Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BLP spamming

This email was recently sent to UCSF staff.

Extended content

Hello,

As per latest survey, over 84% of patients search online before selecting a physician and Wikipedia is the most trusted and preferred source of information online. Trusted by millions, Wikipedia has been ranked as 7th most visited website globally.

To increase your popularity online, it is recommended to create a Wikipedia page about yourself or your practice and for a new Wikipedia page to go up, there are certain eligibility criteria. That means not everyone is immediately a good candidate to feature on Wikipedia.

Get in touch with us to find out if you're eligible to feature on Wikipedia with our Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment Service.

A Wikipedia page will also assist you with your overall online reputation management. As it is often the first thing to appear on search engine results, a Wikipedia page will instantly give you and/or your practice more credibility.

Get started today by replying to this email with following details and request your Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment.

Details Required:

First and Last Name: Website URL (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Blog (if any) City or Zip Phone number Achievements to highlight (interviews, press mentions, awards etc, please provide links/URLs) Linkedin Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Facebook Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Business/Practice Name

Please note, since this assessment has confidential information, we prefer communicate only with the doctor or practice owner and not anybody else.

Warm Regards Thanks Lisa J Henson Manager - Business Development

TheWikiExpert.com (646) 712 9858 New York | Singapore | London

Thus we need to keep our eyes out for this sort of stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sent to UCSF staff by someone within UCSF's hierarchy, or just someone spamming UCSF employees? If the former, it's serious; if the latter, it's just another spammer. John Nagle (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the ultimate way to solve this type of problem is just to ban paid editing on BLP article pages, with the usual exception for removing libel and similar. If we let people know that BLP paid editing is just not allowed, it will be much much easier dealing with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Their website doesn't work but if you look at godaddy, their domain is owned by this SEO company. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually google gives a cached version of their website http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.thewikiexpert.com/ and it's clear that they are knowingly violating our rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sukuk

Naveed.sukuk has disclosed that he owns the Islamic Finance and Sukuk Company and its domains, Sukuk.com and IslamicFinance.com. He is an WP:EXPERT on islamic finance. All those things are great and we need more experts in this topic. However, the discussion on their Talk page has gone south with regard to his using his two websites as sources in articles. I've been trying to explain that this is something he should avoid, and he is insisting that there is no problem. Besides WP:SELFCITE the other issue is WP:SPS, but we have not reached that far yet. I told Naveed that I would bring this to COIN for the community to discuss with him whether it is appropriate for him to cite his own website or not. I will leave it for you all to discuss with him, and will step away from this now. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has done a great job in twisting what I have wrote on my talk page, I attempted to take the conversation North, but Jytdog drove in South with false accusations. I have declared my interest in my sites on my Wiki page, and all updates made are factual and beyond dispute, and all editing has reference my real name, which matches my Wiki account (first name). I first updated the Sukuk page in 2008, there is no track record of self promotion or SPAM. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Naveed.sukuk
Naveed the only relevant question here is whether it is OK for you to site your websites or not. That is what this discussion should focus on. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the alternative? Create a fake account with an alias and edit and link to sites which are authoritative? Or create an account using your real name, which is easily traceable to the referenced not for profit sites as someone who is involved in them, put the COI on your Wiki page, and illustrate the first edit was made 7 years ago? Either you do things the right way or the wrong way? The fact is the World Bank and IMF reference IslamicFinance.com and Sukuk.com, the sites are authoritative and respected and all edits made are factual and not self promotional, I mean for the last edit in Sukuk, either Hong Kong issued two Sukuk or not - factually it has issued two, stating this and linking to a source which backs this up is fair play. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The alternative is to follow our policies and help us build a better encyclopedia: Don't use your websites as sources, find better ones instead. Identify authorities and authoritative sources that we can agree upon. Back your statements with sources. If you feel your websites are reliable sources, make a case rather based upon sources rather than assertions. --Ronz (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't facts and I have no doubt it is factually accurate. I also believe that this information is available in multiple places (does sukukturkey.com provide this information, just curious?) I think you can see the problem by imagining your competitors come to Wikipedia and replaced all references to your site with references to their site. The information could be factually identical but we don't want to have sourcing battles here, nor do we want to prefer or favor one commercial site over another especially over facts that are readily available from multiple sources including the issuer such as Turkey. --DHeyward (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward - I agree with you and this is the point. Taking the example of the Turkey update, there is no other source of information for this, there is no free to use Sukuk database apart from Sukuk.com. There are commercial providers who charge $000's for annual subscriptions to restrict access to this data behind paywalls, but no one offers it as a free service apart from Sukuk.com. If more appropriate sources of information can be provided I have no objections. I don't think it is fair to label my updates of COI when the updates are in good faith to a non-commercial project which is the best source, with the first update done 7 years ago. Naveed.sukuk (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Which information about Turkey? This and this both have information about the $1.5 Billion USD issuance. The Turkish government will also have origination documents. Your IMF listing was a reference to a widely available UK parliament bill (available here as well as sukuk site. This was all available just using Google. Now the only site that I would consider more reliable than sukuk.com is the gov.uk site. The other sites seem to be competitors of a sort so they aren't better sources. That's what makes your edit's appear to have COI as I can't distinguish your information from other, similar, aggregator sites. As for non-commercial, I am not sure that has any bearing on COI or even reliability. There are many forms of conflict beyond just profit. Please understand that this is not a criticism of you or your site or the services provided. COI has to do with the relationship between editor and the source. You can certainly put requested edits on the talk page for other editors to view, comment on and implement. --DHeyward (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Regarding Turkey, the first link you provide to cbonds has missing information with regard to coupon rate, maturity date, issue date, the prospectus - access to this is not available (unless a fee paying subscription is taken out) and Sukuk structure information (Ijara) is totally missing. The second link you provide is missing the Sukuk structure, the full name (SPV), the prospectus, arrangers, exchanges, ratings etc...so both examples you provide are not comparable.

2. The Turkish government does have the origination documents somewhere I am sure (can anyone provide the link?), though no link as a source/reference exists with the complete information as available on Sukuk.com, so this also is not comparable.

3. The IMF listing may be a link to a available UK parliament bill, I don't dispute, but the factual point is the IMF author linked to Sukuk.com not the UK Parliament site, perhaps because the Sukuk site provides greater context to the discussion which is about Sukuk.

4. Sukuk.com is not a aggregator site.

5. I restate if better sources exist, then I am OK for them to be used, so far no better sources which provide the complete information free of charge have been provided.

Naveed.sukuk (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a huge mistake for you to continue to work on the assumption that your assertions about your sites are a positive thing. Each time you do it you make a stronger case that you cannot look beyond your own coi. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Ronz - I am moving on from this issue. I have better things to do that defend myself, I am not on trial. I have stated numerous times and find it hard to understand why you are unable to digest my repeated comment: "Find better sources and make the changes", the fact is no one for all their Google searching has found more relevant sources than the ones I have added. It seems people here are simply frustrated with their lives. I have better things to do that discuss the obvious. Expect no more responses from me and I also abandon this account. Feel free to remove/undo/revert any references or links to my sites, I have lost interest and the motivation to deal with you keyboard warriors. Out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveed.sukuk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll proceed to look at removing all use of your websites.
Any reason to believe his websites even begin to meet WP:RS? --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've started a spam report here. --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Parallels, Inc.

The single purpose user @Giorgio.bonuccelli: has a close association with 2X Software, a company which has been acquired by Parallels, Inc.. The user has since transferred their attention to the Parallels article, adding promotional content and recreating content that was previously deleted] as unambiguous promotion under a new name: Parallels Remote Application Server. This user was previously notified here by @FreeRangeFrog: of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Note that Parallels, Inc. also contains copyright violations from here and perhaps elsewhere. Vrac (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Vrac: The page Parallels Remote Application Server is not a promotional article since i used as template the page of the closest competitor Citrix Xenapp. However i noticed the page Xenapp Citrix was changed and redirect as well. I'll remove the page straight away. Thanks for the support— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.7.38 (talk • contribs)
  • I assumed these links were meant to be pings to Vrac. Also, they used IP address, so I added that to the COI list. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The idea that your promotional article is not promotional because it's based on another promotional article (on a substantially more significant subject) is self-evidently false. And don't try to snowstorm us because some of us actually work in the industry: I know exactly how significant your product is compared with XenApp.
Did you seriously think this was appropriate?
2X MDM - formerly known as [[3CX Phone System|3CX]] Mobile Device Manager - was acquired by 2X on 12 June 2014 from 3CX.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.2x.com/2x-software-new-website/ |title= 2X Software New Website with Product Features Enhanced | author= Giorgio Bonuccelli | publisher= 2x.com |date= 2014-06-23|accessdate= 2014-06-23}}</ref>
Citing your own PR written by you on your company website? Seriously? Citing Mike Laverick, is fine. I know Mike. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the latest article to Draft:Parallels Remote Application Server and issued a final warning to Giorgio.bonuccelli. The conflict of interest here is unambiguous and any new material must be submitted for review before it appears in article space. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lyra Health

Please see discussion on article talk page re notability. User has appropriately declared their COI but more input in the discussion would be helpful.--ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved to draft and editor advised per COI guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sofitel Luxury Hotels

Off-wiki evidence suggests this was just hired out by XXXX PR to a banned user for "review" and "monitoring". Article is a mess of promotion and directory of locations. I've listed an SPA who uploaded a logo and did some stuff there, they may be with the contracting PR firm, suspect other redlinked usernames in the article history. — Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to move the page back to Sofitel- the page was moved from there in 2014 with the edit summary "More in line with the company's name and branding"- not a good reason. Also, the reliable sources call it Sofitel. Removed most of the directory as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Sofitel (at least in Singapore) appears to be represented by Ogilvy Public Relations[1], who, as a CREWE signatory[2], have pledged not to do this sort of thing. I've concluded that one of their independent contractors in Singapore, name withheld due to WP privacy policy, is probably behind at least some of this editing and the recent sub-sub contract. What this means I'll leave up for discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Some details, including name of contractor, have been emailed to functionaries team. — Brianhe (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is a question about Ogilvy being able to fix the problem, or indeed if the question is whether Ogilvy is the problem, then you should not hesitate to email or otherwise contact the listed contact. But please do be extremely polite about this. This should be along the line of "do you know anything about this?" or "Is there anything you can do about this?" along with "Just letting you know that the company's name has come up." I'm pretty sure that they will do the right thing. Smallbones(smalltalk)
CREWE is really just a PR gesture, so I doubt that most of the "signatories" even remember that they "signed." Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the Ogilvy signatory of the CREWE statement, and would be happy to try and help address this. I'll ask your forgiveness in advance for any faux pas in the thoughts that follow, as I know I still have a lot to learn about the etiquette of the Wikipedia community. I would like very much to look into this on our end, but it would be useful to have a bit more detail on the "off-wiki evidence" that you mention. Beyond that, I can affirm that we routinely remind our teams around the world that they should not edit. That said, Ogilvy has tens of thousands of employees, so while we do our best, it's difficult to ensure perfect compliance. That's why I'm keen to learn more and see if I can help. Tmmanson (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tmmanson: Thanks very much for your cooperation. There are some constraints on what I can do without violating Wikipedia privacy policies, I'm hopeful that one of the functionaries who has the details will reply. Meantime, I think it's safe to say the off-wiki chain started with an Elance job titled "Experienced Wikipedia Editor/Contributor", posted June 4. — Brianhe (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) @DGG: Can you advise how to go forward with this request for information? Note, the Elance job went to the operator of a well known banned Wikipedia user. — Brianhe (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have had the opportunity to speak with colleagues in Singapore, and I can confirm that Ogilvy is not aware of anyone on our team (or at our direction) making any edits directly to the Sofitel entries. At the time of the suspect edits in June, Sofitel was not an active client, and has not been since January 2015, so we would have no reason to do so. I would like to be able to say concretely that we did not place the Elance ad as well, but I haven't been able to find it to double check the date. (If anyone is comfortable sending me a copy, either here or privately, I would be happy to check.) In any event, my strong suspicion is that we were not behind the ad either, but I cannot be completely definitive without seeing it. Still, to be safe, I have reminded our team in Singapore -- and will do so elsewhere -- about the commitment we have made not edit or countenance editing of Wikipedia that violates the principles of neutral point of view. As we have said in the statement and related communications, we take questions about inappropriate editing very seriously. So if a similar concern about Ogilvy involvement arises in the future, please do tag me in the discussion or send me a Talk message. I will be responsive and do whatever I can to help. Tmmanson (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Account renames during COIN investigation

A couple of times recently, editors with active issues at this board have requested and gotten account renames. This is problematic for obvious reasons during an investigation and, as it casts further doubt on the intentions of the editor involved, isn't good for them either. Would other COIN folks support a request that admins not move accounts while there are active investigations here? For context, I'm talking specifically about the #Sukuk case active right now and this from June, but I'm sure those aren't the only two examples. — Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Further examples from the archives:
My non-exhaustive investigation of the archives shows this is a regular thing and not helpful to COIN investigations. — Brianhe (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Archive 86 (2015): User:Hilumeoka2000 was another one, think there's been quite a few inappropriate usernames changed mid-COIN discussion. But I agree, if their username is not an obvious violation, it should only be changed once the COIN is sorted out. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bottle Rocket Studios

Both these users are the same, BottleRocketStudios softblocked for username. User:BricePraslicka is the "new website and social media manager of Bottle Rocket Studios" [3], but despite the fact I've tried to discuss conflict of interest with them, they've not responded, and are continuing to edit the article. Here they apologised for "blatant disregard of community standards as I attempted to quickly make amendments to the page", but is still blatantly disregarding COI policy, by editing and not interacting with other users. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Justin Matthew

There are multiple issues with this article and at this point I am seeking community input on how to best proceed. There seems to be a conflict of interest at stake, as the subject of the article appears to be editing the article in question for purposes of self-promotion. It is common for the editor to cite one source while adding content which is not corroborated by the sources provided. All 3 of the accounts listed above are similarly named, make promotional edits, and most recently are now editing at the same time, opening up another issue related to sock puppetry and evading community consensus. While some of these issues can be dealt with through the editorial process, I would like to bring this to the attention to WP:COIN for increased visibility. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Yamaguchi先生:, clear COI and meat or sockpuppetry as well. I've reverted Justin Matthew back to a redirect (like it was before), and asked for the redirect to be protected. Note a submission for this was rejected previously at AfC, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Matthew. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Vestmark

I'm a long term editor on wikipedia, mostly contributing images, and doing copyedits. I started work for a company called Vestmark last year, but they don't have a Wikipedia page. Is it an automatic conflict of interest if I started an article on Vestmark? I don't want to get in trouble. There's already a red link to it from Managed account. Faolin42 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Please go through WP:AFC. — Brianhe (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Since there's an automatic conflict of interest, I won't create the article. Faolin42 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Faolin42: You can request an article to be made on them by someone without COI at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be smart to include your relationship with Vestmark on your userpage too, to avoid future problems. — Brianhe (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Surely if their company doesn't have a Wikipedia page, then a COI declaration is unnecessary? Think that was the outcome of a discussion above involving me and COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just thinking über defensively, if Faolin42 wants to be covered for any future accusation of an undeclared COI, a pre-emptive declaration on his userpage would work. He's in an especially vulnerable position, having given his real-world name and place of residence on his userpage, and declaring a COI here. But of course, reviewing his edit history, it doesn't appear to be necessary at this time so I'll leave it up to him to decide what's right for him. — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just about everyone works for somebody. It would be silly if everyone had to declare their employer on their user page because someone thinks they might at some unspecified future time edit an employer's article. Feel free to tell me that the COI policy means everyone must declare their employer, unless they're unemployed, but I warn you that you have an uphill battle, and I'm pretty sure that's not the meaning of the policy. --Unready (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Joseph and Unready on this. Seems silly to disclose all associations. We all have them, obviously. WP:TOS considers stating such associations on the relevant edit summaries if and when any COI is apparent. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that as long as you aren't editing anything Vestmark related in order to add Vestmark specific sources, you shouldn't have to post this on your profile. However I'd keep a link to this thread somewhere in your own personal pages just in case it ever does become an issue, since that way you'd have this to pull back on if it ever does come up via COI/N. On a side note, I can feel your anxiety. I didn't have to worry about COI until recently and now every time I do something regarding my COI, I get somewhat antsy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kip 78

Kip 78 is a obvious shill. Editing is promotional. Subjects are favourites of paid editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought that they had stopped editing which is why I hadn't blocked them before. They're clearly only here to promote so I have indeffed them. The articles likely require cleanup. SmartSE (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that this appears to be Deed89 (talk · contribs)/Adotrde (talk · contribs); a paid editor who was part of organized COI shenanigans a few years back. I've blocked the previous account as well. Kuru (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Troy Fodemski was also created by the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/Archive group of socks. Related to this, THRMRKTG10 (talk · contribs) (The Hollywood Reporter Marketing) also needs keeping an eye on. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Kadar Brock -- review requested

Kadar Brock was created by a user who, it was alleged, had a COI. It was later deleted at AfD, and restored after two rather heated discussions at WP:DRV. The COI was a factor in those discussions. Along the way it was edited by several other editors. The article now looks reasonable to me (I have edited it to add additional content and sources). But a COI cleanup tag is still on the article. I am requesting one or more experienced uninvolved editors to review the article and see if any COI effects remain that would prevent removal of the tag. DES (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3

I guess I'm coming out of hibernation (my wikibreak) early. The case involving this editor was archived a little more than a month ago, after another editor was blocked, and MiamiDolphins3 gave a commitment to clean up some non-NPOV and/or primary sources in Touch Surgery, Ryze Trampoline Parks, Jenner & Block, and Mile2. This was never done. Plus he's back to work on Jack McCauley this month; it was not listed on the noticeboard previously. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Morgan James Publishing and related articles

User:TriJenn has a COI on their userpage saying they "sometimes work on client articles". They've been repeatedly adding unsourced content to Morgan James Publishing, and adding Morgan James Publishing as book publishers on the other articles (despite the fact no other book publishers are listed on them). This strongly suggests that Morgan James Publishing are paying this user to edit/spam, especially as Morgan James Publishing previously paid User:BiH to create the article about them. I've asked them about COI and specific disclosure on their talkpage, but they aren't responding, but continue to edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
They also previously created Randy Gage via WP:AFC, disclosing him as a "previous client" (not an adequate disclosure).Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have copied my response to Joseph2302 from my User Talk page:
First, Morgan James Publishing is a past client. I am not currently receiving compensation from them, nor do I expect to do so for this editing work. Frankly, I can not figure out how to add this information to my USER PAGE. I would appreciate instructions to help me do that. I assume this is the place to do that. If not, please let me know. (Yes, I see that I made edits to this page before. However, I truly can not figure out how to do it.)
I noticed that their page was marked as AfD and I wanted to help by linking to notable authors. I believe it is good policy to add sources to author pages such as books they have written, who the publisher was, and ISBN numbers. This is what I was doing. I hardly think this is spam.
Further, isn’t adding notable, credible information what is supposed to be done when an article is marked as AfD? If I know that information, shouldn’t I share it?
As to your point that my information was unsourced, the very definition of sourcing - based on the article you referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - is to cite the publisher.
Definition of a source[edit]
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
As for “not responding” to you, with all due respect, I responded quickly as soon as I saw your notice. It takes a few minutes to generate a thoughtful, researched response to concerns such as yours.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriJenn (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Copied my response:

With respect, the issue is that you aren't adding sourced content, you're adding completely unsourced content, as it's not being accompanied by reliable sources- saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Also, you weren't responding to me and were continuing to edit hence my complaint. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@TriJenn: You can edit your userpage by going through this link: Special:Mypage. — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Thanks very much. I will take care of that.TriJenn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I also wanted to let you know that I had written out my detailed response, thought I saved it, and only later did I see that it was not saved at all. So, I had to completely rewrite it. It all took some time. TriJenn (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Your link took me to my User page. I have no trouble finding the page. I just can't figure out how to edit it. I see no "edit" option, like on other pages. I have done extensive searches inside and outside of Wikipedia. I feel pretty stupid as I am sure this is quite simple. However, I can't figure it out. TriJenn (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The edit button is in the same place as anywhere else on Wikipedia. Also, you still need to stop ignoring the bit where I said "due to your COI, you are discouraged from directly editing these articles, use the article talkpage instead". Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(←) @TriJenn: It looks like you found the link to your userpage. However, I think you forgot some folks on your COI declaration. [4] — Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Studios 301

Sharkywoo has been creating a bunch of new promotional articles for people from Studios 301. Working directly with them User talk:Sharkywoo#Image ownership. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted most of the puffery from Studio 301. They'd repeated some things three times. Also removed their employee list. Added a reliable source. John Nagle (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

KartRocket deletion review

Just thought I'd mention that KartRocket which was deleted as a result of action here, is currently up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13. Brianhe (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion regarding username changes

There is a discussion at here that some of the regulars here might be interested in. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that basically went nowhere, and the individual you mentioned basically refused to disclose on his new (sort of) userpage. What now? — Brianhe (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Nothing, I guess. Apparently the community doesn't think it's a problem, which makes me despair a bit honestly. It means you can get away from COI by simply requesting a username change, awesome! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The only solution I see that preserves integrity of the COI investigation and resolution process is to aggressively and comprehensively update the registry of conflicted editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry. It has been nearly dormant since May. — Brianhe (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Thibodeau

I follow the Michael Thibodeau article and a user has attempted to add biographical information about him, which is fine to do, but the user seems to have a COI. An IP user edited the page claiming to be Jim Cyr, Thibodeau's communications director. After being reverted as adding unsourced information, the person edited the page having registered Jimcyr as their username. They have not yet replied to posts on their talk page about their edits, which again, aren't necessarily bad, but they are unsourced which is the primary reason I have reverted the changes. On their last edit they attempted to cite themselves as a source. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Today they added a very promotional edit about him(about his 'guiding principle'); they did cite some sort of web page but it wasn't clear what exactly they were citing in the page. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they are continuing to ignore advice, adding promotional content sourced only to Michael Thbodeau's official webpage. They show no signs of collaborating or discussing with other users, seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The user did contact me today; I directed them to their userpage to hopefully see the posts that have been put there already. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Just in case it wasn't clear before, they stated on my talk page here that they work for Senator Thibodeau. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks OK now. Puffery deleted, basic political history remains. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

PNIStaff

Well gee, now that their edits have hit the Register's news, somebody want to contact PNIstaff (talk · contribs) about their COI re: PNI Digital Media ? Shenme (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

At least one corporate IP involved as well. Brianhe (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The company page had very promotional wording. I added an advert tag to PNI Digital Media and did a first pass WP:NPOV cleanup. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is someone bothering to promote them? They were acquired a year ago and no longer exist as a separate company. John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If you feel the company is not notable according to WP:CORP, then you should send the article to WP:AFD. I do note that without all the current press about the data breach, the company might not reach the notability threshold. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Dag Creative Media and others

User:Raju Kapuria has made no declarations but apparently is creating paid stuff. The way corp articles come into being complete with infobox company and such is reminiscent of farms we've seen here before. — Brianhe (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a sock of Rohit Kapuria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.0.5.226 (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Blur Group

Please see this recent advert: Content writer needed to create 2 Wikipedia articles

I thought it might be useful to raise it here for consideration so that we can give Blur Group a clear idea of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Leutha (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Coolguy365

Something very odd here involving a vanished user. I'm not sure if that's a violation in and of itself, but the occurrence of articles that have already been subject to COIN scrutiny is not encouraging. Note that Vanished user... started editing a few minutes after the IP from a now blocked webhost. Sandbox hijinks going on with Coolguy365. I kind of stopped pulling on the thread after some well-known articles started appearing, so this list is nowhere near comprehensive.

Worth mentioning, User:Arr4 made an odd an unexplained edit here, blanking Tiburon Incorporated; at the time it was Coolguy's sandbox. Possible retaliation for blanking here on another fishy corp article created by Arr4. Arr4 is also mentioned in another active investigation at this noticeboard, to which he/she has not responded, though was actively editing less than 24 hours before was notified. Arr4 was also active on Fleetmatics around the same time as Coolguy, and there appears to be coordinated editing on Be Green Packaging.

There was mutual sandbox editing on something called Culinaire International here.

Vijay Shekhar Sharma (Entrepreneur) is a sneaky recreation of Vijay Shekhar Sharma. One of the IPs appears to be aware of its existence as shown by this edit to his alma mater. I have added User:FreerangingAnik the creator of the new version to this case, but the old version was pretty dirty with COI edits as well created via undisclosed paid editing. — Brianhe (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Turns out that Vanished user was created as a deceptive name, he wasn't vanished at all. Details here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vanished user 6251. Thought this might be relevant to this discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, I was busy in our Eid-ul-Fitr celebration. Coolguy365 is undoubtedly a paid editor. That blanking by me was only retaliation/biting when I discovered that cool guy is a paid editor. I had bitten many other paid editors in this way to avoid my being caught by COIN. - Arr4 (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arr4: Is there evidence you'd like to share with us? — Brianhe (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Black House Media

Nigerian public relations company, its CEO and a possibly related newspaper and its owner. Making inquiries to editors. Brianhe (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Added Nigerian Entertainment Today owned by BHM group, some of the same involved editors. Brianhe (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just placed afds for Ayeni and NOGIntelligence. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@DGG: I think you meant you nominated Remi Aiyela and NOGIntelligence. @Tchaliburton: You nominated Remi Aiyela for speedy deletion, care to comment? — Brianhe (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Ayeni is notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MallExpert


The user has a confessed COI on their user page related to their "representing" the Westfield Corporation, a major owner of shopping malls, and was advised about it some years ago. However, their entire spate of recent edits (including to the above article and many other Westfield properties) has inserted clearly promotional language, peacock terms and other clear POV issues, directly against the guidelines they were advised about years ago. I do not believe the user can be trusted at this point. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This was just an honest mistake on my part. I'm new to the site, having taken over the account from a previous person. I will be sure not to make this mistake in the future. Please do not change my account status. MallExpert (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Accounts are personal and cannot be shared or transferred to another person. Please read the username policy. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Accounts must not be used by multiple users- as a result, this account should be blocked, and you should create a new account. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Accordingly, I have blocked this as a shared/role account. Kuru (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. I have listed the articles and tagged them all for COI and their talk pages too. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Quite a lot of them just aren't notable, so I've redirected them to Westfield Group. If/when an unconflicted editor wants to write about them, and can show their notability, I'm fine for them to be recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
added main page and Westfield editor who edited there, just to round this out. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm done trying to clean these up, every time I touch one of them to remove promotional content or just a redirect/PROD of non-notable spam, @Jojhutton: reverts it. I guess we should just let the spammers spam instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

added two more historical COI editors. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Three things. First, Jytdog, please identify the other two accounts you are referring to above. Secondly, slow down. These articles have existed for years, another few days is not going to destroy Wikipedia. Finally, remember that your own personal point of view of what is and is not notable is not the deciding factor here, and that shopping malls have generally been considered to meet the GNG. (Oddly, I probably agree with you that most of them aren't notable, but our shared view of notability is quite a bit narrower than that generally held to be the case at AfD.) Risker (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    I believe the users in the same diff, Westfield North County (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jeffin60613 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are the two intended. I corrected a typo in the Jeffin60613 reference. --Unready (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Per the case at Arbcom I am not working on COI stuff for a bit. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Should some or all of these be merged into Westfield Corporation, the parent company? See WP:CHAIN. Branches of chain stores are not usually considered notable. Macy's Herald Square has its own article, but that is one of the most famous department stores in the world. Westfield's malls are generally big, but not that individually notable. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Normal practice in AfD discussions has been the malls of under 1 million square feet are not usually notable, and I think that at least very few articles for less than 500,000 sq ft have been accepted at afd. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Rice (choreographer)

music
dance
other publicity-seeking topics

User:Lyricsexpress describes self on userpage as "Writer and assistant to other writers and celebrities who require rewrites, interviews and more".

Off-wiki evidence strongly indicates User:Lyricsexpress has a conflict (beyond his declaration on his userpage) about musician-related subjects. On-wiki evidence such as the edit summary on the creation of Marion Rice and uploads of probable family pictures shows User:Riceflan is writing COI about dancer-related subjects. Crossover between the two editors on Eleanor Norcross on 22 September 2010‎ exists for unknown reasons. Brianhe (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Marion Rice at least is not just notable but famous. Some or all of the others are also notable. There may be a coi, but to me the articles do not seem promotional. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
My comments here were strictly to the COI aspect of the articles and the editors. — Brianhe (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Declared COI at Skyy Vodka

SPA with declared COI: "I work with an agency on behalf of Campari America and want to point out the below facts that are not fully represented on the page as it. Appreciate if an unbiased editor can implement these changes." Ref: Talk:SKYY_vodka#Updates_to_bottling_information.2C_sourcing.2C_awards_.26_current_bottle_shot. They're being careful and haven't done anything bad yet. They just want to put PR-type product info in the article. Please watch. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned out some promotional wordings/content in the article, and added the {{request edit}} template so the users request will show up in Category:Requested edits. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Gerald Lorge‎

There have been repeated attempts by Runningfox34 and IPs over the course of the past week to add unsourced information to this article about a would-be politician. They have ignored warnings to cease and desist (User talk:Runningfox34, User talk:71.86.217.244). Today the subject of the article made this edit. The changes are mostly unsourced or sourced to the subject's self-published campaign pages. The subject also removed information about an election loss. Given the persistent disruptive editing, I'm requesting some help in dealing with this. 32.218.32.146 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

He has also started whitewashing information in his father's article, removing information supported by reliable sources. 32.218.32.146 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 32.218.32.146, it has been frustrating removing uncited materials in the articles only to be put back in. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The subject article was deleted following an AfD and the user was blocked for making legal threats. This may bubble up again in some other form but for now there's nothing left to it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Public utility district

A lengthy and badly POV edit to the article [5] was made by a self-declared PUD commissioner and stands since 2012. I'd like to recuse myself from editing this one. Brianhe (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a copy edit tomorrow morning. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandar olic and Active Collab

Aleksandar olic is an employee of the company that sells Active Collab, wrote our article on it, and has been steadily adding wikiliks to it on other pages. No response to the warning I put on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to stay as neutral as possible. Would be glad to see someone more experienced edit the Active Collab article. I disclosed that I work there, so it should be edited by someone who doesn't have an affiliation. Any help appreciated. I added "Request edit" but it got removed. --Aleksandar Olic (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aleksandar. I removed the Request edit template from the article, because it should be only on the talk page. Please feel free to post to Talk:Active Collab with edit requests. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
...aaand he went right back to editing the page where he has a COI,[6] less than an hour after saying "it should be edited by someone who doesn't have an affiliation." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Next Internet Millionaire

I'm shocked, shocked I say, that books about promoting yourself on the Internet are attracting COI from several SPAs. I've nominated The Next Internet Millionaire for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Still at AfD. If it stays, it will need trimming. John Nagle (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that a consensus had not formed, and the AfD was relisted. Here's your chance to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire, if you haven't yet. — Brianhe (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Busquets

Women's fashion is too far outside my expertise to make a good judgement on this, but this person does appear notable, with at least one full NYT story about her. However the article looks heavily non-NPOV and has been maintained by one or more questionable anon editors, and one declared COI editor [no wrongdoing on their part as far as I can tell, just mentioning for completeness]. Also I haven't fully developed this, but I think advert on eLance to create a profile of a new enterprise and its CEO may be related to Busquets. Could some other folks have a look? Brianhe (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Woodland Meadows

The article was a direct result of this elance listing. Same client posted this thing about a book they are writing on Woodland Meadows. Same elance contractor features David Carter (entrepreneur) in his portfolio; almost certain socking going on here ... see prior investigations here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog/Archive. — Brianhe (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Posted to SPI as a recurrence of User:LogAntiLog. Brianhe (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

COIN team please note that since User:LogAntiLog/User:OWAIS NAEEM and his known socks were blocked on 8 May, the Elance account has taken 7 or 8 more jobs. Every single one of his jobs before or after 8 May either are explicitly Wikipedia edits, or are "private" and probable Wikipedia edits. So there's some buried stuff here still to be found. — Brianhe (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ken Sunshine staff

Given the controversy, we should give all the affected users' work a once over

These users have also declared employment by Ken Sunshine's Sunshine Sachs :

  1. User:Blue56349
  2. User:Orangegrad
  3. User:Stapler8

Blue56349 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Stapler8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A sub-issue:

None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..." From the FAQ: If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client. I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like this have been insufficient. Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at WP:COI --Elvey(t•c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Boniafashion

User:Boniafashion is a WP:SPA, making edits exclusively on Bonia (fashion), unexplained except for one terse edit summary. Clearly seems COI based on WP:DUCK and the promotional tone of the edits, and has not responsed to talk page messages. Instead, there was a recent reintroduction of a promtional timeline [7]. Dl2000 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. Reviewed it; been prodded by Joseph2302 seconded by Brianhe. On my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Kirk B. Jensen

Draft was created by a SPA, rejected, then article created by another SPA, then edited by the first one. The draft is still there and needs to be histmerged. Brianhe (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Don Nicholas (publisher)

Bio of an Internet marketing type, orphan article, created by SPA and rescued from PROD by same. The earliest revision gives you an idea of how badly conflicted this editor is. The text has been whittled away to NPOV, leaving a blurb that basically establishes he's alive and owns an Internet marketing gig called Mequoda Group. They used to issue press releases like Top 100 Media Blogs and were mentioned once two years ago in Adweek [8]. Does somebody want to AfD this? Brianhe (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

At AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comm100

editors

It has come to my attention through off-wiki investigation of a COI issue that Comm100 employs one or more people with the title "SEO Engineer" and they are active here. Brianhe (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Justin Lafazan

Scott Duffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greg S Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Additional

MMSS4S has written nothing but promotion.
Justin Lafazan started Millennial Marketing Strategy and Students4Students College Advisory. MMS and S4S. When put together that makes MMSS4S.
Much of the text of Justin Lafazan comes from the subjects own website. The image used [9] comes from Lafazans website and MMSS4S says xe is the copyright holder.
Randy Sutton and Scott duffy are both fully formed advert obviously created by a shill.
Pics of Scott Duffy and Greg S. Reid [10] are promo shots with copyright owned by MMSS4S. Both subjects have had previous spam on here from socking shills. The Reid photo comes from the same shoot as a photo on Reid's facebook page. The Duffy photo appears on his copyrighted website and comes from the same shoot as one that may have been on the previous article which was created by a sock of User:Sibtain 007, this photo[11].
Lafazan, Sutton and Reid are all connect through The Umbrella Syndicate. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Justin Lafazan advertises a Wikipedia Package for $1000!!! [12]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The "Zachary Barden Bio Draft" inexplicably contains material from the deleted article on Justin Lafazan. @Duffbeerforme: It's obvious that MMSS4S has violated the TOU, and the link you found on his website is enough for me. However, I'm not seeing the relationship with Sibtain 007 that could justify the G5 placed on Randy Sutton. The CU on the SPI is inconclusive, what behavioral evidence is there? The photograph? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If this part of his bio is true then he might become notable for an age discrimination lawsuit: "Over 30 employees and contractors support the growth of MMS - with the oldest employee age 22." Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeez. Reporting the trademark violation to WMF. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
MMSS4S is a confirmed sock/master as of less than 24 hours ago. Their edit history is suggestive of something going on at other articles like Frank Shankwitz and that leads me to Robert Angel via one intermediate editor. I'm going to take a break from COIN for a bit, so another ed. can have at it, if you're interested. — Brianhe (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards

users

There is strong off-wiki evidence that Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards was created by a for-pay Wikipedia editing service. Since then various conflicted editors have been maintaining it. Starting report now, will fill in details later today.

[Later today] Note that Sclarke was developing this page in near-entirety well prior to the creation of the current article, which was posted by meat- or sockpuppet Ikey1206. Did they use Wikipedia sandbox here to sneakily transfer it to the other editor?

Getting into outing territory, but there are notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces (2nd nomination). Finplanwiki is a contributor to CFP and Michael Kitces. Also the only one of these accounts that appears to be editing in 2015.

Added American Academy of Financial Management for involvement of Wealthadvise there. @Rschen7754: for possible legal ramifications per your edit at Doctorlaw SPI

Finplanwiki seems to have self-identified as Marv Tuttle. This leads to Financial Planning Association and another SPA there, PlanningProf .

Fpresearch ←→ Dave Yeske, FPA president or something. I hope this is not an autobiography but ... this upload of Dave Yeske's portrait is suggestive that he is the same. Brianhe (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I am not Marv Tuttle. Just wrote his bio, and several other leaders in our planning industry too. I try to update pages relevant to CFP planners. I don't know anything about how the CFP Board wiki entry was created in the first place. Maybe it was for pay. I just update it by trying to be an active member of this Wiki community, who happens to be a CFP. So yeah, I am a CFP, that's why I care about CFP Board and the other people I wrote up, but no more special than any of the other 72,000 of us CFPs... and as a CFP, yeah I'm also a member of our membership association FPA. I just post anonymous because our industry has crappy old regulations and my complaince department gives me crap about anything with social media. Not because I work for CFP Board or FPA (no thanks!!). Can't even have a damn Facebook page where I work! Finplanwiki (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Refactored your reply with an indent (":" character) for readability. Sorry for the suspicion, but as you can see on this page, we have a major problem on Wikipedia with conflicted and undeclared editors contributing here. Would you mind adding something declaring your connection to the FP industry to your userpage? — Brianhe (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, still learning all this Wikipedia formatting stuff. I added some info to my User page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Finplanwiki. Does that cover what you were looking for? As for the CFP Board page... yeah, can't speak to how it got created in the first place. I'm just trying to keep the important info up to date as CFP Board changes their rules. Finplanwiki (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Legal told me nothing at the time beyond a confirmation of getting my email, but you may want to ping User:Philippe (WMF) about this. --Rschen7754 04:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Digging through my archives - I would guess that this is unrelated to that email. Rschen, if you think I'm wrong, could you send me reasoning by email? I may be forgetting something, and I'm sure your memory is better than mine. :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

NeuLion

On the NeuLion article:

All of these accounts have only edited on the NeuLion article. Davealloway2001, JaredK511, and Wweiss look like names of employees of NeuLion (I can provide internet pages that show this). —George8211 / T 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

EBY3221

CEOs and the like
maybes
to-do list
AfC approvals "SPA" notes whether the creator is/was an SPA

If there is doubt, then there is NO doubt. I have no doubt this is undisclosed, paid editing. Top three entries -- CEOs, credit loan companies should be convincing enough. Brianhe (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

information Administrator note User has rollback, pending changes rights as of now. — Brianhe (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that they've been creating all these articles as drafts (which is the correct thing for COI/paid editors to do), but then accepting them all themselves, so on the article talkpages it says "accepted via AfC"- this seems pretty odd and dodgy to me, never seen it before. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
And posting the "article accepted" notices to his own userpage [13]. Beyond dodgy. Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually if you use the AFCH script to accept articles, it automatically sends a notification to the submitter. But I cannot see a legitimate user doing that, most editors with 7 years experience would just create articles rather than using a draft process. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE: I have commented out the following. {{cot|Lengthy denial by EBY3221}} -Elvey

"If there is doubt, then there is NO doubt"? Wow. Because there's a pattern? But nothing ACTUALLY WP:Puff?!
I'm sitting gobsmacked. How do I respond? I've been on Wikipedia for 8 years. I've donated thousands of hours of my life. NOT PAID. Teahouse, articles for creation, 3O. Logged in, not logged in. I spent two weeks trying to fix that Maryknoll article a few years ago.
This list of articles (all the ones I've written in the last 2 years?) are great!! I wrote them with neutrality and a mature understanding of Wikipedia policies. Show me where I didn't.
Take away the charity articles because I do hunt for charities to write pages for - I gave up fighting the Sun Yun Moon battle a few years ago and decided the best way to fight his horde of followers was to fill Wikipedia with other charities. Take away the topical stuff (Roskopf was on the cover of the newspaper magazine a few weeks ago, Hatmaker's blog is viral). You can quickly figure out my IRL. Yes, mention that Wikipedia is your hobby once and it's all over. I've been in my boss' office and had him run in a person and say I'm a Wikipedia editor like I'm royalty. People immediately ask if they are notable enough for an article. If they are, they want one. We all know this. I always warn them, "You may hate it and once it is up, it won't come down. I only write what conforms to WP:BLP and you don't get a say." My boss has NEVER pressured me to write them, always says I have to follow the rules, and the closest he's come to paying me for Wikipedia articles is a signed copy of a book after the fact.
I just spent an hour editing Ken Sunshine because it was obviously written by a PR rep and was completely peacock. You asking if I have a COI with some of these? Yes - some of these people I've met, some of these people I admire. But I have written every article with a Chinese Wall and always adhered to the same pillars that I teach other new editors. BECAUSE I AM ABOUT THE ETHICS. Go back through my editing history, though much of it isn't signed in the rest tells you who I am.
I am going to say this, Brianhe, directly to you although it bends Wikipedia's policy against personal attack. Listing articles as though CEO's or credit companies or marketing companies naturally shouldn't be in Wikipedia so of course they MUST be PR? This is one of the underrepresented sectors here and one that suffers prejudice (ahem). I will go make a COI statement on my page to the extent of the people I have met who I have written about. I probably should have done that but I am not sure when - frankly, and I was thinking about this with the Ken Sunshine thing, where COI starts is an issue for most of us at Wikipedia. We write about our interests and often they intersect with our real lives. Sunshine's people are paid PR people who sit in cubbies and try to bend Wikipedia to their client's will. But the rest of us do not have that clarity. Once I am done being outraged, this is somewhere I should probably volunteer. Wikipedia deserves SO much better than a page like this. If we want the encyclopedia to keep growing with good articles - we need a way to acknowledge that all of us write what we know, who we know, write what we love, and get more from it beyond the altruistic. Gratitude and acknowledgement to a copy of a book in thanks afterwards. This is not BAD - encouragement in many forms is what keeps all of us here. It may not cut down on the 1000 deletions/day but it may boost the volume of good articles.EBY (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I just saw a comment about how I write articles. Seriously? That IS a personal attack. I had the draft page as a bookmark and I like the draft page because it allows me to make all my mistakes without being live and it doesn't force me to do the coding and moving, which I suck at (see all the dangling archives and drafts I've left over the years). I can't be the only one who likes using this system? I used to wait for someone else to approve my articles for publication but as a one of the actual approvers, I realized a while back that I was adding to that backlog and could just publish it and then wait for it to be patrolled - which is a similar process. I did try to write an article live recently and screwed it up by putting an erroneous "S" in the name.
  • This morning, I am looking again at this list and shaking my head at all of you. You made erroneous allegations and assumptions and have no narrative at all stating how these articles are PR. Mike Mohr is not an executive - there's award named after him at MIT, he was a teacher who died (I am not associated with MIT) but I was never sure he met notability. Likewise Howard Sweeney, a doctor who is the former father in law of someone I knew in college. My child really loves Gulla Gulla island. (A MAYBE, REALLY?) John Rennie is an architect I got interested in doing an article on an Australian landmark. David Savage is an artist, he wrote this gorgeous book that was on my friend's coffee table. Jen Hatmaker is a Christian motivational speaker who has a viral blog I've read. Brad Walker wrote a book that physical therapists like to give patients. Benita Refson started a charity that the Duchess of Cambridge made famous. I am so deeply disappointed in this process - why me? Who ARE you people? How did you decide that the pantheon of my interests somehow is questionable? There's nothing in these articles. There's nothing in my behavior. In fact, 80% of my article touches remove puff - and I do it ALL by hand with 20 tabs of refs open. How many tags have I left because of questionable refs and tone? I've been a champion for neutrality. GO LOOK. I happen to work in an industry that brings notable people to my attention who don't have articles. SO I WRITE THEM. Like the guy who wrote most of the Hawaiian ukelele articles. 90% of these people don't know who I am but I am willing to bet all the ukelele players knew that other guy. No one here has made a single example of how my articles are bad, just because I wrote some about these entrepreneurs who wrote books you've put me on a witch hunt. Look, I get the problem of paid PR people damaging articles with slant and puff but what are the rules you live by as you fight that? Doesn't there actually have to be PUFF and SLANT and someone who damages articles?
There has to be a better way than saying "I don't like the pattern of the articles you write, therefore I suspect you and everything you've done." That's just not Wikipedia.EBY (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Short reply because I don't want to come across as emotional about this, but you have expressed conditions under which you definitely have a conflict. You're writing about people you know professionally. Your boss lauds you for it. You said (I think) that you receive gifts in return. Your editing history is singularly focused on attention-seeking people, whose own careers benefit from the attention you provide them. It looked indistinguishable from paid COI to me (see User:Brianhe/COIbox2 for a clearly parallel case) and we investigate this sort of stuff day after day, as is appropriate. One additional thing: I write sometimes about authors who probably benefit from attention, and I write sometimes about rocks that don't care if they get attention (my history is also transparently documented at my userpage). But if all I wrote about was attention-seeking people, and never about rocks, it wouldn't be surprising to me if some other editor confronted me about it and at least asked the question "why"? I'll be on wikibreak starting tonight, so others here can comment on their perspective on this and continue the conversation if need be. — Brianhe (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this in great detail yet, but from the few articles I have looked at I agree with Brianhe that there are reasons to be concerned. Take for example these diffs of my removals of content EBY3221 added: [14] [15] [16]. The sourcing of the content was extremely poor, completely failing WP:V and was also promotional. I've also noticed unsourced BLP content e.g. [17] which also makes me concerned as it raises the question of where the information came from. It's also odd that this image was uploaded only 3 days after it was uploaded to Flickr as it suggests that EBY3221 was in contact with the subject. @EBY3221: can you please explain these edits? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, see these uploads by another user claiming authorship, the same day that EBY3221 started to write David Savage (artist). And again with File:JohnBowenCEG.jpeg [18]. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm only finding more problems. See this series of my edits starting to clean up David Savage (artist). Huge chunks of text were referenced to sources which didn't even mention him! If this is typical there is a lot of clean up to do. SmartSE (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This is self-evident promotional abuse, I have blocked the account for now. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @JzG: Thanks. Given the lack of communication and the amount of fake referencing I've found so far there didn't seem to be any other option. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: @Joseph2302: Yeah, thanks. @EBY3221:: Edits that introduce undisclosed paid advocacy, are illegal in the USA. Keeping the content you contributed, given how obvious it is that it's largely the result of UPAE would be aiding and abetting. So unless you can identify, article by article, what is paid and what isn't, we will need to err on the side of caution and delete most of it. Jimbo himself has said that "FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant" to showing that "PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) is flat out illegal." --Elvey(t•c) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the rollbacker and reviewer rights userboxes be removed from the userpage? Brianhe (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disclosures need work

None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..." From the FAQ: If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client. I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like this have been insufficient. Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at WP:COI --Elvey(t•c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not speaking out of turn since my involvement has been relatively short but seems to me a revamping of the whole process here is overdue. I think the answer is probably an interactive process, such as employed by Jytdog in this instance. Not sure a single template can accomplish that. Also, these three users have just disappeared since June 19 when the COI was uncovered, so what is the solution for that? My suggestion is a policy manual by which users who have gone silent can automatically be blocked. Probably included should be revocation of special rights (rollback/reviewer etc.) at some time prior to that, and revocation of account renaming privilege as soon as an investigation starts. — Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Both the COI template {{uw-coi}} and Jytdog note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. I'm feeling a shorter template that focuses on this, like {{uw-coi-incomplete}} would be helpful. (I can't say that interactive process stands out as a great example in my view. It's OK, but Jytdog chose to cherry-pick the CoI concerns he sought to address based on his strongly non-NPOV attitude - he tabled any discussion of the CoI of Dr. Lisanby. Intimidation like this is not exemplary either.) I second your policy manual proposal!--Elvey(t•c) 01:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Note for future self -- procedures manual should include how and when to a) remove permissions userboxes and b) to courtesy blank userpage. — Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Flame37fighter

User has declared he is an employee of the Charlotte Fire Department which the article is about in this edit. Appears to be attempting to use the article to promote the department and is removing material that reflects poorly. Should be noted this is the only page the user has edited. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Chungsen Leung

Campaign manager for Canadian politician repeatedly removing a paragraph describing an incident said politician's career ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). Did not respond to my message on his talk page concerning reverts ([26]), and proceeded to re-revert anyway. Also removed several previous warnings and questions about the same behavior on his talk page: [27]. Richard Yetalk 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ajbutler proceeded to re-revert again -- without discussion -- despite COI notice on his talk page: [28]. Richard Yetalk 22:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Another revert ([29]). Deleted notifications and comments on user talk page ([30]). Clearly, user is not interested in discussion -- can admin intervene? Thanks. Richard Yetalk 03:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Reported to WP:AN3. Richard Yetalk 03:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

G2003

declared COI
undeclared COI articles (chronological order)
botched(?) COI
drafts to watch
user

G2003 hasn't come clean as a paid editor per agreement at ANI (see archive 859). Background: has been active for years now. Notified of COI in early 2013 and denied in mid 2014 then admitted in late 2014 with a promise to stop. Never explicitly enumerated paid connection(s). My investigation of articles edited shows big discrepancy between declared COI and the remainder. Brianhe (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear that they are a paid editor, and yet they've failed to actually disclose it properly, and are continuing to do it despite claiming to have stopped. Saying "I've been paid to maintain this article" is insufficient, the Terms of Use specifically require that the client who paid them is disclosed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To be completely clear, his October 2014 promise was to stop paid advertising. Not sure what that's even supposed to mean in terms of our COI policy; is it paid advocacy? Is a list of product "key features" advertising? — Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
They have not done much editing lately. This is a concern though [31]. Maybe a block until issues can be clarified would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block proposed by @Doc James:. Tagged Jessica Huie, MBA Polymers, Jay Mo, Yank Barry, Landbay, Henry Herbert Tailors, DAMAC Properties, Charlotte Fantelli, Shane Zaza with COI notices. The others seem to have had a reasonable amount of non-COI input from other editors, else were already tagged. — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Added some COI-ful userspace drafts to watch in case of future shenanigans. — Brianhe (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block, at least until they're willing to disclose properly, and IMO should be longer than that. Undisclosed paid editing is not acceptable, and undisclosed paid editing after apparently claiming that you'd stop it is even worse. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Tagging Yank Barry on the article page flags a moot issue. It's been almost a year since G2003 edited that article, and that dispute, which went all the way to litigation, has since been resolved. I'd suggest taking the COI notices off articles where the edit wasn't recent and has since been undone. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Undid Yank Barry COI notice, thanks for seeing that. What else do you suggest? — Brianhe (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Also useful to note that there are numerous article that G2003 created that were subsequently deleted for failing a range of guidelines and policies (admins can take a look at their long list of deleted contributions). One deleted article was a hoax, although it does appear that G2003 himself was hoaxed (the subject also managed to get similar stuff onto Fox News Asia's site) rather than him having any malicious intent – however it does show the perils of such an approach. Number 57 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Did we get anywhere with sorting this out? Doesn't look like we did. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it to me either. Support block, obviously. — Brianhe (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. MER-C 05:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Everymedia.in

Cooperation of editors above suggests a commercial connection. One editor's name probably refers to everymedia.in, a marketing company. The other has asked me personally how to write about PrimeFocus Technologies, a perennial COI magnet. A quick perusal of contribs points to extensive COI editing related to Indian cinema. Brianhe (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of burned out now but if somebody wants to pick at the scab, EveryMedia Technologies#Clientele would be a good starting point. Prime Focus is there for starters. — Brianhe (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Kabir Vaghela also has a COI with respect to Dinesh Vaghela which came out at that articles AfD so he is very well aware of out COI policies. If he is doing more COI editing it indicates to me that he does not take on board community input. JbhTalk 18:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Final note from me, Ferriswheel by User:AayushyaBajpai was apparently recreated by same ed as Ferriswheel Entertainment. Not the action of a GF editor. — Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As of today, Nikitanayak everymedia is actively editing Hyundai Creta. Hyundai is listed as an Everymedia client at EveryMedia Technologies#Clientele. — Brianhe (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

BankBazaar

User claims that he created BankBazaar as some kind of "dummy edit" but he's clearly been nurturing it over a period of time, as well as these other things he's created. There are other active editors with names suggesting a relationship to BankBazaar itself. Also I can't help but think that this is some kind of retaliatory thing. Just as a point of interest, this accidentally logged-out edit was from a Bangalore ISP. Brianhe (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at BankBazaar, they seem to just pass WP:CORP for notability. They've been written up in the Times of India, the Economic Times, and TechCrunch, mostly because Amazon bought a 5% stake in them. The promotional material in the article needs to be toned down, but most of the hype was already taken out by Brianhe in this edit.[32].
Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test is a notable subject, but the article has a lot of uncited information. Watch for attempts to promote coaching companies.
Eamcet mock counselling probably should be merged into the Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test article. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Eamcet mock counselling is an advert masquerading as an article and I have tagged it for speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Bankbazaar would be notable (and I think I should be able to find some refs for that in the next couple of days) as they have tie ups with ICICI and HDFC banks for credit card application processing etc as well as their own funding sources. Just on a general principle, these coaching classes and all "add on services" shouldn't be merged to the main articles as they are nothing more than spam magnets (just look at the history of our articles on the Permanent Account Number, Staff Selection Commission etc for some background), and these are the typical companies that use SEOs etc. —SpacemanSpiff 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The coaching company article was speedily deleted, which was probably justified. BankBazaar is close to the threshold on notability; it's at AfD and could go either way. Wait out the AfD; if it stays, we can trim more hype. John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse: or other admin: Given the obvious COI nature of his contribs, and bald faced dishonesty in answering questions about it, could we get Nash2925 blocked now? — Brianhe (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Raymond James Financial

It's hard to find a contributor to this article who is not a redlink SPA or drive-by IP. I will follow up in the next 24 hours with developments. Just listing here now if somebody wants to have a look. Edited further to add following This looks like a good candidate for WP:TNT, does anybody else agree with me? — Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Added contributor OnceaMetro per April 2015 Signpost report (Sony PR scandal). — Brianhe (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll go along with WP:TNT, which might mean a temporary deletion since there is no requirement that we continue to have a badly written, ad filled article. I've also deleted 3 poorly referenced sections. In the long run though, I expect that this company is notable. I even have a word of praise to insert here: at least they have a link to (unaudited) financial statements. I think a link to audited financial statements should be a notability requirement for any company, especially financial companies. Though financial statements are not the end-all and be-all for any company, for financial companies, if you don't have financial statements to start with, anything else they say might as well be pure BS. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Added the most seriously involved editors above. All but one have added "Awards and Accolades" or trimmed negative information w/o explanation. FinEditor100 has been active editing today and I have asked him what his status is as a paid editor or otherwise. Brianhe (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Afraid all the articles that these people were involved in need to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb. Thanks, Briahne. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's an ugly case and a lot of work. This will be an interesting post-mortem, I think we can learn a lot about who hires these people and how they do their business. I put a lot of work into this SPI report because if the real-world operator behind OnceaMetro is who I think it is (a known LTA case), we can use the behavioral evidence in many future cases. Anyway, as for the items that need checking right now, see User:Brianhe/COIbox13#Combined for a start. It's a list I've composed of just two editors' contribs. There are over 175 items to check. I've started some, starting with the ones they've edited most frequently or two suspected socks have edited together. Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page archive interval

I just noticed that the archive bot settings seem to be off. At the top of the page it says auto-archive will happen on a thread after 7 days of inactivity. The bot is configured for 14. We're getting a lot of activity here and the page sometimes gets quite long. If there are no objections in the next 8 hours, I will adjust the bot settings to 7 days as advertised. Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to 14 days, as cases kept getting archived before we could deal with them. Not long ago there was a case where that happened, and it ended up at ANI. A long page just means we have a lot to do... Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think 14 is better and agree that cases often got archived before being dealt with when it was 7. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Various hedge funds and their managers

editors

In going through the Raymond James case, it appears to me that we have done a crummy job of cleaning up after OnceaMetro. Some of his edits were obvious in purpose, some more difficult to discern, so I'm listing everything that smells "off" here. At a glance it looks like there may have been teams involved in some of these, especially Roy Niederhoffer. Metro's edit history goes way back and the list of apparent clients is quite extensive; I've just cherry picked some of the more egregious and/or recently edited. Brianhe (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, the full analysis is kind of tedious, but here's a start: User:Brianhe/COIbox13. Brianhe (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
SPI opened against the two editors named above: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro. Brianhe (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Watch for cherry-picking in reports of fund returns. Pine River Capital Management mentions the return for their best fund in their best year, but doesn't give the usual 1, 5 and 10 year numbers needed to make comparisons. See this WSJ article [33] indicating they were underperforming their market by 2014. Also see this data for 2015 for all their funds.[34] Performance for the last year wasn't so great; several of their funds lost money. John Nagle (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Background: The US SEC requires that investments sold to the public in the US prominently display their 1, 5, and 10 year performance in marketing materials. There's a long history of funds focusing on the good years, so the SEC established 1, 5, and 10 as an arbitrary, but standard benchmark. Hedge funds, which are sold to "sophisticated investors" only, are not required to report in that way. So there are services such as Morningstar and Bloomberg which compute and report those numbers. So, if an article about an US investment has some nonstandard performance numbers but not the 1, 5, and 10 year numbers, it's likely that promotional material has crept into Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh God, my head spinning. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocking non-communicative editors

Recommend the following editors to be blocked as non-communicative wrt to simple yes/no question about editing for pay:

It has been more than five days for each of them since I asked on their talkpage.

Blocking seems to be the only way to maintain integrity and enforce the Terms of Service for individuals who don't engage with the community. I recommend this be adopted as a regular procedure after a reasonable period of time, like 5 days, as discussed here (diff) previously. Brianhe (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

None of them have made any edits in the last five days. Some haven't edited in months. The most recent edit by any of them was July 21st, 2015. What seems to be the problem? John Nagle (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem is stuff like Black House Media (a PR firm apparently writing about itself, complete with a proud recounting of its advertising campaigns) and its CEO, Adekunle Ayeni aka 'Ayeni the Great' according to the article. What are we going to do about it? Wait until these editors come back, then block them? Why? — Brianhe (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
None of these editors have made any edits since you asked them your question. Blocking them for being non-communicative would be ridiculous. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I could as easily say an open-ended waiting period is "ridiculous". That's not an argument. My statement was that it should be a reasonable period of time, open to consensus, and applied by an admin who agrees with the case brought before him/her having followed the correct notification procedures, and with valid grounds. I could see the waiting period being up to something like months. However the longer we wait, a) the more people familiar with the case drop away from the project, lose interest in watching their edits, the fog of memory sets in, etc. b) less disincentive for others who see these paid situations as enticing opportunities and c) we lose the feedback loop to the investigators, who want to see some kind of outcome of their efforts here and not just a black hole. Here's what's at stake as I see it: the future of Wikipedia itself is at risk of being sold by those with the lowest scruples to the highest bidder. We know it's happening, and IMHO it is accelerating because we left the door wide open for the crooks. Is this project more than a blank wall for advertisements for plastic surgeons, celebrity entourages, and get-rich-quick schemes? It's up to us; again, what are we going to do about it? Obviously the current system isn't working. Just scroll up the page: case after case of commercial, baldly promotional stuff is getting through for years on end. We know people are actually forming a commercial enterprise and a way of life around this. Balancing the need to stop that against the inconvenience of some people having to request an unblock seems not "ridiculous" to this volunteer. — Brianhe (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixing the article is appropriate. Please remove the PR. Black House Media reads like a press release. But see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT on Wikipedia blocking policy. Blocks are not punitive, they're intended to stop future bad behavior. Blocking inactive accounts is seldom done, since it doesn't do much. It's not a waiting period issue, it's an activity issue. But keep watching for activity on those accounts. If they start putting PR into Wikipedia again, then it's time to ask for a block. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Declared COI, Edit Assistance

I have a COI that precludes me from making this addition, and would like to request an uninvolved editor consider adding to the list of Notable People for Shenandoah, Pennsylvania the following:

Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, even though I occasionally like pierogies and even have a liking for Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania (enough so that I can spell it), I don't think Ted Twardzik, Sr., or Mrs. T's Pierogies is notable enough for an article, or even for Mr. T to be added to the list of notable people in Shenandoah. The only refs I've seen are to the company website and to a promo piece in the Pottsville Republican-Herald Maybe it's the Pottstown paper (a larger city nearby), but I've never heard of it and have no reason to believe that it's a reliable source, except perhaps for straight news stories in Schuylkill County. I'm a bit mixed on whether the Great Pierogi Race should have an article, except for the firing and hiring of the outspoken pierogy, there's nothing even remotely notable about a normal ballpark promotion. I tend to think not. Smallbones(smalltalk)
Ok, it's the Republican & Herald, but they appear to have dropped the "&" online. They even won a Pulitzer Prize 36 years ago, but the article you linked to still looks like a blatant home-town promo piece. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to split hairs, but, I think, technically it's called a feature story. Anyway, here's, additionally, a 1996 article from the Morning Call [36], a 1990 article from the Los Angeles Times [37], a 1994 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer [38], a 1998 article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [39], a 2001 article from Inc. Magazine [40], a 2014 article from the website of the Pennsylvania State University [41], an article from the website of the University of Notre Dame [42], and text from the website of the Shenandoah Chamber of Commerce [43]. I can provide additional sources, but this (one national newspaper, two regional newspapers, two local newspapers, one national magazine, two AAU-member university websites, and a trade association's website), objectively, would meet GNG criteria (significant coverage spanning a period of time in RS that are independent of the subject) required under our WP:USCITIES guideline for notable people inclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, LavaBaron, for declaring your conflict of interest and for refraining from making the edit yourself (all too rare, unfortunately!). The best place to make your (apparently reasonable) suggestion is the talk page of the article, Talk:Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. You can start your post with {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) to attract the attention of other editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: I've updated Mrs. T's Pierogies with some of the references mentioned above, did some copy editing, and removed the notability and advert templates. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers, I normally would broach a COI edit request on the Talk page, however, intentionally bypassed it since it hasn't been visited in five years and this seemed to me (apparently erroneously) like a clerical edit, rather than one that would necessitate the level of scrutiny it apparently requires. I do have to admit I greet with some bemused irony that the leading name currently on the Shenandoah, Pennsylvania Notable People list whose sanctity my fellow editor is admirably and very passionately arguing to protect from the intrusion of vested interests is Joseph Awad, the president of the Public Relations Society of America ... anyway, thanks for your consideration and kind regards - LavaBaron (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Solar City

The article reads like an ad, and one can see why after looking at those edits. The COI editing was years ago. There's nobody worth blocking, but some hype has to come out, and there's a lack of criticism in the article. Anyway, please take a look and clean up. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me that I'd seen an ad to place an article on Wikipedia about an Ohio solar company, lately. It was written in a way to make it hard to determine the name of the company. Brianhe (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_87&oldid=1076621414"