Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 156

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156Archive 157Archive 158→Archive 160

Elliot Fletcher

Resolved independently by users at the talk and user talk pages. AGK ■ 08:02, 23 February 2020 (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.

Editor is the article subject Declaration. They also contacted OTRS VRTS ticket # 2016080310001511. I also left a COI warning message on their talk page. It also seems that this account Elliot.fletch (talk · contribs · count) is a sockmaster for the above account. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

While drafting this report Elliot.fletch left a message on my talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Obvious sock is obvious. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Given that the operator of the I96 account declared their identity, as shown above, and did so with their first edit, how is this an "obvious sock"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 22 February 2020 (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.

Kenneth_Arnold

This is appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to editing the article of her father. Phuzion (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The first notice said all that. What was the point of the second notice? And then there's the irrelevance of the corporate/employer warnings. If you knew it was the daughter, why include the irrelevant? It makes us look like a bureaucracy. 24.104.194.39 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Because, frankly, I didn't see it. I saw a welcome notice, and a notice about this discussion. I see now there's a {{welcome-coi}} notice, which is different than the usual {{welcome}}. I was acting out of concern for the editor in that they had not been notified about conflict of interest issues, and instead were now the subject of a conversation without knowing why. I thought I was being helpful. If you think otherwise, fine, but that was my intent. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment ignoring the COI for now, what is the template for "this article is a badly sourced pile of tin hat conspiracy theories?" I just removed 6K or garbage from it and there is still probably another 10K or junk source to crackpot UFO blogs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleveroad

This editor has been warned about his or her potential COI instances previously. Their edits solely pertain to software development, including the linked article about a Ukrainian development company. They are attempting to sway the company's AfD on its discussion page. He or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required disclosure WP:PAID. BonkHindrance (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

On what basis have you gone from "potential COI" to "required disclosure"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Harrison_Jessie perhaps? Vexations (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this was my reason for that. BonkHindrance (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Please explain the connection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, what should I do? I was also notified. --Moana122 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Moana122: If you have a conflict of interest (including, but not limited to, being paid to edit) you should declare it as advised on your talk page. However, such a declaration is not required, if there is no conflict of interest. If you need more help, ask at WP:Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, such a declaration is not required (followed by a conditional) can easily be misinterpreted. I'm not required to make a declaration that I do not have a conflict of interest for every article I edit. But when challenged, with {{uw-paid}} for example, even if I don't have a conflict of interest, I should cease editing until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Under which policy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, under established consensus. The uw-paid1 template says so since 22 June 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-paid1&diff=next&oldid=668203800&diffmode=source There was a deletion discussion archived at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 30 and consensus was to keep. Vexations (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
As I thought: no policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing, WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
As I thought: no policy says a user, when challenged, should cease editing until they have clarified that they do not have a conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: what's the point of coming here to argue with volunteer editors editors who are making good faith efforts to address COI issues?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't answer questions that are based on false premises. And don't mess with my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing perhaps you want to raise your objections to the statement "do not edit further until you answer this message" in {{uw-paid1}}, as it remains there, and in escalating urgency in {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}} and {{uw-paid4}}, I for one, will be happy to support any RfC that makes disclosure when challenged on a potential CoI mandatory. I support an immediate block for refusing to respond to such claims. In fact, I support making a CoI statement mandatory at the time of registration, making inclusion on a user page mandatory and linking to it from the signature. Vexations (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
As you're so keen on making people answer questions, perhaps you could answer the one I put to you above, and repeated below? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have no idea what you mean by messing with your sig. Anyway, it seems plain that you are just at COIN (at least form every other post you have made to this version of the page) to challenge the editors trying to get something done, which to me seems unproductive and mildly disruptive. If you do not like the way COIN operates, perhaps you have pages that need editing somewhere?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm even less interested in your baseless imaginings about my motivations than in questions involving false premises, but see here for your abuse of my sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
Pigsonthewing Looks to me like a case of "control/command + c" copy-and-paste of your username gone awry, rather than any sort of abuse. Both of you are very experienced editors and a little AGF is usually a good idea. Edwardx (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing that was a copy paste error, obviously. Thanks for your other warm comments and friendy demeanour.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please explain the connection." Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Flchans, Maryna Tkachuk

Would someone like to take a look at this? There seems to be no way of communicating to User:Flchans that it is not appropriate to continue editing Maryna Tkachuk now that the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. The user wrote here "This is an institutional effort to provide biographical facts about its notable faculty/administration", and was able to predict that OTRS permission would be provided for the text and photograph in the article, so there's no room for doubt about a close connection – it doesn't seem remotely productive to speculate whether it is a paid employee or the subject herself actually making the edits. More eyes please! Oh, I'm far from convinced that she is even notable – her citations on Scholar are remarkably low (this could be because Google doesn't cope well with Ukrainian publications, however). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the subject is the dean of their department is enough to satisfy WP:PROF, however I'm just about ready to wash my hands completely of this. User has been pretty abusive on my talk page and continues to just ignore all warnings and do whatever they want. Their unbridled passion in regard to this article is more than enough to substantially prove they have a close connection to the subject and need to be limited in what edits they can make to the page, at least temporarily. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Have I mentioned how much I love it when editors drag out the tired "I thought this was an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but you're making that dream suffer by not letting me do what I want" argument? Concur that this is probable COI, almost every edit they've made both here and on ukwiki relates to Maryna Tkachuk. No comment on notability, haven't reviewed deeply enough to have anything useful to say there. Seems that they're packing up their toys and leaving based on their response to the edit-warring report, but worth keeping an eye on this for a little while in case they change their mind. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello guys. How do I best adress this? Straight to the point - I have no personal stake in the article being published or not published here on English Wikipedia. You can even go ahead and outright delete it forever if you beleive this is for the greater good of the Wikipedia. The article is based on the publicly available sources, some of which are related to their subject, and there's been an article in Ukrainian in existince for over a year. Throughout my experience here on English Wikipedia I only face wild assumptions, false claims and what I can perceive as personal attacks. It is amusing to see someone with no knowledge of Ukraine and its language (and probably philosophy as well) seriously discussing notability of the article. My "unbrindled passion" in refuting this claims only comes from my personality - I hate being accused of something I never did.

Way I see it, by now this escalated into an effort to find a "legitimate" way to take action against the article or me, or both. This effort has been generally going in 3 directions: 1) legality/copyright - the battle on this front has already been lost for JLAN, Sulfurboy and the like after the proper declarations were issued; 2) notability - I struggle how people of no knowledge/authority of the matter will decide on a notability on that - but I'd like to refer you here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy#Reputation ; this article was not created by me so you will probably view it as a good enough source. Now tell me, is the dean of the faculty that is "nationally the strongest in humanities" notable enough to be placed here? I dearly hope so; and finally 3) possible COI, which also finds no proof other than wild assumptions and unbacked claims. I mentioned several times I am not paid for this and such claims unless proves are balderdash. Best. Flchans (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flchans: Thanks for your note. You actually do not need to be paid by someone to edit in order to to have a conflict on Wikipedia. We define a conflict of interest as, yes, paid editing, but also someone who knows the subject or is connected tot hem in some way. Could you just confirm that you do not know the subject or are connected to her, personally or institutionally? Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Juan Branco manipulation in Le Figaro

There was a article a few days ago titled "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco" ("On Wikipedia, the dreamed lives of Juan Franco"), in Le Figaro on the Juan Branco page. The french community have been discussing that on the talk page of the article among others, and a warning was placed on the english talk page. While self promotion is nothing new, that has been going on since a long time, with sock puppets allegations, repeated edit warring, push to create page since years, and even a story of email to a employer to get a contributor fired. So we figured this would warrant a more visible communication to the community as well, since the english and spanish Wikipedias were also impacted. --Misc (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Copied from VP:M and trimmed - Bri.public (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Farid Khan (tennis)

All edits by this editor and the associated IPs are about Farid Khan and have a strong bias about the subject of the article. These accounts have been added content/references that violate WP:BLP and WP:RS. One of the IPs tried to remove the AfD tag from the article. --BonkHindrance (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ollie Farr - request for review

Hi all, based on their editing patterns, I was suspicious that Ollie Farr might be an undisclosed paid editor. I gave them a paid warning and tagged the article as suspected UPE. They have denied both being paid and having a COI. I'm not entirely convinced, so I'm bringing the discussion here for further review. My suspicion is primarily based on the near-perfect BLP draft being cranked out as edit number 13 and the commonalities of the draft article with previous paid/COI bios. There are a couple other things that tipped me which I'd rather not go into on a public discussion board; I'm willing to disclose them to administrators via email if needed. creffett (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sweatman draft is a big puffy promotional CV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Aquila Hotels & Resorts

I don't really have the time to deal with this one, but the editor in question seems good faith, though has a clear and strong conflict of interest that is heavily biasing their editing on this topic.

Article: Draft:Aquila Hotels & Resorts

I suspect it is notable, but the derth of refs need to be sorted and paired down (removing all the promo ones), and the content needs to be half nuked to remove all the promotionalism. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed your links above, and notified the user of this discussion (see policy at top of page. Re the draft, I would not worry too much as it is in draft, and there is a prominent note warning AFC reviewers and others that it has been previously deleted multiple times. Not to mention that something as bad as this article this will never pass AFC! Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, exactly. Another notable topic that likely will get salted because of COI editor. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, Can't we just stubify it? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere:, OK I see what you mean now. If you think it is notable and are interested, why not just stub it and move it to article space with decent sourcing? That would be my strategy were I interested in the topic. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, I don't personally care. I guess I am disillusioned by the system a bit. (After commenting on the 'draft space' discussion curently going on over at the Village pump). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Don't let one draft get you down! There are millions of others for that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pure Planet

There is a history of apparent promotional editing on behalf of this company going back to 2011. The titles Draft:Pure Planet and Pure Planet have been salted against creation due to previous spamming. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point we can't determine whether there is one human using three accounts or three humans using three accounts with one paymaster, but it probably doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Duke of Northern Ireland

User name is the same as the subject of the above article. The editor has also added this 'office'? to Dukes in the United Kingdom and List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (reverted from latter). Leaving aside the question of whether this Dukedom is real or not, the editor appears to have a conflict of inteest. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User Jstowmoulden provided proof for COI with the edit summary "Removed duplicate page linking my direct user page of which my Official Duke page is under its account" for the edit Special:Permalink/942865664. --OrestesLebt (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The named user is perpetuating a hoax about himself and has been blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Just saw it, thanks 331dot. --OrestesLebt (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the "real" Duke of Castle Rock is a Great Dane. Impressive pedigree, though. I wonder how "he" types this with those big paws of his. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Judith Cloud

WP:SPA account, adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content and removing what little is sourced. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

An edit from last year was reverted as a copyright violation, so rev/deletion may be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Fankaar

Blatantly self-promotional draft article creator, no prima facie COI disclosure.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

London Square (property developer)

This editor has repeatedly added promotional uncited content to this article. They have responded to a COI notice (and follow-up) on their talkpage with "thank you for this but this is not advertising. Is just reporting right pieces of information about this company. I'll cut all the links to the website, if this is working better." They seem to be ducking the COI issue. Edwardx (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Da Vinci Globe

The edit is clearly a WP:SPA single purpose account, only editing about material connected with Stafaan Missinne, the person who allegedly identified an old globe as being by Da Vinci. The article in question had and may still have a lot of material copied from Missinne's book[1] and Talk:Da Vinci Globe. That's not enough evidence to prove a coi of course. But there's the images. File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by David Guam. Looking at some other images uploaded by Guam, the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? I asked Davidguam about any possible relationship but they haven't replied although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

See also c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

List of classical music competitions

WP:LINKSPAM to the website of chinese NTD Television is added to List of classical music competitions by user NTD-Competition. The user is disguising the spam by giving it english titles and language codes. Username implies a COI connection to the target of the links. --OrestesLebt (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles

Trishneet wrote on their userpage recently that they work for Rudhra Technologies, a digital marketing company, however despite warnings and requests for disclosure by myself and Discospinster they've failed to follow WP:PAID and do the actual disclosure and have gamed their articles, without AFC review into mainspace. Ashish Rudhra, per their own draft is the owner of Rudhra Technologies and nearly every article they've written is a client, a fact that they are now trying to hide. I suspect the rest are as well. I think after several warnings, this is grounds for a block when combined with the fact that they've now recreated at least four articles by past paid editing farms:

Now they're disruptively removing tags despite the very obvious policy and tou violation and trying to obfuscate their involvement by claiming "it was an accident". Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Trishneet Arora India: How is it exactly then that these images are your own work:
GMGtalk 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo I moved this to the correct section but I hadn't even looked on Commons yet. Also see above...Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I happened to have Draft:Ashish Rudhra on my watchlist, I believe because the user previously uploaded File:Jayvijay Sachan.jpg and File:Sahher Bambba.jpg (now deleted), also uploaded as dubious own work. GMGtalk 15:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a paid user i'm just creating article. Let me quote your userpage for you: I am working in a company, Rudhra Technologies. Even if you "work" for them, for free, they are still clients of your employer and that makes you an editor with a conflict of interest and also paid.Praxidicae (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think this user has been given enough chances and should now be blocked for advertising. I would have done it already if this discussion were not ongoing. Deb (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Ain't gonna hurt my feelings any. GMGtalk 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Deb I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't be blocked. That's precisely why I opened this discussion, they clearly don't intend to follow the terms of use (and honestly this probably warrants a lock given this is also paid xwiki editing.) Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Also courtesy ping for @Mala chaubey: who appears to have been somewhat involved in this on hi.wiki. GMGtalk 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay then, I've put a short block on and I hope the user may take the time to understand why. If there is any further advertising or creation of inappropriate articles, there will obviously be a follow-up action - but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Deb (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Deb Would it be possible to make it a condition of their unblock that they disclose as per WP:PAID even if they don't intend to further edit such articles? They've basically already done the damage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
How confident are we that we can prove they are paid? Deb (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, they're employed per their own admission by Rudhra Technologies and each of the articles I noted above (and with the diffs that show they're paid clients, which can also be seen on Rudhra's website) are of their clients. Whether they're paid directly or not is irrelevant at this point as they're a digital marketing agency and writing an article about their clients on the world's largest encyclopedia seems to be right on target...of course we can't ever prove that anyone is definitively paid but I'm not sure how much more evidence I can present to make it clear. also as I noted in the second paragraph, there is far too much here to be a coincidence given that four of their creations are recreations of known pay-for-edit spam farms. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I also have some damning off-wiki evidence that I can submit to arbcom if needed. I think this should be an indefinite block because I can say with certainty that this isn't a mistaken "oopsie, I didn't know I couldn't edit for pay even after a dozen warnings!" ;) Praxidicae (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Deb: per PAID: Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. So the argument that they somehow publicize these subjects on-the-clock but edit Wikipedia off-the-clock doesn't hold water. GMGtalk 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
GMG, not to mention that this almost certainly qualifies as a g5 too, as it's clear they're continuing the work of 4 sets of other paid editors. Sent off wiki evidence to arbcom too. Praxidicae (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, okay, I accept all that, but the fact that there's a discussion here means I need to make sure no one disagrees before I move to a permanent block. You know how admins get it in the neck if they step out of line :-) If he returns, he'll need to be squeaky clean. Deb (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
On an unrelated note @Praxidicae: Curious that when you move a page to draft space here it doesn't affect the Wikidata item...presumably because its a cross-namespace move? That doesn't seem quite right. GMGtalk 18:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Upwork sockfarm

articles and drafts
users not listed in sockfarm

Just a run-of-the-mill Upwork sockfarm. Noting here for the record. Some stuff has been draftified and deleted by the SPI team. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: Hashamtere: "OhmniLabs". Zeeshantere: "Australia’s Top 100 Graduate Employers"/gradaustralia.com.au. Dlinksma: "T & T Supermarket". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@L235: two more please? Tegrat1042/sandbox and Mather90/sandbox ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Sure! Tegrat1042/sandbox is "Keyo" (keyo.com), and Mather90/sandbox is "Kristel Bechara". Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Mann Robinson

Editor created an autobiographical article. Despite being warned about WP:AUTOBIO, they have edited that article futher. -- BonkHindrance (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Evergreen Valley College

This editor has explicitly acknowledged working as a "member of the marketing team" for the subject but has not made any other attempt to abide by WP:PAID or WP:COI despite multiple, explicit warnings posted to User Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary seems to meet the disclosure rules for paid editing, and the edits I can see are minor factual items.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Please review WP:PAID or WP:COI, then WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Also try to understand how your wall of warnings on the user's talk page must make a good-faith and beneficial contributor feel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks Andy. Glad to know that we're now totally cool with an organization's paid marketers editing articles as long as they strenuously ignore all of our messages! ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: the user you reported here has made three edits to the article, and while the first was not extremely clearly disclosed, you could tell it was the College from the summary. Subsequently they clearly disclosed their COI in the third edit. These edits were really minor, there is no POV pushing or promotion in updating their logo; it is a minor factual update. These kinds of edits are allowed according to the COI editing policy, and they have made the proper disclosure in the edit summary. Are there other edits you are concerned about?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter to me if they stop editing that article or explicitly acknowledge our policies. Continuing to edit while also ignoring our policies isn't acceptable so it's good that isn't happening. ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"They have followed policy by disclosing in the edit summary, per WP:DISCLOSE: " You can also make a statement in the edit summary of any COI contribution." It would be nice if they responded on their talk page and posted the COI on their user page, true. As there is no problem here, this issue can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sad that you apparently refuse to become familiar with the policies you claim to be upholding, and those you are required to abide by. I'm totally cool with an organization's paid marketers editing articles as long as they abide by our policies. In this case, your breach of policy is far worse than anything they've done. Please take time to reflect on that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Arash Shakour

I think that I should report this here. On 3 February, FCBlinder submitted Draft:Arash Shakour. I declined it at AFC, and said that it read like a directory entry, and that it would be speedily deleted in article space because it did not make a credible claim of significance. On 1 March, FCBlinder posted a query to my talk page asking why it did not show up on Google search. I saw that they had moved the draft into article space, and it was then deleted by User:Cryptic as A7, no credible claim of significance. Don't say I didn't warn them. This is strongly suggestive that they are being paid for search engine optimization. I replied at User talk:FCBlinder, asking for a conflict of interest declaration, and my post there has been deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello i told you that i made changes to this page and ask you of it’s correct or not and you didn’t answer me so i think it’s okay to publish it. {{userlinks}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCBlinder (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
FCBlinder posted on their talk page: "I made changes to this page then i asked him is the page now right and he didn’t respond me so i publish it yes because he didn’t answer me ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, that isn't true. They didn't ask me if it was all right to publish the article. They moved the draft to article space, and then asked me why it wasn't showing up on Google search. It wasn't showing up on Google search because it was deleted. So then I explained what had happened, and asked for a COI declaration, and they deleted that. They have a right to delete information from their talk page, and we have a right to infer from the deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

At User:Taylor-winnie-bk, a COI editor apparently associated with blocked User:MC-Brand-Knew disclosed that they were "paid by Brand Knew on behalf of Science of People". However, there are no notices on the page with the related COI edits, Vanessa Van Edwards, or on its talk page. Similarly, User:Taylor-winnie-bk discloses payment "on behalf of It's Over Easy", without any notices at the related COI-edited page Laura Wasser. The disclosed COI editor has been inactive for 7 months. I'd suggest that notices, at least, should be placed on the edited pages, and some of the more promotional COI edits should likely be reverted. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC) rev. 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Frode Alfson Bjørdal

Autobiographical article written by the article's subject, a single-purpose account. This editor has been warned several times against COI/WP:AUTO, yet persists in adding content. BonkHindrance (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi riots

Boomerang: The OP has been topic banned from Indian subjects. Bishonen | tålk 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for the WP:COI
For the record, there is no COI in my case. I suggest User:Sanskari be topic banned from wP:ARBIPA for blatant WP:BATTLE and wP:ABF against editors who he disagrees with. We cannot possibly have such editors editing controversial and heated topics. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:

  • In his aggressive arguments and the interest in the topic
  • Media coverage about his edits (Redacted)
  • Interest and involvement mainly in the Indian sub-continental topics
  • His Origin of the country
  • Hiding talk pages (his and of the article) by archiving it while keeping the arguments that favor onesided edits.
  • Despite the fact New York Times, Times of India and various other reliable third-party media agencies named various other people mainly from a specific involvement, but he personally refused to include their names under lead-role while promoting about a specific religion.

Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG Please. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: @Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The OP evidently has no idea what WP:COI means. They should perhaps close this and take it to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, he is at the right place as he has repeatedly said COI on this page and his user page, where I had warned him to not accuse people of COI. He clearly started this thread to forestall the action I had referred to. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No, this is not the right place. Being from any particular country is not enough to create a COI with respect to that country, and being a belligerent, enraged, and possibly unreasonable editor is something best handled elsewhere - ANI with respect to behaviour, WP:NPOVN if there are problems with achieving neutrality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, this should be closed here. Unless there is somehow evidence that one of the editors is a local politician, police officer, engaged journalist, or otherwise involved member of the actual riots, it’s unreasonable to construe any COI here. (Not that you should attempt to dig some up, I‘m not encouraging attempted WP:OUTING) — MarkH21talk 12:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I am not watching this page so if someone responds, please ping me. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that an editor prefers only one source like NDTV in this case blacking out others is a conflict of interest which is Res ipsa loquitur or apparent itself. It implies that the editor is promoting the source not the information and that is not just conflict of interest but may actually be commercial expoitation. It may be noted that NDTV has lowest readership in TV viewership in India. Check here : https://www.barcindia.co.in/statistic.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

That is just a stupid argument and one without any evidence, made by someone who seems to be grasping for straws. There are thousands of links from other news sites that I have added to articles. I will add whichever link I find is best covering the content and the article. that is not WP:COI⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Edith Covensky

Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor also removed a COI notice on the page today. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
They came back after the block and promptly edited the article adding a statement of authenticity for what it's worth. Still no reply to COI notice. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Danielle Pletka

The editor User:Aleaiactm was created in January 2020 and has exclusively edited the Danielle Pletka page. The edits bear all the hallmarks of a COI account: removal of reliably sourced controversial information about the subject, addition of enormous amounts of trivial self-sourced text about the subject, addition of puffery, and changes to the kind of information that only someone with an affiliation to the subject would know (or be likely to care enough about to create a Wikipedia account and make changes). The editor is now edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In any of the edits I have made where have I deleted reliably sourced information? You also continue to not understand what self-sourced means - it makes absolute sense to quote a writer's work when the wikipedia page is that of a writer. The works, to which I have all provided citations for, are from mass market papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Philly Inquirer. I also did not engage in an edit war. That was something you initiated when you did a wholesale revision of the edits I worked hard on - which is against the guidelines of Wikipedia - rather than open a talk page to specifically discuss where you have issues with what I wrote. Something I am still waiting on after asking for it. Aleaiactm (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You removed text and sources about her climate change denial commentary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I edited the text, I did not remove any of the sources - here is what I wrote - you can see all of the sources I left: "Pletka was involved in a controversy after an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in November 2018. During a panel discussion on climate change she said, "I don't think we can have any doubts that there is climate change; whether it's anthropogenic I don't know." [1] NBC was criticized following her appearance by Esquire and other outlets.[2] [3] [4]"
If that was your issue, you could have just reverted that part and we could have had a discussion about it instead of undoing all of my hard work. I made that change for two reasons 1) Climate change is not a core part of her research, although this issue did certainly make news and 2)While certainly not in step with the scientific consensus of climate change, if you watch the interview, her view isn't a wholesale rejection of climate change as was claimed before. I thought the fairest point of view as an editor was to note that it was controversial, mention some of her actual speech, and then note and link those who criticized her for it. Again, this is a discussion we could have had if you just pulled out that part. Aleaiactm (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
  2. ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
  3. ^ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/climate_change_report_trump.php
  4. ^ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/28/danielle-pletka/recent-cold-spells-irrelevant-climate-change-big-p/

Aleaiactm, you have made 18 edits up to this moment, all concerned with the article Danielle Pletka. It's quite interesting to see you explain the principles of Wikipedia to an experienced editor like Snooganssnoogans (27,279 edits), who you believe (or say you believe) to be confused about them.[2] Moving to aggression, as you also do here, does not help your case or make your denials more credible. I have blocked you for obvious COI editing. Please note that you can appeal this block by following the instructions I have left on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC).

Verge3D

Alexkowel (and SanraWinsAgain) are two single purpose accounts who's activity is 100% related to citing and/or promoting soft8soft and their products, mostly Verge3D. Alexkowel states that he is not paid to do any activity on Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe, though I won't go into details. Alexkowel has now twice removed COI/paid cleanup tags from Verge3D. Can I have some more eyes on this? Alex already doesn't like me much, maybe some guidance from someone fresh to the situation will help. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sourcing here seems to be press releases republished in low-quality industry pubs. I removed three or four that were actually written by one of the founders. I am wondering if this is actually an AfD candidate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe we have a WP:HARASS situation here which requires attention from mods. It's almost a year MrOllie has been following all my activity on Wikipedia, posting questionable "warnings" on my personal page and edited articles, as well as constantly removing all my contributions. I don't know who this person is but it's highly possible he has something personal against me and my work. I said it multiple times and I want to say it again. I'm not being paid for doing any activity on Wikipedia! This is not the part of my job, nor I receive any other financial incentives for writing about Verge3D. Yes, I'm one of the in Verge3D team but I'm just a coder doing writing on Wikipedia in my free time and completely on my own. Another thing I'd want to to pay attention to is MrOllie behavior in regards to other users. His personal page is filled up with tons of complaints from users who suffered from his radical and indiscriminate approach to editing articles. Hi (or she) is inflicting much more harm than doing good for Wikipedia. I believe this is against all ideas and beliefs which Wikipedia stands for from the ground up. Sorry for my emotional speech but I'm just tired of my efforts being constantly lost. Alexkowel (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
If you're an employee of Soft8Soft, who develop Verge3D, then even if you're not directly being paid to edit the article, you certainly can be seen as standing to gain from it, and this is a very clear case of a conflict of interest. If you have an issue with MrOllie's conduct, this would be something to raise independently, but the fact you only edit Verge3D-related articles wouldn't help your case, MrOllie is simply the editor that has noticed this behaviour. If you must continue to edit Verge3D-related articles, it would be a good idea to follow the instructions at WP:PAID and disclose your affiliation on your user page. Ironically, someone has mentioned AFD above, which might mean your editing is doing more harm than good - people might well find this conversation when they search for your product! KaisaL (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how my contribution can be considered as paid or compensated either directly or indirectly, please read the terms of WP:PAID carefully. I edit Wikipedia at my spare time and have no direct or indirect instructions from my employer to do so. Of course I really enjoy the work I'm doing and want to spread the word about it. If it's required to disclose such affiliation please feel free to direct me to the corresponding guide explaining how to do so. Alexkowel (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. KaisaL (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Done! Please update info on the corresponding page (Verge3D). BTW can you please also update version info. It's now 3.0 released March 4. Thank you! Alexkowel (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

MNB9911 sockfarm and Pro Creative Writers

Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Added another account, not (yet) roped in to the sockfarm, who helped on a businessperson draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I have some information that may be of use to the wider Pro Creative Writers situation but I wish to disclose it discreetly. Whom would you recommend I contact @Bri? Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Thepenguin9: See confidential procedures in the box at too of the page. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

UNESCO content

Presumably as a result of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we have editors who work for UNESCO adding content from UNESCO reports (published under an open licence) to Wikipedia, including by creating new articles such as Large-scale learning assessments. I wanted to check, should these editors be making declarations of paid editing? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Cordless Larry:, I've added a reply to your message at User talk:Besalgado. To avoid confusion in future I've added a reminder to disclose paid editing on Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, John Cummings. Is there a way you can contact all editors who are already involved, to make them aware of the need to disclose? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry yes I have a list, I will ask them. One thing that would be really helpful to make sure this is done in a good way would be to provide a best practice example which was easy for people to use and copy. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Theyachtbreak

User:Theyachtbreak appears to have contributed material associated with this business in good faith to Advance provisioning allowance The Yacht Break and have chosen a username, based on that business. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I caused any problems. I was purely trying to improve on what was there. The information on the original APA page was flagged as not having enough sources. It was also thin on the ground in terms of content. There is APA that HAS to be given in advance, for crewed yacht charters, and advisory APA that is given as a suggestion for other yacht charters as part of assisting with budgeting costs.
It appears that my account has now been deleted. I did nothing in bad faith--Theyachtbreak (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
@Theyachtbreak: Accounts are not deleted, yours included. Your edits were reverted, however.
As mentioned on your talk page, your username is a problem, so please follow the link to the place where you can have it changed.
Even if you meant well, citing the website of the company you work for is not a good idea unless you also disclose your affiliation with the company, per the conflict of interest and paid contribution disclosure policies.
Please also note that Wikipedia has certain standards for what can be used as a source: it must be reliable (established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight) and independent (unaffiliated with the subject of the article and no vested interest in the subject). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Drm310:When I looked into changing names it said the easiest thing to do is make a new one if you have not edited much, so I did. I hope this is better. I have looked at other sources to cite such as [3] I may go back to it once I have fully understood all the complications and how to disclose COI. Thanks for taking the time to talk me through it thoughCaroline-TYB (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Caroline-TYB: That's fine. Just please make sure not to use the Theyachtbreak account anymore - using more than one account simultaneously is frowned upon.
I'll leave a message on your talk page with some other helpful links. Looks like you're on the right path now... good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Stony Rapids

A lot of edits coming from a new username with the same name as the title. Could be benign but wanted to bring up for attention regardless Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Lightwater Valley

An anonymous IP address has recently started adding potentially promotional material that I had deleted back to the article without posting to the Talk Page. The user appears to only be editing this particular page and does not have a Talk Page of their own. I was not able to post a Conflict of interest notice due to this lack, however, I did provide an internal link to this noticeboard in the article Talk Page, while asking the user to cease and desist. Aleah H. (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you from posting on their talk page, the fact that it has not been posted on yet does not prevent you from doing so. Beach drifter (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts

Not quite sure whether this belongs at COIN or SPI or here, but tl;dr: An American architecture firm has been engaging in promotional editing and probably undisclosed paid editing for the last 13 years under multiple accounts.

Miguel Rosales is an American bridge architect and principal of the firm Rosales + Partners. He probably meets the GNG, but his presence on Wikipedia is far greater than you would expect. His involvement (largely as conceptual architect or lighting designer) is always prominently listed on projects primarily designed by others, rather minor pedestrian bridges that he worked on (ex 1, 2, 3, 4) have extensive articles, and awards for this works are prominently listed.

Almost all of this has been done by eight accounts:

It's obvious that these are either sockpuppets or (more likely) meatpuppets. editor interaction utility should make it clear just how much these accounts overlap. None of the accounts have made any significant edits not related to projects Rosales has been involved in; most also demonstrate immediate proficiency in referencing and infobox creation that is atypical for new users. On two occasions (Wsvan/Nionoodle and Bridge4us/Mwkas), one account has become active within 48 hours of another account making its last edit.

Based on the promotional editing pattern, I believe this is undisclosed paid editing either by Rosales employees or a hired PR firm. The accounts have edited almost entirely Monday-Friday between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC - typical working hours in Boston where the firm is based - whereas most editors tend to be active evenings and weekends. Of the several accounts also active at Commons, Wsvan and Mwkas have used OTRS to provide permission for images owned by the firm. (Mwkas also oddly avoids denying a COI.)

I would appreciate help removing promotional content from affected articles, and for the recently active accounts to be blocked. Given the scale and duration of the promotional editing, is there anything more that should be done to prevent it from continuing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

​​Moved from WP:ANI § Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I happen to have crossed paths with a couple of these accounts over the years, and, now that it's pointed out, they have indeed always been adding claims of awards and superlatives to structures with which Rosales was involved. (One of them also added lots of non-free suspiciously professional images to one of these articles, only to have them delinked from Commons.) If this is the community consensus about these accounts, then I'll go through and clean out the promotional bits from the articles I've seen them editing, and I'm happy to help with others if someone provides a list. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Over the years, I have edited a number of articles related to bridges and other infrastructure in the Boston area and elsewhere, and I have also worked on the Miguel Rosales article itself. I have repeatedly noticed and tried to tone down promotional editing in a number of related articles, and have myself given warnings about COI to some of the accounts mentioned here. I give credit to User:Pi for discovering and documenting a repeated and systematic pattern of promotional and COI edits spanning multiple accounts over a decade. I agree that there appears to be a persistent attempt to "game the system" by using multiple accounts, and that multiple warnings about COI over the years have been essentially ignored.
    • I also agree that the architect in question is notable and deserves a Wikipedia article. I admire his work, but the promotional tone in many of the articles related to his designs leaves a vaguely bad taste with the reader. The repeated introduction of blatant and more subtle promotionalism is contrary to NPOV, and a misuse of Wikipedia. The only reason I have not complained on this Notice Board or elsewhere is that I am unfamiliar with the tools for efficiently gathering evidence, or the detailed procedures for presenting it to admins.
    • I support User:Pi and his presentation of evidence here, and hope that appropriate action can be proposed and taken. Reify-tech (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, I wasn't aware that I was making such a mistake. Now, I started to read policies that Pi wrote about. How can I fix it all my updates? What are the possible solutions? Should I do cleanup myself? What means cleanup in reality - update all pages? Thank you for your help.Mwkas (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My own view (whether it's supported by policy or not) is that editors associated with the firm should no longer be contributing to any articles remotely related to the subject - including fixing up the dubious contributions. The test should be whether the contributions help the encyclopedia. In this case, it appears that the firm has benefited more than the encyclopepedia. Wikipedia is not free advertising, nor is it a vehicle which one uses to boost one's apparent reverence. There are many instances where organisations have been quite embarrassed when it's revealed publicly they have been editing their own articles. --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. What are the next steps? Could you help me and send me a procedure?Mwkas (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mwkas: If you are employed by or work on behalf of Rosales + Partners, you must disclose this before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Use the {{paid}} template on your user page (User:Mwkas) to state this information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, if you are in any way connected to the accounts listed above, please disclose your relationship. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note that Mwkas recently removed a COI template at one of these articles. @Nat:: You were the OTRS reviewer for this file uploaded by Mwkas, so pinging you in case you have input here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Nothing to add. From an OTRS standpoint, the permission statement for the image was in order, and the EXIF matches the information I gathered from the OTRS email. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 04:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am a volunteer editor. Nobody is paying for my updates. Wikipedia is only for volunteers. I am very sad, because I was not aware that adding award, I will be destroyed someone’s profile. AWARD- someone was working very hard to get an award and it is proofed. I asked you few times how I can do it correct, but you are not answering my questions, but instead you are writing that I support Rosales+. I am a big fun of all bridge architects. By the way, my working hours are not 9-21 I am from different country.Mwkas (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mwkas: Really? Your edits are very similar to the other editors listed above. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mwkas:, could you please explain if you have used multiple accounts to edit the page over the past several years?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I created my account at the beginning of 2020 – I think February. I started to do first steps learning Wikipedia. The idea was to update profiles of architects in the US and from Europe. It was complex to do something, but when we started COI discussion, I started to study all documents. For example, the most important is not to publish changes, but use talk page first – that was the mistake. I don’t know other editors or edits. My first name was Bridge4us, but soon I get message from Fredddie™ (02/07/2020): “If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)”, so after that I created Mwkas. I don’t use Bridge4us anymore. Also sockpuppets and meatpuppets was new for me. Know I know what it means.Mwkas (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Golding

User with very little edit history adding poorly sourced, previously deleted information to the page. GDX420 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea whether the reported editor has a conflict of interest. However, the reporting editor has a history of making unsubstantiated allegations of paid editing, and has previously been blocked for those allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a valid report of COI. The user EricFullMetal made two edits in total to the page, both sourced. I'm not seeing a problem. As mentioned by Robert Mclenon above, EricFullMetal was previously blocked by @Cullen328: for making unsubstanted unsubstantiated claims against other users.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I assume that User:ThatMontrealIP actually means that User:GDX420 was blocked for unsubstantiated claims. Is that a typo? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thanks, fixed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Pro-fossil fuel edits ?

(Cross posted at WT:WikiProject Climate change. The journalist has been looking for clear examples for a couple of weeks.)

I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Clayoquot: it seems not. You asked on this page on 26 February, the question was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pro-fossil_fuel_edits_? on 2 March and has still not received any answers. TSventon (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that - I'd forgotten where I'd posted it! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Uttam Neupane

Petter noca is, by my observations, an undisclosed Paid/COI editor based on the following facts:

  • This edit to Dinesh Raut supplies unsourced intricate personal details.
  • All but the lead image on Uttam Neupane are their "own work".
  • Every single edit accessible from their contributions history that is not on either of the mentioned articles is still about one of those two people (Neupane and Raut are frequent collaborators).

I left a note at the user's talk page about COI editing on 6 January, but they did not respond and instead reverted me at Dinesh Raut on 15 January and the 16th... which is what brings me here before I can mount a cleanup at those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Update: Editor has acknowledged COI with this edit. So, I request that a patrolling admin warn them formally, or place a UPE/COI or WP:CIR block. If not, I think there's now enough to take the matter to ANI if they resume edit-warring. So, this thread may now be closed. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Goodspeed (internet provider)

As depicted here, they want assurances that their work won't be deleted, which I think brings the article's creator, Dgtrittenwein, into question. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This looks like user Meeanaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me so I have shared some details with MER-C. GSS 💬 17:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Taseer Badar and Marketing agency

Hi! I would like to point out an editor most likely working for a marketing agency (already tagged per WP:UAA) edited a client's page, including removing a COI tag. There appear to be other potentially problematic IP edits but those could be unrelated. They're relatively old edits, but it looks like another instance of UPE worthy of note. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We have a policy on WP:Outing. You cannot connect editors to real life occupations, identities, addresses and so on unless the editor has already divulged this. Have they done so? Just asking, as I have not checked their history to see if they have. You also need to notify the editor so that they can participate in this discussion. I'll do that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't out anyone. I merely mentioned a marketing company that obviously engaged in UPE. No personal details for any individual editor were revealed, just a company name that's readily available to anyone. I think in this day and age, after all that's happened on Wikipedia, it is in the encyclopedia's best interest to note such instances and keep an eye out for future reference. As far as I could tell from the user's edits, no disclosures were ever made. And their username was in clear violation of username policy too. Given their last edits were made over a year ago, I didn't think notifying them would make a difference, but you're right I should've done it anyway. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

AndreiBrette and Agentura.ru

This account has created the following pages:

  1. Andrei Soldatov. It was also edited by these IPs [4], [5] whose location coincides with location of the subject of the page.
  2. Irina Borogan
  3. New Nobility
  4. Agentura.ru (and another similarly located IP: [6])
  5. The Red Web.

All of that seem to be created by the same account/person who is probably the subject of the first page. Could someone please check these pages for consistency with WP:COI and other policies? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added pagelinks and userlinks per the standard format here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

XMOS

Articles created by people associated with the XMOS company. Henk.muller is the CTO of XMOS, per his talk page. I am not sure that these products are notable enough to each warrant their own article. Additionally, the articles read like a combination of marketing materials and in-depth technical manuals. drt1245 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge them all into one, delete the promotional cruft. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. For the record: I am editing these pages to provide a record of the technology in as far as it in the public interest. In the same way that I edit other pages on wikipedia. I happen to have more knowledge about those pages than about other pages. I am not being paid to write those pages (or any other pages on Wikipedia for that matter); it is something I do, often out of hours, because in my opinion these products are notable enough to warrant an existence on Wikipedia. I am aware that I am writing about products that are made by the company that I work for. I am trying to provide objective and verifiable facts rather than hype. Of course, one person's fact is another person's hyperbole, and I am delighted for those to be corrected. If there is a standard against which I can put "notability" I would happily oblige. (talk) 17:05, 15th March 2020 (UTC)
Have you made your COI declaration yet? I haven't looked. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I see from your talk page that you have. I have left a note. thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Please review the COI guidelines. In particular: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors". Regarding notability, the guidelines are here. As an example, I looked into the XCore XS1-L1. All I found was one technical article, some press releases, and some passing references is discussions of the AmigaOne X1000. I do not believe this meets the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drt1245 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I did review the conflict of interest guidelines in detail in the past, and had a discussion about them with a different person about them, where they were happy that I was complying. In particular, I am transparent, I am editing pages on physical products that I have knowledge about, and importantly, and have nothing to gain from these edits, I make them purely as a historical record of fact.
Regarding notability: the criteria you suggest (discussions in public forums and newspapers) are appropriate for information on events or people, say WW II, or Henry VIII. XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk.muller (talk • contribs)
XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability? No. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Also just added Graphcore and XC (programming language) to the list. -drt1245 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Per XMOS's company page, Graphcore was spun off from XMOS in 2016. -drt1245 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Re Graphcore - I created the original page, but have nothing to do and know nothing interesting about them since 2017.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk.muller (talk • contribs)

The XCORE processor pages are ridiculous on many levels. I have redirected four of the five to XMOS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

User has long-term history of editing of pages about the band The Slants and related topics. The username suggests this is a corporate account operating on behalf of Populuxe Entertainment, the promotion company founded by The Slants member Simon Tam. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles, I had blocked the user after a report at WP:UAA, partially based on the apparent conflict of interest described in this section. The user is now appealing their block with what I personally find to be an acceptable, credible explanation. Would you mind having a look at their talk page and confirming that despite this initial report, it might well be fine to unblock them? Or - asked differently - am I overlooking reasons against an unblock? Thanks in advance ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any specific evidence to contradict the user, so I suppose we should WP:AGF. It might be worth having a look at subsequent edits, just to be sure the user is familiar with PROMO and NPOV guidelines. Pretty cool rename - appears to be an allusion to the Monkey King. Chubbles (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Olive Writing Hub

Hi, I found the above listed articles listed as personal work samples on Olive Writing Hub's website: https://www.olivewritinghub.com/wiki-writing/. I am not entirely sure which users were involved in paid editing, since there are quite a few for each one, so I am not tagging any users here. I leave that to more experienced editors. Additionally, I have placed UDP tags on the articles and the corresponding tag on their talk pages. FelixtheNomad (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

FelixtheNomad, thanks for bringing this up, I'll review. One thing to be aware of is that these sites often claim articles which they didn't actually write as their work, so these articles being listed there doesn't actually mean that they're UPE. creffett (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I see that Beeblebrox appears to have had the same idea about six months ago. I'm looking at the article histories and I don't see much in the way of overlap going on, plenty of IP edits and occasional promotion but no smoking-gun evidence for UPE. Will give the articles another check and then will probably remove the tags. creffett (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Olivewritinghub's website looks similar to (and uses the same insipid chatbox feature) as the Get Wikified series of sites. Like creffett noted above, some sites (including the Get Wikified group) claim articles they did not create, so we should be cautious about placing undue UDP tags. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
From what I recall they were one of the most incompetent UPE rings ever, couldn't even come up with halfway believable lies, so the articles probably aren't theirs either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand how they might have simply chosen some random articles as samples for their website. It seems like you all know how best to deal with issues likes this.. FelixtheNomad (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang

I have blocked FelixtheNomad, now DoshNomad, for UPE:

Creations
Substantial edits
Refspam

I'm going to block them all, but should they be deemed as Japanelemu socks for the purposes of G5? MER-C 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Lionbridge

User NYCLion is a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest, promoting the company Lionbridge not only in the company main article but also in multiple other articles. Literally every substantial edit (in Women and video games, Omnichannel, Languages of India, Telephone interpreting, Game testing, Video game localization and Legal translation) from this user adds content that is either directly promoting Lionbridge or is based on a PR publication authored by various Lionbridge employees. Counting 7 articles and the main article this is clearly a systematic campaign to place as many PR sources and other promotional content about Lionbridge as possible into Wikipedia articles.

All of these edits should be reverted, but I have already been accused of trolling after removing phrases like "The company also orchestrates a network of one million passionate experts across more than 5000 cities, partnering with brands to create culturally rich experiences." from Lionbridge's main article. I'd appreciate an uninvolved editor looking into the case - two COI warnings on the user talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

GermanJoe, concur - SPA, probable COI/paid. The sources on the Lionbridge article look pretty bad as well, but I don't have the time right now to evaluate whether to apply a chainsaw to the article to cut out the fluff and promo or just outright send it to AfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I trimmed quite a bit of garbage from Lionbridge, including a staggering ten uses of Businesswire/PRNewswire as a source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The promotional content in the main article and the ref spam have been cleaned up. Thank you all for the feedback and help adressing this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor restored the reverted edits. I don't want to edit war with them, so I will just leave a note here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Has started reinstating the same edits - Arjayay (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent promotional edits and sent the editor another request to join this discussion here before making any similar edits. GermanJoe (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Lauter

While checking a range for an unrelated case, I came across multiple accounts editing the same articles. Meatpuppetry is possible but all accounts are using the same model device with many on the same IPs at the same time on different occasions on three different mobile ISPs. They do not look like institutional devices since they are mobile. Best case, we have some COI editors possibly with UPE promoting a museum and Rolf Lauter. Worst case, we have some socking going on. I did not file an SPI case but putting this here for more investigation. I recommend reading the userpage for The Lauter first and then looking at the other userpages. Beans. Several of the accounts are inserting references to Rolf Lauter works.

See Commons pages User:R. Lauter and User talk:R. Lauter to see that account's activity there.

Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see this. Notice Mazarin account made this edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum; this noticeboard section is about the accounts and articles listed above. A long wall of unrelated discussion and accusations has been collapsed for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Guten Tag Berean Hunter, bei der Durchsicht deiner Darstellung sehe ich, dass du auf Anfrage oder Anweisung eines deutschen Kunsthändlers mit einer Privatgalerie in Frankfurt handelst [[9]], der in extensiver Weise für seine Künstler wirbt und aus Eigen Interessen und persönlichen Gründen einen Feldzug gegen bestimmte Personen aus der Kultur in Frankfurt und Deutschland geführt hat und führt. Dieses Vorgehen widerspricht den Werten, die Wikipedia aufgestellt hat und ist mehr als fragwürdig. Die respektlose Behandlung und die Ablehnung von historischen Tatsachen, die keinesfalls mit Werbung oder Promotion eines alten, seit Jahren pensionierten Wissenschaftlers zu tun haben, zeigt leider, dass einige WP Autoren unter konstruierten Sachverhalten versuchen, in die Privatsphäre von verschiedenen Wissenschaftlern einzugreifen und ihre wertvollen Recherchen und ihre konstruktive wissenschaftliche Arbeit für Wikipedia zu zerstören. Ein weiteres trauriges Kapitel der Wikipedia Geschichte, wie in dem Zeitungsartikel von 2015 beschrieben. [[10]] Geschichte und Wissenschaft stehen über den persönlichen Interessen von Menschen und müssen beschützt, nicht durch persönliche Interessen unterhöhlt werden. Greetings from Germany to America

Hello Berean Hunter, When looking through your presentation, I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer [[11]] who advertises extensively for his artists and is leading campaigns against certain people from the culture in Frankfurt and Germany for his own interests and personal reasons. This approach contradicts the values that Wikipedia has set up and is more than questionable. The disrespectful treatment and rejection of historical facts, which in no way have anything to do with the advertising or promotion of an old art historian who has been retired for years, unfortunately shows that some WP authors try to interfere with the privacy of various scientists and their valuable research under constructed circumstances and destroy their historically helpful work for Wikipedia. Another sad chapter in Wikipedia history, as described in the 2015 newspaper article. [[12]] History and science are above the personal interests of people and must be protected, not undermined by personal interests. Greetings from Germany to America --PH_C 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

"I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer..."...No, I'm not and I find your accusation bizarre. Also, this has nothing to do with personal interests. You have not explained the apparent conflict of interest that you and the others seem to share. Instead of accusing me of anything, try telling us what is going on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Deutsch

Collapse German. This is en.wikipedia.org
Guten Abend Berean Hunter und User:Melcous, zur Klärung der von mir früher angegebenen Zusammenhänge sende ich folgende Informationen, die nach meiner Meinung in der Tat «richtige» Werbung und Promotion eines Galeristen und Kunstbuch Verlegers für seine Künstler darstellen, während es sich bei der Person Lauter um einen Kunstwissenschaftler mit einer nach Meinung vieler Kunsthistoriker sehr Qualität vollen Ausstellungs- und Publikationsliste handelt, den man nicht promoten muss, da die Fakten für sich sprechen. Personen die die Kultur prägen sind sicher nicht mit privaten Kunsthändlern zu vergleichen, die wo auch immer Werbung machen, um ihren wirtschaftlichen Status zu verbessern. Ich bin selbst Historiker und habe keine grosse Lust, Diskussionen über böswillige Angriffe von Autoren gegen andere zu begleiten. Es ist wichtig, Fakten in Wikipedia einzustellen und diese zur Bearbeitung und Diskussion zu geben, nicht andere respektlos und destruktiv zu behandeln.

Referenz Artmax / Galerie Slutzky: Benutzer:Slutzky wurde durch Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax verändert: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233

Referenz Artmax "Galerie Slutzky" Bearbeitung der Künstler seiner Galerie in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax

Referenz Webpage Galerie mit Künstlern: Beispiele aus der Künstlerliste Galerie Slutzky: Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/

Referenzen zu den Künstlern in Wikipedia (Auswahl): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669

Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history

Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=4576051556

Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history

English

Good evening Berean Hunter and User:Melcous, To clarify the connections I have given earlier, I am sending the following information, which in my opinion is in fact "real" advertising and promotion of a gallery owner and art book publisher for his artists, while Dr. Lauter is an art historian, curator and writer with - in the opinion of many Art scientists - a highly qualified exhibition history and publication list, which does not have to be promoted because the facts speak for themselves. People who shape culture are not to be compared with private art dealers who advertise wherever to improve their economic status. I am a historian myself and do not like accompanying discussions about malicious attacks by authors against others. It is important to post facts in Wikipedia and open them for editing and discussion, not to treat others disrespectfully and destructively.

Reference Artmax / Slutzky Gallery: Benutzer:Slutzky has been changed by Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233

References Artmax general contributions for the artists of his gallery in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax

Reference Webpage Gallery Artists (selection): Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/

References for artists in Wikipedia (selection): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669

Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history

Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=45760515

Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history

Thank you for your cooperation and greetings --PH_C 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

PhilCult84 linking to edits made by other editors on other articles on German wikipedia does not in fact do anything to answer the simple question you have been asked here. Do you have a conflict of interest (as defined at this link) regarding your edits here on English wikipedia? Melcous (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Deutsch II

Collapse long question in German.

Berean Hunter, User:Melcous,

Ich möchte die Geschichte möglichst kurz machen, weil ich meine Zeit nicht mit Diskussionen verschwenden möchte, während ich in Wikipedia oder an meinen eigenen Texten und Büchern schreiben kann:

1

Was heißt: “While checking a range for an unrelated case”? Gibt es in Wikipedia etwa Administratoren, die systematisch IP Adressen von Autoren überwachen? Wo bleibt der Datenschutz und die Privatsphäre der Menschen? Leben wir schon in Orwell’s «Brave new World»? Seit 2007 gab es viele Untersuchungen dazu. (Siehe 4)

2

Vorwürfe eines «socking» ist absurd, da Studenten und Wissenschaftler zu vielen Seiten historische Inhalte mit nachprüfbaren Quellen in Wikipedia einfügen. Es gibt weder Vandalismus, Drohungen, negative Behauptungen oder andere destruktiven Handlungen. Diese kommen leider gerade von Mentoren und Administratoren. Will Wikipedia den Autoren vorschreiben, von welchen institutionellen oder mobilen Geräten sie arbeiten dürfen? Alle Personen, die die von euch genannten IP Adressen und viele mehr benutzen, die ihr aus welchen Gründen auch immer verschweigt, verfolgen wissenschaftliche Ziele, was bei der Durchsicht der Textbeiträge und Verbesserungen jedem klar sein sollte. Die vielen Studenten und Historiker, von denen ihr einige öffentlich gemacht habt, haben weder familiäre, noch andere Beziehungen, noch wird irgendeine Person von irgendeiner anderen Person für ihre wissenschaftlichen Recherchen oder Arbeiten finanziert. Was ihr Promotion nennt, ist bei uns wissenschaftliche Teamarbeit über historische Persönlichkeiten. Und ich glaube nicht, dass Wikipedia einem Autor vorschreiben darf, wie oft er an einem oder mehreren Artikeln arbeiten sollte! Keine der für Wikipedia arbeitenden Personen, die ich kenne oder auch nur beobachtend begleite, haben jemals respektlos, sondern nur konstruktiv gearbeitet.

3

Die Überwachung und virtuelle Verknüpfung von Personen, IP Adressen und Geräten erinnert mich an Überwachungssysteme aus ganz dunklen Zeiten in Deutschland. Darauf reagieren wir hier sehr empfindlich. Und dass Administratoren in den USA zufällig IP Adressen von mehrheitlich Deutschen Wissenschaftlern überprüfen kann ich nicht glauben. Die Zusammenhänge zu dem Ursprung Artmax sind eklatant und werden bereits weiter geprüft.

4

Quote «Mangelnde Diskussionskultur In der Studie The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System wurde nach einem raschen Autorenwachstum in der englischen Wikipedia bis 2007 ein starker Rückgang an aktiven Autoren festgestellt, insbesondere durch Abgänge bei den Neu-Autoren. Zum einen sei das abschreckend kompliziert gewordene Regelwerk der Wikipedia ein Grund dafür, so dass Einarbeitungen durch Neuautoren aufgrund von Regelverstößen häufig revertiert würden. Zum anderen sei ein Einbruch in der „Willkommenskultur“ dafür verantwortlich.[120] Auch in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia geht die Zahl der aktiven Autoren und der Neu-Autoren seit 2007 stetig zurück.[121] Auf der jährlichen Konferenz WikiCon werden seitdem immer wieder Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Autorenzahlen erarbeitet – bislang allerdings ohne durchgreifenden Erfolg.» End of Quote' [[13]]

Und genau das ist das Problem von euch und anderen Mentoren und Administratoren in Wikipedia, welches ihr nicht erkannt habt. Administratoren und Mentoren von Wikipedia haben die Aufgabe und die Pflicht, Autoren zu begleiten, zu unterstützen und zu beraten und nicht zu überwachen, überprüfen, zu hinterfragen, ihnen zu drohen oder ihre Beiträge aus Eigeninteressen zu löschen. Dies gilt für Artmax in der Wikipedia D und für euch ebenso. Gerade in den USA gab es viele Berichte über Datenmissbrauch, Machtmissbrauch, Vandalismus und Hoaxes, Anti-Elitarismus, Systemimmanente Verzerrungen, und respektlosen Umgang mit wissenschaftlichen Autoren. Artikel von Autoren mit Fachwissen werden von Wikipedia Mitarbeitern oder langjährigen Mitarbeitern oft nach dem Prinzip kollektivistischer Mehrheitskorrekturen und einem «Digitalen Maoismus» zu wissenschaftlich fragwürdigen Artikeln bearbeitet. Dies kann, wie im Fall von Artmax, auch persönliche Gründe haben, die zu einer Informationsfülle egozentrischer Angaben führen. Die genannten Ursachen führen zu einer Reduzierung von Partizipation, denn ehrenhafte Spezialisten und Forscher werden von halbwissenschaftlichen Personen systematisch bekämpft und vertrieben. Das ist generell ein Problem der «Primitivisierung und Verflachung» von historischen Wahrheiten und Fakten in der Gesellschaft und in Wikipedia.

5

Und was völlig absurd ist: Was soll die Bemerkung zu der Benutzerin Zissuu und ihren persönlichen Aktivitäten auf einer öffentlichen Diskussionsseite? «Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see this.” Willst du jemand wie auch immer outen oder belasten? Dafür habe ich kein Verständnis. Das ist meiner Ansicht nach ein Fall für den Datenschutz.

Quote «Datenschutz Die aktuelle Wikipedia-Datenschutzrichtlinie[163] wurde vom Kuratorium (Board of Trustees) der Wikimedia Foundation beschlossen und trat am 6. Juni 2014 in Kraft. Demnach müssen Daten wie der richtige Namen, die Adresse oder das Geburtsdatum nicht angegeben werden, um ein Standard-Konto einzurichten oder Inhalte zu den Wikimedia-Seiten beizutragen. Jeder Autor hat ein Recht auf Anonymität.[166] Benutzer, die der Benutzergruppe Oversighter[167] (englisch für „Aufsicht“) angehören, können Versionen aus einer Versionsgeschichte oder dem Logbuch so verbergen, dass sie auch von Administratoren nicht mehr einsehbar sind, wenn jemand die Identität eines Nutzers gegen dessen Willen offenbart.» End of Quote [[14]]

Mich haben viele Wikipedianer genau vor den von euch vorgebrachten virtuellen Konstruktionen und den von Artmax vielfach angefangenen edit war gewarnt, doch ich dachte, das kann in einer freien und nach Werten aufgebauten Enzyklopädie nicht sein. Dies bestätigt sich leider doch und es macht immer weniger Freude, sich für Wikipedia ehrenamtlich und mit kostbarer Lebenszeit zu engagieren.

--PH_C 23:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

PhilCult84 there is little point writing in German on English wikipedia. And long walls of text are also unlikely to be helpful. If you have a point, please make it succinctly in the language of this noticeboard. Melcous (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree, would you please take a look at this? I'm not sure but it appears that PhilCult84 is posting accusations at an account from de.wiki whose userpage here on en.wiki states that they were once an admin on de.wiki. He may also be outing him but I can't tell. I'm left wondering if there is socking on de.wiki surrounding the Lauter subjects. His failure to answer in a straightforward way makes this look more fishy.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
There are many accusations in the text above but I'll address this one for now: "Leben wir schon in Orwell’s «Brave new World»?" You've mixed up your dystopian worlds. Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World and Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

English II

I want to make the story as short as possible because I don't want to waste my time discussing while I can write on Wikipedia or on my own texts and books:

1

What does “While checking a range for an unrelated case” mean? Are there administrators in Wikipedia who systematically monitor IP addresses of authors? Where's the data protection and people's privacy? Do we already live in Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley‘s “Brave new World”? There have been many studies on this since 2007. (See 4)

2

Allegations of "socking" are absurd, as students and scientists insert historical content with verifiable sources into Wikipedia on many pages. There is no vandalism, threats, negative claims or other destructive acts. Unfortunately, these come from mentors and administrators. Does Wikipedia want to dictate to the authors which institutional or mobile devices they can work with? All people who use the IP addresses you have given and many more, for whatever reason you hide, pursue scientific goals, which should be clear to everyone when reviewing the text contributions and improvements. The many students and historians, some of whom you have made public, have no family or other relationships, nor is anyone funded by anyone else for their scientific research or work. What you call doctorate is scientific teamwork about historical personalities. And I don't think Wikipedia can tell an author how often he should work on one or more articles! None of the people who are working on the same or similar topics for Wikipedia, who I know or even watch, have never worked disrespectfully, but only constructively.

3

The monitoring and virtual linking of people, IP addresses and devices reminds me of surveillance systems from very dark times in Germany. We are very sensitive to this. And I cannot believe that administrators in the USA randomly check IP addresses of the majority of German scientists. The connections to the origin Artmax are blatant and are already being examined further.

4

Quote «Lack of discussion culture In the study The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a rapid decline in the number of active authors was found after a rapid growth in the number of authors in the English Wikipedia until 2007, particularly as a result of departures among new authors. On the one hand, the terribly complicated Wikipedia rules are one reason why familiarizations by new authors are often reverted due to violations of the rules. On the other hand, a slump in the "welcome culture" is responsible for this. [120] The number of active authors and new authors in the German-language Wikipedia has been falling steadily since 2007. [121] Since then, suggestions for improving the number of authors have been drawn up at the annual WikiCon conference - so far, however, without substantial success. » End of quote [[15]]

And that is exactly the problem of you and other mentors and administrators in Wikipedia, which you did not recognize and understand. Administrators and mentors from Wikipedia have the task and the duty to accompany, support and advise authors and not to monitor, review, question, threaten them or delete their contributions out of their own interests. This applies to Artmax in Wikipedia D and to you as well. In the United States in particular, there have been many reports of data abuse, abuse of power, vandalism and hoaxes, anti-elitarism, distortions inherent in the system, and disrespectful treatment of scientific authors. Articles by authors with specialist knowledge are often processed by Wikipedia employees or long-time authors according to the principle of collectivist majority corrections and a "digital Maoism" to scientifically questionable articles. As in the case of Artmax, this can also have personal reasons that lead to a wealth of information about self-centered information. The causes mentioned lead to a reduction in participation, because honorable specialists and researchers are systematically combated and distributed by semi-scientific people. This is generally a problem of "primitivization and flattening" of historical truths and facts in society and in Wikipedia.

5

And what is completely absurd: What is the comment about the user Zissuu and her personal activities on a public discussion page? “Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. So, see this.” Do you want to out or strain someone anyway? I have no understanding for that. In my opinion, this is a case for data protection.

Quote "Data protection The current Wikipedia privacy policy [163] was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and entered into force on June 6, 2014. Accordingly, data such as the correct name, address or date of birth do not have to be given in order to set up a standard account or to contribute content to the Wikimedia pages. Every author has the right to anonymity. [166] Users belonging to the Oversighter [167] user group can hide versions from a version history or the logbook in such a way that administrators can no longer see them if someone reveals a user's identity against their will. » End of quote [[16]]

Many Wikipedians have warned me exactly about the virtual constructions that you have put forward and the edit that Artmax has started many times, but I thought that this could not be in a free and value-based encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is confirmed and it is less and less fun to volunteer for Wikipedia and with a valuable lifetime.

--PH_C 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk

(ec – I see translation has already been provided, read my comments below in that light, tx)
@PhilCult84:
  1. if it's "... unrelated ...", that means it has nothing to do with you. This is not about you checking whether Wikipedia editors followed policy regarding privacy & whatnot: once your situation is cleared (which it is not currently) your questions may be revisited, but looking at them now doesn't have much sense as long as you don't answer the simple question: do you have a conflict of interest or not (a simple "yes" or "no" suffices)
  2. English Wikipedia's rules regarding WP:SOCKING are pretty strict: some cases are allowed, others are not (see policy for details): of course, if no socking is involved, no need to check whether it's an "allowed" or "disallowed" case. So first, it needs to be established whether or not socking is going on. If that question is cleared (for which you can help by giving straightforward answers), the next step can be decided.
  3. Afaics the "Artmax" topic (and their edits on German Wikipedia) is a red herring in this discussion. I'd recommend you stop with "Artmax"-related aspersions, which don't help the quite simple topic here, and only reflect poorly on the one casting the aspersions.
  4. More red herring: whether, and why, Wikipedia has too many or too few editors isn't the topic here. Your comments read like an attempt to divert attention from the simple question you have been asked, i.e. whether or not you have a conflict of interest. Again, a simple "yes" or "no" suffices to answer the question.
  5. If you're not connected to either the Zissuu or the Otgo account (as in: not in any way connected, neither to the accounts themselves, nor the editor(s) behind them), it is not up to you reply in the name of either account, and that would make your reply above highly appropriate. The question whether you have a connection to either, can be answered by a simple "yes" or "no".
Please reply in English.
@Berean Hunter: the German editor's behaviour seems mostly "evasive" (trying to change subject – which would make a word-for-word translation of their wall of text a rather superfluous task) rather than "accusing" – there are some "aspersions" in #3 (...which are a kind of covert accusations), which they need to discontinue. The main issue thus far, imho, seems however their refusal to just answer the simple questions they have been asked, and instead presenting a gulf of conspiration theory. If that's the maximum clarity we can get from the editor (I hope not: it will become clear soon whether they grasp a next chance to put the record straight... or not), there should imho not be many qualms about an editor who'd need more work to get them cooperating than net result of decent mainspace content in English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not like it when a private person who is a regular member of Wikipedia is posted on a public discussion site. If an admin has a question, he can ask it by email. About the representations about Zissuu: On my page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Zissuu it is clearly written who we are, how we work and that we all do team research for historical facts about historical personalities and post them in Wikipedia. And this does not only concern an older, well-known cultural personality from Germany. I wonder: what do verifiable facts have to do with advertising? Ask for an explanation. And please, can you remove negative and oversubscribed representations from the discussion pages so that our scientists can continue to do their good work for Wikipedia? What should I understand by the sentence: "Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded"? Does anyone in Wikipedia really want to monitor the actions of committed members? Where's the data protection??? I really can't imagine. I ask that the discussion page, which in my view makes no sense, be deleted to prevent further harm from everyone.
Thanks and greetings from Germany --Zissuu (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
You put this on your de.wiki userpage on March 10. So, the simple answer is yes, you have a conflict of interest because you are working for them. Since that is so, do you think that it was right of you to team up with PhilCult84 to mislead Artmax in this discussion? PhilCult84 has not stated his conflict of interest on his userpage on de.wiki...and I believe that was what Artmax was speaking about there also.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

The editor Rrrrevolution made some edits in 2016, but has since March 2020 exclusively edited University of Phoenix, where this editor has removed reliably sourced content that could be construed as negative while adding a bunch of poorly sourced puffery. In 2016, this editor edited the page for an individual, Timothy Slottow who now happens to run the University of Phoenix. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Tim Slottow now works in Hawaii at a different school. I was hoping to udpate his page as well. I used to work at the University with Tim Slottow but no longer. Happy to admit mistakes and fix wherever I can. Hoping to bring neutral point of view to the pages. Apologies for mistakes on my part. Rrrrevolution (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrevolution (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The Eye Wales

Edits by User:Martin Clintergate‎ to the new article The Eye Wales and Nation.Cymru seem to entirely depend on citations from a fringe blog. It's the first I've ever heard of the website and the articles do not have any notability or credibility. It does have however a very promotional tone for the creator of the website, Phil Parry.

Very recently, some uncanny edits have popped up from User:80.189.151.94 which lead me to question if this is a sockpuppet for Clintergate or another connected figure with The Eye Wales. It particularly likes [making edits to citations from Phil Parry], who is the operator of The Eye Wales.

The user seems to be making [a number of deletions] to Nation.Cymru which is coincidentally a larger news website and politically opposing website to The Eye Wales. The article makes a number of [assertions] to the website's quality and reputation (not based on third party sources but often its own) and seems to generally be a highly promotional, non notable page created by user(s) with a conflict of interest. Llemiles (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not an administrator, but User talk: Martin Clintergate is not a sockpuppet. They are not involved or indeed have ever met anyone from either Nation Cymru or The Eye Wales according to the sockpuppet investigation. I filed a sockpuppet report to be sure this person is an sockpuppet. Don’t falsely accuse innocent people who are good contributors to Wikipedia.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I would add that I submitted the query in good faith due to edits which raised genuine COI concerns for me, and I would not target 'good contributors'. In this instance both are new users with few or no previous edits. I would also raise that it is Martin who has accused myself of having a 'political axe to grind'. I'm not satisfied that any of my points regarding the UK daylight hour edits of his were addressed, despite the fact he claims to live in Thailand. Nor were the similarities between his and the IP user's edits addressed. Just trying to objectively judge the facts as best I can here. Llemiles (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not a new user as I joined wiki in 2015. However I only recently got involved again on my retirement from Reuters TV here in Asia. My location however is irrelevant. My main interest is in foreign news sites and Wales comes under that category in my book. Having done a lot of reading on Welsh politics over the last few months it has become apparent to me that there is a small group of Welsh language supporters who would like independence from the UK. There appears to be an element of propaganda in the way they operate. This will be one of my main interests in Wiki in the future.regards Martin Clintergate (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_156&oldid=1138418499"