Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 169

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165←Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171→Archive 175

Maya Jama

Two accounts have been editing the article with an "updated" (in other words, crufty) lead. One of these edit summaries explicitly states that it is an update from Jama's management. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 16:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Have the editors declared a COI? On the article talk page, the last time a COI edit request was made was in 2017. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Çiğdem y Mirol

I noticed suspicious unexplained content removal from this user on this article during a supposed rewrite. After several reversions by myself and one other, the user started writing edit summaries seemingly trying to communicate with me and possibly others, the content of which (claims of knowing the person and closely following their work) made me suspicious of COI. The final nail in the coffin came after I nominated the article for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çiğdem y Mirol) and notified them of my suspicions, when the user outed themselves claiming to be the individual in question in this edit summary. At this point, I do not know what needs to be done with this user, but I do know some form of administrative action may need to be taken. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted info about COI, AUTOBIO, and the request edit wizard on Earthingling's talk page. I also added {{connected contributor}} template to Çiğdem y Mirol's talk page. I won't check the article for COI/PROMO stuff at this time because it's at AfD, although you can ping me if the article is kept and I'll take a look. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenud

Unsourced additions have been made to Kenud by Shivpal Singh Badal and different IPs mostly of specific range, claiming that the village was founded by a Joraji Singh Badal. The similarity between username and this name already indicate a COI. However, more recently the user has also added a section about a movement started in Kenud by Shivpal Singh Badal. When the section is being removed for being promotional and a COI, Shivpal Singh Badal, or NewsSourceIndia or an IP of above listed range adds it again. Four minutes after an addition by the IP was reverted, user Shivpal Singh Badal asked why his edits where being removed. A new, promotional article about the movement Samvidhan MahaSanshodhan Sujhav Andolan has been created by the user yesterday and flagged for speedy deletion. The CSD template has been then removed by an IP of the known range without addressing the issues. So far Shivpal Singh Badal did not properly adress the COI concerns, but insists that their edits are not promotional. NJD-DE (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Njd-de, I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivpal Singh Badal — Amkgp 💬 13:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Amkgp! – NJD-DE (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

template on Noel Wood, Australian Artist

I know when and where my father was born and I know the name of his mother. I knew my father and his parents and his brothers for I am Noel Wood's 82 year old biological and registered daughter. A template showed up on his Wikipedia site saying that citations were missing for his birth and the name of his mother! (Such has never been required for me, or my uncle) So.... I put in a reference to the S.A. Govt Births, Deaths and Marriages. I tried, but can't get rid of the template and Teahouse referred me to you. Can you remove the template for me, please. I have no idea who the person is - or how to contact him/her - who did the template in 2020.Enoneo (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Enoneo: hello and thanks for your note. The problem with the page is that there were very few "sources". We never use what a relative says is true; instead, we use what has been published in magazines, books and newspapers. I am going to add some sources to the article so the tag can (maybe) be removed. Some of the family stories will have to go, unless they also appeared in reliable sources. In future, if you see a problem in the page, mention it on the article's talk page. You should not edit the page directly as you have a WP:COI. Thanks. (PS: I really like your father's paintings.) Possibly (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Enoneo: OK i have cleaned up Noel Wood and added about a dozen "sources". I removed the tag you were concerned about. In the process, I discovered that you have been editing your two other Wood family pages, Ann Grocott and Rex Wood, so I had to place COI tags on those pages. Someone will eventually check the pages, clean them up and remove the tag. Please do not make any more direct edits to your family's Wikipedia pages, since, as you can see, it leads to problems. Use the article's talk page to request edits. Possibly (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Walsh University‎

WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly why I believe this editor is employed by this university but I trust that other editors who spend any time looking into this will come to the same conclusion. She has ignored explicit warnings on her User Talk page. All of her edits have been to the university's article with no edits to any Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted WP:PROMO material added by KatieHutchison [1]. I conducted a similar search as ElKevbo and also believe KatieHuchison has a WP:PAID relationship with the university. I left a UPE warning on her talk page and tagged Walsh University with a UPE banner. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I did a copyedit of the article to remove WP:PROMO and uncited claims. I invite other editors to doublecheck the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This editor continues to edit her employer's article with no attempt to comply with our policies or communication with other editors. I think it's time to block her. @Fences&Windows: Can you perhaps help us with this? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

They have now disclosed on their user page, however they continue to add promotional material. A pBlock is indeed required here...@Fences&Windows:? Possibly (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The promo material they added was stuff I removed yesterday. ([2] vs. [3] and [4] vs [5]) I was not contacted nor was there a discussion on the talk page before KatieHutchison readded the information. I posted a link to Wikipedia:Request Edit Wizard on their talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry ElKevbo and Possibly, I missed the ping as my signature doesn't quite match my username... maybe I should change it? User:KatieHutchison has declared their interest on their user page and I've partially blocked them from Walsh University. Is the tag needed now that it's been cleaned up? Fences&Windows 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries and thanks for seeing this section! The editor in question has indeed declared her COI and paid relationship so with the partial block I think we're fine to make any final cleanup and remove the template from the article if it's still there. ElKevbo (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett has objected to the partial block on the user's talk page, in light of her earlier responses. I clarified that this was due to promotional editing, not just COI. ElKevbo,Possibly, Z1720, thoughts on the objection? Fences&Windows 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Ping Z1720. Fences&Windows 21:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no objection to lifting the partial block if she is willing to abide by WP:PAID and WP:COI. ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This sounds like an unblock request, which as far as I know can't be made by anyone other than the user. WP:UNBLOCK says "Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block", but also says that friendly discussions can be had with the blocking admin, so I guess this is just a discussion. In any case, I think the pblock is fine, as long as she has access to the article talk page to make requests. The user has been editing the page since 2017, and their recent edits show no understanding of Wikipedia policy. To wit: "Walsh University gained national attention for an innovative new program uniquely designed to provide businesses with customized curricula to “up-skill” their employees and provide them with the necessary training to thrive in an ever-advancing, technology-based economy." It's promotional junk. If there is unblocking to be done, it needs to be initiated by the user themselves, as they need to demonstrate that they now understand how Wikipedia works. Possibly (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It is not an unblock request; I pointed out - as anyone may do - that the block is improper and should never have been made. As to "not understanding" she said, in separate sections, prior to the block, ""Sorry... Let me know how to rectify.", "Sorry I just saw I had all these messages. ... I think I’ve tagged myself correctly now, but please let me know if I didn’t do this correctly.", and "sorry, just discovered these messages or id have done all that a while ago". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not object to lifting the pblock as long as they use the request edit template to propose edits to the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Enel article family

The entire family of articles related to the Enel Group power companies has been spammed up with promotional content in multiple languages. Judging by the accounts/IPs involved and the nature of the edits, this is pretty clearly the work or an undisclosed payed editing firm. I have done some work on the English language versions of a few of these articles, but they will need further monitoring and cleanup. Affected articles include (but may not be limited to) the articles listed above.

The damage includes the deletion and suppression of negative information about these companies, usually mixed in as part of productive changes. A thoughogh looking over of these articles will be needed. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sam at Megaputer: it would be helpful to have a list of the uses who you think have COI or are undisclosed paid editors. These can be added above using the exampleUsername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) template. Possibly (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly: Are there WP:OUTING considerations for IPs? Should I only list the named accounts, or IPs too? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sam at Megaputer: Nope. IPs are treated the same way accounts are. You can use that template to list IPs and named accounts. Recent edits by IP and named account are the important ones. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright. No one editor appears too be responsible for the majority of the edits. Instead, it seems like this junk is coming in. Most of the suspicious IPs make one edit only and then go away. Here is a classic example. Looks like no big deal, but dozens of edits like that over the course of several years can add up too the kind of articles that we see above. This is not a complete list - I just grabbed a few I was pretty sure of. I'll add more as I keep searching. We might want to look through the edit histories of some of those names users to fine other affected articles. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
All the 151.xx IP addresses geolocate to "Wind Tre" ISP, Italy. Possibly (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:DSDHA, Deborah Saunt

Only edits are to those two articles adding promotional material. Noah!💬 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@NoahDavid771: you need to notify the user mentioned above. See top of this page. Possibly (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible UPE by Jamesinhere

Back in August 2020, the organization "AAPC (healthcare)" was hiring freelancers on Upwork to create a page on "Certified Professional Coder" and posted this job on August 13, 2020. Jamesinhere who was inactive at that time suddenly becomes active (nearly after a year) and created Certified Professional Coder on August 22, 2020, a week after the job was posted and since then they made no major edits outside this single topic. The job on Upwork has been protected, but I have the screenshot and can share it privately. GSS 💬 04:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I posted a message on Jamesinhere's talk page, asking about various COI connections they might have. Looking at their contributions, I suspect they have a COI, too, considering their creation of Certified Professional Coder, a certificate given by AAPC. (CPC is now a redirect.) I recommend that Jamesinhere stops editing in this area, regardless of if they have a COI. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 💬, Z1720, if you closely take a look on my contributions it's started from 28 March 2019 (Almost 17 months before that upwork job was posted) and from there on my editing started on this company and topic. Just trying to make my point here. Upwork is something which is not my area but as you have mentioned suddenly becomes active, hence just trying to refer that it's not sudden but yes after a long time.

Z1720 I haven't made a single edit since 💬 redirected that page and just communicating on wikipedia via his talk page, my talk page or topic and AAPC talk page and other pages.

All in all I am expecting a little help that if some editors can take a look and see if they can further expand it instead of just redirecting page...as I have seen various editors helps in expanding or updating a page and I am just shuffling between Notability and now COI things.

I am not an expert in editing and can't do everything perfect hence asking for help from anyone who could help. I am fine with if I can't do any further edit but at least if someone interested to lend a helping hand, can do some search/research so that they can take it forward.

And if nothing possible, life still goes on. One fine day I will have a live page with my contribution... :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinhere (talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jamesinhere thanks for addressing our concerns and answering my questions on your talk page. The page you tried to create contained a lot of promotional language and sounded like someone trying to get people to become a CPC. Wikipedia tries to write in the tone of a disinterested observer that describes all aspects of a topic, including positive and negative aspects.
If you need help with editing on Wikipedia, please go to the WP:TEAHOUSE or the WP:HELPDESK. I also suggest that you do not edit pages about companies or products that might make someone think you have a conflict of interest. With over 6 billion articles on Wikipedia, I am sure there are other articles that will interest you. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Die hard supporter of a football club who sometimes uses promotional tone

The user is only editing on this article and other articles related to it. He removed the maintanence template without giving proper explanation or solving the issue.[[6]]. The user also add contents to this article, which I feel somehow like a promotional. I believe this user is very closely connected to the article Kichu🐘 Discuss

@Kashmorwiki: you need to notify the user mentioned above. See top of this page.Possibly (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Possibly:  Done Kichu🐘 Discuss 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Tank Cleaner

User:Redi Productions created Draft:Tank Cleaner on 24 February but was soon soft blocked for username violation and immediately User:PavinderWraich continues editing it, removing review comments on several occasions and being warned about COI editing here, here , here, here and here by User:Spiderone. Redi Productions is the name of the company producing the film Tank Cleaner and Pavinder Wraich is the director and the author of the screen play. No response has been made to any of the warnings and despite the warnings Draft:Tank Cleaner was again submitted for review at AfC.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Velella: you need to notify the user ParvinderWraich mentioned above. See top of this page. Possibly (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. Now done.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
ParvinderWraich has ignored every warning and still hasn't declared their obvious UPE. Possibly (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
And now he's created an autobiography 49.144.207.182 (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Vache Sharafyan working on his own article

I'm not sure how to handle this situation. The composer is clearly notable but the only person who's worked on the article appears to be the subject. I trimmed it down because it was entirely copied from his personal tripod site, so there are copyright concerns as well. Can anyone offer some guidance with this? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo has p-blocked the user for edit warring and long-term COI.--- Possibly (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for help with the cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper journalist citing own publication

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed by filer's own request. El_C 17:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In an article published last week in a generally reliable source, a long-time Wikipedia editor has been accused of really quite shocking conflict of interest and self-promotional editing over a period of at least 15 years. The Arbitration Committee is aware of the case so I will not go into detail here, but the editor has been identified as a newspaper journalist (although the journalist has denied the connection). As a general question, then, if I am a journalist writing for a newspaper is it a conflict of interest to use that newspaper as a reference? I presumably have a number of sources to cite basic facts. Is it a conflict if I pick my employer over the other choices? Should I avoid choosing my employer unless no other sources are available? Mo Billings (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Per WP:SELFCITE you can cite your own published works within reason. Following that, one would, to some (a bit bigger) extent, be allowed to cite other's works from the same publication. So, does the editor in question do so too much? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor in question regularly cites a variety of sources. including their current employer (and past employers). It's hard to say if it is excessive, which is why I asked. I would say that I don't think it would be a newspaper that most people would use as a reference and appears far out of proportion to its circulation or influence. I was trying to focus on the larger issue, though. If I work for Anytown News, should I avoid citing Anytown News as a reference if other sources are readily available? Mo Billings (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Tenebrae was not notified of this dicussion, as it required. I have now done so, also with a note attached (direct link). El_C 16:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@El C: I was deliberately not naming user in particular and asking a much more general question. Tenebrae's alleged conflict of interest, if true, is overt and unquestionable. Using one's own employer's newspaper as a source is not even worth mentioning in that case. Mo Billings (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Mo Billings, I'm not knowledgeable on the matter to comment on the COI charge itself, so maybe I'm just missing something, but otherwise, I'm not seeing why this noticeboard's proper notification requirement ought to have been waived in this instance. El_C 17:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Had I named him, I would have notified him. I did not name him because this is not a conflict of interest case about Tenebrae, this is a question about a general case. I don't think you have done anyone any favors by bringing his name up here. I am told that the Arbitration Committee is looking into the allegations. I very much doubt that Tenebrae wants to defend himself here as well. I suggest this discussion gets archived before more people see it. Mo Billings (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I dunno about that. It is about him, after all. Not sure I view it as counting as merely a general query, at the present moment, at least. Still, happy to oblige. //Closing. El_C 17:48, 4 March 2021 (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.

Draft:Wright State University Lake Campus

I have rejected their AFC for obvious promotional and unneutral statements. The user continues to use sources from the school website. Seems to be a clear COI. The user has not responded to any attempts about improvement. The username may also be a hint Google Searching "Heartland Wright State Ohio". The user continues to add to the draft despite being told to be careful and disclose any possible COIs. AmericanAir88(talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The rejection was warranted. It is unlikely the branch campus should have its own page to begin with, but the current draft is written like it came directly from a promotional website or recruiting brochure. As written, this article is not even close to meeting WP:NPOV and WP: Noteworthy standards, not to mention the obvious WP:COI editing as evidenced by the content of the edits and the user name of the COI editor. This draft was rightly rejected. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I declined the draft and gave lots of feedback. I also posted some questions on Heartlandfem's talk page about possible COI. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The user has denied being a paid editor, but say they are an alumnus of the institution. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note that this is the first article I have drafted for possible inclusion in Wikipedia, and I have had trouble understanding some WP conventions related to article creation. Although I have spent hours trying to learn the appropriate techniques for developing this article, I clearly missed some of your requirements and I apologize for that. For example, I did not know that this discussion of my possible conflict of interest was going on until I found this page yesterday. You appear to be under the impression that my username, Heartlandfem, has some connection to Wright State University since apparently Google found the word Heartland on the university website. Heartland is a common term for the Midwestern part of the United States. I chose the user name because I live in the "heartland" and I am a feminist. Heartlandfem (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The_Rose_Elf_(opera)

The user Davidhertzbergmusic has created and edited articles about compositions by David Hertzberg. The articles consist mainly of review quotes. The user was asked on 17 September 2020 to disclose their potential COI. OrestesLebt (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

reported to WP:UFAA.--- Possibly (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence G. Walters

Created by an SPA, substantially edited by another SPA, substantially edited by an editor blocked for advertising with concerns about undisclosed payments, edited by an IPv6 editor who was reverted for NPOV violations, now edited again with possible promotional interests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The recent IP edits look OK to me, although they have a professional tinge to them. The last editor before these was in May 2020; they had a weird way of formatting references. --- Possibly (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Possibly, thank you very much for the analysis and the article improvements. :) I had hoped for someone to deal with the situation in this way, and I'm happy to see that despite the large amount of reports here, people still find the time to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible paid editing by WikiShakeshere‎

The user has registered a week ago and mostly creating promotional deleted articles and uploading images at commons-wiki as their own work. I asked them to disclose their conflict of interest and got an answer that: I don't have any relationship with the people that I'm writing about. Ramzan Muhammed is a contestant in Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 3) and Deepa Nisanth is a very notable writer and she is working as an assistant professor in Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur. and when I asked them to explain how they own the copyrights of the images they uploaded on commons-wiki they answered: Edited Exif data WikiShakeshere (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC). They failed to disclose the source of these images and I strongly feel they have a conflict of interest. GSS 💬 08:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Exploreandwrite sockfarm

Sockfarm article creations ×156
Isingness article creations ×288

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Exploreandwrite. I've found an article, Hemper created by this group in September 2018 and there are many more I will list later. Bri.public (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: I counted 40 articles and three drafts by Exploreandwrite. Shall I add them above?--- Possibly (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Look at User:Bri/COIbox101 for a fuller list. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That's depressing.--- Possibly (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's possible that this other account is a predecessor. This creation in March 2017 is their second-ever edit, so it's probably not their first account either. User:GSS said there's off-wiki evidence that they were paid, maybe a job board? ☆ Bri (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through the bottom list, passed S yesterday. scope_creepTalk 15:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture (2nd nomination)

An SPA has been bludgeoning this AFD and several editors have made suggestions that they have a COI. So strong is the suggestion that one editor started an SPI here. They start with an anodyne 'Keep' vote here denies a suggestion that this is "paid for spam" here and six bombastic edits later adds a diatribe here before admitting that they are the owner of the company here . Yet there is no sign that they understand the issue. It just needs to stop . It is unlikely that the SPI will succeed as this is the second AFD on this article - the first outcome was delete, but I am sure that the authors will have learnt from that to keep their IPs separate.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I wrote this over at the Afd: "at this point I think it would make a lot of sense to pBlock the company owner Amano225 from [the AfD discussion, as a) they are bludgeoning it and b) they close to the least neutral editor I have seen yet."--- Possibly (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, they really need some kind of administrative attention, as they are refusing to admit any kind of COI or PAID status. On their talk and user pages they sort of give us the metaphorical finger.--- Possibly (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly & Velella did you read this? "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." You might want to because that is what you both are doing; harassing me and trying to falsely accuses me for something I have not done, and will not do. You are asking me to admit to this? Please. Part of growing a brand is protecting it. So when others speak about our brand (features, press, earned media, and a Wikipedia page that holds content) we will be watching it. In this case I had already shared in the deletion page that I noticed the page being created by someone I am not connected to and decided to follow. I only engaged when I could (ready all Wikipedia policies and well aware of what I can and cannot do). I have not broken any polices. On the flip side, some of you nominated a page for speedy deletion, when it did not meet those guidelines, and now harassing and falsely accusing me of something that will be impossible for you to prove. Whomever can see our IP addresses can easily see we are not affiliated, and never have been, nor have I ever created edits on my brand. Have not broken any rules nor have I done anything you wouldn't do if you were in my shoes. Amano225 — Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

nor have I done anything you wouldn't do if you were in my shoes. - don't make such arrogant assumptions. There is nothing on Wikipedia that promotes me or my businesses. This is not an advertising platform. This is not a site to promote your business. This is an encyclopaedia and it is that concept that you seem to have failed to grasp. Attacking editors and imputing motives to them is never a good idea.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@[[User:Velella|Velella] not making any assumptions at all, unlike you guys are. I am not promoting anything here, simply defending the false accusations a few of you are making that you cannot back up with any facts... Amano225 (talk)

There is no outing here. The user pointedly explained that they founded the company, in this edit. What we do have here is a company owner disrupting the encyclopedia by bludgeoning discussions, in violation of WP:PAID. And a new user with 20 edits who likes to explain policy to all the experienced editors, while ignoring basic requests. Just your basic COI and disruption.--- Possibly (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It is frustrating how they simultaneously admit and unrepentantly deny having a COI. I don't understand how anybody, in any sort of business, could genuinely fail to understand that this is wrong after having it explained to them. I feel that we are being jerked around here and that it is time to put a stop to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
People lie through their teeth on here, to keep an article on Wikipedia. They know how valuable it is. There is no cost associated with lying and subterfuge.If you appear reasonably cogent, you can get away a whole lot you wouldn't get away with in a commercial organisation. Concentrate on the endpoint. We really need a code of conduct that has teeth. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Well the disruption has gone on long enough, and they refuse to post the required PAID notice on their user page. Pinging @Fences and windows: or ToBeFree, who have been active on this page recently.--- Possibly (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Pff. Thanks for the ping, but the deletion discussion will simply be closed by an experienced administrator, and bludgeoning doesn't have an effect on the closure. There is a clear and possibly disruptive COI, but a business owner isn't compensated for editing Wikipedia and can't disclose their "employer". The article might simply be gone in a few days and that's the end of the disruption. If it isn't, such as if Amano225 ignores the result of the deletion discussion, please notify me again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks ToBeFree. I would disagree though about compensation. He has pointedly said several times that he is here to speak to protect his brand, and business owners make money from their companies via salaries or shares, obviously. So he is clearly a paid editor.--- Possibly (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Hm. And the disclosure is supposed to contain a list of all customers who have contributed to the compensation. I think the term we're looking for is "financial COI". The scope of WP:PAID is slightly smaller than this; we're looking at one of the few exceptions that are affected by the section WP:FCOI of the conflict of interest guideline, but not WP:PAID. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @ ~ ToBeFree I appreciate you not accusing me for what those are saying I have done. I am not doing anything here but at this point defending the fact that I have not been compensated nor have I compensated anyone writing about our brand. I simply stumbled upon the article while always looking at what people are mentioning about our brand, and started following the page. Once it got to the deletion discussion and saw people making false accusations I trying to defend. I found nothing wrong with this. I read all the Wikipedia guidelines and before I made my first comment I knew I was not going to break any rules. I don't believe I have. Having others say I paid (as if they knew for a fact) is totally ludicrous and if they cannot prove that nor can they prove I have ties to the author of the page they are the ones breaking Wikipedia rules at this point. I absolutely never meant to see this communication go this way. I find it extremely immature and inefficient use of energy. That said, if the page gets deleted, I will feel more bad for the author who spent the energy doing so. It does not affect our brand. If its meant to be that our brand has a Wikipedia page, there will be a time for that. I am not worried. Thank you for your time. I just want people to have a fair shot. ~ Amano225 (talk)

Good work. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

PopTalk and a bunch of articles

I and others have warned PopTalk on their talk page (and on my own) about editing with a conflict of interest and made them aware of the paid editing policy. They have repeatedly denied any connection to any artist, despite claiming on commons to be the operator/owner of this firm which specializes in artist management and marketing. Now they are playing dumb on their talk page after still denying any connection. This is clearly a case of undisclosed paid editing given the nature of the business, however PopTalk evades any attempt to discuss their promotional editing and copyrighted images and insists on continuing to violate the terms of use despite it having clearly been explained to them. Please note that this is not the complete list, just the few I pulled from their edits and cross checked with the client list. Here is the most recent discussion complete with denial and their lackluster response. CUPIDICAE💕 20:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And in the event that PopTalk decides to respond here, I will also note I sent some additional evidence to arbcom. CUPIDICAE💕 20:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
PopTalk has obvious COI, having taken the images used in some of the articles. They seem to think that their COI does not matter. Their response to queries is to refuse to explain it and to keep on editing.--- Possibly (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
This is more than a COI and involves payment, which I've emailed Arbcom. CUPIDICAE💕 20:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Blocked. UPE-tag at your discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

PolyAnalyst

This page (which I wrote) has been the victim of a tag and run. Anyone want to help me get the tag off? I've seen these things sit for years, and that's what's likely to happen here if no one intervenes. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sam at Megaputer: The reason that tag is there is that after the article was accepted at AFC February 3rd, you made about 50 edits to the article in mainspace. You work for the company that makes the product that is described in the article. Please don't ignore policy and then complain that you are the "victim of a tag and run", as it is not an efficient use of editor time. Eventually, today, tomorrow or three months from now, someone will assess the article for neutrality, which is the issue. And in the future, use request edits for desired changes. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the tag was there from the moment it cleared draftspace, and not in response to any edit I made later. The editor who placed it did not stick around for cleanup, which is why I attempted to fix it myself as I explained here. I view your suggestion that the tag may come off in a matter of weeks of months as rather optimistic. On a low profile article like this is could last years, which is not the proper use of the tag. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
While the reason for it being there my have changes, at the moment the tag points out that a paid editor made edits to an article in article space, and that the edits need to be checked. Perfectly fine use of the tag.--- Possibly (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Getting these edits checked was what I was hoped to achieve by making this post. There really should a que or something, or at least a date on the tag. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
And actually, this tag is only supposed to be placed on articles with neutrality problems. Or at least that's what the documentation says. Does anyone honestly think that this article would have a tag at the top if I hadn't disclosed? It's no wonder so many editors choose to go black hat. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jim Gardiner (Chicago politician)

Close - disruptive filing by a sock apparently related to the article subject. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

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


This user continues to delete new content off the page.Ebatay3 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a COI issue, but rather an edit dispute involving lots of hosiery. Possibly (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I have no connection to Jim Gardiner or his political opponents. I originally got involved in this page due to a BLPN thread regarding the article and that of his opponent in the 2019 election, both of which had seen a lot of SPA editing in both directions. I helped to clean up both articles. Happy to include better content on the page, but much of the proposed additions are puffery. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2021 (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.

Likely UPE and promotion

UPE is pretty much certain, I can't share links because of WP:OUT. A little bit of searching around the internet reveals a certain "digital marketing" company which has some of the pages this user touched as their clients. The edits range from deletion of criticism sections, introduction of client's website on wiki page of the product they make. (like putting links of an AC company on "evaporative cooler page.") and creation of non-notable articles with "somewhat exaggerated claims". Daiyusha (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Likely UPE at Devadas Krishnadas

High likelihood of UPE. These are single purpose accounts focused on the Devadas Krishnadas article. Their usernames match exactly the names of people listed on a Google search to have worked at Krishnadas' company at the time of their edits. It's no surprise that the article now reads like an advertisement. They haven't edited for a while, but without any repercussion, employees at this company will see no cost in continuing to add promotional material. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Katy Wallin

SPA, with edit history consisting only of creating these two related promo articles. The account on their user talk page had already disclosed, but subsequently blanked their paid status (hence I don't think that counts as disclosure). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, blanking undid. Firestar464 (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Firestar464: are you saying that's all I needed to do (rather than reporting here)? I was hesitant to mess with another editor's user page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing, I don't mean to say anything, I just wanted to help. Besides, you are more experienced than me. You're welcome! Firestar464 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sylvain Charlebois

Self-promotional language, uncited claims and puffery from accounts that seem closely aligned with article subject. Reversing content that is unflattering to the subject. Additional edits coming from unsigned IP addressed like 24.89.229.255, 24.89.229.0, 207.231.232.59, 142.134.26.188, 156.34.186.143, which all trace back to the subject's province of residence. Accounts are also making edits on other pages closely aligned to the subject's research interests. Foodprofessor (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Foodprofessor: you need to notify all the accounts you listed. See the top of this page. --- Possibly (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Foodprofessor: Do you also have a COI? The article says "Charlebois is also a co-host of the podcast titled "The Food Professor".--- Possibly (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Not that kind of COI. Foodprofessor is trying to remove promotional puffery while the others are trying to add it. See the comments at my talk including by an admin from frwiki who has blocked at least one of the above accounts there (not Foodprofessor). What is needed are a couple of neutral editors to watch Sylvain Charlebois and revert undue puffery (I am staying uninvolved to issue sanctions if needed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I saw those threads and am still confused. What do you mean by "not that kind of COI"?--- Possibly (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Usually "COI" here means someone close to the subject who is promoting the subject. Foodprofessor is an SPA who is opposed to the subject. Perhaps they hit "Random article" and found Sylvain Charlebois and decided to edit it, or perhaps they saw bickering at some off-wiki site (they ducked my question about that at my talk), or perhaps they know the subject and don't like their work. Some of those possibilities might be described as a COI, but not the normal "I am here to promote" kind. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Well it would be better to hear from Foodprofessor themselves on COI. I've been looking at Janvez, who does not seem to make terrible edits. They deny COI at on fr.wikipedia, saying thery work for the feds in Truro. Being a Canadian, when someone says they work in Truro, it's likely they are telling the truth, because it's not really anything to brag about. --- Possibly (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Of course I could be wrong; it seems Janvez does have a massive COI. I sent you some links via email.--- Possibly (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
That was mentioned in the article (13:47, 2 March 2021) and at article talk, which I removed (20:43, 2 March 2021). I agree that some of Janvez's edits are ok, but fluff like 23:40, 2 March 2021 ("Charlebois reminded readers of the social contract which exists between dairy producers and dairy consumers" and more) indicates someone who should be writing at a blog, not Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Some bad edits here, a history of disruption here and on fr.wiki, and an obvious COI here... why not just pBlock?--- Possibly (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
janvez, DALalumni and GenesisPRO are blocked on French Wikipedia as sockpuppets focusing on fr:Sylvain Charlebois, they should be blocked here also. I have also a doubt about Foodprofessor, which is recently created to edit only on Sylvain Charlebois.--Pastelli (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I started updating the article, it is the weirdest looking thing, for a BLP. It barely has any dates, except in those areas where its references studies, so it is Charlebois did this, Charlebois did that. I am just wondering if this is a WP:TNT case. scope_creepTalk 01:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There has been a concerted effort to make it look a certain way. scope_creepTalk 01:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Foodprofessor is still editing the article and its clear from an edit summary, that he is Sylvain Charlebois. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Scope creep: which edit summary?--- Possibly (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
His last edit. There is a discussion on the talk page with an admin, but the jump to fix is indicative. It is extremely hard to determine who coined a particular term, even in the age of the internet, so to jump on it and know who coined that term, indicates prior knowledge and indicates a coi, combined the name of the editor, makes me think it is him. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I think that’s incredibly obvious from holding the BLP’s invented nickname as their Wikipedia username and focusing solely on them. 2605:8D80:506:9FC7:F125:6609:527F:369C (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
There is some confusion here. User:Foodprofessor is not favourable to Sylvain Charlebois in their editing, so how are they the subject? User:scope. creep, please provide diffs. Fences&Windows 00:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Fences and windows: I also don't see that User:Foodprofessor has outed themselves as Charelbois anywhere. It's confusing though, as the "Food professor" is the well-known handle for Charelbois on Twitter, on Charelbois' podcast, on the Dalhousie University site, on Apple Podcasts, and at the Canadian Grocer website, where Charlebois writes a column called "The Food Professor". I think per WP:IMPERSONATE they should change their name or verify with OTRS that they are Charlebois/the Food Professor, since this account is essentially impersonating Charlebois at the moment.--- Possibly (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yip. I think the weight for me, is there. Not everybody wants to have a Wikipedia article, and not everybody wants to see they're private info posted up in an article, particularly if there is an intersection with what is happening off Wikipedia. I can point to two articles that have had the person in and didn't like what they read and tried to poison it. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Possibly and scope creep, I've softblocked Foodprofessor for the username. There is a risk of impersonation or aggravation of the article subject. Fences&Windows 17:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
FoodProfessor might be back, in the form of a new editor, that just appeared at 8.00GMT and started working on a section. scope_creepTalk 21:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yaskyask suspicious--Pastelli (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
24.89.225.41 suspicious edits extend to supply management page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoonersFan (talk • contribs)
It's a regular cloak and dagger movie in here. --- Possibly (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, apologies because English is not my mother tongue. I'm the sysop who blocked editors on fr-wp. Several accounts who write on Charlebois are SPA. Janvez kept writing promotional content + deleted any criticism + used edit warring + sock-puppets in a debate. See RCU. On the opposite side (people writing criticism), there are also sockpuppets and edit war: DALalumni = GenesisPRO see RCU. And another SPA appeared on fr: Yaskyask. So we see people creating fake accounts on each side to fight about Charlebois: this is getting ridiculous. The page is now under ECP. Maybe fr-wp sysop should just kick any SPA who comes on this page. Best regards, - Bédévore [knock knock] 10:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dairy lobby in Canada trying to alter content of Charlebois page. That is what they do, all the time. Latest additions by scopecreep highly suspicious. No value-add for wiki community. IMOO --Yaskyask (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a serious off-wiki focus on supply management in a dairy industry in Canada, that is fought between Charlebois and his group on one side and an activist group and others on the other side. I was reading through it last night. There are probably more people involved, but it's on here now and on the French wiki. scope_creepTalk 12:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Yaskyask = Janvez. What a surprise! See RCU - Bédévore [knock knock] 12:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
CU check was positive, with an outcome to block both of them. @Fences and windows: Can you please take a look at this. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 12:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Bédévore and scope creep. I have added extended-confirmed protection to Sylvain Charlebois for three months and I have indef blocked Janvez, Yaskyask, DALalumni, and GenesisPRO based on the evidence from French Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and their behaviour here. Foodprofessor is already username-softblocked. I have not protected Supply management (Canada) because the edit warring and sockpuppetry did not seem to extend to that article. Fences&Windows 13:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Fences and windows, to ECU protected the page but I think that this protection will needs to be lengthened after June 10, 2021.--Pastelli (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

David H. Turpin

Some additional eyes would be appreciated at David H. Turpin, as there some accounts possibly associated with the University of Alberta have recently edited the page to incorporate material rife with WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:PUFFERY. I've blocked one of the accounts per the username policy and the new one is borderline, though they have both sought to insert the same material. Connormah (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history on the article and the user name, it's obvious that that account is used for corporate communications effort. Reported for user name violation. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I did some editing and added some sources. COI does nto seem to be an issue, other than the fact that the article mentions mostly his Ualberta gig. On the other hand, looking through the history, it seems that the article has never been very good, and does not reflect in prose that he was/is the president of two major Canadian universities. People at that level get a lot of coverage and a lot of awards, but the article did not reflect that. I added the Order of Canada to his infobox. as it was only mentioned as a category--- Possibly (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok the Order of Canada was mentioned. And I figured out why the U of A president's office was trying to edit the article:: Turpin is no longer president. updated.--- Possibly (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Great work, Possibly, it is much appreciated. Connormah (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing contribution statistics of the page, the authorship share of Special:Contributions/TownsendS, their contribution pattern and external search that references this name to the institution, I think the standard of proof has been met to tag the University of Alberta article UPE. There could be additional UPE accounts used on U of A page. Additional eyes on U of A page is also justified in my opinion. Graywalls (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, but TownsendS' edits were mostly in 2014. They stopped close to four years ago. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the UPE policy only came in in 2014. --- Possibly (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Miguel Dumaraos

They recently created the draft saying that the subject is a Filipino artist. Further see the userpage, where thay have written "Filipino artist". They appear to have a close contact with the subject.–Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 08:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

COI editors are allowed to create drafts but they have to be run through AFC. I am pretty sure this one does not have what it takes to be published.--- Possibly (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Judging from the draft, he sounds like the most non-notable person to ever be mentioned on Wikipedia. (Not to offend a fellow Filipino, that is) 49.144.207.182 (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

University of the Pacific (United States)

JCUOP66 is a paid employee of the University of the Pacific who "work[s] [for] UOP in a variety of capacities including improving the formatting, quality, and accuracy of the content for UOP and its related Wikipedia pages." Although he or she has been warned about COI editing as an employee of the university and asked to stop editing his employer's articles, he or she has not only continued to edit these articles but he or she has also created a new article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello ElKevbo, I'm newer to Wikipedia and don't understand which edits of mine are considered to be "advertising, publicizing, or promoting" my employer. I have since described the capacity in which I work for my employer after learning how to do so. Some of my edits have included: fixing formatting that seems incorrect for Wikipedia standards (the history section was the third section in two of the college pages), updating enrollment figures to the latest year, alphabetizing lists, adding more details and organizations to the student life sections, fixing broken links, among other edits that don't seem to fit the "advertising, publicizing, or promoting" standard you are using. 4 of the colleges/schools have their own pages, so I don't see why other colleges/schools shouldn't be allowed to have their own. I've looked at other university pages and see that their colleges/schools have individual pages as well. I try to remain as unbiased and informative as I can, and I'd be happy to remove bias from the wording if you'd like to point it/them out. JCUOP66 (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
You are being paid to edit your employer's Wikipedia articles. You can try as hard as you like but you have an undeniable, unavoidable conflict of interest and should not be editing or (directly) creating articles about your employer. Stop editing your employer's articles and make edit requests in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@JCUOP66: see WP:COI (Please avoid editing your employer's articles; please use talk pages to request changes) and WP:PAY (please use WP:AFC for new articles). These are standard procedures for paid/COI editors such as yourself. Sound good?--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you mean and I see your reasoning. I hadn't used Talk pages much before, so I was hesitant to use them. I will use those going forward! I will also submit new pages as drafts so they can be viewed by others before publishing. I apologize for not picking up on some of this sooner, I still have a lot to learn it seems! JCUOP66 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Alfred Legum

Jeffrey Alfred Legum was created as an autobiography (the AFC entry was edited extensively by Jalegum) with assistance from LZorn and Llzorn (presumed to be the same person, editing under a new username, which, assuming good faith, I chalk up to a lost password). All three users are WP:SPAs, having edited no other articles. The article has, in its past, been essentially a hagiography of Mr Legum, with extensive personal details and anecdotes, and peppered with extensive images of Mr Legum and the various US presidents that he has met as well as various other personal memorabilia. I have attempted to clean up the article (most significantly, in this series of edits), but Llzorn has returned to restore much of the adulatory text and images. I have warned all three users of their inappropriate involvement with the given page, and have sought to engage them in discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Alfred Legum, but Llzorn (the only presently active account) has neither engaged in discussion nor even bothered to add an edit summary to explain their editing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I took out the images. One image of someone and a president might be OK. But five? The presence of so many high-quality files (images, a proclamation and a letter form the Whitehouse) indciates obvious COI for the uploader Llzorn. --- Possibly (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Jalegum, LZorn, and Llzorn all clearly have a COI and LZorn/Llzorn appears to be doing undisclosed paid editing, despite the denial at their talk page. I cannot discuss their identity, but it is clear they uploaded images and documents of Legum to Wikimedia Commons as their own work - they must be closely connected to the subject. I have just edited the article so I won't take admin action, but I would support a partial block of LZorn/Llzorn from this page. Fences&Windows 16:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Llzorn has added this on their talk page: "I was employed by Jeffrey Legum, but I now live in Florida on a full time basis. I have been adding parts of his biography on Wikipedia that I felt were important to note."--- Possibly (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson paid editing

User Jacobmcpherson has declared their paid editing properly on their user page, but in looking at their edits I found numerous times where they have moved drafts directly to article space. For example,

Neil Krug, Corbu (band), and Kim Anh.

They are also in the habit of directly editing many of the articles they have declared a COI with, for example:

37 edits to Iamsound,
11 edits to Jacob Sartorius,
14 edits to Kim Anh,
17 edits to Emile Ghantous
15 edits to Zebra Katz

I started a discussion with them one their talk page, but bringing it here as the problem seems to run deeper than the articles listed above, and other eyes will help. --- Possibly (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue does, in fact, run deeper than these three pages. I'm happy to participate in this dialog, considering I work in a different way than what Wikipedia seems to imply with paid editors. I don't automatically publish articles that people I work with request, and there's often a lot of back and forth. Additionally, I've been asked to handle sensitive topics that the Wikipedia community can't seem to grasp.
For example, with Gavilán_Rayna_Russom, their page name misrepresented their legal name, and using terminology like "born as" isn't great for a person who's spent energy legally changing their name. This is part of why I've been asked to edit their page.
With Jacob Sartorius, there was misinformation posted in a very tabloid-esque tone. There's also a Wikipedia editor who appears very much interested in making sure their photo is used as the cover image for the page, which implies as a COI on their behalf (despite them not being paid).
I've also been asked to address Zebra Katz's page, as some of the information about his representation as a "queer artist" was misinterpreted by Wikipedia editors, additional cleaning up is needed there.
There's other examples, but it does seem as a "paid editor," the Wikipedia community becomes more focused on that element, than the content itself.
I look forward to continuing this conversation. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jacobmcpherson: What this boils down to is two issues. First, for quite a while you have been pushing articles straight to article space (just found another: Smokeasac). Per the WP:PAY guideline, we would prefer that you use WP:AFC. Second, you have been editing articles directly, which is also not preferred. Per WP:COI, we prefer that paid editors use the talk pages to request changes. Doing both (using AFC for new articles, and talk pages for edit requests) is standard practice for paid editors, as it helps to keep the wiki neutral by putting more eyes on the edits of paid editors. So this is all quite simple: can you commit to doing both of these things in future?--- Possibly (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The only thing the Wikipedia terms asks me to do is disclose I'm a paid editor (which I do). The rest seem to be "suggestions" or "strong discouragements." Again, I gladly welcome a discussion around this, because I believe the Wikipedia's free vs. paid editor culture isn't well-equipped for some of the underlying themes I've noticed.
I'd also like you to look at the talk page for Iamsound, where an apparent "unpaid" Wikipedia editor attached themselves to the page since 2016, and became seemingly adamant about their version (which included inaccuracies). Why should this person have so much authority over someone's business representation on Wikipedia?
Why doesn't Wikipedia view the source itself (individual or entity) as a credible source? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks. What I am hearing from you is that you refuse to follow the community guidelines for paid editors, despite being asked a couple times to do so (on your talk page, and above). That is unfortunate as edits like this one, where you spammed the article with over two dozen links to the subject's web site, are, well, the kind of paid promotional junk that we seek to avoid, seeing as you have a declared COI for that one as well. I think we do need more opinions, for example Fences and windows may be able to explain it to you better than I can.--- Possibly (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said that I refused to follow the community guidelines. You pulled an old page I created, which I believe there was some back and forth on that. Is IMEC as an institution not internationally significant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmcpherson (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson, The point is not that we shouldn't have an article on IMEC at all, but that you should not be removing maintenance templates and adding promotional wording ( cutting-edge chip technology ' and so on) to articles. If you can't or won't understand that isn't appropriate, you shouldn't be editing articles at all. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That was a learning process for me, and I believe my tone has improved since then - to the best of my ability Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jacobmcpherson: try indenting with colons next time you reply. Regarding the rest, you do not seem to want to comply with our long-established guidelines. These have been worked out with the input of thousands of editors over many years. You are not special exception to them. Also, I am adding another declared COI article (Pieter Ballon)that you moved directly to article space.--- Possibly (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I comply with a lot, disclosing my paid involvement, reviewing the tone of voice, cross-referencing sources with text that's added Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Jacobmcpherson, You removed a COI tag yesterday. Just moments ago you reverted another editor to return the Neil Krug article to mainspace. That's not what a paid editor should be doing. - MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Jacobmcpherson has been blocked, but some eyes would be good on the articles above.--- Possibly (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've looked through Jacobmcpherson's edits (700 or so of them, going back to 2009), and seen none that are not blatant advertising/promotion, whether or not a paid interest was disclosed. I've blocked the account indefinitely for that reason. If anyone can point me to substantial productive contributions from this editor, or show good cause why the account should not be blocked, please do. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Possibly: Creating and editing articles directly is not prohibited by the paid contributions disclosure requirements.
Justlettersandnumbers: If you are seeking to prevent Jacobmcpherson from editing the mainspace for violations of WP:PROMO, perhaps you could implement a partial block instead? –xenotalk 00:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xeno: it's not, but as you know, the behavioural guidelines WP:COI and WP:PAY strongly discourage it. In this case, a promotional editor moving content directly to mainspace without review is not good.--- Possibly (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
xeno, you are right, that too was a possibility, and one that I did consider. Given the extent to which this person has been gaming/ignoring our guidance for paid editors (including the incomplete paid-editor disclosures on his user talk), I decided that an outright indef was more likely to lead to acknowledgement of, and an undertaking to comply in full with, that guidance – if the user so wishes, of course. I'm prepared to unblock as soon as that is forthcoming, but not otherwise. That said, if you strongly feel that a partial block will equally serve the same purpose, do please go ahead and implement it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I've made that modification following an unblock request (which remains open, the reason not quite applicable anymore). –xenotalk 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • would suggest a broader discussion of music PR usage across Wikipedia, and not just by paid editors tweaking SEO, much of the content found in various "reliable" music webzines - that editors legitimately riddle Wikipedia with - are mostly the result of PR - "exposés", interviews, reviews etc. it's all marketing, not genuine journalism, it's "product" a company is trying to sell, why folk seem to ignore (or be completely unaware of) how the music industry operates is beyond me. Acousmana (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

UDP tag at Accenture

Hello! User:Blablubbs added an {{undisclosed paid}} banner to Accenture in connection with the VentureKit and Yoodaba sockpuppet investigations. Blablubbs asked for a review of edits by blocked members of those farms. I've analyzed the edits by the accounts Blablubbs identified and prepared a recommended solution, which you can read about on the Accenture Talk page, however Blablubbs has said they are too busy to review. I believe the edits by the sock puppets are minor, and the banner could be removed now, or with the removal of a few edits by these socks, if a reviewing editor thinks that's advisable.

Full disclosure: I have been paid by Beutler Ink to suggest improvements to Accenture's Wikipedia article on behalf of Accenture, and have suggested improvements via the Talk page for a while now. Accenture and Beutler Ink have put great effort into following Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules while seeking updates to the Accenture article. If undisclosed paid editing by others' sockpuppetry or suspicious accounts has called into question the integrity of the article, I think it's best to remove those edits. Is anyone available to help review and revert appropriately? My goal here is to actually address and remove the tag, as opposed to just keeping the banner up forever. I'm happy to address any concerns or questions here. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: Thanks for your work on this. I have gone through and concur with your analysis on the talk page. I have hence  Implemented the changes and removed the tag, see here. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

User:KFFOWLER on Keith Fowler and numerous articles that include his name

Update: confirmed as autobiography Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Below are less direct COI. They're articles created by KFFLOWLER and have things about Keith Fowler, or have Keith Fowler in source, inserted by KFFLOWER.

COI User:

User KFFOWLER created, authored 90%+ of contents and they have been curating the page on Keith Fowler for many years. The name similarity strongly suggests the user is the article subject, or possibly a paid editor working on his behalf, because their user profile identify themselves as "Marie Goodman Hunter". Reviewing his article creation history, overwhelming majority of their article creations have one thing or another to do with Keith Fowler. It seems like they're here to elevate the profile of Keith Fowler. The user was warned in 2016, and 2019 over COI but never responded to these concerns, and they continued to directly edit and curate the article on Keith Fowler. Graywalls (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_169&oldid=1014446969"