote several comments before. Is it mandatory to contribute to other articles too, only for the purpose/sake that others do not get a wrong impression? That would be a pity --TheKarpati 10:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati despite over 4 years of presence as a wikipedia editor you have never been tempted or in the least bit interested in editing a page that doesn't deal with kerio products????? Even if you do not have a COI (tries not to laugh out loud) you have an obsession with this company that verges on the pathological. Yours is a very clearly a WP:SPA Domdeparis (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati "odd, but I cannot solve it" no reasonable person would be convinced by your reply to that. When busted, there's no point keeping up the pretence, is there? The problem with the line that being treated this way means you will go away, is that readers deserve less undisclosed COI/paid editing, not more. Your only non Kerio contribution was to try to delete a rival. It really is shameless. Widefox; talk 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I relisted Kerio Operator at AfD. Widefox; talk 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed block

ANI, but don't see why we shouldn't gather opinions here. Widefox; talk 12:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Quarry Hill Creative Center

I am doing my best to add only information that is true and of general interest. I cannot help being related to the family the article covers but am t trying my best to write true and honest information. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This was originally posted at WT:COI and I have moved it here--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi thank you for your honesty and disclosure. I would say most of what you have edited does not pose a problem with the exception of this last edit.
On August 11-12, 2016, it celebrated what may be its final annual All Night Dance Party, begun in1984 as a birthday party for Joya Lonsdale. Isabella Fiske's daughter. (See Facebook: Invitation to the Party by Katharina Francpise, Summer 2016). Internet rumor states that Eva Us, re Fiske's granddaughter, wishes the party to continue.
As a member of the family it seems inappropriate to be talking about unsubstantiated rumours about yourself or your family...i would strongly suggest that you take this out as it is clearly COI editing and could be construed as promotion for a future event. And BTW facebook is very rarely an appropriate source --Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Promotion, or useful links?

I really don't know whether this is a problem, so I am asking here. Peterhoneyman has been adding a large number of wikilinks to J. Alex Halderman.[33] Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If Peterhoneyman is writing about a colleague at University of Michigan, there could be a COI issue. I don't want to go further without knowing if WP:REALNAME affords the privilege. - Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Halderman, whose contributions are mentioned dozens of time in wikipedia, is a leading and prominent expert in cybersecurity of voting systems, a topic that is both timely and long-studied. I threw up a rudimentary page and resolved a number of dangling links to help people looking for information about Halderman. Peterhoneyman (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peterhoneyman: I noticed you didn't address the purpose of this noticeboard, which is conflict of interest. Could you tell us if you are in fact connected with Halderman in some way, including as colleagues ast the same institution? - Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted all of Peterhoneyman's spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this at IPsec. I think it's stretching COI too far to say that adding valid wikilinks is a problem, particularly when it is to an existing article for an academic. Someone adding links to a branded product might be a problem, but citations are supposed to have all the details, and if Wikipedia has an article on an author, the author should be wikilinked. If a colleague of the author (or even the author themselves) decides to do that, I don't see that we should be concerned. There are many other real COI and promotional editing problems. However, I believe the author field of {{cite web}} should not be wikilinked because that field is used to generate machine readable data. Use the alternative at Template:Cite web#Authors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this at Pwnie Awards since I watch that page; I put back the link to Halderman's article. I have no COI on these topics, and I agree with User:Peterhoneyman that Halderman is a well-respected expert in his field. It makes sense to me that Halderman should have a Wikipedia article with links to it from related articles where he's mentioned. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no objection to the reverts. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I went through and reverted the ones where he's mentioned in the article text. I didn't revert the citation links - somebody else is welcome to do that if they like; I agree with using the alternative formatting Johnuniq pointed out. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

STICLI

Airport Master (video game) is current being developed by a company named STICLI. Obviously this probably isn't a coincidence. Stikkyy (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've already reported to UAA. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Delhi School of Internet Marketing

This editor has recreated the Delhi School of Internet Marketing page.
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_107#DrankJetter_sockfarm for prior discussion. 220 of Borg 09:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi School of Internet Marketing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It is going to be deleted, so any COI may be somewhat moot. Edwardx (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Obie Scott Wade

The user name and article name are the same. I notified the user that it is an issue to write an article about themselves, and did not receive a response. It appears that the user predominantly writes about Obie Scott Wade, and the company created by Wade called SheZow, although it has been years since Wade has written about SheZow.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there information that I can gather to help facilitate the review?
This summary, for instance, shows that all but four edits were made to Wade or his company's article:
Article
  • 52 Obie Scott Wade
  • 16 SheZow - Wade's organization
  • 2 Sebastopol, California
  • 2 Guy (given name)
I don't know if it's germane, but there have been a couple of attempts to remove the COI tag here and here by an internet IP user.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that removing COI warnings is germane on the COI noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Lol, I shouldn't have used "germane" - I meant I don't know how much of it might play into the decision.
For what it's worth, a lot of the content in the article is not cited. I do see 5 articles in HighBeam, some articles that are reliable sources in google news, and what look to be 3 sources that could be used in google books, although 2 of them are snippet views.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what else is needed for this. I haven't been commenting on other items on this page, except in one case, because it's out of my league. Instead I have been working on Articles for deletions as a way of chipping in.
Is there something wrong with this posting? Did I miss a step? Is there something more that is needed that I haven't provided? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
And, another attempt by the IP user to remove the COI tag.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: If you consider the repeated tag removals to be disruptive, which I think is a reasonable position, you can either wait for an admin to see this thread and take action, or bring it up explicitly at WP:ANI or ask for semi protection at WP:RPP. It's unlikely for this level of activity to result in a block IMO. Also, you should consider sending them a warning like {{uw-disruptive1}} - Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I am kind of confused. If standard practice is to allow certain levels of autobiographical editing, who am I to say any differently?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm in kind of a sour mood ... I've come to expect minimum response from the current active admins. There's a lot of self-promotion going on here and not a lot of accountability. The minimum is what I indicated above. If you want to go for more, be my guest. - Brianhe (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. I'm in a disillusioned mood at the moment - and I truly get confused by the processes. I'll let it settle in my mind overnight. Thanks, Brian.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have moved uncited content to the talk page - which was most of it - and tagged the article for clean-up so that reliable secondary sources are used. I will be happy to work with the edits on requested edits. All I'm asking at this point, is: Is it alright for me to post {{Connected contributor}} - or can someone else do it if it should be done by an administrator - for these two users on the talk page. I'll work with any {{request edit}}s. Would that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this posting, {{Connected contributor}} has been posted on Talk:Obie Scott Wade and Talk:SheZow for Obie scott wade. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Lux

Various factors in the behaviour of this editor at this article and that of Gérard Lopez (businessman) lead me to believe that the editor has some connection to the subjects of the articles or the business. These factors include: unexplained removal of content that may be seen at negative (i.e. subsection 'Nightclub incident'), addition of significantly detailed unsourced personal history, use of peacock terms to describe subject's business acumen, and editing history limited almost solely to directors of one company (Genii). Pyrope 18:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and, other than one edit to another biography, it seems that the user has only edited Eric Lux and Gérard Lopez (businessman) articles, according to his edit history.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added the COI tag to Gérard Lopez (businessman). The article has a bunch of unreliable sources and I will see if I can trim them later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob Shirakbari

  • Possible sockfarm/meats

Behaviour evidence: group of suspicious / blocked / not fully disclosed paid editors & accounts not exactly clear the connections/COIs):


Rob Shirakbari clearly needs some cleanup. The main problem is the extensive list of credits, many of which are in minor roles. That needs a trim. So do the references, many of which are to list-type sites, not articles primarily about the article subject. The subject of the article was engaged to the singer of Rumer [36] and is now her husband, but this is not in the article. Does the article subject clearly pass WP:MUSIC? John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup. There's several composers/artists/producers with such a large table of minor roles. I've just PRODded some, this may be more borderline but worth taking to AfD as the notability isn't clear under the mass of minor roles. Widefox; talk 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Nmwalsh has been sanctioned; see top of this case. Brianhe (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nmwalsh hasn't/doesn't fully disclose per WP:PAID (userpage and articles both don't have disclosures about which edits are paid), although has used the paid template in their sandbox, so appears to be willfully breaking the WP:TOU with no explicit disclosure per the best practice. Widefox; talk 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
...saying that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Minded (Canadian rapper) does have a paid template, so there's some disclosure although not done on the userpage as well. Widefox; talk 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Chaker Khazaal was deleted on 27 October 2015 after a deletion discussion here. They created the article again with a different title now Chaker Khazaal (author). The creator Lateguy2011 is clearly not a new user. Edits like a pro. - Mar11 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 2018

RickinBaltimore blocked editor on 20 December 2016 - Brianhe (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User's edits seem to consist of promoting or publicizing a particular perennial candidate for office in Tennessee and criticizing the current holder of the office. Seems to be an association with the perennial candidate(perhaps using the name "TNPoliticsNews" to conceal such association) but user does not respond to messages. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Made the same edits again today, without replies to my inquiries. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

He was blocked for promo username and promo edits. Brianhe (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raul Escribano

Resolved
 – The user and an admin are actively communicating on this issue, and no subsequent edits by this self-disclosed COI have occurred.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to User:Marchjuly for mentioning this article on the COI talk page. Evidently the user in question was ordered to create an article for his superior, a prominent general in the U.S. Army! I suggest that this article be carefully monitored, keeping in mind that the poor soldier ordered to create this article is not exactly a free agent. I really feel sorry for the poor guy. I have never heard of a situation like this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pat Ryan (executive)

Resolved

This editor has only edited this article, and their editing is typical of a COI editor. I left them a COI templated message on their talkpage on 23 November. They then stopped editing. On 2 December, they started editing again, but have not responded to the COI message on their talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The user has changed his username to User:TimDolby. For now I am assuming good faith and not thinking it's attempt to conceal a connection. --Drm310 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It appears that since both this COIN was started, plus the talk page notification about the name change, this user has ceased editing this article. Perhaps that got his attention, and no further action is required unless edits continue. No recent changes to this article nor edits by the user. Lets keep an eye on it, but we're probably good. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Roy Smiles

Resolved

I came across a most horrific article a couple of months ago and worked to remove all the PR/CV fluff and promotional text to something that was more reasonably encyclopaedic. I put a long explanation of the issues on the talk page, re-iterating key policies that had been breached, and there were a lot of them. Rather than accepting the efforts of an unconnected editor, the suspected COI, from a new IP, has continued tinkering with the article, being responsible for almost every single one of the last 90 or so edits. I don't think they understand they're not at liberty to perpetually tinker with their own page to their satisfaction and they seem to have ignored initial postings on their talk page, warnings on the article's talk page, COI tags etc. Rayman60 (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, the IP edits have both good and bad elements. Such as the career being changed from effectively a chronological list to more prose style, although removing some valuable content along the way. Also there are way too many redundant infoboxes at the top. I'm going to take a quick stab at cleaning this up a bit. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

JD Rossetti

Resolved

It appears that a recent Washington state legislator, left office last week (December 8, 2016), JD Rossetti is editing his own Wikipedia page. Jdrossetti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has his exact name as his Wikipedia user name and his heavily editing his own page. All of his user contributions have exclusively been edits on his own page.Champ68 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Champ68, having seen his edits, he was repeatedly (and probably rightly, in my view) removing information inappropriate for a BLP. I'd suggest moving this discussion to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with what Voceditenore shared, and furthermore it is interesting that the people who were injecting this controversial BLP information were also WP:SPA accounts, one of which is showing an unusually advanced knowledge of WP policies. Upon review, I would also support the trimming done by the legislator, and would have likely performed those edits myself, and will watch this page moving forward. Beyond the BLP issues, the information appeared to represent undue WEIGHT to the issues. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Shaginyan

Resolved
 – Editor has not engaged in COI editing or editing of any kind in the last week, since this was brought up here. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I am struggling to find a single article this user has edited where they have not added a reference tot heir own work. I am also struggling to find any reference to their work added by anyone else. Is rthis genuinely a notable researcher in the field? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of last month's polariton interferometer COIN case. Quantum spam, who knew. - Brianhe.public (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please try to struggle sincerely and take a look at: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=2013PhRvB..87x5122S&refs=REFCIT&db_key=PHY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaginyan (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So what you're trying to tell us is that your paper was cited 10 times, mostly in papers you wrote yourself, and that makes it vital? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Shaginyan: It appears that you're sincerely struggling to contribute to Wikipedia, and add valuable information - that is admirable. However, in the process you are overlooking some very established policy, guidelines and precedent designed to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Among those, that you appear to be bumping into is WP:COI addressing conflict of interest, and WP:REFSPAM relating to self-promotion. Your intentions to be constructive must be weighted against these, and my belief is that these two things will prevent the inclusion of the references which you're trying to add. However, I would encourage you to still contribute your expertise on this topic to make these article better, just in a way that is respectful of WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_108&oldid=1076621458"