Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 118

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More on Smartmatic

The Smartmatic article has been whitewashed by numerous COI editors for months and I recommend a block from the article for Carriedelvalle23 and an account block for E-DemSnoopy who has been working by proxy for a previously blocked sockpuppet.

Below is the background on the users:

As I have been saying for months, the Smartmatic article is full of SPAs and COI users, many of which are employed by Smartmatic or potentially hired. I highly recommend action and will request page protection for the article.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the history of the article, I consider it extremely unlikely that User:E-DemSnoopy has no connection with Smartmatic as they claim. That link is very convincing evidence of some connection and I would very strongly advise E-DemSnoopy that they disclose the nature of the connection. SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
People, are we really talking about the Smartmatic article again and again? Come on! Let me tell you something, there are things called newsletters or bullettin news, some of which are send by newspapers, journalists, bloggers and some others which are send from private companies with news and updates. In this case I apparentely had the most terrible idea of researching about an information that came to me in a newsletter (sent by email) from a private company (which ZiaLater is obsessed with!) and that it is the "juicy" reason why the first wikilink I placed had that tag. You can add me to any investigation you wish and you can also block me from edditing any WP article (incl Smartmatic) if you consider I am vandalising it or adding unvaluable/bias information. That would seem fair to me. However, I really think the false accusations and the fake stories about editors being sockpuppets (or even worse accusing someone of "appearing to be either X, or an agent of X" without proof!) have to STOP NOW. Please! I am telling you once more time that I am not a sockpuppet, not an "agent" of another blocked user, not someone named Parisca working with a proxy, and definetely not an employee of Smartmatic. Please stop the accusations, make further investigations, trust the WP system and the administrators work, and please let's have the same neutral administrators that will investigate my account, also investigate the reasons behind the constant ZiaLater false accusations over this article (For the community benefit, can she also please disclose the nature of her connection with Smartmatic and why she edits this article everyday and as soon as any editor touches it or adds a reference, she accusses s/he of having a COI?). Thanks!E-DemSnoopy (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, another thing, I actually second ZiaLater's idea of asking for page protection for this article. In this way, there won't be more real sockpuppets editing it or users with a clear COI (and having current editwars) such as ZiaLater vandalising the article.E-DemSnoopy (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Um, well no. Your diatribe is quite something, but it's slightly undermined by your accusation that ZiaLater has a connection with Smartmatic. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair point, my fault. I am sorry, but I am just too tired of the whole thing. I'll wait then for what the administrators decide after evaluating everything. Thanks.E-DemSnoopy (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@E-DemSnoopy: I honestly tried to not further complicate things between us both following the sockpuppet investigation, but that link you entered that had Ernesto Parisca's Smartmatic email was what did it. First, why would a link to a Wikipedia article have Parisca's email URL in it? Second, when I asked you about the URL and edit, you called me "paranoic" and that you "honestly have no idea why or how works the link you are mentioning", why do you suddenly say that it was from a newsletter email when you could not originally explain it and instead turned to name calling? I am sorry if I have bothered you but COI and whitewashing edits are terrible to me. If WP:DUCK has anything to say about it, "If it looks like a duck" (account created shortly after sockpuppet E.Parisca blocked), "swims like a duck" (Smartmatic promotional edits similar to E.Parisca, edits sourced directly from his email), and "quacks like a duck" (name-calling and not providing consistent answers to serious questions), then it probably is a duck" ("an obvious sockpuppet"). Like I said above, following the SPI, I tried to assume good faith, but personal email links from the "Marketing Communications Manager of Smartmatic" that was previously blocked ruined that faith. I'll let others decide but I would rather be safe than sorry and bring this to their attention. All I have to say is that prior to my first edits to the article in October 2016 (which stated the company had Venezuelan relations which COI users have continuously attempted to remove), large edits were only performed every six months or so on the article by the blocked COI user Ciudadania Digital and AVM who admitted they are friends with Antonio Mugica, the founder. Following my edits, users began to edit the article nearly every week and sometimes daily. That is why I asked for protection since only a couple users monitoring the situation is not as effective as protecting the article.-ZiaLater (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment from an experienced editor & neutral observer (who has not edited the article substantively but has been observing and monitoring the edit-wars etc.): E-DemSnoopy is clearly an agent of the banned sockpuppet & Smartmatic employee E.Parisca (see E.Parisca's declared COI connection on the talkpage banner on Talk:Smartmatic), as demonstrated by this edit which contains a Microsoft "Safe Link" from E.Parisca. Details here: [1]. E-DemSnoopy should therefore be blocked immediately. Carriedelvalle23 has an extensive history of repeated pro-Smartmatic POV edits and repeated POV removals of cited text on the article, and a history of edit-warring to keep her edits. She has continued to make clearly COI edits and removals on the article without gaining consensus, despite repeated warnings. I suggest that Carriedelvalle23 should be either blocked, or completely topic-banned from the article (including its talk page). Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: Since this requires administrative action, I'm pinging the two admins who hang out on this board: Doc James and Smartse. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender I am truly sorry you are actually declaring I am an agent of banned sockpuppet, which I am not btw!, and asking for blocking my account. If it is what the evidence says to you, then of course there is nothing I can do. I just get a newsletter from that company as I get over 15 more newsletters from other sources, journalists and companies on the subjects I am interested about, so I thought I started collecting info, researching, digging and when I had the time also cooperating on wikipedia to add some references I thought could be interesting and valuable (It is a hobby, not a job, so if I am blocked I'll be sorry but not extra dramma). However, before the administrators decide if my account is going to be blocked (unfairly, I believe) I just wanted to point out for the last time that I am not Parisca or Parisca's agent and I am sorry that my edits in the Smartmatic article led you both ZiaLater and you believe I am a sockpuppet and even worse, that I won't be able to add any value to the WP communnity in the future. Just wanted to clear that out. Thanks! (Ps.User:ZiaLater I am sorry you lost your faith and truly believe I have a hidden agenda, which is not true. I really hope you can actually get the article protected from real sockpuppets, whitewhashers and vandalisers. Just to add a short reply, I didn't explain anything to you, because it seemed so unfair to me, as your attitude towards me has always been (since day1, please review all our interactions) of distrust and false accusations. I guess if I'm being made leave WP, I have learnt a big deal about how the encyclopedia works and if I ever feel like coming back I will definetely be more careful not to edit any controversial articles or with sockpuppets/COI investigations. Thank you.)E-DemSnoopy (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, you clearly outed yourself with that "Safe Link" from E.Parisca (not from a newsletter), and it was a wikilink to boot, so it was clearly from someone who wanted you to add it to Wikipedia. Clearly ZiaLater's "distrust and ... accusations" were dead accurate from the beginning. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked User:E-DemSnoopy due to concerns raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender As I have made very clear since the beginning, I am a journalist living in the Philippines. While researching elections for a story, I quickly realized some of the voting company Wikipedia articles were incorrect or did not exist. After reading through the WP:GUIDELINE, it was my understanding that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. However, I soon realized ZiaLater has assumed ownership of the Smartmatic article. He/she has reverted my edits and has neglected to respond to many of my proposed edits on the talk page. Since October 2016, ZiaLater has accused most editors contributing to the page of being single purpose users or has tried to get them blocked. ZiaLater has encouraged editors to use the talk page, including myself. However, my queries would go unanswered for months on the talk page and once I made the proposed edit ZiaLater would quickly revert to his/her version of the article, as she/he has done to many other editors in the past.
ZiaLater has also accused senior editors of being a single purpose account including AVM who has been an editor for 12 years.
ZiaLater continues to compare my account to accounts in the past and attacking me because I am in the Philippines.
It is very clear when looking at ZiaLater edits to the Smartmatic article that she/he is, in fact, the user with the POV. Anyone who attempts to change ZiaLater version of the article will be accused of whitewashing, being a single-purpose user and their edits will be reverted.
How is this supportive of a collaborative community? Even the most recent section edit I added, which was about the controversy of the company was completely deleted. ZiaLater should be banned from editing this article further as it is clear he/she is more interested in protecting his/ her version than letting other editors edit the article. Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Carriedelvalle, please stop this nonsensical charade. It's plain as day what you have been doing all along -- removing accurate cited information from the Smartmatic article, and adding inaccurate unsubstantiated POV text to the article. Doc James and Smartse, I advise a block for Carriedelvalle, who has been even more disruptive than the now-blocked E-DemSnoopy. Smartmatic is clearly on a concerted campaign to recruit editors to whitewash the Wikipedia article, and Carriedelvalle is one of the most persistent of those. If not blocked at present, if she edits the Smartmatic article again, I will request at ANI that she be topic banned from the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Carriedelvalle23: I edited the article because, like you (I guess), information was incorrect, especially due to heavy COI editing. I came across it while editing various Venezuelan articles. Shortly after my initial edits, the article became plagued with COI users. I never accused AVM of being a SPA, but I did mention in the talk page that they personally know the CEO of Smartmatic. That recent edit you made, creating a "United States" section, was full of POV right-wing conspiracy blogs about how Soros and Smartmatic were going to rig the 2016 US presidential election so Hillary Clinton would win. Why would this be suitable at all? If I'm really the "McCarthyist" and "opposition" POV pusher (yes, I've been called these things before), why would I remove this right-wing/tinfoil-hat rubbish? Yes, Wikipedia is collaborative, but when you decide to whitewash articles, delete cited information without concensus and ignore discussions on the talk page, that's not collaboration. Softlavender, who is more experienced and has been neutral in this whole process, has even made the same observations that I have. I even tried to change wording due to your concerns surrounding the owners, yet you took it upon yourself to remove information relating Smartmatic to Venezuela. This has been a common practice of Smartmatic itself. So Carriedelvalle23, this is not because you're from the Philippines, because you are a journalist or because your socks are blue; this is because you have been making clear POV edits to a highly contested article that has a long history of COI edits.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

With the concerns of efforts to hire paid editors by the company in question I have protected with extended autoconfirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James I'm not convinced my Carriedelvalle's explanations. This draft sorry admins only of El Super Market looks far more like what I would expect a UPE to create as opposed to a journalist from the Phillipines. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree that is concerning. If there is evidence of sock puppetry you can try a SPI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
An SPI was already filed a bit ago, and closed: [2]. Since I'm not sure what in the hidden (to me) draft link sparked that comment, I'll simply say that the chance of several persons colluding together on UPE/POV-editing the Smartmatic article is very high at this point, since we've already seen that happen with E.Parisca and E-DemSnoopy. If you Control+F carrie in that SPI, you'll find some further "interesting" info. Softlavender (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
While hopefully extended protection will keep the UPEs at bay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: @Doc James: Smartmatic and El Super Market may not be the only articles. Carriedelvalle23 has made multiple copyright violations in articles, with edits of Boracay 1 and Mang Inasal 2 being completely removed. CFCF stated to Carriedelvalle23 that their " edits very strongly indicate you are not doing this on a volunteer basis", so I would like to see their opinion with this as well. Not sure if those other edits hold anything, but I find them interesting. Just something I noticed.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater, the concern/issue on the draft in question was not copyright violation, but rather unambiguous advertising: User talk:Carriedelvalle23#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:El Super Market. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I know, but I thought that they may have possibly performed advertising in those edits too. We already know that some users are fed info directly from PR and marketing employees, copying content provided from emails. So, why wouldn't they use provided copyright material in promotions as well? I just wanted to point out those edits since I could not see them and they stood out.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Albert Yeung and related articles

I've just picked off a sockfarm which has almost certainly been employed to edit articles relating to Albert Yeung and the Emperor Group. The history of some of these articles suggests that COI editing has been going on for some time, but I'm about to go offline and don't have the time to do the necessary detective work. If anyone's at a loose end, they could do worse than look into the history of the following pages:

and probably more. Have fun... Yunshui 雲水 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to note: I've now nominated most of these for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor Entertainment Group. Yunshui 雲水 08:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Coleman Young II

Self-admitted Mother of current Mayor candidate for Detroit. Edit history suggests removal of information that could be seen as negative towards campaign, reducing the illegitimate son of Coleman Young, removal of birth name etc.

A couple of editors including myself have looked at the article and tidied up the content to match the sources. I also added the standard COI warning to the editor's talk page which hadn't yet been done. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing sockfarm

For updates, see this sock-puppet investigation.

Accounts

Confirmed socks


Likely sock

Stale

Articles

Created

Content added

Content removed

Handled one way or another. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Other

These three articles came up in my search based on behavioural patterns, but the connection to the other articles/accounts is not as strong.

The Zaggora ad/bios apparently repeat misleading information.

Discussion

The articles listed share the content/formatting style and the author's characteristics. I was careful, but a few false positives are possible given the high number of accounts. Let me know if there are any doubts. Rentier (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been putting proposed deletion notices on many of the articles. Could use some help here. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Once the SPI is done we can just delete based on G5 if these additional socks are confirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll stop adding PROD notices for now, then. John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Zagorra hired Alechkoist through Upwork, and I picked up the first time the article was created, but missed the second. That contract went for a while, so may have included the SportsFashion72 edits as well - they occurred while the contract was still open. BusInCordoba is a different Upwork account, although the Alechkoist Upwork account was closed not long after the BusInCordoba account started, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was their new identity. I'll need to spend some time going through the list to see what matches up, but Elixinol LLC was a job given to the BusInCordoba account. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I definitely see behavioural similarity between the Alechkoist socks and the accounts reported here, especially the older ones. Even some of the usernames are similar. Rentier (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Behavioural evidence tends to be unreliable unless very are very clear indicators, as most of the more active paid editors work in similar ways. - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the background Bilby. There is more crossover at Stephan_Crasneanscki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a member of the Soundwalk Collective - see Special:Contributions/LironBubale and Special:Undelete/Simone_Merli. That last article was also recreated recently by MarceloGoldsmiths (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) although it doesn't have the appearance of this group of editors. SmartSE (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rentier:--How do you determine that the accounts are stale?Further, I have re-formatted the first line of the section and collapsed the lists.Feel free to revert if this doesn't suit well.Winged Blades Godric 10:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Accounts with last visible activity older than 90 days. If non-public activity (such as sign-ins) is also stored and available to CU, then some of the accounts may not in fact be stale and perhaps should be added to the SPI case. But I think that's highly unlikely given how the accounts cease all activity following the creation of the (presumably) paid-for article. Rentier (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Rentier:--I would have added all the accounts for a CU.Even if one account is confirmed, that's our gain!Winged Blades Godric 11:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Done! Rentier (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • CheckUser has confirmed every single non-stale account that I have reported. This gives a high likelihood that all or almost all of the stale accounts are also socks of the same master. A few accounts were added, the most interesting of which is the "likely" sock RenaultMurnles with about 500 edits. It shares all the key similarities with the other accounts and I would have certainly included it in my initial report if I had been aware of it. Rentier (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the behavior evidence is so strong I am supportive of deleting based on G11, G5, and TOU violations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BusInCordoba, the admin who's checking the sockpuppets writes "G5 away". So, yes. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm looking into this (again) at User:Doc James's request, and I've blocked a number of the stale accounts. Don't see that there's much importance in that--they all seem to be abandoned. I blocked one account that wasn't listed here, Xinjia 21, which is active though not confirmed by CU; those working on the SPI will see, in their edit to PortaOne, what brought me to that decision (which is also why I haven't deleted the article). This may take me a while; I'm off and on. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: Do you think that BusInCordoba and its socks may be actually socks of Alechkoist? The Alechkoist socks include names such as "Cordobaladocta" and "SuperCordoba", and there are clear behavioural similarities. Rentier (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Rentier, you know this case better than I do, but I looked at one blocked sock from that SPI and it looks (behaviorally) like a perfect match; fortunately, the user's fingerprints are quite clear, even when CU evidence is stale. Obviously I wasn't able to get back to this thing today, and with summer and kids and stuff I may not be able to get to it tomorrow, but it seems like you are right. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • KrakatoaKatie, I am convinced that RenaultMurnles is the good hand in this business. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think so too. I marked RenaultMurnies as likely because he was by far the most prolific and I just wanted a double check. I'm not very familiar with Alechkoist, but the behavior certainly fits. Katietalk 16:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Deleted a bunch more based on G5, G11, TOU concerns. Some waiting for the PROD to expire. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have concluded, PRODs expired, most articles are deleted, and SPI is inactive. I'll close this soon if nobody asks for more time on it. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Two dozen new socks in OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I cleaned articles created by the original group of ~8 but there were many new accounts found with checkuser tools (permlink). The checkuser said that they were creating promotional articles, which now need to be reviewed. G5 nominations have been very effective lately. (edited to add) Anatha Gulati sockfarm may be linked, at least two editors were picked up by CU in both cases, which makes things interesting. See above #Another day, another sockfarm.

I'm trying something new with ProRealTime, would appreciate if that article wasn't nominated for deletion right away. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Creations and uploads nuked. MER-C 04:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Group of editors with possible COI

The relatively new article Celixir has been created and improved by a series of four editors in such a way that I suspect a violation of WP:COI. User:Bkoohy, User:Willjol27, User:Zsdftb, and User:Elrx have all contributed only to the Celixir article and pages related to the company, and have successfully fought off attempts to delete the page. Note that on the article talk page (Talk:Celixir) User:Elrx stated that "we're a group of teenage interns who have never done this before", which to me implies a COI in regards to the article subject. I don't think action can be taken at the moment, but a record should be kept in case the article goes to Afd. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion with them and draftified the page. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Dream Marriage

I don't know if this is any use since the account is stale although I have prodded the article so we'll see if anyone shows up to defend it. I came across the above from a report at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#dream marriage search about an article on a questionable site. When investigating, I quickly became concerned since the article basically references press releases, except for 1 ref to the site itself and one ref to some random award which itself doesn't seem significant or notable. Further, the editor has done nothing other than create this article (including initially in their sandbox) and blue link their talk and user page. Since they weren't autoconfirmed, they took over a disambig to create the article, although at least redirected the new redirect to one of the original targets although that may have been as much as anything because they realised someone may get suspicious if they came across the weird redirect. Incidentally, while I wonder if the PROD may draw them back, I'm fine with anyone deleting it straight away. Or maybe better, move it back to Drethc and history merge it with the new Dretch (since someone else has also edited that), and just rev delete the Dream Marriage nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed 2 different IPs which appear to be the editor accidentally editing logged out. One with 2 different edits at different times seems to definitely be the editor. The other is a little weird since it's a different ISP and geolocates to a different location in the US and also used the visual editor although time frame and fact it's editing the sandbox strongly suggests it's related. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ambra Moore

ACMM98 and Hollywood98 are the same person, who began writing about Geoffrey R. Moore and Ambra Moore on August 3, inserting them into the actor biography Roger Moore.[3] After looking at the promotional tone of the contributions, it became clear to me that ACMM98 was closely connected to the topics, and I warned her here about a conflict of interest. A few minutes later Fabrictramp warned her about writing her own autobiography.[4] Less than an hour later, the account Hollywood98 was registered, immediately continuing the work of ACMM98 who had stopped editing.

I'm not sure what course to take here. I created AfD pages for Ambra Moore and And The Winner Isn't because they appeared to me to have not enough significant coverage in the media, but the other new article Geoffrey R. Moore seems like it can be kept after more sources (which exist[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) are brought to bear. But what to do about Hollywood98's conflict of interest? Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like there's also a sockpuppetry issue to deal with as well. Sigh.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
In a sense, but since this is a new editor who cannot be familiar with all the rules, I would rather look at the new account as if she had asked to be renamed, which would have been the proper procedure. If the first account doesn't remain dormant, if it is used in violation of WP:MULTIPLE, then yes I would chase down the sockpuppet angle. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Another page made by them which is pretty much the same as And The Winner Isn't. I created an AfD for that.
ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Padmanabh Singh

Resolved
 – This manifested in socking and quite naturally,the page has been semi-protected!Winged Blades Godric 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am having real problems with Rijusikri at Padmanabh Singh. I've tried to explain in various places, including the article talk page and here (I haven't responded to their actual email). Other people have also been involved in trying to explain.

They've declared that they are an employee of this self-styled maharajah (see this version of the article re: use of the title) but they are not getting it. There's no doubt some of the material is verifiable, as I have indicated, but the sycophantic babble needs to stop. Later today, I can try to expand the article from a stub such as that which I have just linked in the diff but I can't do it if they keep reinstating the rubbish. Can someone please explain this to them - I'm running out of patience. - Sitush (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Several experienced people seem now to be watching, so this can probably be treated as resolved. - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Concern about editor TxFactChecker

Ran into a User with a name similar to a ([12]) political consulting company, and so I put username COI tag on their talk page. The user then requested to change his/her name to its current one, TxFactChecker. This user has continued to create articles about politicians in Texas, and I thought it would be prudent to bring this to the attention of editors more experienced in these matters than I am. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

These politicians are notable politicians worth having a Wikipedia page for. I am not paid to edit these pages nor do I have a vested interest other than I find it fun and informative to inform the public of people that do not have pages. If you read the articles, you will notice that it is all facts I have submitted and they are all sourced by credible sites. It is in my opinion that SamHolt6 is actually the one with a conflict of interest seeing as how he takes issue with every politician I have made a page for. Clearly the user SamHolt6 is demonstrating his/ her bias and is projecting them onto other users' pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxFactChecker (talk • contribs) 20:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@TxFactChecker: Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Your edits look partisan to me, so maybe you should return to Facebook. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman: Im sorry you think my edits look partisan. Are you only saying that because you're being non-objective and dont like what you're reading? It sure looks that way to me, go back to facebook yourself
@TxFactChecker: No, your work is not written from a neutral point of view. My other advice is that language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative.
The WP article on Dan Huberty describes a living person. It makes an allegation of public drunkenness as fact. It may be true, but there is no credible source. Regards Rhadow (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Troutman: Show me where I used profane/ vulgar language
@Rhadow: There seems to be some confusion on your part. You clearly have not seen the video wherein Huberty is confronted while being drunk and public and clearly and openly admits to it. I will add in source of the video so you can correct yourself.
@TxFactChecker: I am not confused, but I appreciate your concern. I hate to be pedantic, but Empower Texans is not a credible secondary source. There are problems with using a YouTube. It is a primary source. That disqualifies it straight off. I did watch it. The guy admitted to having a drink -- several times. He denied he was drunk. I'm afraid TxFactChecker, that I am not a sympathetic ear. Rhadow (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current staus--Out of the two creations, one have been AfD-ed (which is heading towards a consensus to delete) and another one is subject to a still-non-contested PROD.Winged Blades Godric 10:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Greg Karais

According to the current Wikipedia article, "Greg Karais (b. 1970), is a Canadian Bear enthusiast". The most current version of the article was created by on 31 July by User:Not Your Average Wikipedian. According to the logs, the article has been created and deleted twice before. User:CanadianWikilover was responsible for one of the earlier versions. Very shortly after I pointed out the connection between the two accounts, both of the users blanked their user pages.

Aside from being a bear enthusiast, Greg Karais is also the publisher of Yukon, North of Ordinary, a quarterly magazine which serves as the in-flight magazine for a small regional airline. All three of the named accounts and at least one of the IPs have edited the article. It may also be helpful to know that Greg Karais (along with his wife Krystal and their Wheaten Terrier "Cargo") rents out cabins at Crag Lake, near Carcross, Yukon. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic:--Please launch a SPI.Winged Blades Godric 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Not much point since all accounts have stopped editing. I will if I see anything new. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Query undisclosed paid editing company writing articles about themselves?

articles

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James:--I have redirected Anjan Contractor to BeeHex and drastically edited BeeHex;removing certain purely-promotional material.Take a look!Winged Blades Godric 06:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Perfect thanks User:Winged Blades of Godric Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Principles of Curiosity

Resolved
 – Article deleted and account blocked

"Andromeda Creative" is the name of an LA based marketing firm. Here is a tweet saying they are working with Skeptoid to promote their new film "Principles of Curiosity" which is dated to July 20th. On July 20th, this user who has the same name as the marketing firm, made the Wikipedia page for "Principles of Curiosity", and inserted the page under "In Popular culture" sections to several articles using the official website of the film as a source. I believe this user to be the same as the marketing firm, as both names and dates line up. I don't believe the film is notable enough to have its own page, nor is it notable enough to be referenced in other articles and this user has a profound conflict of interest. WP:USERNAME also bans company names from being used as usernames. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted (not by me). SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

They are actually blocked for username issue, so they could be back anytime. Eyes on the article(s) is a good idea. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

J. C. Maçek / Neptune's Trident (revisited)

In a previous posting on this noticeboard, I outlined Neptune's Trident's long history of promoting J. C. Macek. The latest example is even clearer. On July 27, Neptune's Trident created an article for a book publisher, Bloodhound Books. On July 28, Bloodhound books announced that it had signed J. C. Marek to a book deal. Not only does it appear that the article exists only because J. C. Marek is involved, but it was created before his involvement was publicly announced. How obvious does something have to be before it can be stated here? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed all links that just mentioned Bloodhound Books while talking about something else. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Bloodhound Books was deleted at User:Neptune's Trident's request. Neptune's Trident has made no comment, so I will assume this is a tacit admission of COI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hanas (PRC)

Noticed that editors are adding perfectly formed but unreferenced articles at high speed today, suggesting to me some form of paid editing. There are probably more, which I shall now look for. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There might be nothing to do here. Articles like Ma Fulu（Senior Vice Precident） are wiped and two of the accounts blocked. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tianqingle ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

GABgab 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Plural Acronyms

I came across this draft during AfC. Rather than being an article about grammar, it appears to be nothing more than a crude SEO technique to promote a company called Mentor Media. A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they work as an online marketing consultant. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The Kopaz

The Kopaz is a newly-registered WP:SPA account whose only Wikipedia edits have been to the Dale Groutage article and its current AFD discussion; I already suspected conflict of interest due to his WP:BLUDGEONing tone in the discussion, but was reluctant to actually bring it up here because I couldn't figure out how to raise the issue without outing him. However, in his most recent comment at the AFD discussion, he switched from referring to Dale Groutage in the third person to referring to Dale Groutage in the first person — so for all intents and purposes he's now outed himself. That said, since I'm the primary person in his line of fire at the AFD discussion, I'm not the right person to decide if any COI warnings or sanctions are warranted or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible paid promotion

User:Daowner (User talk:Daowner)) recently created the article Daniel C. Adams (web designer), which I tagged for COI after Daowner cited [13] as a source. When that article was subsequently deleted for violating G11, User:Alvinturner (User talk:Alvinturner338) created the articles Daniel C Adams and Daniel C. Adams (designer). I think we should keep and eye on these editors and content relating to Daniel C Adams. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Technical analysis software

As part of the OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm cleanup above, I dialed back the product features in Technical analysis software. This is following even more excision of product feature lists by MrOllie. Unfortunately an anon has reverted both of us without any explanation, restoring over 20k of unsourced material. The IP is a static Comcast Business IP geolocates to the same area that just happens to be headquarters of one of the companies whose article links to Technical analysis software. The MetaStock article also has pages and pages of feature lists and such. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Good. That whole area needs some work. We previously had COI problems with alternative data, which means taking data from non-finance sources and crunching on it for financial prediction. Surveillance capitalism seems to be partly the same thing, but from a different ideological perspective. Then there's technical analysis, which is a reasonably good, broad article. I'd suggest merging anything worth keeping at technical analysis software into technical analysis. That article gets looked at, so linkspam there will get noticed and dealt with. All of this is related to big data, to which I recently added a small finance section. This is a real subject area, but what we're getting are little POV articles on parts of it, not an encyclopedic overview. John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I did almost 20k of cleanup on MetaStock but something tells me a new redlinked editor might pop up there soon. Agree with you on the efficacy of a merge of technical analysis software into technical analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Proposed merge, with appropriate tags at both articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Manc1234/Prof Aleiscter (Orangemoody)

creations
sandboxes
other

According to evidence on talkpage, this is indistinguishable from OM. User is blocked though hasn't been tagged yet. Articles listed above are page creations. Several go back to 2015, newest was created under 90 days ago. SPI started: permlink ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nuked a bunch not substantially edited by others under G5/G3, whichever is appropriate. I'm a little hesitant to delete Arteluce, that dates back to 2011. MER-C 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Longford Cinema seems to be OK. It's an old Grade II listed building, and apparently vacant or abandoned. Unclear who would benefit from COI editing. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Springbox aka Mobile1st

Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same according to Bloomberg [14] and the company creates software called Mobilizer. The editor, formerly named Mobile1st, has partially disclosed a conflict but hasn't specified what it is and continues to directly edit. WP:REALNAME applies. His latest action (after a years long hiatus) is to add several sources to dePROD the article, including springbox.com and mobile1st.com. It is problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it is not at all true that Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same.(Mobilizer is a web tool sold by Mobile1st.) Mobile1st was spun off from Springbox in 2014. The services offered and the personel are entirely different. Here is some info on the leadership of Mobile1st: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/digital-agency-executive-jonathan-silverstein-named-ceo-of-mobile1st-and-its-pioneering-mobile-conversion-optimization-organization-300496685.html I have alerted the Springbox people to the erroneous info offered by Bloomberg, which Bri cites. My conflict of interest -- I am a friend of Springbox ceo, and he asked to me produce a factual, verifed account of the company. I tried to find good sourcing for the key facts of the entry. Jake Rabin (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh here's a page detailing the leadership of Springbox, which you can see is different from mobile1st: https://www.springbox.com/about/ And here's mobile1st, though its new ceo isnt mentioned: https://mobile1st.com/about/ Jake Rabin (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that I'd love your guidance on how to make the article better fit Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your help! Jake Rabin (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Easyship

Easyship was created a few days ago by User:Kingd97, who has no edits other than on this topic. The company may or may not be notable but the original article was filled with blatant promotion. I trimmed the advertising and editorializing after which there wasn't much left. User:Kingd97 restored the promotion by the rather unconventional approach of moving the article to Draft space, editing it there, then it moving back to article space. More eyes are needed on the article. Not sure what to make of moving the article back and forth to Draft space -- it could be seen as disruptive, or it may be that User:Kingd97 simply is inexperienced. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did create a Wikipedia page for Easyship, but it was not meant for promotion. I am making a page for Easyship like every other company with a Wikipedia Page, to inform others what Easyship is, and Easyship is a notable company. I was told by a Wikipedian (whose Username I have forgotten) to make a page for Easyship again, and that is what I did. He told me to switch from Article to Draft, write a better one and then switch it back to Article. And also, so many other companies have a Wikipedia page, how come they are not deleted and Easyship's is? If you believe that those company pages are not there for promotion, then how/why is that the case for Easyship? Kingd97 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Careeba

A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they are an employee of the company, and an undeclared paid editor using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:HannahVerg

Bringing this here because there was what appeared to be a paid editing declartion that was later rescinded after I noted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. There does appear to be a COI here given the very long defense at the AfD and the lengthy bouts of inactivity followed by creation of perfectly formatted articles from scratch. The following were created by the user:

Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25, which is connected to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


  • User Response Hello, I would like to clarify. I was not paid to create these pages. The lengthy defense at the AfD comes from my experiences as a journalist, dedicated to research and providing factual information. All pages I've created were throughly researched, in terms of finding the content, sources and spending a large amount time teaching myself how to properly code the pages. I initially disclosed my employer to show transparency and represent that I was not paid to create the Rainbow page. These efforts were misunderstood. Now I see that my efforts to clarify the situation has, again, been misunderstood. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to further clarify the situation to stop the confusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahVerg (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • HannahVerg, could you please explain then why you described Etched Communication as "client" and then explained the relationship between that firm and the subject of the article? To me that suggests payment, but even if you are not being paid directly, if you are creating an article about this subject where one of your clients has a PR relationship with the subject, it is likely a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • TonyBallioni, Yes, I can explain. Etched Communication has a client who is working with a government coalition. This government coalition has a relationship with Rainbow, so there is not a direct PR relationship. I learned about Rainbow through my work, but I was not paid by that employer to create the page. I originally disclosed my employer and client to explain how I came about learning of Rainbow. I created the page because after researching Rainbow, I believed that the organization was noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I was a surprised that a Wikipedia page had not already been created for this organization.

Kukun

Silicon Valley "home renovation resource platform...with the goal of helping others make their renovation dreams a reality" with $1M startup money. And a shiny new Wikipedia page from a just as new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed some copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Peppadew

This user, whose username strongly suggests a conflict of interest, has for a third time overwritten the article with the identical advert, despite talk-page warning: Noyster (talk), 12:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Large portions of the material being added appears to be a copyvio, taken directly from http://www.peppadew.com/about-peppadew-international/ - clear promotional wording. Also being added by IPs which appear to be related to the named account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Another day, another sockfarm

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati

Articles created

Added since 30/7

More older articles

Substantially edited

Discussion

Given the redirect method used to create these it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing and have been blocked before. I think regardless of the SPI, these are all safe to delete via G5 per WP:DUCK. SmartSE (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I went through and nominated the most obvious and most recently created articles for speedy deletion, when they had a clean edit history (i.e. few other GF editors). My rule-of-thumb cutoff date was created after April 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about Veal Milanese? Why a food? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
kitchenproject.com refspam / SEO perhaps ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like a false positive. I must have missed it when I was going through the list manually, because I would have removed it otherwise. Rentier (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The earlier edits of that account don't look so typical of UPE either and kitchenproject.com doesn't look commercial. I've removed the tag and will cross it out above. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I was curious about the zipper related articles. All of them seemed to have links to the website of SBS zippers. Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology was created by User:Mozhike, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mokezhilao (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive). Connected? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This reference used in Prescott Papers was written by someone who appears to be the CEO of this SEO company: http://www.audiencebloom.com/. It was only a couple of weeks prior to it being used, so it is likely that it was written specifically for the article. SmartSE (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Other references written by him on other sites show up here. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've endorsed a check for this case (you can read my comments at the SPI), but I frankly wouldn't wish this one on any CU. The number of overlaps with other sockfarms is eyebrow-raising. I applaud you guys for the extraordinary detective work, as with many others. GABgab 02:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Btw, is late-July/August sockfarm season or something? It seems like we've been getting an abnormally large number of... abnormally large promo groups. Must be the heat. GABgab 02:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If topics like metal zipper and nylon zipper are created as conduits for spam, can we please be careful to keep the useful information in those articles (while removing, obviously, any spam links). We are sometimes overzealous in purging good materials added by bad accounts. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oswald Foundation and Anand Chowdhary

User:182.64.255.167 creates Draft:Oswald Foundation at 7:38, edits it until 7:54. User:Pushingatoms moves it into mainspace at 8:07. User:Nishant Gadihoke has only contributed to this article. Similar pattern with Anand Chowdhary. User:Bluemusic15 has only contributed to Oswald, Chowdhary, and one other. User:Arvindsingh2 has only contributed to Chowdhary. Likely that these accounts are all somehow connected. Edwardx (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Content issues. Oswald Foundation cites pr.com nine times, other press release sites six more, various Facebook pages seven times, and lots of fine reliable sources (not) like Jaipur Women Blog, viralkick.in, newzhook.com, ScoopWhoop, etc. Plus own websites, Twitter and even github projects. But I'm taking a WP:BOGO vacation right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Anand Chowdhary was accepted by someone with 6 edits?!?!?! Surely there's nothing promotional here... Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SPI still pending. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lotteries editor

A cool edit filter that was brought to my attention, Filter 867, flagged one or more of the articles above. Ubet (company) created by a brand-new editor with unusual facility for creating entire articles in one edit. Who has done several more since. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Could be an editor who has an interest in the Australian lottery industry, or it could be someone with a vested interests (I.E COI or paid promotion.) No harm can come from us keeping an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Omaze

I edited the Omaze article to remove insufficiently notable and biased information. This information appears to have been added by H-riddle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is repeatedly reverting my edits to the article. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Toriqul-kushtia

A little bit of outing is required here, so here I go. I reviewed his draft articles, and looking at his contributions it was evident that he is a paid editor. A search for the given user name reveals that he is an Upwork freelancer. The magnitude of his contributions indicate that he needs to be blocked before this goes any further. Jupitus Smart 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Redacted per WP:OUTING - Bilby (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have forgotten to notify the editor of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I usually just ping the concerned parties. But I seem to have forgotten that as well. Rectified. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not so fast. Please explain why this is not covered by the exemption in WP:OUTING (emphasis mine): "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations... There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." It was reaffirmed by Doc James here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that it doesn't look like a violation of the policy, even before considering the fact that the editor has self outed. Rentier (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes agree, one is explicitly allowed to link to ads for paid editing here on COIN. One still needs to be careful that the "advert" is not a covert attempt to harass someone. (ie someone created a fake ad to harass a Wikipedian in good standing) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've redacted this - it does not meet the exceptions set out at WP:OUTING. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bilby: How does it not meet the exceptions? The policy states that Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations. This user has uploaded his photo and posted a link to his private Facebook profile on Wikipedia. How can a link to his Upwork profile, which contains considerably less private information, be considered outing? Let's not forget that WP:OUTING is a subsection of the Harassment policy. Do you believe that Toriqul-kushtia was being harassed here? Rentier (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Linking to other websites is allowable in specific situations does not equate to being allowed to link at will. There was no need to link to the profile. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I should clarify this a bit more, as it is probably needed. The exception under the harassment policy is that we can link to a job ad, even though that might by default out an editor. However, in this case the link was to a profile, not an ad, and the profile had nothing to do with Wikipedia. As to the editor making the connection themselves, the editor did not. They posted a photo presumably of themselves here, but that doesn't mean we can link to a profile under a different name because a crop of the photo appears in it, and while it is true that they did provide a link to their Facebook account (as a source for the photo), it wasn't their Facebook account that we linked to. I share the belief that the editor was doing paid work - although I'd have preferred at least some attempt to warn them before an indef block - but the evidence for that was only in their editing history. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The ridiculous contortions that good faith editors have to go through when dealing with paid editing are a joke, and this thread illustrates said joke. Roxy the dog. bark 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not a joke. The community has always been strongly opposed to outing. It is especially a problem in this case, where the user was outed without justification. The Upwork profile which we linked to had no evidence that the user had ever been paid to edit Wikipedia, yet that was used as a reason for an indef block and the reason for outing. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Creation of previously deleted articles by User:Sungoesup

First created by this group[15].

Now again:

Other articles:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI started here [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrospect (software)

Long-lived single-purpose account. User page says CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC, no COI or paid editing disclosed despite initial COI notice by @Diannaa and "me" last year. The article on Retrospect doesn't seem to be anywhere near the encyclopedic standards, and hasn't improved since last year despite continued contributions from DovidBenAvraham; quite the opposite, in my opinion.

On first look, the article on Ronny Lee is probably fine. But I have no idea what to do about the Retrospect article, so I'm bringing this up here as a first timer. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For comparison:

  • Before (3 October 2016)
  • Then (23 October 2016)
  • Now (20 August 2017)

2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC" means I am the sole owner and only employee of a New York State Limited Liability Corporation that was set up slightly over a year before Ronny Lee's death, so that the 20-odd guitar method books and charts to which he held the copyright could continue to be sold despite the fact that his macular-degeneration-caused legal blindness made him unable to read orders coming in through PayPal e-mails. I don't pay myself a salary or expenses, the copies of the books are stored in a closet and on bookshelves in my apartment, and the LLC loses money each year.
I am not and have never been an employee or contractor of Retrospect Inc., or of its predecessor corporations. I have paid for every new major release of the Retrospect software I have ever used, either at the new-purchase price or at the upgrade price, including most recently in spring 2017 for Retrospect Macintosh 14. I'm a 76-year-old retiree who looked at the Retrospect (software) article in early October 2016, saw that it was truly a stub that IIRC was at best current as of 2005, and decided to expand it in hopes of getting other people to buy it—so that Retrospect Inc. could stay in business and add new bug-fixes and features I could use. That expansion has proved to be much more extensive than I expected, for reasons I'll discuss on my own talk page.DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandiprajbhar

I don't want to be seen as harassing/outing him, but it is obvious from his contributions that he is a paid editor. I searched for him, and it turns out that he is an SEO Executive at some firm (Not providing link to prevent being misconstrued as outing), suggesting that most of his contributions have been paid for (which is anyway evident from looking at hs contribution history). He hasn't responded to warnings on his talk page, but I will still ping @Sandiprajbhar: to see if he has anything to say. Jupitus Smart 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just contemplating starting a section here on Sandiprajbhar myself, after he recreated Rahul Roy (ARC), which was speedily deleted earlier this month. Edwardx (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Danish Sait/Orangemoody

Recreation of article posted by Orangemoody sock, Arr4. ☆ Bri (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bri,
There was no such page when I was created Danish Sait. I am not aware of history of this page. I am looking to create new articles which is related to my earlier articles. First I created Humble Politician Nograj then writer of the movie like that.. No intention of doing a particular page for particular person. Its my own creation and I am not linked with these people or users mentioned above. Thank you Wikieditorksd (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
There are behavioural clues which make it clear that Wikieditorksd is a sock of someone, but I can't remember exactly who. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Some stuff has been G5 speedied under Orangemoody but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Mukesh Hariawala

Article deleted ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (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.

The page and its AfD would benefit from some examination by editors who are experienced with COI issues. (By the way, I've taken COIN off my watchlist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
AfD completed as delete. This should help with {{db-repost}} if necessary in the future. IMO, for this reason, AfDs once begun and the time sink has been endured, should not be allowed to be derailed. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (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.

User:BME917

The articles listed above are the existing articles by this on-again-off-again editor (a pattern commonly but not always that of paid editors). With Nicholas C. Rowley, this editor found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BME917. It is true that the subject editor has stated that they do not have a conflict of interest with regard to C. Shegerian and to Favale. The sockpuppetry (in order to have another account remove the G11 tag) has been confirmed by a CheckUser. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up after GringisMan

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelgaStick which will shortly be moved here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. One of the accounts had semi-disclosed they were taking jobs from Fiverr but none of the others had. They also had a keen interest in politics as well, which may need looking at closely. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

Articles created or substantially edited

I've only included obvious UPE articles here. There are other political biographies which could also be.

More added by Bri below.

More missed by Smartse:

Discussion

  • What is the paid editing template that shows up on mobile view? I'd like to tag at least one of these pending further actions. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, {{undisclosed paid}} seems to do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a contribution surveyor report for the three really active accounts here. Regarding your question about the not-obviously-commercial editing, it's hard to suss out. Example, what is this all about? HelgaStick is the "good hand" and Liborbital, GringisMan the "bad hand"? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We might have a new editor - brand new account has added a link to one of the (now deleted) articles. Will wait and see if they have something to say about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I tried to save to save this from deletion by adding the connection to this. I'm obviously new to this, as I am the person mentioned. But I never payed for any of the entries to be made. It seems as if this is the cause for deletion. (talk) --Shynoladelacruiz (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Paolo Casali

Would someone else like to look at this? It was created by KAustin, who acknowledges here that it was written for "my boss". Neagleyz knows Casali well enough to have taken this photograph of him (but, Neagleyz, why did you upload such a low-resolution copy of your photo, and without any EXIF data?). It's no surprise to discover that the IP range 129.111.0.0/16 is registered to UTHSCSA, University of Texas, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio.

The content appears to have been created as a part of someone's paid employment, and I've suggested here that either the text be removed from the page, or the page moved back to draft ... with predictable response. I then – very reluctantly, I must admit – started cleaning it up myself; when I was reverted by SwisterTwister, who was responsible for moving it into article space in the first place, I stopped. I don't plan to touch it again, hence this post. The subject, by the way, is most certainly notable by our standards.

This article aside, I think it's time to review with care our handling of both of COI content in draft space, and of TOU violations. Specifically, is there any reason why an editor, any editor, should not remove all body text – with TOU violation as rationale – from an article like this one, so that a neutral and non-conflicted page can be written in its place? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I'm low on blood sugar please explain further. You want to strip the article body under what conditions? WP:STUBIFY and leave just a one-sentence lede or ...? Help me here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
there's certainly a reason we should not stubbify: to deny recognition to paid editors. It's our only real weapon,to delete all COI articles unless the person is so important that someone will create a new article from scratch, and this is nowhere near that important. Otherwise the subject pays for the article, the paid editor write his promotionalism , we remove it and rewrite it properly for him. WP is based on volunteers, and we destroy that principle if we use our time and efforts in writing work that other people have been paid for. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
When deleting because of being a ToU violation has come up, the community seems to have been opposed. It is preferred to work from existing reasons - if the text is overly promotional, or if the paid editor is socking - rather than using the ToU as justification in itself.
This particular case is a bit different, as it seems that editor wasn't hiding their affiliation, but was simply unaware of the need to disclose it. Hopefully now that they are being made aware of the requirements they'll take care of them and this won't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mannatech

Whitewashing of a company page by an editor who claims they aren't compensated for their edits. However, an Upwork job requesting edits to the Mannatech page has been started a few weeks ago (a link would have to be to the freelancer's profile - let me know if it's OK to post it), and the company appears to have a long history of editing the page. Rentier (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Posting links to job sites is allowed by the exemption in WP:OUTING (emphasis mine): "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations... There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." It was reaffirmed by Doc James here. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The ad was hidden on Upwork right after my post, so no point now. It wasn't possible to link directly to the ad, and a link to a freelancer's profile was redacted in one of the threads above... Rentier (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Posting upwork links here is definitely ok, but we can of course take your word about having seen it. The edits were obviously not neutral and it is is not difficult to see why this company would want the article rewritten from their perspective. I've reverted the changes as they were such a mess and will keep an eye on it. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rentier: Are you certain that the upwork user has taken other jobs? The age of the Zrex00 account makes it very likely that they're socking. Even without, we may be able to persuade a CU to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: Yes, certainly. Here is a link to another job by the same freelancer. The corresponding edits were done by WordNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was confirmed to Muzr1009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked. Rentier (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rentier: Ah yes I remember that AC. Unfortunately those accounts are all stale but it seems likely that there are others lurking. I will see whether I someone can take a look later on. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Risker and Drmies: Are either of you able to use your powers to check this account? Per the above, we know that they are getting jobs from upwork and have socked before (but all stale now) so it seems likely that there are others accounts lurking. Zrex00 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I will be happy to run CU but I need to see some evidence for socking. I compared that big fat ridiculous edit by Zrex00 to the one in the history by Chris1200, and to some others, and I looked at the WordNinja edits, but I don't see any resemblances. If you can help with that, sure. Or you can email me. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Emailing you. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have nothing to report... Drmies (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The article has definitely been cleaned up, good team effort. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Kayzie Rogers

Both the user and the IP seem to be the subject of this biography. They appear to be making good faith attempts to update and correct their biography, but keep getting reverted with little explanation. They could probably use some guidance from someone experienced in COI issues. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Neurologic music therapy

COI editing appears to have persisted "to inform the public" with sourcing and copyright violation issues. This is also a medical topic. More attention to the article welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: You might get more action on this at WT:WikiProject Medicine. They are very responsive to articles with bogus medical claims. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bri: Shortly after my post here it was brought again back to attention there along with other related music therapy articles (WT:MEDICINE#Music_Therapy). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Christianne Klein

I am concerned that these two editors may have a conflict of interest, but when I have tagged the article, Truthtellers19 removes the template. Note that, according to the article, Klein's company is called Truth Fairy TV Media Group. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The "truthteller" account, like the first, is an single-purpose account. It was created shortly after NPOVN was notified and other editors started doing article cleanup. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ronu Majumdar

Same name as flutist with questionable nobility. Article is poorly sourced and cruft continuously is added to it. Article was not created by user, but that is the only article they have edited. Username might be a violation, but I don't even know if this person is "famous". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Grohe

User continues to add content, despite a COI notice on talkpage and obvious COI as evidenced by username. Edwardx (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please advise who to get in touch with to discuss GROHE_Marketing —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Uyarafath

I am not exactly sure how to handle this case, but I will still try. This person has accepted that he is a paid editor, and has provided a list of articles that he has been paid for on his user page. Paid editing if declared is probably a transgression that is forgiven here. However there are many other articles that he has created which are probably paid editing as well, and have not been declared as such by him or mentioned as such on the talk pages of the articles. Some of the undeclared suspected paid edits include

  • He has expanded Maija DiGiorgio with a lot of information, most of which are not even provided in the only source provided.
  • He has removed tags from Majestic Realty Co. and its chairman Edward P. Roski after making minor cosmetic changes to them.
  • He has created Limnesh Augustine which has a candid photograph uploaded by a person with the same name as the subject of the article and most of the references for the article are not even about the person, but about some events.
  • Articles on entrepreneurs like Matthew Edward Zagula and John Adrain, both probably non notable and containing external links.
  • Companies like Natera and Creditseva which don't have proper references and seem like product pages.
  • Probably paid to take over editing Draft:UrbanClap after a newbie editor (probably related to the company) could not pass the article through Draft review.
  • Has accepted to have been paid for Adda52rummy but not for its founder Anuj Gupta and parent company Adda52.

I am pinging @Uyarafath: for comments. Jupitus Smart 10:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging @Batwoman3366: who seems to be the sockpuppet of the above user as his only role is to remove maintenance tags from pages that have been created by the above user (besides some other minor edits). Jupitus Smart 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, @Jupitus Smart:. You are right. By the way, you have not seen my disclosure in my talk page. Please read it. I am making it clear here that earlier I was not aware about 'paid disclosure', So I didn't mention. After I came to know about 'paid disclosure policy' from Wikipedia, I do disclose it properly and for my early editing also I am disclosing one by one, so it is taking time. You have mentioned some of my editing. Thanks for that. I will disclose 'paid editing' wherever it applicable. The articles created/edited by me always withing Wikipedia guidelines but limit of my understanding. So, I always welcome experienced editors to correct/improve my articles.Uyarafath (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Even with your acceptance now (you had said empathetically that its your responsibility to declare your paid editing on August 9. Accepting after a COIN revelation doesn't seem very responsible to me), I am not sure I can digest so much of paid editing. Anyway let us see what the other guy has to say before I or somebody else starts off a sockpuppet investigation. Jupitus Smart 10:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I am going on a Wikibreak. Probably one of the editors will consider taking up an SPI. Jupitus Smart 10:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I had the same suspicion last week and you can see the talk thread with user here. I recommended Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists for deletion but then saw user's upload of a commercial looking image to Jade Mya. The photo came from Flickr and looks like it was uploaded a day or two prior. Upon Googling the name of the original uploader on Flickr, I find it is linked to a company that offers paid services for editing Wikipedia. I am not putting any names - company or person - here to avoid outing, but you can easily follow the path for yourself. I should note that prior to me contacting user on their talk page, they had only two paid editing disclosures I could find and the disclosure on their userpage was non-existent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Had to return after I saw this. SPI won't work as this is not sockpuppetry but meatpuppetry. Uyarafath has agreed at Talk:Creditseva that he has been paid by Facilius. Searching for Facilius reveals that it is an SEO company, and Wikipedia editing is one of their services. Per their services listing page here they offer to return money in case articles are deleted (It is an interesting read for those interested). Creditseva was created by Copeflojo who has been blocked for Sockpuppetry and largely edited by Krawtani2600 who was the Sockmaster (SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krawtani2600). They probably understood that more sockpuppetry would not augur well for the article (and they would have to return the money) and recruited Uyarafath. A look at the SPI investigation reveals other users who were not blocked as they were technically unrelated - another probable case of meatpuppetry. Does Uyarafath have enough claims for a block and possible WP:G5 deletions. Pinging @Doc James: for his thoughts. Jupitus Smart 18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That is the same company that links to the Flickr image that I mentioned above. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Uyarafath also needs to disclose any intermediaries involved in their work. If they are facilitating the work of a blocked editor for pay that is at least a breach of the spirit of our policies if not the policies themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Doc James, It is good that I am taught many things about wikipedia. As I already said, initially I did not aware about disclosures. Once, I came to about 'paid disclosure' I started mentioning in the talk page of respective articles for which I am compensated. Now User:Jupitus Smart says that since COIN revealed, I admit the paid disclosure. But, it is not the case. As I declared in my user page, I am not part of any marketing company at all. If I am requested to create an encyclopedic content on payment basis, I do accept. If the article is within Wikipedia guidelines and accepted then only I will get pay. So, Until I did not receive any compensation I can't disclose it, Am I right?. But now, I have disclosed many articles for which I have not received any compensation but still I declared because I may get (depending on review). See, fist I do check whether the subject is notable. In my point of view the subject is notable (by looking many such articles created by other editors which are reviewed by experienced Wiki admins and allowed to be encyclopedic), So I do think it is good to upload an article about particular subject. After that, other Wiki admin/moderator decides about existence. As of now, within my knowledge, Wikipedia allows paid edits and it must be disclosed and the article within Wikipedia guidelines. The problem is I may sometime feel that yes! this subject is notable but wiki moderators feels 'not'. What I can do for that? For example, one I created for an 'Indian painter' who is very peculiar in particular painting, the person holds some records, news paper coverage is there. So, I strongly feel the subject is notable. But, Other Wiki editor feels 'not'. Just yesterday one of my article D.S._Kothari_Fellowship was deleted,(Not paid article, as a service I created it) the reason 'advertisement' and it was tagged like this by a 'Well experienced Wiki admin'. But I am totally confused that how could 'a research scholar science fellowship' be advertise and promotional?. If that is the case, then all the article under [[17]], how were they accepted as encyclopedic? This point I got confused. What is wrong D.S._Kothari_Fellowship.User:Doc James please clarify under which case D.S._Kothari_Fellowship is advertisement. Thank youUyarafath (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@CNMall41 and Jupitus Smart: thanks for the info on the Indian SEO/marketing/social media/WP editing firm. I have reported them to WMF Legal for trademark infringement: they are utilizing the puzzle globe for advertising these services. We should do this every time we see it used this way. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Acting sheepish won't really be helpful. Here are some points to consider:

  • It is not our fault that the company tricked you into not paying you. If you were commissioned to write in lieu of payments, you have to mention it.
  • What difference does it make if you are not really working for the company. A worker there makes articles and is paid for that. You make articles sitting at your home, and are paid for that. I don't see much of a moot point.
  • Why was D S Kothari Fellowship deleted. Simple Answer : Because you lost our trust. Even though we grudgingly allow paid editing if declared, we don't like it and we will try to delete it if it can be deleted. So even though D S Kothari Fellowship was innocuous, somebody tagged it for deletion, and an admin accepted it, because they believed an advertiser editor can only write paid articles (and probably because the article read like an advertisement). What do you think is stopping me or Doc James or some other experienced editor from writing paid articles. Don't you think we can write much better articles than what you are producing. It is because we are committed to a greater cause of providing free knowledge, and probably money can't replace respect and trust.

Bah. Jupitus Smart 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Disclosure is required if there is the expectation of getting paid. The transfer of money is not required first.
You need to mention who paid you and have not yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Jupitus Smart, User:Doc James and other editors, Since you have said that I lost your trust, I have nothing to say. Yes, you guys can write much better article than me but you don't. I understand. So, here I assure you that I won't accept any paid compensation for any article which are not enough to be encyclopedic. So, for that don't blindly delete my article which are non-paid but encyclopedic and notable such as 'D S Kothari fellowship' article. Also, well before all this conflict one of my non-paid but notable article about 'National Wind tunnel facility IIT Kanpur' was deleted, saying advertisement. I wondered how could it be advertisement and 'National wind tunnel facility in UK' is encyclopedic but 'National wind tunnel facility in India' is advertisement. How to digest this? You guys can explain this too. I can't accept your argument that Since I lost hope so that you can delete my non-paid encyclopedic articles. It is my request that please show me the Wiki rule which says if an editor lost hope from admin, so even a notable encyclopedic content from such editors can be deleted. Since guidelines are vast I could not exactly find out such information. You may please help to read out. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be specifically not answering the question presented. "I assure you that I won't accept any paid compensation for any article which are not enough to be encyclopedic" appears to mean that you will accept money for articles you feel are encyclopedic. You still have not agreed to disclose who is paying you :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Doc James, When did I say "I will not agree to disclose the paid edits"?. I have clearly disclosed paid edits in article's talk page and in my user page too as list. You are welcome to visit my user page and have a look. "appears to mean that you will accept money for articles you feel are encyclopedic" - what is wrong in that? According to Wikipedia guidelines, I can get compensation but I have to disclose it. I am also saying that I already disclosed for previous articles and will surely disclose in future too if so. But, meanwhile, I will add new encyclopedic content voluntarily without any compensation but only intention to share knowledge. Will you delete that too? if so why?.please clarify. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay I see that you have disclosed who paid you on the talk pages of the article in question rather than your user page.[18] That works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Doc James, kindly answer my question already asked "I will add new encyclopedic content voluntarily without any compensation but only intention to share knowledge. Will those also be deleted? if so why?.please clarify". Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Depends on whether or not it is promotional I imagine. If you contribute none promotional stuff you should be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've given the user a final warning to explain this mess, if no such explanation is forthcoming or disruption resumes then I will block. —SpacemanSpiff 15:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Eyes on Yan Gorshtenin

The new article Yan Gorshtenin has been introduced and edited mainly by User:Gorshteninyan (talk), which implies a potential conflict of interest. The editor has several times removed an autobiography tag placed on the article, and some of the information added to the page seem to be very promotional towards the subject. Requesting we keep an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Smallbones...this is one for the examples file. "Worked countless hours...discovered his entrepreneurship journey...his accomplishments have led him into many new opportunities...help[ing] teenagers in his community start their own ventures in media marketing and self branding." Sourcing to high school newspaper even. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's tempting, but I'd rather not make fun of a high school student. My question is how he can write the article, and nothing other than "his" article and get it in main space without going thru AfC? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Smallbones, because WP:ACTRIAL doesn't start until September 7th at the earliest, so until then, anyone can create any article they want in mainspace by simply picking a username, password, and typing in a captcha :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
7th can't come soon enough. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It won't matter much. WP:ACTRIAL is a minor speed bump, not a traffic barrier. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I was speaking ironically, the joke is on us since we have such a low bar and examples of just this kind of self-hype everywhere. Why wouldn't an ambitious young person go ahead and insert this? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Bri, I just tagged as G11. If someone is familiar with Commons deletion-speak, they should probably head over there to nominate that glorious webcam selfie for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A WP:SPI also is in order. The subject lives in Los Angeles, and the article is being edited by both User talk:Gorshteninyan and two IPs that geolocate to... guess where? I've gotta get to bed but if somebody wants to file the paperwork that would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Boris without commenting on whether or not your conclusion is correct, I don't think an SPI would be productive; these kinds of cases don't go well over there in my experience. They will not publicly relate IPs to a specific editor. If we had continuing disruption a block might be possible but right now even that isn't evidently necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
We can say that based on behavior, IPs are clearly the same as accounts. However, we cannot make a technical link (i.e. via CU). GABgab 02:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Sangshik Han

User has returned after being warned of COI seven years ago. Of course we allow people to edit articles about themselves and their associations, but there's no attempt, then or now, to communicate, follow guidelines, or add reliable sources. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

CORYS

User:Emma Harbonnier started the article CORYS, which is a notable company. The article, as created had a distinct promotional tone. A casual check on linkedIn revealed a person of this name is an employee (Assistante en communication) of said company. I proceeded to place a {{uw-coi}} template on her userpage. Today she removed maintenace templates and reinstated much of the material which had been removed. This seems a clear case of undisclosed COI. Please advise. Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've left additional messages on the editor's talk page here and on French Wikipedia, where she has also been engaging in the same activities. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Another user, SGenin, has appeared to remove maintenance templates and add content. A simple search reveals a result that suggests this is yet another employee with an undisclosed COI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This user was also notified on their talk page on French Wikipedia in December 2016 about undisclosed paid editing. No disclosure has been made. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
On French Wikipedia, Emma Harbonnier has been warned about an impending block if they don't disclose their employment within two weeks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Crap(s) spam

Thre was an offsite ad for work on WP articles relating to dice games. In reviewing this I came across a lot of dubious references at Craps. Even after a bunch of cleanup back in May [19], the article is pretty crappy, perhaps in WP:TNT territory, but I wanted a second opinion before proceeding further. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Camille Marino

I have some concerns that the author of this article may be an undisclosed paid contributor, considering their name, the age of the account, and the lack of neutrality of their edits. PureRED (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm sorry. I see the alert that there is a discussion about the article I wrote, but I cannot find the discussion. The relevance of this article revolves around free speech issues. I deleted everything that may have been considered extraneous. Can someone please tell me if there is still an issue with the article. Thank you ghostwriter45

Hi, I've deleted all the extraneous information in this article. free speech is the relevant issue. please let me know if there is still an issue. thank you
I'll just say that the article is an obvious can of worms. At least in earlier versions there was a problem with WP:SOAP. It's been cleaned up a bit but the earlier verion I read starts out "Camille A. Marino (born 1964; Brooklyn, New York) is an Animal Liberation activist, author, and former political prisoner living in Wildwood, Florida. She has incurred a dozen arrests, two extraditions out of Florida, and one raid on her home. Having been banned from the Internet for almost three years, she has become a vocal critic of state-enforced censorship." And from what I can tell, that could be true. The link to the Southern Poverty Law Center should be read, and is quite scary.
I'm not sure the subject in non-notable, but she certainly is soapy. It doesn't help that Ghostwriter is an SPA and the only real contributor to the 3 day old article. I'm kinda hoping that the article just goes away. @Ghostwriter45:, is there any chance you could just ask that the article be withdrawn? As I said it just looks like a can of worms. Make that a case of cans of worms. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I had nominated the article for speedy after it was recently created, later I withdrew it. I am not sure about AfD, but the article is not valid for speedy criteria. The creator's activity is certainly fishy, but again, I cant be sure of COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

User:EngiZe

Articles edited linked to Upwork jobs:

Long-time paid editor, more than 100 Upwork jobs completed. Rentier (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is concerning to see accounts like this so active nominating and participating in AfDs. Another data point in the process integrity puzzle. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I assume it's cover. Any fool can voice an opinion at AfD because we don't punish editors for faulty opinions. Edits like that make the editor look like they're here to contribute. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Admin action request: please strip Extendedconfirmed as soon as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

CREATED

EDITED

UNEXPLAINED

Fuller cleanup list above ☆ Bri (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 02:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
According to File:Price to Win (AUD-PNG-2 CO) (Issue 7).png Price to Win is related to another editor and something called Amplio Services which the username is piped to. They may have been one of the Upwork buyers. Also possible relationship to Draft:Capture Management. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

SFM Corporate Services

Article created by an SPA, and edited by five other SPAs since then. Subject is of questionable notability. Edwardx (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked SFM.Corporate as obvious spamublock. Haven't had enough caffeine to look at the others yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

SFM.Corporate is a SCAM, just google it Eu100 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mattress companies

Following up on the recent 100+ article paid editing case I noticed several mattress companies bear marks of paid editing, and the same editor was involved in categorization, an odd choice. At any rate this edit indicates COI editing from a marketing exec at King Koil. The article was overly promotional and nearly all sourced to corp materials so I nominated it for G11 speedy. Eve Sleep is declared paid, and needs a cleanup job. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I reported Kingkoil1 to WP:UAA for a corporate username violation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Applied kinesiology

Blocked user in question indefinitely until issues of copyright problems and incivility dealt with Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 31 August 2017 (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.

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I am not the lovely little potato I thought I was but a "bigoted coward who speaks out of ignorance". Interesting. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Blocked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
|}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_118&oldid=1088686159"