Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 119

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Mehkalan

Blocked until disclosure occurs and promotional editing issues dealt with Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 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.

User appears to be on Wikipedia only for the purpose of advertising the company they founded. They have no-comment reverted several of my removals of their advertising, after I had warned them about COI. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked until disclosure occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't have made sense to give the user a bit of time to respond before blocking? - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They are free to respond on their talk page. I did not remove those privileges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They didn't have time to respond before you blocked them. We used to try to give people time to respond before blocking, if there's no major emergency. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a TOU violation. They have edited since the concerns were raised on their talk page without addressing the concerns. Blocks are to prevent further disruption. I take the TOU seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The TOU states "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". I agree with that fully. Can you show that the editor you just blocked before they responded to the concerns was, in fact, being paid to make those edits? Because I'm going with no - all you can show is that you suspect that they had a COI. I think they had a COI as well. However, I'd at least have discussed the issue with them first. - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They were given the chance to disclose and did not. Undisclosed COI editing is a serious concern that negatively affects our readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They were barely given a chance at all. However, what they did with that chance was to move the article where they appear to have a COI into draft space, exactly as we would recommend an editor with a COI should do. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
They also continued to edit the article in question without disclosure.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It was in draft space, and we don't even know if they were being paid to make those edits. It seems that we're willing to give a lot more leeway to an editor who vandalises pages with a series of warnings than you are willing to give an editor who might have a COI.
What we need to do is talk to them, If it is a serial paid editor, then fine, we block the socks. But if it isn't clear, we should be giving them a chance to understand before we bring out the big guns and just indef block them. If they don't or won't listen, then use the blocks. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at their user name? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it looks suspiciously like an editor with a COI, rather than a paid editor. I don't doubt that they had a COI. I just question the wisdom of blocking them without engaging them in discussion first. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 31 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 Jeh & Guy Harris Undisclosed Microsoft afilliation

OK before any admins hit the block buttion please hear me out. I contacted Arbcom member Drmie privately yesterday asking how to proceed with this COI complaint, I did that to avoid outing Jeh and to avoid being charged with harrasment. Let me say now that as soon as I sent the message to Drmie I was banned as a sockpuppet. That's what happened with Rich Coburn User - ME. So here I am again having no choice but to go through with this publicly using another IP. However I am that person Rich Coburn. Second, two emails have been sent to all Arbcom members specifically stating Jeh's real name, his partners' names and the how they are associated Microsoft along with proof. So before banning me check with Jimmy Wales. Now I need to know how to proceed further without breaking any harrsment rules. Jeh is directly connected with the sources he uses as references in articles, much of it biased and misleading. I realise "misleading" sounds cliche after Jegenwegen fiasco but it is the truth. And for the record I'm not Jegenwegen and don't know him. I tracked him down after watching Guy and Jeh doubleteam him on one of the x86 articles or maybe PAE I don't rembember. But he was right Jeh and Guy are promoting misleading content. By the way, I'm an IT Engineer and have been in the industry for nearly 20 years. That's not a brag, just painting a picture of how I may be familiar with Jeh & computer hardware. My co-worker was pastie face, a Systems Analyst, now in the States. He and I are not "meat puppets" (lol I never heard that expression til yeterday - had to Google it). There is a clear history of complaints aginst Guy ad Jeh for editing biased misleading and deceptive content into articles. I mean going back more than 5 years. Anyway with that let us please have a dicussion without silly accusations of sockpuppetry. 122.58.8.40 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw if someone can unblock my Rich Coburn account I won't need to use a proxy. Thanks. -RC 122.58.8.40 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This pocksuppet needs blocking. No comment on the complaint as op has supplied no usable evidence in th form of doffs. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 IP blocked. GABgab 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This "report" is a dupe/repeat of this one, only this time with far less "evidence". The replies to the previous report are relevant here. Also, whether or not reporter has been a sockpuppet in the past, he is self-admittedly using an IP to evade a block now. Jeh (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Manas dubey

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Was previously by User:Rrajesh.shandilya and User:Bindaas vikram Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajofe StreetMic‎

User had been indefinitely blocked and talk page access revoked. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 2 September 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.

User admits they're a freelancer on their user page but has not fully disclosed any paid editing. I strongly believe they have in fact been paid to create this article based on the lack of neutrality. I've asked for a disclosure, but have yet to see one. --PureRED | talk to me | 18:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Page tagged for G12, will keep an eye on this editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Editor in question has unofficialy declared himself a paid editor via Upwork at Talk:Ajofe StreetMic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
"I'm a freelancer and doing my job who has been paid by client on upwork" seems like a clear and official declaration to me. But the editor has been blocked as a result, so there's nothing more to see here. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 2 September 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.

Ed Seeman

Issue has been clarified, and it is not a case of paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 2 September 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.

Subject of the article recently posted a request [2] on Freelancer. The article Ed Seeman was recently created by User:Jacqke (talk), hopefully coincidentally, but I would like more experienced editors to investigate. Apologies in advance if I am making unsound accusations. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I was first aware of Ed Seeman when I visited the teahouse. The article he tried to submit was rejected, and I felt sympathy for him. At first I thought he was a new writer, but then I realized he was 86 years old, still quite capable but not able to deal with Wikipedia on his own. Yes he wants on Wikipedia. No I've not been hired by him. I felt sympathy, because editors are not warm sunshine when they reject a person's work, and even less sunny when they start taking of administrative action. I am writing the article. I do talk to him, especially to look for sources (and they do exist, 60 years worth, mostly not digitized). I believe he is notable, and the most heinous thing he is guilty of is trying to hire a writer to do the work.... He need look no further because I am volunteering to do the work. I was between articles anyway. I'm not well known on Wikipedia, but you can look at my work and see that I try to source just about everything. Furthermore, I let SamHolt6 know that I was taking on the project, so as to be out in the open and accept criticism/feedback.Jacqke (talk) 23:10, 1 September 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.

Malik Shabazz

Not a COI issue; also, the OP has brought the concern to ANI. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 14:34, 2 September 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.

See article: American Jews

Over the past week, Malik edit warred (going well beyond the WP:3RR limit) over the inclusion of what appears to be a politically motivated line.

Here is the passage in question: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white."

On the talk page, I argued that it is a WP:REDUNDANT line (since the passage it precedes says the same thing, but in a more neutral tone) and serves no real purpose other than to enforce a "point" about Jews. The hostile, accusatory nature of his responses, especially his justification for restoring the aforementioned passage*, only reinforce my concerns.

  • "since you and your friend are still peddling the "Jews aren't white" line, it's very necessary"

In other words, he feels it is necessary not because it improves the article (it doesn't), but because I mentioned in passing, on another talk page, that I don't share his views on this topic. Therefore, I (and my "friend", whoever that is) must be brought into line.

The diffs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Jews&action=history

The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You brought this to the wrong forum, as there's no evidence Malik has WP:COI on that article. Try WP:ANI if you think there's a user conduct issue, or WP:3RR for edit warring. You will need to present clear evidence in the form of diffs though. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the complainant understands what a WP:COI is, nor do they seem to understand WP:3RR. What is my alleged conflict? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:EXTERNALREL is relevant. "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal — can trigger a COI." The key word being 'can'. Not 'does'. In order to demonstrate a religious affiliation extends to a conflict of interest, you would need to provide evidence that extends to a COI rather than just bias/advocacy. See WP:COINOTBIAS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 29 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.

Cleanup after User:Amirshahat

Just blocked this guy and deleted the first two articles - please feel free to deal with the rest if necessary. GABgab 15:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

William Andrew Oddy

The article is a BLP and there have been all sorts of problems with sourcing. I'm now sure the guy is notable but, having done some clean up a few days ago, I've just had to revert a bunch of new edits because in most cases there is no way the sources support the statements in their entirety (eg: there is no way the source added in this edit will support all of the preceding statements). As a whole, the article relies far, far too much on WP:SPS and, well, it has been a bit of a nightmare just getting it into the shape that it now is. And the shape is not great because pretty much every non-SPS source is supporting ancillary info rather than info about the subject himself.

I've asked the contributor about a possible COI - could be the subject, could be a museum colleague or student etc - but they seem to be ignoring that and, indeed, do not appear to be particularly communicative. Which is not to say they've been entirely silent - they did query adding still more likely SPS stuff relating to Sutton Hoo but then went on today's spree without raising the edits at the talk page first.

I'm sure that they mean well but there is something not right here and I've not got the temperament to deal with it, sorry. Sitush (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is abila.pao and I am William Andrew Oddy. There is, of course, a possibility of COI in me trying to edit this page but as an amateur with Wikipedia I am having difficulty in contacting those who do not like my edits. Earlier today I put in new citations where they were being requested. They have all been removed. OK, yes, the Who's Who entry was written by me but I don't know where else to go to back up things like date of birth, date of retirement, freeman of Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths etc etc. In fact, I don't see that these need citations. Of course, I COULD be fantasizing but I am not and these are facts pertinent to my career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abila.pao (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake a few moments ago as I closed the entry without signing it as I had not finished but wanted to see if I was 'working the system'. I then came back and added more text and signed, but this has been lost! One of the changes that I made earlier was to re-name a section of text. This is because a couple of days ago a section of text was removed, but the heading from a different section was removed. My edit had been undone. So now we have a section of text relating to 'The History of Museum Conservation' that is headed 'Forensic Examination of Antiquities'. Very weird. I will give up trying to make this article more comprehensive by editing directly. However, it is missing several major areas like the scientific and conservation work on the Sutton Hoo burial, the development of the Archimedes Method for the analysis of gold coins and its application in the field of numismatics, and a lot of numismatic work on the early Islamic coinage. I also wonder how much life outside the walls of the British Museum should be aired: Trustee of several charities over the years, membership of numerous working parties and committees, even some years in retirement selling antiques. Well, it looks as though we shall never know. Abila.pao (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not trying to put you off or demean what you have done in your life. Sorry if it seems that way. I'm just at a bit of a loss regarding how to deal with this issue and that is why I have raised it here. I know that I removed the Who's Who entry, among other things, but I'm not even sure that mentions everything that it was being used to support.
More generally, we usually want sources that discuss the subject, not sources written by the subject. Obviously, some will be ok but the article comprises almost entirely statements reliant on your own writings and that often rings alarm bells. I'm sure there are people here who can advise you (and me) regarding what is acceptable and what is not. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Just addressing the final paragraph of what Sitush wrote. I have frequently argued at AfD about this, and deleted article sections with titles and content like "media appearances", links to author indexes, lists of periodical pieces authored by the subject, "was interviewed by", citations of books to themselves, and the like. These are reliable hallmarks of advocacy editing in my experience. I don't think I've ever been challenged on this so it does seem to be the will of the community that such content doesn't belong. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Abila.pao Fret not. You're not the first new contributor to Wikipedia that finds himself baffled initially by Wikipedia editing policies. Can assure you though, that our policies developed over-time by trial-and-error until we could maintain millions of articles that meet (or nearly meet) WP encyclopedic standards. Rome wasn't t built in a day and new editors can't understand it all overnight. Also, see it as OK to be upfront about your obvious COI as it alerts other editors that you may posses expert knowledge in some of those fields. For the time being however, just be content to add suggestions to the articles talk-pages -where you will get feed back, advice and help. It would be nice to have a photograph of yourself for the article about you but I won't go into how to upload one just yet as you will probably baffled about how comply with CC-BY-SA 4.0 aswell- but understanding will come with familiarity. Aspro (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll second what @Aspro: said. We need editors like you, even if it is just an occasional look at Sutton Hoo or similar. But we just don't need folks editing the article about themselves. Putting good information with good references on the talk page is as far as you should go. Just an idea, why don't we get some of the folks from the British Museum project to take a look at the article? @Wittylama and Johnbod:
Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The article could certainly do with some independent refs, but seems essentially ok to me, though it does read rather like it is self-authored. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Simonetta Lein

Can I please have some help with this article? The COI issue is explained at Talk:Simonetta Lein#COI and promotionalism tags. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

From the talk page, it is clear that there is undeclared paid editing there. My reaction to the article is "ok, but what has she actually done?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Mine too, Smallbones! Any suggestions for what we should do here? Ordinarily, I might nominate the article for deletion, but there seem to be enough sources to pass WP:GNG - although it is difficult to sift out the independent coverage from masses of "fashion influencer" promo bumpf. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a certain sympathy for her - we've been remiss in our duty to let her know what is considered promotional here, or otherwise prohibited. She misses these marks by a huge amount. Her statement on the talk page "Just tell me what to do in order to fix this as we do not intend to go on and on," suggests to me that she just wants to know what to do. I'll answer on the talk page and put up a prod (if it hasn't already had one) and probably ask her to just withdraw the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've politely but directly explained to Simonetta on the talk page that this is not the type of article we want on Wikipedia. I also put up a Prod notice which was taken down within minutes by @Anachronist:. Please also see User_talk:Anachronist#Undeletion_request_-_Simonetta_Lein I'd like to ask him what he is doing and why? The article is pure fluff with 40 references demonstrating that it is fluff. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want it deleted permanently, prodding isn't the way to go, because a request at WP:RFU will restore it immediately. The article was deleted unilaterally as G11 by an admin without anyone nominating it first, and after no response, I restored it to draft space because it did not seem unambiguously promotional to me. Draft space is the proper place for COI editors to work on their articles. After it was submitted for review, it was accepted and published in main space. I removed the prod because I am not convinced that the article doesn't belong here. The proper place for the community to decide such matters is AFD. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose anybody can suffer a total case a bad judgement on one day, and can be forgiven. But this case has some special points to it.
  • 1st please post on your user page if you are an admin - I noticed the OTRS identification, but not the admin one.
  • Just quoting from @Orange Mike: at [3] "influencer"; "fashion icon"; you don't consider crap like that promotional????" Really, doesn't that just scream out "paid advocacy"?
  • Please check some of the citations. There's nothing behind them at all - Philadelphia Metro, cited multiple times, is just the free commuter rag, that nobody would ever concieve of calling "reliable". Then there is the infomercial television station that's cited, where she was interviewed by "Eraldo" The non-profit foundation she goes on-and-on about doesn't seem to have any sources behind it - I certainly can't find the IRS Form 990 or mentions on any of the usual sources for it. I hate to say it, but the local Fox TV News report is likely the most reliable source (but I haven't checked it out yet)
  • Overall there is nothing in this article that says "notable", or "reliable source". Please just admit your error and delete it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki What? A new Facebook Watch TV Series about editing Wikipedia

https://www.facebook.com/wikiwhat/videos/110458719651405/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Trolling? -Roxy the dog. bark 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure. But soon after the episode aired a new user began making the exact changes discussed in the show at T. J. Miller. I have left a message on their talk page. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

TiffanyTinnell sockfarm

Yet another time sink of cleanup. Yet another AfD sockfarm corruption. More to come. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TiffanyTinnell for now; it will be moved soon. I'm not sure how much there is for you guys to do at COIN other than perhaps look at article creations. This sockfarm was discovered due to recent disruption, but their number of topic areas is quite low and mostly comprised of deleted articles. I don't think there are many more accounts to find, at least not recently active accounts. I would be especially careful of treating pre-2014 articles as paid articles from Anang5. I've seen no crossover with socks or obvious evidence of paid editing prior to that time. It's very possible that the editor was not paid prior to 2014 or that the account was compromised and taken over by a paid editor. The disruption is more recent (2014 to present). ~ Rob13Talk 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth being a tad careful here - Anang5 hasn't edited for two years, so it isn't clear that Anang5 is caught up in the current AfD issues. An editor was recently hired on Upwork to make some changes to the article. I noticed, and tagged the article while we looked into it. They then placed a second ad looking for someone to remove the tag, and I think that second ad was identified leading to the article going to AfD. No one was hired for that second job ad. My guess is that this was either broadcast to fans, or the group who hired someone then started responding on the AfD. However, that suggests that there are at least two groups involved, and as Anang5 hasn't edited for over two years, they may be separate to the other accounts - assuming that there isn't some additional evidence saying otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Adel Batterjee

Concerns

Refspam concern

Buddhabob replaced dead links to high quality souces with links to a private law practice, even though a quick google search finds government and university sources for the information. He did this just days after an Upwork job to make "Wikipedia page edits" was started by a client associated with the practice. Evidence:

  • an Upwork job asking for changes to carvercantin.com
  • a job by the same client from 2016 seeking an "Experienced wikipedia editor for dead link restoration"
  • a recent job by the same client seeking Wikipedia page edits. It was awarded to a freelancer whose previous Wikipedia account was the blocked Jkmarold55. Soon afterwards, Buddhabob added the links. Update: the Upwork job was hidden immediately after my report here. Rentier (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

More recently, Buddhabob added similarly questionable links to another law practice. In a discussion I initiated on his talk page, he argues that the edits are a net positive and denies having been paid.

Yes, to sum up what was said earlier, the existence of an Upwork job in relation to a source I used is simply insufficient evidence to accuse me of editing for money. Like I said before, my impacts on every article I edited were net positive, meaning that they served no other purpose but to replace dead links. Sure, you can remove them and replace them with different sources, and like I said, I don't really care. The purpose was to draw your attention to those pages while quickly putting up whatever source I can find. I am NOT working for money or anything, otherwise I would have easily put it up that I was. I don't see any harm in that. I've used other sources other than the carver once, which is just what I had on hand, so I am not doing any editing for Carver Cantin for money or anything else whatsoever. Buddhabob (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is NO ONE evidence in this case. It's just a war started and continued by SamHolt6 Cavecanem101 (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Article concern

Michele Di Salvo was created by Buddhabob, later expanded by Cavecanem101 and IP editors. It had many of the hallmarks of a paid piece, so I added the Undisclosed paid tag, but it was removed by Cavecanem101.

--Rentier (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not know who is the creator. I was interested to the contents and make some edits there. Now I'm also working on the IT translation of this page. Sorry, but I do not think this page is payed, and you have a suspect but can not prove that. So, if have something sure let's discuss on... if not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavecanem101 (talk • contribs)

Explicit proof of paid editing is not needed. Per the tag's text, the page is suspected of having been the subject of paid editing. The general feeling among more established editors is that there is enough data to back up suspicions, namely regarding the Upwork projects. The tag should stay, and it's removal should be considered disruptive editing if it continues. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that, Per Rentier's evidence, the (UDP) and (Advert) tags should remain until they have been definitely disproven. As it stand, evidence has been submitted that suspects the page has been subject to paid editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If SamHolt6 have some information that consider "adv" can work to remove that directly, and do not continue to mark the page. Or is not able to prove and show and correct what he say? Cavecanem101 (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cavecanem101: Please refer to this section and the pages linked therein for what constitutes promotional content. The avert tag is wholly appropriate (if you don't see that after reading the guidelines, please let me know), and there are solid grounds (see above) to suspect that paid editing has taken place. Rentier (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Username: Rentier, I have not known, nor have I intended to work for the subject, I have no paid or unpaid relations to the subject or the reference sources. Buddhabob (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


1. an other editor (more competent) make some corrections in this sense. Read before write! 2. you say "there are solid grounds (see above) to suspect that paid editing has taken place." where are those? in a case you mentionned and editor that NEVER wrote in this page in a second case you mentioned some one that you linked in upworks that have no links or refers to this page so... what you are speaking about??? I do not know why you are doing this war with me, but now is a for me it is a matter of principle. Or should I feel that you're paid? In this case, I'll have to tag EVERY your editing and editing action as in COI and paid! Cavecanem101 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. See WP:BOOMERANG on why accusing editors of being paid to add promotion tags is a bad idea.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Buddhabob -- You are well spoken. Please answer Rentier without weasel words, exclusive editing ... for money. Tell Rentier that you have not, do not now, or intend to work for the subject, and that you have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. Otherwise, it sounds like word-parsing. Then we can put this all behind us. Rhadow (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow Whoops, sorry. Didn't realize that. I'll try to be more concise. Buddhabob (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC) @Rhadow: How about now. Is that OK, or do I need to be even more explicit. Buddhabob (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: @Rentier: I have not had, nor will I have, relations with the subject. I have no intention to work for the subject, nor do I know him. I have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. If ever, in the extremely unlikely occasion that I work on Wikipedia for pay, the proper Wikipedia authorities will be notified, and the right tag be put in place. Buddhabob (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Buddhabob: So you happened to replace dead links with links to carvercantin.com - a website to which Wikipedia has no external links - a few days after an Upwork job asking for Wikipedia edits was started by a client who manages carvercantin.com and whose Upwork history includes "dead link restoration". It would be a coincidence so unfortunate and unlikely that I cannot accept it, as I can't stretch WP:AGF that far. But my role here has ended. I presented the facts for others to judge - I can neither close the case, nor take it away. Rentier (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rentier: @SamHolt6: @Rhadow: And the question remains. And what do I have to do? That is, it seems to me that you are playing with the small detective, but: the voice and the case would concern my account as you are doing a whole lot about other users, other pages, links and other sources. I would say this question and if you want to open it with me, because what seems to me obvious to me is that I have nothing to do with it. Cavecanem101 (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:S4GA

This single-purpose user has a clear connection with the company that is the subject of the article, as easily established by a Google search. I put a COI warning on the user's talk page yesterday but they have continued to edit in a promotional way and have not declared themselves a paid editor, either on their talk page or the draft's talk page, contrary to Wikipedia's terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

At the moment they're doing the right thing by creating the article in draft space rather than creating it directly. I guess it is up to them about how they continue - hopefully they'll stick to draft space, or will step back. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Asian Tigers Mobility Group

The article Asian Tigers Mobility Group was recently created (later deleted) by the now blocked editor User:Florence.Wong (talk). However in the editor's unblock request at User talk:Florence.Wong#September 2017 she mentions her "team" and states "We will re-write again", leading me to believe that a company has paid someone or has instructed it's employees to create an article about itself. Definitely a trivial case, but we should watch the page in the future. This goes for the Chinese Wikipedia as well ([4])--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The author, Florence.Wong, clearly does not understand that also being salaried means paid editing, and dodges the question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

LogicManager

The linked users are undisclosed paid editors employed in LogicManager's public relations department. I have cautioned both editors about WP:COI and WP:PROMO. The article content is currently more compliant than when I first found it, but still below what I would consider acceptable. It still reads as if it were written by someone from marketing and some of the sources seem to be either misrepresented or unsuitable for the information cited. Therefore, I am not pleased that tags are being removed by these editors. I am requesting another editor's assessment of the situation and suggestion on how to proceed. Furrykiller (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Adler and Allan

The user Rene Willemsen previously had the username Adler and Allan and changed it to their current valid name after (I presume) my post to their user talk page about their username. I also presume that their original username meant that they are an employee of the company, but they have continued to attempt to edit the page without declaring a COI or paid editing relationship. They are attempting to add very promotional language to the Adler and Allan article("leading provider", "leading spill responder") along with the minutiae of a company history most of which is probably not encyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User has posted to the Teahouse and I have replied. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jabailey1

An editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. The descriptions of the subjects in the articles perhaps is a clue. As is the focused editing history of their creator.

Another editor (above) has edit history uniquely connected to many of the same articles, and has created one of their own which Meatsgains approved. Additionally the sandbox is apparently re-creating iTutor.com, which was deleted by Kudpung. This account active in last 90 days. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what our rules say, but perhaps we ought to start pre-emptively salting articles like these. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean salting all the author-and-professional-skydivers, television producer/directors, literary agents, public speakers, leadership and lifestyle coaches, and business consultants who don't have Wikipedia articles yet? Or just iTutor? I guess I'd support all of the above, actually. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
p.s. not even kidding just tripped across Megan Van Petten who "serves as a keynote speaker, author, and coach by empowering employees, entrepreneurs, and leaders across North America to motivate change in themselves and their community." ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ffederal and Yandex

Yandex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yandex Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ffederal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Within the past month, the edits by User:Ffederal have been single-purpose focused on Yandex, Yandex Maps, and Yandex.People's map. The last was speedy-deleted as G11, spam. In response to my tagging of People's map as G11 (not the first tagging, but the editor in question removed the tag), the following explanation was put on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=799602953&oldid=799555908 In other words, it isn't spam because there is a lot of other spam also promoting Yandex. I am aware that there may be a language issue, because the editor's first language may be the same as the language of Yandex, which is Russian. The editor is now behaving aggressively with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandex Maps. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Gurdeep Pandher

Back in late 2016, User:Siahar1 began adding references to "Gurdeep Pandher" to various articles. It was not a very sophisticated attempt at promotion judging by their edits. In 2017, User:MarkHilton came along and created an article for Pandher. That first article ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdeep Pandher and was deleted. MarkHilton was blocked over remarks he made in the AfD. On 28 May 2017, new user (User:Cathy37) created a draft article on Pandher. The draft submission was declined. In August, another new user (User:Pellycrossing) appeared and edited the draft. This time it was accepted. Pellycrossing continued editing to add Pandher to several articles. Yet another new user (User:Bctoday) also dropped in to add almost 4k of text to Pandher's article.

The thing that drew me to this nest of simple purpose accounts is an edit by User:76.9.53.147. That IP editor had been involved in a series of promotional articles which I reported here. Like the topics involved in that report, Pandher is based in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. I strongly suspect the accounts are all related. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

SelectorA

Long term promo, poorly sourced articles, promo, undisclosed COIs, paid editing Update to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_110#SelectorA. Widefox; talk 13:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Shauryanegi

An Upwork job to create a page for Churchix was posted two days ago. The other articles match the freelancer's job history (e.g. [5]). Multiple talk page warnings and persistent removal of COI/advert tags. Rentier (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

George Uboh

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

I seems not to find George Uboh on Wiki pages.129.56.11.16 (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what the OP means, but George Uboh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created a few days ago and seems to have COI issues. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a two layered potential COI really. The article George Uboh was created User:Orifacharles who later declared being a paid editor, paid by the subject of the article. The first installment of the article was speedied as copyvio from the subject's website. The article was recreated only after the website(!) got altered in such a way that the text no longer triggers copyvio issues on Wikipedia and can be used here. Later User:Georgeuboh started to edit the same article. User:Orifacharles also made further edits directly instead of requesting them as per policy for paid editors. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Givaudan

User:Sarah Jonson appears to work for Givaudan and is editing that article. Nothing in the editing here is outrageous, but I have asked her to declare her paid status. The (possibly) unusual aspect of this case is that Sarah Jonson is an international SPA see here in English, French, and German. She's also been asked to declare her paid status at Discussion_utilisateur:Sarah_Jonson by User: LaMèreVeille.

I understand that this noticeboard is only for matters on the English-language Wikipedia, but as I understand it, we are allowed to include evidence from other language versions. One additional problem I've noted from the French version of Givaudan is that another editor (not apparently SJ, but likely a COI or paid editor) has removed information about this case from the article.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Great work, Smallbones. I think it's important to check out activities on other language versions (like the CORYS discussion above, as an example). I invited LaMèreVeille to join this discussion here as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
A couple of notes. Givaudan is a notable company, so deletion is not an option. Probably the only thing we can do is block User:Sarah Jonson for disruption if she doesn't answer the question on UPE. Also User:Jeremy112233 (see below) has edited the Givaudan article extensively, so this doesn't appear to be a coincidence. I suppose we can notify the German-language Wikipedia as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point.Smallbones, Drm310 Actually, contributors could also be active in others languages.Checking the global user contributions would be necessary. For the FrWP, this page summarizes the ongoing procedures https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Respect_de_l%27obligation_de_transparence_%C3%A0_v%C3%A9rifier/En_cours --LaMèreVeille (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It's good to know where the French version of WP:COIN is. Is there a similar page on the German Wikipedia? Perhaps we should put these links on the talk page here and ask bi- or multi-lingual editors to keep us informed on what's happening on similar pages. Multinational corporations likely have a multilingual corps of paid editors. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at the user's edits, and there is nothing to suggest a paid editor that I can see. Their interest in the one company does suggest a possible COI, but there's nothing stronger that I can identify. - Bilby (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A casual google search would likely reveal an employee of a similar name in about 30 seconds. I suspect that we just haven't been active enough on letting these folks know that these types of edits must be declared. Now that we've informed them on their user pages in 2 languages, I don't think we really have a choice but to block them as undeclared paid editors unless they respond and correct themselves. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
As always we have to avoid outing but from google it is clear that an employee with a name similar to the subject editor's.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That would make them a COI editor, but not necessarily a paid editor. Either way, their only edits to date have been to add the chairman to the infobox and updating two numbers. A block seems like overkill. - Bilby (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree not enough for concerns yet.
If they continue to edit without disclosure ping me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Eastbourne College

Both accounts trying to update their page about the college. Have warned Ms. Lowden, but has continued nonetheless. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sumonrahman

Blocked by Berean Hunter

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

This user was an undisclosed paid editor throughout their existence on WP despite having been warned in 2012. He has recently declared on his userpage that he is a freelancer which explains why he promoted this Upwork CEO last year. This request is telling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Upwork created their Flickr account just to upload his photo? ☆ Bri (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer to the COI Noticeboard, I need to ask if we should begin to UDP tag the articles he created before his disclosure. What is our best course of action?--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome and of course your opinion is as valued as those of the "regulars". Especially considering this is a new area; the UPE tag itself is less than a year old. What do you think we should do? This dovetails with my comments a few moments ago; we are likely to face a situation where the editor in question puts on a new-UPE-editor hat and says that the earlier articles were "clean". So how far does AGF take such statements? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, the editor in question hasn't made a paid editing disclosure. Rentier (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
If he tries to insist that the earlier articles were clean, I will indef him as a UPE editor because he would be dishonest with us. I'm not extending AGF concerning the older articles. I knew that I pinged him in the title when I listed this and I want him to explain his actions especially after being warned 5 years ago. The only reason he isn't blocked is because he has made a recent declaration of being a freelancer.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I see now – You're referring to the infobox on his userpage where it says "Known for... Freelancing". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This editor has edited without responding here which was a mistake because this was their opportunity to explain. If they wish, they may now explain in an unblock request.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:50, 27 September 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.

CACI

Blocked by SmartSE

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.

Person has disclosed that they work for this company (so got that part correct) but are editing directly and aggressively, continually removing negative information and adding positive content and are not using the article talk page at all.

I think this person should be indefinitely blocked as they are WP:NOTHERE. Am looking for a patrolling admin to do this. If not I will follow through on an EWN case if they continue but it is really time for them to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, not this guy (London) again. These have been problem articles for a while Alumzsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was pulling the same tricks a few years ago but has not edited since Jan 2016. It's a chronic problem. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I've given them a final warning and will keep an eye on the articles. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
... and they're blocked. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 22 September 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.

DMarket dmarket.io

Watchlisting is all we can do until someone starts editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 28 September 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.

This Kiev ip left then removed a message on my talk page requesting that I create an article for DMarket [6] [7]. I'm guessing they sought me out because of my editing to Initial coin offering. I'm not seeing anything else that's obviously from them, but I thought it best to bring up here in case they reach out to others or hire an editor. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on 100 seconds research, it looks like this company is a WP:NOTYET but some of the companies in the same blockchain in-game purchases space might be notable – names include BitCrystals, GameCredits and others [8][9][]. I've watchlisted Virtual economy as well as the not-yet-existing DMarket to see if anything pops up. Bri.public (talk) 18:13, 25 September 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.

New edit filter

In case you hadn't seen it, there a new edit filter, Filter 878, which is designed to detect and tag edits in which new users remove COI, UPE, and Advert templates. It's picking up some vandalism, and some good faith edits, but also quite a lot of COI edits. You can either look out for the tags, filter recent changes, or use the filter log. The filter is in its early days, but if you have any suggestions feel free to drop a note at WP:EFR or my talk page. Thanks to those who suggested it. Enjoy :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Plentific

An article that already has a huge PAID notice on the top of it is being edited by someone from the company themselves. Sent them a nice note about not editing the article directly. Either hasn't read it yet, or is ignoring it. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Effort to address impersonation which will also help with monitoring paid editing

RfC here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a very similar proposal made in the last 12 months to force paid editors to link to off-wiki ads and vice versa that was rejected by the community. Can anyone remember where it was? I've had to oppose the proposal until I can review it and be sure the concerns raised are addressed. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James and Jytdog: This unofficial RfC is the closest thing I've come across to this do far, but that was back in 2015. I'm sure I remember a more concrete proposal though that was formally rejected. I could be wrong and if so will eat my hat. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:Smartse. Looks like it got a fair bit of support than but was not pushed forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted (magazine) dispute

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sorted (magazine)#Recents edits to the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the COI issue here as opposed to a content dispute. Can you spell it out? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Bri. The IP is apparently tied to the latest version of the magazine, and was editing the article to not only puff up the magazine, but to remove information about what seems to be the previous incarnation of the magazine; this information is negative in the sense that it was about the magazine's initial launch being a failure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
And beyond that, the administrator who took over the case was editing the article in accordance with the IP's liking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I don't think we have been asked to address administrator behavior here before. I wonder if the two incarnations are different enough to warrant two articles? Or would that be seen as a fork? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not about Primefac's behavior as an administrator. He has only acted as an administrator in the case of hiding copyright violation material. Other than that, he was acting as an editor. And my true focus is not on him but on the IP. The IP was making the COI edits. It seems that Primefac wasn't thinking of the COI aspect when trying to please the IP. On the article talk page, Primefac has noted that I have a valid point about the IP's COI involvement. And, as we can see from the article history, Viewmont Viking and DolphinCentre have complained about the IP's COI editing. Since it appears to be a company that was relaunched/rebranded later, separate articles would be a WP:Content fork violation. If they are completely unrelated, then I wouldn't have an issue with two separate articles except for the WP:Stub aspect. I'm also not sure about the magazine's WP:Notability; Primefac feels the same on that matter. I brought the issue here because of the COI IP and the continued edit warring at the article. If the IP wants no negative material in the article, that is a problem. I wanted opinions on all of this being removed at the IP's request. Since that edit, Primefac has attempted a compromise, but I'm not sure that it will work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I had no intention of "editing the article in accordance with the IP's liking". The sum total of the references in the "old" article were two pieces talking about the '04 magazine starting up, one about it closing, and a Daily Mail article. The '07 magazine didn't really have much more coverage, but it is still active. I couldn't verify anything past what is in the current article (in particular "a south coast neighbour of Russell Church" and the aforementioned DM-sourced content), and the last sentence was just heavy promotion. As far as absolute content goes it's not much changed.
I'm still of the opinion that a magazine that had all of four articles before it folded is not notable, but there is still a talk page discussion ongoing regarding if there is a definite connection between the '04 and '07 versions, so I added back in the '04 history. And, as mentioned by Flyer, I'm not 100% sure either article is notable. Primefac (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, my comment with regard to you "editing the article in accordance with the IP's liking" was based on what you stated WP:AN; you stated, "My conversation off-wiki was mostly centred around the removed content, but yes, the 'history' of the magazine is also of concern. Given that former wasn't necessary and the latter is still up for debate, I only changed the former. I'll probably post some more on the talk page of the article if I get more details regarding 'how they want it fixed'."
This is why I responded by stating that, per WP:COI, we should not edit an article based on the way a company wants the article written. It seemed to me that you were editing the article to satisfy the IP rather than both sides. But I do see that you put "how they want it fixed" in scare quotes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Stars Stripes Forever cleanup


See the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stars Stripes Forever. Relatively abnormally, their MO is mainly editing existing articles rather than creating new ones, but many of them were created by throwaways, either recently or years ago. I haven't found all of the articles affected yet. SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Listed three created articles, above. Are you sure all the socks were found, because Musical Pairing&Barbara Favale Werner look kinda funky to me and we have some editor crossover. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not. I've added more just now to the SPI, but from the looks of it, they have been around for years and there are likely many more articles and users. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
More articles added. Note that many of these weren't created by these users but are linked in someway or another. Given the sophistication they've demonstrated it's clear they aren't new here and have been blocked already so I have G5d some but adding the links here for prosterity. And yes I agree about those two articles, but the accounts are stale and very unlikely to be used again. SmartSE (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm collapsing this and copying the comments to the relevant thread further down SmartSE (talk)
This is only very tangentially related, but Prowp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also dodgy. And another crossing over with that is Thejavis86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Unfortunately Prowp is stale so nothing to CU. And then in turn, SodaPerez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),Wobbit~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Rachel123s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will turn this into a separate case later). SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I am confused as to what I am being accused of, not editing enough or not editing recently? thejavis86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thejavis86: Please see the thread further down. The issue is that your contributions give the appearance of you being paid to edit here. Of course I could be wrong in which case I apologise, but I find your interest in corporate logos and crossover with the other accounts listed rather strange. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: I'd like to echo what User:Thejavis86 posted: what are we being accused of? Please substantiate your claims or remove them. Wobbit~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I did some analysis and sorting of the sockfarm's contribs here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this was/is going to be behaviorally linked to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FlowerStorm48/Archive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Cada mori

The editor was blocked for socking has engaged in undisclosed paid editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the somewhat delayed post! LebronJamesGOAT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a DUCK - see File:WolfieLogo.png and Luminescens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another DUCK. Started a new SPI case to look for other accounts and will G5 their creations shortly. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted what I can per G5, but that leaves the following:
The Winters article also led me to Pulchritudinoushermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  Stale and Debbie Palmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) presumably created to promote the book written by her mother. SmartSE (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

370 articles created by Jeremy112233 sockfarm

The master and over 20 socks were blocked last September, a few more in December and one or two in February and March this year. Just the master and a few of the prolific socks are listed above. A fairly complete account of 370+ probably paid articles is here. It's too big for me to try to clean everything up, or even to {{UDP}} tag every article. Any suggestions? Also I wonder if the paid-editing LTAs were included when checkusers went to work?

I'm running a trial G5 speedy on Bedgear Performance Bedding but it might be technically invalid. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for collating the list Bri. I'm unsure whether we should be tagging articles created in 2012 with {{undisclosed paid}} though considering that at the time, this was not prohibited by the ToU. @JJMC89: as I noticed you have been adding the templates. They most certainly need clean up and many probably need deleting, but {{coi}} seems more appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add a parameter to the template to change the wording for articles created before the ToU change came into effect? I think it's useful to keep them in a separate category and have the warning displayed to mobile users. Rentier (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the parameter. The alternative version, which doesn't use the "violation of ToS" phrase, can be invoked by using: {{UDP|pre16Jun2014=yes}}. Rentier (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like JJMC89 has tagged everything with a script (?). Successful G5s noted above. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Jeremy112233 admits to having prior accounts.[10] And it is obvious that this account was never a new one. His very first edits were also rather promotional. It appears very likely that he moved to this new account as a prior account was blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone has started a deletion review here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

My reading of the closure here is that best practive will be to post these large sock farms here. We can disclose deleting all of them based on some combination or criteria. Than if consensus has developed it is reasonable to delete them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Older articles

In the prior round of deletions I only deleted those that were edited by the socks in question after the TOU came into place. The question is should we delete the older articles that have not been substantially edited prior to that date? Lists here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In a word, yes, in favor of deleting all that didn't have substantial edits from GF editors. I created the list and am familiar with the contents. There's not much there that I'd have considered essential to an online encyclopedia, even had I not known how they were created. Picking an example at random, Cyber Investigation Services. Sorted the list and came up with up to 65 qualifying articles. The lack of interest since 2012 is an indicator of marginality; beyond that, our imperative to enforce ToU for multiple reasons overrides the usual reasons to keep. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The TOU did not apply to these articles. So they are not TOU violations, and were ok at the time. Even then, the community has not approved deleting articles on the basis of TOU. Some may well qualify under G11, though. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I nominated a dozen under G11 and it looks like many or all were deleted by Alex Shih – maybe he saw this conversation. Did some more today, results pending.
It turns out some more are G5+G11 eligible by virtue of creation after the ToU update on June 16, 2014:
I'll do them too, as appropriate. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, here's the pushback ... CSD on Gordon Hensley‎‎ was declined. I'm really not in favor of doing individual AfDs for sockfarms so ... somebody else can take this on if they care. If we needed another example of it, the crucial lesson is this: Wikipedia's soft underbelly is the fact that promotional articles are easy to insert and require massive labor to remove. Note the title of this section: 370 promotional articles. We need to find some more sustainable way to do this. In other words, I'm done laying golden eggs on this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The first has been worked on extensively by User:GaryWMaloney. As have the others been extensively worked on listed here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

David Lewis (psychologist)

Article is being edited by the subject himself by way of repeatedly adding unsourced self-promotional content. sixtynine • speak up • 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Various suspicious and tangentially linked accounts

As I mentioned above, these users all strike me as suspicious and very likely undisclosed paid editors. There are various crossovers (with Prowp it is mainly through talk pages and deleted contribs) but due to staleness there is not enough for an SPI yet. I'm still coming across more accounts, so please feel free to crosscheck. Quite a few of the articles have an Israeli connection. The article list is incomplete atm. SmartSE (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Accounts

Articles

Some of these are creations, others are substantial contribs and others are just logo uploads but the articles are a mess anyway.

Tactical vs strategic response

Wikipedia is where the hens lay golden eggs for PR firms I am aware of mixing metaphors and it's supposed to be a goose, so sue me.

This is a question, maybe a meta-question, for COIN regulars or for anybody else with an opinion. We see so many of these startups like Accompany and these companies who are desperate for attention and awareness, WP is just such an obvious magnet. The idea of having new notability requirements has been raised, I think by DGG at a public conference at least. Has that made any headway? It seems like a better strategy than fighting these one-by-one tactically. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#How_to_raise_NCORP_standards.3F is ongoing. SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I could be wrong it looks like that died out at the end of August with the net result this relatively small change to disallow press releases as sources. What would it take to get legs under something like this – again or anew? Or if you want to take it meta-meta, what would it take to have productive conversations that don't last for more than a month, and result in more than a 10 word change? Are we collectively overcome by inertia? Reactionary forces? The division between inclusion and accountability? Or am I overly pessimistic and we are actually in the middle of an ongoing process and there is light at the end of the tunnel? 'Cuz right now I don't see the light, I see a whole bunch of sockfarms inside the chicken coop and a whole bunch of PR firms lined up at the door waiting to get in. And the watchdogs are barking but foxes seem to be intermixed with them sometimes. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
As you consider NCORP, don't forget the non-profits. I spent the morning looking at animal care agencies. I was astounded by what I found: groups socking the money away, paying serious salaries, basically not doing with the money what they promise. They are getting free advertising from WP. Rhadow (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bri: Sorry I was in a bit of a rush and didn't read the discussion in detail. Can I suggest you close and collapse this and move it somewhere else? I've already made enough of a mess of this case! SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
fwiw, I do not consider that a uselessly small change--it's a sufficient change to eliminate one of the most common defenses, because this was previously not accepted by a few very persistent editors. My general approach is to continue making small changes like that until we have gotten somewhere substantial. Attempted massive revolutions in a guideline tends to be quite unpredictable. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Note I have copied some of these comments from a thread above where I first noted my suspicions, but to which the accounts don't really seem related. SmartSE (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am confused as to what I am being accused of, not editing enough or not editing recently? thejavis86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thejavis86: The issue is that your contributions give the appearance of you being paid to edit here. Of course I could be wrong in which case I apologise, but I find your interest in corporate logos and crossover with the other accounts listed rather strange. SmartSE (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: I'd like to echo what User:Thejavis86 posted: what are we being accused of? Please substantiate your claims or remove them. Wobbit~enwiki (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

JFBC Communications

IP is the same as the user per [11]. Definitely a username vio and since they're editing pages directly related to them, a COI as well. As an IP I really don't want to touch this and am asking for someone more authoritive to step in. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a username violation. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Carlos Becker Westphall

There are some IPs trying to avoid deletion of the article Carlos Becker Westphall. I'm pretty sure all the IPs are the same person, which is the subject in the biography. Thanks. 208.73.21.13 (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • CSD notices may be removed by anyone, except the article creator. AS different IPs have removed these tags, as well as at least one admin, repeatedly replacing these tags as you are doing is disruptive editing. There's a clear claim of notability, so WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable. I agree that it's a horrible article, but the solution is either to improve it or to take it to AfD to show that this person does not meet WP:PROF. Please stop edit-warring and forum shopping. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Upwork joe-job

This curious Upwork Ad appears to be a joe-job aimed against... myself. I will post more details shortly. Rentier (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, if this is a joe-job it is an incompetent one, given that the Upwork job was posted 10 hours ago and you edited the article in July.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that the only connection is that it was edited months ago, calling it a Joe job is more than a stretch. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose I could claim my right to privacy and stop right here, but I believe in transparency, so full disclosure. The link I removed was to a website I operate. Someone added it four years ago and I removed it in July while the site was under maintenance because a way to monetise it unexpectedly appeared, and it didn't sit well with me to profit off the traffic received from Wikipedia (a "reverse" COI if you will). Remote Associates Test is an unlikely target for paid editing and the ad is signed using my actual first name. I wish it was just me being paranoid, but it seems unlikely. I suspect someone determined dug it up through the IP of the NPPBrowser listed on my userpage and made the Upwork post. Rentier (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it paid editing?

This is a somewhat unclear case of whether this user qualifies as a paid editor. I will also note that I have encountered the same situation with other articles and editors.

On their userpage, this user had declared quite some time ago that they were in a position with the organization they were writing about (however, no mention if it was paid or volunteer). Over the course of five years of extensive edits from them (and others), the article accumulated extensive copypastes from the organization's own website and was speedily deleted as WP:G12. The deleting admin, RHaworth, then restored it back to a cleaner version from 2012.

The user has recently indicated to me [12] that while they are employed - in a paid position - by the organization in question, they are not being paid specifically to edit its Wikipedia article. However, if their editing is done during the course of their workday, even if it's not at the direction of their employer, does it still count as paid editing? It is difficult to know if and when someone is editing on their own time.

Note: This kind of situation has cropped up before. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

They are employed by the org, no question. They are editing about the org, no question. This fits the definition of WP:PAID whether or not the employer specifically directed specific edits. Surely we don't need to wikilawyer that question. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that we've been stretching the definition beyond the ToU. Under the ToU, you are a paid editor if you expect to receive compensation for your edits - it is specifically targeting editors who edit on behalf of a client or employer. We've kind of stretched it on WP:COI to include any editing where you have a financial COI, whether or not you receive compensation directly in return for the edits, and whether or not you are being directed to make the edits. Accordingly, editing with no expectation of compensation in return for the edits and not under the direction of a client or employer is not a violation under the ToU, otherwise anyone who edits in work hours would be open to accusations of paid editing. But the COI guideline here is broader, although not currently well defined. I would not block for a COI violation, but would for repeated ToU violation. - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If their job within the organization is to promote the organization than they are involved in paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought about it a little more and perhaps we need to do some clarification on the difference between innocent de minimus editing about one's employer or incidents involving them, versus more significant paid editing. In this particular case, doing major expansion of the article specifically about the employer, uploading logos, vigorously defending its deletion and even copying material belonging to the employer, seems to me to cross the line so completely that it doesn't merit any more discussion. If someone can game the system this completely by claiming to have their off-time hat on, and we have to just go along with it, there's really no point to he ToU. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. I assure you I am not trying to "game the system". I am honestly just trying to understand the rules. I am obviously a wiki newbie, so any help is greatly appreciated. The page was created long before I came and will be up long after I'm gone. But yes, if I see that there is incorrect information on the page, then I do want to make sure it is up to date and correct. Seeing as how it's been up for years, the deletion came out of nowhere, so I did want to have some insight as to why it had been taken down. I have gone ahead and added the paid notice to my user info, and I will be a lot more wary of what I update in the future. Thanks again. Lrwatson (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if someone isn't a paid editor, disruptive editing is still actionable, as are other problems that can come with COI editors. - Bilby (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If a person works for a company and edits about that company, this does not make them a paid editor unless their job involves specifically editing Wikipedia, or more broadly, company image/PR/marketing etc. The TOU are very specific in what is and isn't paid editing. They *do* have a conflict of interest regardless, since by editing a company for which they are employed, the company can potentially exert influence over their editing. From a functional COI standpoint there is no real difference, but paid editing is specifically, being paid to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That is literally true in the sense that an all-knowing eye could evaluate the situation. Unfortunately we are not all-knowing and have to evaluate the circumstances of each case and even AGF sometimes things aren't as editors say they are. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • AGF (assume good faith) means you would, absent evidence of paid editing, assume they have a COI but that they are not a paid editor. You cant AGF a negative situation. That would be ABF. If you have evidence of paid editing, you don't need to assume one way or the other. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about where you get that interpretation. AGF to me means assume good faith in the absence of reasons not to. Or in the literal terms of the AGF guideline itself it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" (emphasis mine). In this case we have ample reasons to be skeptical, which I have spelled out. The assumptions can be cleared away and make room for evidence-based reasoning. Our reasoning will never be perfect or infallible but that should not bar us from starting to ask questions and setting reasonable limitations, for example on the subjects an editor is allowed to dwell upon. Setting limits is not ABF and to say so invites Wikipedia to become an anarchic tragedy of the commons. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Its quite simple. The TOU spells out what is paid editing. Merely having a COI because you are employed by the company is not paid editing. Absent any evidence of paid editing, you cannot assume they are violating the TOU or directly allege that they are. Being employed by a company and editing their article is evidence of having a COI, no more or less. You would need evidence of being paid, or that they are in a position within the company where social media/internet marketing is a part of their job description to reasonably assume they are a paid editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ventus55 relay

This is a bit unusual, but I'll just post this for others to comment or work on. I got an e-mail from an international Wikipedian questioning the quality of the paid-editing disclosure at User:Ventus55.

The disclosure is a bit difficult to find (hint:look under an elephant) and a bit clumsy. Ventus seems to misunderstand the English definition of "conflict of interest".

The emailer didn't ask for anonymity, only that somebody familiar with en:Wiki rules look at this. But I'm equally uncomfortable either posting his username here without his permission or posting this "anonymously." I'll stay out of this after a short copyedit here. I don't see any bad faith by anybody.

@DGG and Jytdog: have previously worked with Ventus55 on this issue on his talkpage. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(non-COI-expert opinion) The disclosure seems to be insufficient in that it does not actually disclose any employer or client.    FDMS  4    16:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The disclosure is not clearly presented. For a biography, especially the sort of academic or medical biographies that are involved here, we cannot assume that the subject paid him; by analogy with known instances, it is equally likely to have been the department. It makes a difference. In this instance, the editor specified on June 18 2016 on his talk page that it was the subjects themselves. But it needs to be specified for each individual article, and not just on the user page, but on the specific article talk page, and a "connected contributor" tag placed on the article. In some cases it seems to be there, but placed on the article talk page.
But this is not the major concern here. jytdog has questioned whether some other articles might also be involved; looking now at them myself, I see that the editor has worked on such a wide range of article (especially on the deWP) that I doubt they have all been paid and perhaps none of them were--I see also that the deWP user page does not mention paid editing, nor for the articles corresponding to the ones given as paid editing on our WP, do the articles have a notice of any sort. The German WP has slightly different rules for both the toy and COI than we do, and I do not want to try to interpret their policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I found the interaction with respect to Martinus Richter to be not credible. Their editing on that article was promotional and incompetent with claims unsupported by the sources. I haven't looked much further. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That is not a proper paid editing disclosure. I have requested that they provide this. Else limiting their ability to edit EN WP may be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Apartheid Museum

User:Mike Stainbank appears to be engaged in a legal dispute concerning the Apartheid Museum. He is editing the article to draw attention to the dispute in violation of WP:NPOV. This has been going on for quite a long time as apparent in the user's contribution log. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked account until they agree to 1) disclose 2) a topic area restriction were they have this COI. If they switch to other accounts let me know and I will protect the page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

LogicMonitor

Please excuse the way I'm going to phrase this, since I have a potential COI issue on the subject I need to be rather careful what I say so as to not prejudice the response I get here or cause issues for myself or my employer in present or future business with any companies. To be clear, I'm posting request strictly because I believe in fair and equal application of Wikipedia policies regardless of whether the result is beneficial or detrimental to me personally.

Now that I've got that out of the way... I've noticed a few issues connected with this company's wikipedia page but would prefer to limit my involvement to flagging a few publicly available logs, I'll let someone with more familiarity with policy investigate and make any judgements. The issues are as follows:

  • The LogicMonitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page is very sparse and lacks citations. I'm making no judgement on accuracy or tone, just lack of content.
  • The LogicMonitor page is also almost sole authorship of Galloway.paul.f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have no way of knowing if he is actually connected to the company.
  • The File:Logo-main-color.svg, over on commons was uploaded by the same Galloway.paul.f with flags stating it was his own work and he was licencing it as CC-BY-SA 4. While I can't make assessment of whether he created it, whether he can legally post it with that licence, or whether it is a recreation or the original, I do see a potential discrepancy when this information is taken with the previous point. No comments on how would be best to handle it though.
  • It would appear that a page for LogicMonitor has been CSD deleted twice before, but the reasons on those occasions may not be applicable now:
    • One reference on User_talk:Steverfrancis from 2010 cites A7 company notability, significant COI and violation of the policy on advertisement.
    • One reference on User_talk:Sbarie from 2011 cites A7 but doesn't cite the others.
  • An entry for LogicMonitor on Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems was added [[13]] in 2015. I'm not commenting on the information listed but I'm flagging it due to it looking like that list requires a Wikipedia page to qualify for inclusion, thus making it relevant to the other pages.

It's possible that issues of the page quality and logo ownership can be resolved without any page deletions, and having good content is always better than not, but I leave that determination to others.

Nazzy (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We do not really deal with copyright issues here. Those on commons are the experts. The question is, is that logo original enough to get copyright? I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Doc James has said, it appears that the logo in question consists only of words and typefaces. This would be considered {{PD-logo}}, not covered by copyright in the United States. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Connecting sock families

Have worked on some connections as per here. We have blocked socks in this family back to April 2012.[14] If we figure out everything created by this group after 2012 that has not been significantly edited by others we can simply delete based on G5. Would be a useful cleanup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Analysis is in this workbench. I have nominated the list above for G5/G11 ToU vio speedy deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another editor suggested on my talkpage that the Wikipediawriters.com thing become a new LTA case. My response was that I feel it's too early to do this since all the linkage to FaL isn't visible to everybody. But I could be persuaded otherwise. Meantime Doc James the link on your page shows that somebody is claiming to be employed by WMF; maybe that's something that the legal team would take action on? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Vince Thompson

Merits a closer look, methinks... --Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed back and tagged. Typical paid editor stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Kaveh Alizadeh

This article is promotional and probably paid for. Have moved it back to draft space. It contains text that is promotional and not supported by the refs.

Wondering peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Uncited birthdate ... check. Numerous community awards ... check. Media appearances ... check. ELs to multiple business enterprises ... check. All-at-once formatted creation by an editor with no previous history ... ding ding ding ding. You did the right thing. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Bri, it has many (all?) of the hallmarks of such an article. Edwardx (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_119&oldid=1138418319"