Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 140

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142→Archive 145

Draft:DynaSys

Draft has been submitted twice. Author has asked about conflict of interest and has not answered in two weeks. Author is a single-purpose account who has only edited this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why their sandbox says "our headquarters" when referring to DynaSys. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

SMU School of Law

User removed advertisement and overly detailed tags. User attempt to revert more than 3 times on promotional material, graduate prospects removed by User:Drmies. User is heavily involved in Singapore Management University related and Law related articles.

Manderiko accepts his/her way of context and promotional writing for SMU School of Law and do not allow edits to correct indications from the page tags to reduce promotional writing and promote independence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepineapple (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Rangtengpa seems to be heavy involved in workings with user:Manderiko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepineapple (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Erm… complainant is clearly sockpuppet of this user Rangtengpa (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to face the music if this is true. Please take actions in the way deemed fit in Wikipedia stanadard. Applepineapple (talk)
I have merged two sections and made some other changes to try and make this easier to follow. SmartSE (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
not really sure what Applepineapple is on to — in short, he does not like how others edit, and attributes this to COI!? Manderiko (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Manderiko is on a campaign to restore administrators' edits including User: Melcous's eliminations. The question remains, why is he/she so adamant to restore his/her edits?Applepineapple (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have issued checkuser blocks to Mandericko and Rangtengpa, who are clearly the same editor, and are here only for promotional editing. I have blocked Maustan as a sockpuppet of Applepineapple. I have blocked Applepineapple for 1 month for using the sockpuppet and some promotional editing .

As I myself have removed some of the promotionalism. I think it would be better if other people did any further necessary edits. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson stallard

Editor created Draft:Fredrikson Stallard declined at AFC and G11'ed. Now the article is in mainspace with slightly different title. Discussion on user's talk page about COI. Editor also made many changes to Daniel Lismore (don't know if those are reasonable, but there seems to be only one more citation after the expansion.) MB 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

When "Fredrikson Stallard" was recreated in mainspace, it was again listed for G11. I reviewed it, and decided not to delete it, because I thought it was fixable. More precisely, even though it was undoubtedly promotional enough to delete by G11 if unfixed, I thought the subject was notable enough to be worth the fixing, which was easy enough to do. I started--it is my opinion that anyone who chooses not to delete an article such as that has an obligation to themselves immediately make it acceptable, not just hope that other will do so. Among other things, I remove cherry-picked expressions of praise for them from the articles about them, and removed their self-serving quotations; these were sourced, but they nonetheless constituted advertising. I cannot tell whether the editor here has a COI or , alternatively, write naturally in a promotional style, since so much of the writing about creative artists is written in such a style.
Lismore too is written in such a style. He too is probably notable enough for the article to be worth clearing. There will be much greater difficulty here, because he seems to be equally well known for his self-advertising as his designs, and there wis great difficulty writing a non-promotional article about self-advertising without making the choice between essentially repeating it or failing to show that aspect of the notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Steven G Arless

I tagged this article with COI & PEACOCK. Today, this editor, who has only edited this article, removed the tags and admitted COI in edit history. MB 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Bitdefender

Appears to be an SPA as all edits add links to the same blog. COI template added to user talk yesterday and the user continued today. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like WP:REFSPAM to me, so I have removed all article space links to the websites 1reddrop.com and ebookfriendly.com. Deli nk (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why this is being tagged as COI or SPA. I have no relationship with any of the sites I reference in my edits. I'm only just getting started here, and there are very few sites that have verifiable content with respect to AI and related topics. Kbmeriam (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Theoxfordcommas appears to be a digital marketer. His user page says that he does "COI work" here. Four articles that he has created GOQii, Beyond Meat, SmartThings, and BarkBox were all extremely promotional at their onset. Some have been cleaned up a bit, but I think all need serious attention still. Peacock (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The last contrib by Theoxfordcommas was in 2014, so we are kind of late to the party here. That said, this is some serious promotional editing. I trimmed 16K of material from SmartThings and it still sounds like an ad. The use of extensive referencing (8 refs sometimes for a single claim) tells me the editor who wrote it knows what they are doing. It's obviously paid editing. The article I saw was garbage though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

North Central Michigan College

It is extremely likely that this editor has a clear and obvious conflict of interest; I won't state exactly why I believe this is obvious because it may violate our policy about outing editors but I'm sure that anyone who looks into this will draw the same conclusion. He or she has edited the article several times today in ways that clearly violate many of our policies, particularly WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:MOS (which I know isn't a policy but...). I have warned him or her on his or her Talk page but he or she has not replied, opened any discussion in Talk, or done anything except continue making the exact same edits. Can someone else please have a word with him or her? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor is also adding content verbatim from the school's website. 2d paragraph here is the same as in this diff. (I didn't continue to hunt for more WP:COPYVIO). Schazjmd (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
CarolLaenen blocked for undisclosed paid editing and copyvio hidden. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Root analogue dental implant

This page has been extensively edited by User:Logicwhatelse, who has declared at User talk:Logicwhatelse#Conflict of interest that he has an interest in promoting this procedure. He insists on reinserting unsourced promotional content to the article even though he has been told several times that sources are needed - at the time of writing there are five sections completely without sources. I'm afraid I don't have the patience to deal with him, so could someone else please take a look at the article and its talk page? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Shupe

ArmyBrat64 has made extensive edits to this article and only a few other edits on the same subject.

JamieShupe has edited this article including changing categories. MB 17:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Socking entertainment promoter

Possible promotion of entertaniers. Above articles are created by socking editorexcept the suspected case(s), as indicated. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Jason Davidson

Conflict of interest confirmed by the user himself, he is adding puffery crap like "excellent debut" and "outstanding performances" etc. + no sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to update my son wikipedia and update his stats. I am new to wikipedia and I am only here to update my son and only my sons information to keep it updated. It is very important at the current moment to have it updated regarding his stats for his career. Unfortunately their is a erson named Snowflake91 that keeps deleting my information and has told me if I update it again I will be blocked. I am not trying to get involved in any dispute I am trying to update my sons wikipedia its that simple. I have know idea who Snowflake91 is but if he is so interested in my son why doesnt he update Jasons information??? Rather than deleting it and threatening to block me? its crazy! can someone help me please to understand what I am doing wrong? I dont mean to upset anyone I just simply wanted to update my sons wikipedia stats. Kindest regards, Alan Davidson AD1960 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
OMG Who this Snowflakes91? what is his football background? He questions "Excellent debut" "Outstanding Performance" its not me saying it it the TV commentators saying it. It does help confirm it when he was voted the Best on ground performance by the TV comentators and also collecting the man of the match official. Obviously Snowflake91 does not follow Jason or listen or view what was said or even watch the games. Again who is snowflake91 or his football understanding? whats his interest in putting my son down when the facts or stats are real? Alan Davidson ex professional footballer.

If snow flake has a interest in my sons career the watch the games before you comment or make a comment because you definately dont know what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!! AD1960 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@AD1960: See wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view to understand why we don't describe anything as "excellent" or "outstanding". Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I do apologise and thank you to a 3rd party for wikipedia made contact explaining to me regarding wording that I had used. I now understand that excellent or outstanding or anything to that nature cannot be used I do apologise. BUT for someone to delete the facts like Snowflake91 n a few occasions did without making contact is strange? To waste everyones time with this simple answer. I dont want to waste anymore time on this matter now it is explained so simply to me. OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by AD1960 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia at anytime, regardless of their level of knowledge about the subject, as long as they follow our core content policies. If the edits are potentially controversial, an editor should engage in discussion with other editors to arrive at consensus. No single person has editorial control over an article, especially the article's subject or their representatives. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Australian paradox

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Australian paradox about an article with multiple issues including COI, and I invite any and all interested parties to contribute there. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Candace M. Smith

I came across Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Candace M. Smith where COI, in particular undisclosed paid editing, concerns were express. I won't repeat them, since I'm not sure if they may be outing. The editor involved Jbaysinger in the creation [1] seems to have done other work e.g. [2] and [3] seem a bit concerning and maybe [4]/[5]. Their other major work seems to be [6] and [7], but I'm less sure someone would have paid for those. They haven't edited since September. They explicitly denied being paid or compensated to edit the Candace M. Smith page way back [8]. This edit summary from one of their edits to one of the other articles [9] strongly suggests a COI for that article (back on 2015) although not paid editing. Nil Einne (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Tushar Pandey

The editor in question has been asked if they have a conflict of interest but they have declined to respond, and have continued to create Draft:Tushar Pandey. The subject is not yet notable as per WP:NYA and WP:NACTOR hence the page should be redirected to Pink which is the only notable production they have worked in so far. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Miriam Kennet

Miriam Kennet, founder of the Green Economics Institute, has made substantial edits to both articles. I'm new here and think I figured out how to make a report here, but don't know if there is more to be done than this. CockpitJim (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the undisclosed WP:COI and WP:PAID issues, they are textbook violations of WP:PROMO. I've G11'd Green Economics Institute as a blatantly obvious advertisement. I've nominated Miriam Kennet for deletion. This article was slightly less promotional than the first one, but it still has terrible sourcing that doesn't back the claims made. SWL36 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is also a couple of other related articles which fall within the same walled garden: International Journal of Green Economics and Michelle Gale De Oliveira which have been created and edited only by single-purpose accounts. I have proposed Michelle Gale De Oliveira for deletion. Deli nk (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

James Greer (writer)

It looks to me like we might have several COI editors on James Greer (writer). The article was created by an SPA, Sybilline. In this edit, Shellfishsally claimed to be James Greer. When I saw that, I added the {{COI}} template to the article. Tearly9, another SPA just removed it. Does this seem suspicious to anyone else? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Report

Hi, this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saad_Ahmed2983 despite getting warnings, again editing directly where he is having COI to this page Tapandegan. He is continuously doing this and off-wiki evidence is available I can send an email if any email ID is provided. The Informer Sally (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Aprimo

The issue here is the removal of the COI template by a paid editor. BeckieSch and Thalium have both declared that they are being paid by Aprimo. However, on making that declaration, Thalium removed the COI template from the draft. The draft was then accepted without the template. The template doesn't indicate suspected undeclared paid editing and so declaration is not a reason to remove the template. The template indicates a COI, and concerns about neutrality. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I apologise. I did a complete rewrite of the draft and, while I did disclose a COI in the edit summary [10] and on my userpage, I also removed the COI tag in the process of conducting the rewrite. Though unintentional, this was my fault. I can resubmit it at Articles for Creation with the template in place, if that would help address the concern? Thalium (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The page is in article space, and draftifying it at this time would not be useful. I have restored the COI template and will leave the call on it to other editors. I don't believe it was an accident. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was the person who originally applied the COI template. Following reviews and edits which identified and removed possible promotional and non-neutral content from myself, the AfC person and one other I have reached the point where I have been minded to suggest for the COI template to be removed in 24 hours if there are no objections. Further details are on the article's talk page and there was also a discussion on Robert's talk page. As a side issue there was a technical error in the acceptance of the draft article against an incorrect talk page but that is not relevant to this discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately what I have to take as a content dispute has been raised and I have therefore withdrawn my support for COI removal at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC) The article has now been independently reviewed and the COI notice removed ( Please note I need to WP:TROUT myself for an error on my part about the previous content dispute which was essentially my own mistake in thinking someone had restored one reference I thought I had removed but hadn't). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Napkins12

Hi

Institute of Economic Affairs is being edited by Napkins12 to improve their image (removing funding sources, criticism etc). It seems this is likely to continue especially given the news that they breached UK charity law.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

User:OleksandraKhrystenko and Scarlet (company)

Declared he was paid by the company, remove all ref from the article and convert it to another article, total wipe of old content. Also remove the unsourced level 1 warning. Matthew hk (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

An Awareness Note

for all the board-frequenters that a global policy mandates that every user must provide links on his/her user-page to all active accounts on external websites, through which he/she solicits/advertise paid editing of Wikipedia. ∯WBGconverse 07:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • We need a policy change such that failure to do this is an instant block until fixed (because it violates the terms of use). We also, still, need a policy change such that articles created in return for undisclosed payments are treated as creations by a banned user, because that is in effect what they are. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    In cases where we are reasonably sure that someone is operating an account (that qualifies under the above terms) but is not disclosing them over here despite being requested, we can easily indef under policy violation but with due cautiousness to not violate the OUTING policy (since many of those external accounts are in real-name) . At any case, I have already added this to our page over WP:COI and are discussing off-wiki about best execution methods.∯WBGconverse 04:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several high-profile editors were editor for pay via Upwork that may need to take note of this policy. I do have one question, however: What if the paid editor uses an alias on Wikipedia, but uses their real name on, say, Upwork. By linking to their Upwork profile, they may be WP:OUTING themselves. Per OUTING, links to off-wiki adds can be posted on relevant forums such as COIN, but the policy is silent on Userpages.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    There is no prohibition on self-outing.∯WBGconverse 04:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that the policy WP:PAID says "Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.[1]"

There's no problem also having it at WP:COI but we should make sure that the wording over there is at least as restrictive as the wording at WP:Paid. @JzG: We should put an "Enforcement" section in WP:Paid, probably right after the section "Promotion and advertising by paid editors". I'll let you (or others) come up with the appropriate wording, but I'll suggest something like

Paid editors are prohibited from making any edits until they declare their paid status according to the rules stated in the section "How to disclose". Any editor may revert any paid edit made before a disclosure was made. If an editor suspects that another editor is paid and has not disclosed, he or she should ask the suspected paid editor to disclose, and notify an administrator (via email if necessary to prevent WP:Outing) of why he or she suspects that the editor is paid. Any administrator may block an undisclosed paid editor.

Notice that I didn't mention "banned" as the Terms of Use "prohibition" might be viewed by some as not fitting the precise definition of "banned". I'd personally support adding UPEs to the banned definition, but that might be a bit harder than adding the above to WP:Paid. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ meta:Linking to external advertising accounts

Status Labs

This is a reputation management company related to another company banned from WP. Mention of fraud has been moved in recent edits from the lede to paragraph five. There's also an introduction of inclusion in a list of 5,000 companies. It would be good work if they were adjusting their own article, not that I am saying they are (nor that they are not). ☆ Bri (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

March 4 Trump

After this user removed the name Vincent Haney from the March 4 Trump article, I reverted and posted a note on the article's talk page asking for more information about their change. I'm not sure what needs to be done here, if anything, but something to keep an eye on, please. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Stash (company)

Hi all, I'm a longtime COI editor. I typically try not to post here, but I've been having an extremely difficult time with an edit request for my client, Stash, and have exhausted every other option I can think of over the past 3+ months.

I'll try to make a long story short: I first proposed edits to this article on 24 October. As always, I strived to ensure these proposed edits were in line with the substance, structure, and tone of many comparable articles, with full third-party sources. The edits were rejected almost exclusively because they came from a disclosed paid editor. I then significantly reduced the scope of my requests. I received limited feedback on the revised requests, to which I replied. In the ensuing months, I have tried many avenues of engaging with the community – WikiProjects, WP:3O, reaching out to individual editors who were involved in the past – all without getting any further response. I haven't received any further feedback about whether my requests are in some way problematic. The primary issue seems to be simply getting anyone's interest long enough to take a look.

I know individual requests like this are not what COIN is for, and I know that none of Wikipedia's volunteers owe me their time or consideration. But I've been doing this work for five years, and while this isn't the first time I've privately thought that my client would have been better off working with a black hat editor who just quietly made the changes, it is the most egregious case, and I hate that. (To be clear, I personally would never engage in undisclosed paid editing; disclosed paid editing is emotionally exhausting enough.) I know this is an imperfect system we have here and, as an interloper on Wikipedia, I do my best to work within its systems and respect its guidelines. In this case, though, I simply don't know what to do. I am happy to pull back on client requests when they're rejected for logical reasons aligned with Wikipedia policy – I never promise definitive results to my clients – but that doesn't seem to be the case here. So, if anyone is willing to take a look or point me in a better direction, or offer any kind of assistance or feedback, I will be extremely grateful. Thank you for reading. Mary Gaulke (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see that you understand that volunteer Wikipedia editors don't owe you anything. See WP:PAYTALK for more along that line. The big problem is likely that your predecessor doing paid editing on that article was banned for advertising. Volunteers probably had to put up with a lot of grief from his (and your) employer then and simply don't want to do them any favors now.
Consider the following scenarios
  • A paid editor sockpuppets and gets blocked for socking. He, or his boss, then hire another paid editor to continue the editing. That's an obvious case of meatpuppeting, and the new paid editor could be blocked right away.
  • A paid editor is blocked for advertising. His boss hires another paid editor "to do it right this time." The rules might be interpreted differently, but it looks like pretty much the same story from this side. The boss 1st wants to cheat (or allows his agent to cheat for him) to see how much they can get away with. Now he wants a second bite of the apple. And if that doesn't work out, maybe he'll take a third bite of the apple. What volunteer would want to get involved in that?
The moral of the story is 1) don't ever accept a job from a company that's had its agent blocked for sockpuppeting, and 2) be extremely careful in accepting a job from a company that's had its agent blocked for anything. You might just have to tell them that there's nothing you can do - they've already blown it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
While I totally see your point, it seems odd to me that the punishment for inappropriate interference on Wikipedia would be an article that's permanently relegated to stub status. Many COI editors who get in trouble aren't even aware they're breaking rules until they're banned, which isn't an excuse, but does partly explain how it happens so often. And keeping articles like that as stubs when viable alternatives exist isn't good for the encyclopedia, either.
Also—I never work with clients who have knowingly worked with black hat editors in the past. This is a case where the company's internal PR folks didn't understand Wikipedia's rules and reached out to me after realizing they need an expert. Often, my clients have no idea about Wikipedia's COI guidelines until they talk to me. Again, not an excuse, just context. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Everything added seems like an advertisement. I think everything should be reverted (all done Feb 5- 7) and editor warned. MB 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted all their edits which were 100% promotional and warned the user. Based on a quick google search, the editor has a definite COI so I have dropped them a basic COI message. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Looking in the history of Maverik Lacrosse, I strongly suspect Billybitter4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is connected here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Majid Al Futtaim Group

Too many editors have been adding excessive and promotional detail to this article. Some months ago I placed a COI template on the talkpage of Marionlondon and Jytdog has templated Moha.Ay. Marionlondon continues to add to the article, as do several others. It is improbable that these five editors are all independently adding content and that none have a COI. Edwardx (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Edwards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as i have signaled on your page, if there are elements that you consider as a promotional, feel free to remove it. But please, the majority of content that i have added are facts that itemize corporate activities (only with facts, not promotion). And sorry but you can't remove all of contents on Majid Al Futtaim page only because of the users.
- " Ski Dubai: Ski Dubai is a mountain-themed snow setting at Mall of the Emirates in Dubai" ==> it's a fact
- "Ski Egypt: In March 2017, Majid Al Futtaim introduces Ski Egypt, a 7,700 square meters destination housed inside the recently opened $700 million, 1.8 million-square-foot Mall of Egypt on the outskirts of Cairo." ==> it's a fact
- "Beam : a Dubai-based mobile payments provider. MAF Group acquired the mobile payments platform in 2018." ==> it's a fact
And many more that you decided (for some reason) to delete.
On Wikipedia, my goal is to deliver informations. And i'm sorry but, i don't understand your motivation ...
Wikicapitaineben (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC/GMT +4)
Those are some highly suspicious accounts Marionlondon, Wikicapitaineben, NicolHarp, and Ykbl009 are all WP:SPA accounts devoted to adding promotional content to that article. I think it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest a trip to WP:SPI. SWL36 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sophie Hardeman

This is a promotion-only account. The talk page shows that the account first registered at least one year ago, but recent contributions have been deleted (and are shown above as redlinks). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel lost - I would contribute further to Wiki- the page IAD was not the only one where I have contributed - eg NeusiedierseeWiki was successful - agian, I need help plaese

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Katrin Teubner (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I feel lost! Can plaese sb the last version of the text and also to make changes if sb is not correct. Thanks

Sergio Canavero

is being editing, not well, by Sergiocanavero, which suggests an issue. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

    • The things you learn about on Wikipedia! This is an especially interesting article on a topic I knew nothing about: human head transplantation. Sergio Canavero is the leading advocate and the leading potential surgeon. Needless to say, it is extremely controversial and has been challenged on the basis of medical ethics. Canavero, whatever you think about him or the possible procedure, is the very last person who should be editing this article. WP:Auto and WP:COI are not strong enough in some cases, e.g. Donald Trump should be the last person to edit the article on Donald Trump, other people who come to mind are Jack Kervorkian, and if they were alive, Mother Theresa, Karl Marx, and Albert Einstein. The possibility of getting an NPOV article out of them would just seem infinitesimally small. I'll ask an admin to discuss this with him, tell him that we have strict rules that would prevent him from editing almost all the time, but in this case, because of the controversy and strong personalities involved, him editing would be impossible. This is not to say that he couldn't edit the talk page and keep us all informed and send photos of himself. I'll even post his TED talk prominently. But him editing the article - it just won't work. Somebody with some authority should simply and politely let him know that fact. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:FeldBum

BACKGROUND:

Disclaimer: I am mindful of the anti-outing policy and am not trying to out this user. In this case FeldBum has openly admitted to his financial relationship with the page subject on his Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FeldBum&oldid=882567276), though he disputes that it is a conflict.

According to the COI policy, "An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship."

FeldBum has repeatedly made direct edits to Noah Kraft's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Kraft) on controversial subjects (e.g. what sources are credible and what wording constitutes a neutral point of view) in order to airbrush Kraft's image. He has done so without disclosing his financial relationship. FeldBum runs a PR/SEO consulting firm which has been hired by at least two of Noah Kraft's companies.

Note that under the COI: "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion."

Although I disagree with a few of FeldBum's suggested edits and am happy to resolve those arguments in the future, that is not what is at issue here. The narrow question at hand is whether someone whose company was employed twice by Noah Kraft's companies has a conflict of interest with regard to editing Noah Kraft's page, even if they allege that they are not currently being compensated. I believe he does. FeldBum argues that he does not.

FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP:

FeldBum said on his Talk page: "While I know Noah Kraft, and previously had Doppler and 300 as marketing clients, I am not editing pages on their behalf. I am, because I care about Noah and Doppler, working to prevent blatant editing violations on those pages, such as the ones you are making. My username is my name and I explain my profession on my user page, so it's clear who I am, and if I have ever done work at a person's or client's behalf, I have disclosed that on Wikipedia as per the disclosure policy. I'm not getting any compensation here (as you have often noted, the company closed long ago); I am protecting you from flagrantly violating policy on these pages. Same with the Slutever TV Series, which I'm assuming is the other entry you're making assumptions and insinuations about, as well Karley Sciortino's page. She was a client ages ago too, and I've made edits to those pages, but not at her or Vice's behest."

CONFLICT:

FeldBum admits that, he “[knows] Noah Kraft, and previously had Doppler and 300 as marketing clients”. This is a textbook violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy. ("Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, ***clients***, employers, or your financial and other relationships [Emphasis mine] [...] When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine the interests of improving this encyclopedia, the editor has a conflict of interest.")

(1.) EVEN IF FELDBUM IS NOT BEING COMPENSATED BY KRAFT AT THIS INSTANT, HE HAS A PERPETUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED

According to the COI: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest."

FeldBum admits that he provided marketing services to Kraft (or at least two of Kraft's companies) across multiple engagements (Doppler, 300, etc.), and over multiple years.

He has every incentive to garner favor with Kraft in order to win more business or favorable referrals from him in the future (or simply out of gratitude for the money he has received from Kraft's companies so far). The fact that FeldBum may not be receiving payments from Kraft at this exact moment is beside the point. FeldBum's external relationship "could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role" of furthering the interests of the encyclopedia. In fact, it would be unreasonable to say that his relationship would not undermine that role. This is a textbook example of a conflict of interest.

The fact that FeldBum took it upon himself to comment on "Neutral Point of View" issues, in light of his extensive financial entanglements with multiple Kraft companies across multiple years is frankly astonishing.

(2.) FELDBUM MAY ALSO HAVE AN ONGOING FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH KRAFT THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, AND IN THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA WE CANNOT TAKE HIS CLAIMS THAT HE DOES NOT AT FACE VALUE HERE

Given the fact that FeldBum did not disclose his personal and financial relationship with Kraft at the outset (and didn't admit to it until confronted about it), it would be inappropriate to take his claim that he's not being paid currently at face value. We can only speculate as to whether FeldBum and Kraft have any ongoing financial relationship. The only hard fact that we know (via FeldBum's admission) is that his firm has been retained by at least two of Kraft's companies in the past, and that he has every incentive to earn business from Kraft's future business endeavors (or from referrals from him) going forward.

(3.) FELDBUM COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A SEPARATE (FROM THOSE DISCUSSED IN POINTS #1 and #2 ABOVE) FINANCIAL CONFLICT EVEN IF HE WERE NOT RECEIVING ONGOING PAYMENT

Even if he were not receiving ongoing payments from Kraft, for all we know FeldBum may have a contract with Kraft where was paid upfront years ago to defend Kraft/Doppler's online reputation indefinitely. Or alternatively, it may be generally understood by FeldBum's clients that he is typically willing to provide reputation management on Wikipedia and other platforms gratis after an initial engagement. We simply can't know one way or another, which is another reason why his history of financial entanglements with Kraft creates an appearance of impropriety and should lead us to err on the side of forbidding him from directly editing Kraft's page (and Doppler's, as well as any other former clients of his) in the future.

(4.) INSTEAD OF ACKNOWLEDGING ANY CONFLICT, FELDBUM DISPUTED THAT HIS PAST FINANCIAL ENGAGEMENTS WITH DOPPLER LABS AND 300 ENTERTAINMENT EVEN CONSTITUTED A CONFLICT, WHICH RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS INTEGRITY

"Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing," and that is evidently what has happened here.

FeldBum has noted his lengthy tenure as a Wikipedia contributor. It has no bearing on his current conflict of interest that he may enjoy editing other pages on which he does not have a conflict. Ultimately, it jeopardizes the integrity of Wikipedia when editors who work as PR consultants monetize their status to advocate on behalf of their current or former clients. DaRonPayne (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This was a fun thing to wake up to.
I'll try to cover everything briefly. I know Noah Kraft, so if that constitutes a COI violation here, I apologize and will cease editing his page.
I don't have an ongoing financial relationship with Kraft, nor am I editing his page at his or anyone else's behest. We do have a previous business relationship, so--again--if there's no Statute of Limitations on anyone I've ever worked with before--I'll cease editing his page. My edits to prevent the page, as edited by DaRonPayne from turning into an editorial about the hubris of Silicon Valley or something like that, with words like "imploded," "collapsed" and "failed" littering the page. Whatever happens here, some other editor should really look into that. Insanely POV. I worked on the initial version of the 300 website and social media plan in 2013, which is where I met Kraft. We made a kick-ass site (which they have since replaced for some reason) and the project completed in 2013. We worked together again in 2016 on SEO for Doppler, but that contract soon ended as Doppler closed.
My job and my history in the tech and startup sector means I've met a lot of people. As most people do these days, the first thing I do after meeting them is look them up online. When I see issues, I fix them. I made an edit on TechCrunch this morning, but I used to write for TC as an occasional contributor. Is that COI too? I noticed issues on Fritz Lanman's page (Co-Founded should definitely not be capitalized). Should I hold off on that edit? I guess I've always taken a narrow approach to COI; as long as I'm not representing the topic or directly related to the topic, I've edited.
I've always assumed most people were making edits about topics they were passionate about. Steven Pruzansky is a part of the greater Jewish community that I'm also a part of, and I don't think I could've written the Controversies section of his page without that awareness. I couldn't have removed a bunch on non-notable editors from Times of Israel without watching the page, which I did after meeting David Horowitz. I wouldn't have known about Iconix's SEC investigation without meeting some former execs from there. I couldn't edit Yom tov sheni shel galuyot or Pidyon Haben or Shiva without living them. I can't fully decouple my real life from my Wikipedia one. If the solution is to never edit pages about people I've met, so be it. If there's a reasonable Statute of Limitations, I'd appreciate that. I worked with Mark Zuckerberg in 2005, and we had a financial relationship then, but I doubt he remembers me. Can I never make an edit to Facebook, WhatsApp or Instagram?
This is already getting too emotional for me, so I'll let someone else adjudicate it. TL;DR: I know Noah; no one's paying me; I don't think I have a COI issue but I'll respect volunteers' and editors' decision; I don't think DaRonPayne edit's to Kraft's page are in Good Faith; I think they are POV and Soapboxing (but I have no idea why he's doing them and I have no desire to dive into his motives the way he is trying to do to me). Let me know if you need more info.
In any case, someone needs to look into DaRonPayne's edits and edit/fix accordingly. --FeldBum (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick response to the response, and I will butt out after this. There is a massive difference between (1.) merely knowing someone and (2.) being hired by someone for marketing services multiple times. FeldBum is muddying the waters here by mixing a bunch of examples of acceptable editing with what he actually did here.
Doppler shut down in late 2017, so FeldBum may have had a business relationship with them as recently as 18 months ago, and at most 3 years ago. I have explained the reasons why that creates a clear conflict above. Namely, FeldBum has every incentive to garner favor with Kraft in order to win more business or favorable referrals from him in the future or simply out of gratitude for the money he has received from Kraft's companies so far. Given that Kraft has contracted marketing services from FeldBum at separate companies as recently as 18-36 months ago, this is not a hypothetical concern.
It seems like the only thing that FeldBum would interpret as a conflict of interest would be a quid pro quo cash payment in exchange for edits. That narrow reading is contrary to the plain wording of the conflict of interest policy, as I laid out in excruciating detail above.
From my perspective, the fact that FeldBum neglected to even disclose his long-term business relationship with Kraft (and does not see the need to do so now) is a serious offense. All of his concerns about a "Statute of Limitations" fly out the window when you consider that he was working for Kraft a mere 18-36 months ago and that he could have avoided this altogether by disclosing his conflict in the first place.
And just to be very clear, we aren't talking about FeldBum adding a semi-colon or correcting the capitalization of the word "Co-Founder". Rather, he has made multiple edits (or talk page suggestions backed by the threat of an edit) that sought to control the tone of the piece or to suppress or downplay relevant details about Doppler Labs' shutdown.
To provide a little more context on Noah Kraft and his page, he is someone who is mainly notable for founding Doppler Labs. Unfortunately, Doppler Labs is mainly notable for going out of business after raising a large amount of capital.
When I first came across Noah Kraft's page, I noticed that it read more like a promotional page than a Wikipedia entry. For instance, it did not even mention the fact that Doppler Labs had closed, and it assigned disproportionate importance to Kraft's other projects, which are not the reason why anyone knows who he is. My language in describing the company's failure was initially hyperbolic, and I regret that. But I voluntarily changed the wording and have taken suggestions about tone seriously since then and have strived to be fair. I have incorporated probably 90% of the suggestions that FeldBum made (many of which were entirely reasonable). That wasn't enough for him, and FeldBum has sought to mitigate or erase virtually every negative fact about Doppler Labs / Kraft that he could.
Unlike FeldBum, I can state unequivocally that I do not know Noah Kraft or any of his employees, and have never met or interacted with him in any capacity. I can say with a clear conscience that I am not in violation of the conflict of interest policy, under the broadest possible reading of it. I certainly have no financial ties to Kraft or any of his companies, or to any other parties that Kraft has dealt with, and no expectation of possible business dealings with him in the future. And I genuinely have nothing against Kraft (or Silicon Valley). I wish Kraft, and FeldBum, all the best in their future enterprises. If my edits have been more negative than positive (and they have not all been negative), that is because I was correcting the record on what began as a promotional page.
FeldBum can't say the same because he has been paid for his marketing services by two separate Kraft companies as recently as 18-36 months ago. If nothing else, allowing him to continue editing (especially without disclosure) would be a stain on Wikipedia, and FeldBum's refusal to even acknowledge a conflict here suggests that he lacks a moral compass in this area, or that he has let his financial interests cloud his judgment. DaRonPayne (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Those are some truly muddy waters. You were right to add the closing of Doppler to his page. You were wrong to change the tone of the page and still wrong to use original research on it. Until you started with those edits, the only thing I ever did on the page was fix a link. I continue to believe that making edits on a page related to a former client, in an attempt to keep the page neutral, are OK, but I will abide by any decision made here. I think it is clear to anyone looking at the page in the question that you have gone farther than appropriate, which I believe hurts Wikipedia. Hopefully, this will be last comment here, so feel free to have the last word. --FeldBum (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
FeldBum, editing a client's page is a conflict, plain and simple. I have nothing else to add, aside from that your concerns about "original research" have been addressed on the talk page. DaRonPayne (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Editor began warring on the page using this account and IPs starting from 2 days ago, ignored other editors' input suggested them to use the talk page, and has declared themselves to be Jacob Wohl at a thread at WP:BLPN claiming defamation. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 15:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

    • The things you learn about on Wikipedia! Note that there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jacob Wohl. I tend to believe the article, but the article has been deleted twice, and I'll suggest improving the sourcing by a couple of levels. An article this controversial should have a majority of its sources from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and similar. NBCNews and the Atlantic are not bad sources, but these are your best. I'd be especially careful with the stuff from when he was a minor. An article that starts "Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997)[1] is an American far-right scammer, conspiracy theorist, online blogger, Internet troll, and ..." should have the best sourcing imaginable.
You seem to be going after this guy - which is not really the Wikipedia way of doing things. If you do go after somebody, please realize that 1) you have to have everything absolutely nailed down, 2) he's going to be coming after you, and 3) a lot of folks will not want to join in the mess.
    • On the other hand, at WP:BLPN, Jim Riecher pretty much says that he is Wohl, he is an SPA, and his argument there is complete bluster and nonsense. He could be easily blocked for causing disruption with a COI and probably a few other things as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I've added a couple of reliable sources to improve the lead, so hopefully this is resolved. NYT seems to be extremely conservative in their writing, but WaPo, Snope, Post-Gazette and NBC are nevertheless good sources. I regret for my, perhaps, aggressive editing style. I was, and will follow standard procedures to the best I could. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a legal threat now (see WP:BLPN) and I think both sides are trying to inflame this now. I made my last edit to the article, removing "fraudster" from the first sentence, since there has been nothing similar to a fraud conviction. There does seem to be evidence of fraud and I don't think Wohl could ever win a lawsuit based on this - but just the threat of a lawsuit (this is off-Wiki) does have a chilling effect and I'd never put myself in the position to get sued when both sides are acting irresponsibly. I've made my last edit on this at WP:BPLN and this is my last edit here about it. @Masem:, an admin responded over there, but I think he could have been stronger in the response. The article should be locked down. "Jim Reicher" should likely be blocked as a sockpuppet of the guy who started the article before the 1st deletion, and before the 2nd deletion. He should also be blocked as an undeclared COI causing major disruption (but one block is enough). The others editing there should be warned about WP:Battleground. Too much is too much. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

North Arkansas College

Junk-Diva has admitted that he or she works for North Arkansas College but he or she continues to make edits that are problematic (POV, out of alignment with our standard approach for college and university articles, etc.). Maybe I haven't provided good advice or my recommendations haven't been helpful; can someone else please reach out to him or her? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wolfram Research

Left a "Managing a conflict of interest" templated message on the editor's talkpage, which they quickly deleted, stating "Removing as it's unnecessary and doesn't apply to me." Their editing activity suggests that this may not be the case, and I would appreciate the opinions of others. Edwardx (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that I removed your "notice" on my talk page and I did leave that message as to why. Why did I leave that message? Because it's accurate. I do not work for that company, I never have worked for that company, I don't even live in the city where the company is located. The recent edit to the Wolfram Alpha page was to add something that was written in the Wall Street Journal (see the citation I left). I'll admit that I use Wolfram products (our department uses Mathematica every day). I have made 24 edits over the course of a full year. If someone were to compensate me for talking about them, I would most certainly make more of an effort to do so rather than changing a word here and a word there. If you want to attach me to my place of employment to check for true conflicts of interest, you'll have to start tracking the University of Pittsburgh, since that is my employer. If you notice, I have never edited any page affiliated with the school simply because I do understand what COI is. But if you're going to try and attack me for editing pages I have nothing to do with, then perhaps I should just start editing our school's page. At least then your COI claim would have merit. RunningToMars (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No one is attacking you, but your edits are rather more than "a word here and a word there", and almost all are to do with Wolfram. Today you added to Wolfram Alpha, "Wolfram Alpha Enterprise includes a continuously updated library of trillions of data points and AI-driven computational models. The program uses an organization's private data, combined with Wolfram Alpha's built-in data, to answer business-related questions. This allows business leaders to ask questions pertaining specifically to their unique business and obtain rapid answers to inquires that would normally take significant time and resources to compute manually." That wording does not appear to adhere to our neutral point of view policy. Edwardx (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
While I'm not seeing any clear evidence of a COI, there are many signs of an WP:UPE here. The WP:POV problems from the edits border on spamming. I suggest RunningToMars take some time away from topics related to Wolfram. POV disputes are not easy for anyone, let alone new editors. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin

Oshwah first undid Donhaynes's unsourced edits. Then, they had to again. Responding admin then warned them agaianst this behavior. Arley then just does it instead.

They made about 11 edits since then. Both users are SPAs This should probably be investigated further. Thank you. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There's been vandalism that they are trying to fix from an ip at the Port of Long Beach: this. So the ip definitely has a COI. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MUI Gohan

This was related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joliya147/Archive and didn't have firm findings, but the following could do with attention:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Arizona Federal Credit Union

Almost all of the edits from this IP have been to the article Arizona Federal Credit Union, including material with a clear advertisement tone. The alternate geolocation link associates this IP specifically with the credit union. A COI warning was placed on the IP's talk page in 2015. Raymie (t • c) 23:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP just removed, according to the edit summary, "content that reads as promotional". Raymie (t • c) 02:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

New OTRS queues

In an early 2017 RfC, the community endorsed the view that private evidence related to abusive paid editing should be submitted privately to relevant people when there are concerns related to privacy or outing. To better allow the functionary team to investigate instances of abusive paid editing where private evidence is a factor, the Arbitration Committee has established the paid-en-wp OTRS queue to receive such private evidence. The email address associated with this queue is paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. The queue will be reviewed by a subset of arbitrators and interested local CheckUsers, who will investigate all reports and take any necessary action.

This queue is not a replacement for existing community processes to address abusive paid editing. In particular, all public evidence related to abusive paid editing should continue to be submitted at the appropriate community noticeboards, such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Private reports that do not contain private evidence or can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes will be redirected accordingly. Reports will also be redirected to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, where appropriate.

Further, the checkuser-en-wp OTRS queue has been established to allow private requests for CheckUser to be sent to the local CheckUser team. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org rather than the functionaries-en list. Similar to the above, all private requests that can be sufficiently handled by existing community processes, such as WP:SPI, will be redirected accordingly.

The Arbitration Committee would like to note that the creation of these queues was endorsed by the 2018 Arbitration Committee, with the announcement delayed into the new year as the queues were organized and created.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#New OTRS queues

TobiasEF

This user has ignored 3 warnings I have sent them about COI and UPE. Based on this edit and their subseuqent edits, they have a COI regarding the pages linked above. I stumbled upon their poorly formated page Tavoris Hollins jr, tagged it, and sent them a warning. They ignored it and redirected it to a page that is a redirect itself VORY. Therefore I have CSD'd it and sent them a second warning. They ignored it and created Vory. I am coming here since they are refusing to communicate. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Green Organic Dutchman

The situation: Cannabis spam is can-o-spam. I could use some help here. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JamesJ1992

This user seems to be editing pages related to Tribal Lending, he created 3 pages, one of them being a description page for what the term is, second being Gavin Clarkson apparently a politician/associate Prof. who works with Tribal lending enterprises, third being Katherine spilde, another asst prof who published some research papers regarding the "Tribal lending". Point to note, The two people mentioned also co-authored a paper, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2740181 Daiyusha (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence

Editor appears to be an SPA as all edits cite the same blog. O3000 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely COI, but definitely a spammer. I've removed all instances of luxuryfacts.com as spam. All were from Ag.gautam. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Promotional only account so I have blocked them. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Steve Stadelman

There is some suspicious editing activity going on on this article, involving likely undisclosed COIs. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stadelman is ongoing.

Here is the copy pasted original report I made to SPI, which explains the situation pretty well:

"About a week ago, I put COI and BLP sources tags on the article Steve Stadelman because user Stadelman, whose username is the same as the article subject's last name, was editing it. Many of the edits were trying to put a photo in the infobox as well as some other minor tweaks. I put these tags on right after the most recent edit from user Stadelman. About 12 hours after the last edit on the Stadelman account, a Washington, DC-based IP address pops up. Its first edit was solely to remove the tags I had placed. The IP made minor tweaks similar to what the original Stadelman account was doing and removed the tags two more times. Today, RockfordCitizen popped up, and their first edit was the exact same as the IP's: removing the COI tags. As of right now, that is that user's only edit aside from creating their userpage. All in all, this looks like a potential case of undisclosed COI editing, and either sock or meatpuppetry."

The two named accounts in the original report have been indeffed, and one IP has been rangeblocked for a week. I'd like to have some more eyes on this article, since there is an active SPI case and more IPs are popping up. Aspening (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

James Wilson (scientist)

Most of this article's content appears to have been written by an account named Wilsonjamesm (talk · contribs), who also tried to blank the one reference to the incident for which he is best-known. The case is pretty frequently cited in Japan at least -- one example -- as the Urtext of medical research COI cases, so I can't imagine Wilson is more notable for anything else. The article still right now does not mention his company, Genovo, by name, but this was the case even before the eponymous Wikipedia account touched it. It's way outside my area of expertise (I was recently asked to translate a different document, produced by a Japanese university, that used the same word to describe the case, which is how I first learned about it), but more eyes on the article are really needed, and preferably someone with an awareness of the topic area should rewrite it to be a bit more neutral and broad in its coverage. Anyway, here's four different sources connecting Wilson to Genovo, one academic, one government, one popular media and one from Wilson himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We have an account User:Tom Edwards who claims me working on this article is a COI as I am on the board of the WMF and the WMF has a position on this directive.[11]

This account has only worked on this topic area for the last 8 months. Tom is wanting to use this source [12] to say "Some organizations that led campaigns opposing the directive, including Copyright for Creativity and the Copia Institute, have been funded by American technology companies like Google."

IMO this is original research and synthesis based on a primary source. The second source used does not even mention Copia. They also want to use a withdrawn blog post by the European Commission as still reflecting the Commisions official POV. I have started a RfC about this.[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a sensitive one. A member of the Wikimedia Foundation has been editing an article about the Foundation's activities in a contentious European political debate, persistently removing information that he deems unsavoury. A selection of the problematic edits:
The user was given the chance to apologise, but refused to.
Above are the user's in question's comments, which were added to this page before I had a chance to finish submitting this notice. I note that he does not deny having a COI. Tom Edwards (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
All my disclosures are on my talk page. I have been removing information that is unsupported by the references provided and for which you do not have consensus to add.
If we look at this text "These campaigns have been promoted by other American technology organizations, including the Wikimedia Foundation and Reddit. https://redditblog.com/2018/11/28/the-eu-copyright-directive-what-redditors-in-europe-need-to-know/]"
It is supported by a blog post from Reddit which does not EVEN mention the WMF. Additionally we have talk page discussion that the WMF is not really a tech company.[14] So yes we are having an issue with original research and synthesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I am finding it difficult to regard Doc James' edits listed above as problematic. Rather, they removed dubious sources and pulled the text back from the OR cliff. (This subject may well invite OR, and we should be exceedingly circumspect about avoiding extrapolations.) Nor is "Moving statements from Jimmy Wales around the article" a bad thing. The stated rationale in the edit summary (JW is more an NGO than tech company) is accurate; and beyond that, the topic admits multiple organizational schemes (chronological, article-by-article, support/oppose, etc.), so a degree of refactoring is probably unavoidable. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether one agrees with the edits is not a factor when deciding whether their author has a conflict of interest. Having said that, it does appear that one critical citation has disappeared at some point. I wonder who removed it..? Tom Edwards (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's still there. Currently, it's reference 12. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup in fact it is there 7 times and I think I may have even added a few of them :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I was confused by the Corporate European Observatory investigation not being included in the message above: "Tom is wanting to use this source [15]". This is all quite irrelevant to the glaring conflict of interest I am blowing the whistle on. Tom Edwards (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
That's the damned weakest WP:COI accusation I've ever seen, Good Grief, get a life Tom. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on ticket:2019022410001414, the following articles/users warrant scrutiny as a likely paid editing sockfarm. Unfortunately, most editors are old enough that CU is not useful. ~ Rob13Talk 14:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

ZenoRadio

Separately, while researching the above sockfarm, I encountered these articles/accounts that seem likely to be in violation of COI. Based on behavior, I have not connected them to the above farm. ~ Rob13Talk 14:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Hnetinka

Just logging the fact that we seem to have three single-purpose accounts editing this draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually about to bring this to ANI, as I'm thinking this is undisclosed paid editing given the history for the mainspace title and its associated AfD debate. Also, Marik's only edit was to remove the CSD tag I placed, and it was made 13 minutes before it made that edit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 09:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
There have been even more, I've been including links to
in deletion and WP:SALT summaries. – Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Eek. I'm tempted to start an SPI about the original three reported (Hilario, Susan, and John) aince those ones I know are still well within the CU data cut-off, but just being SPIs editing the same article, I think, isn't evidence enough, plus it's late heere and I work in the morning. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I blocked eight as sockpuppets of User:Leehnetinka11, the oldest account. – Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jéské Couriano and Athaenara. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

David Rakviashvili

NataliaP8 was created on October 19, 2017 and, after working solely in their sandbox, created David Rakviashvili on October 24, 2017. The next day after its creation, Georgeshubladze was created and their first edit was to Rakviashvili. Since then, all of their edits have been related to Rakviashvili. On this topic, Georgeshubladze created Georgian Events today which was Speedied as G11 and G12. "Coincidentally," Rakviashvili seems to be the owner of Georgian Events per linkedin. Something strange I noticed when I tagged Georgian Events for Speedy Delete was that when Georgeshubladze had created the page, it was already tagged with an advert tag (I think) dated March 2015. This likely means a similar page was created and deleted already. As well, per twitter, Georgeshubladze seems to be the Adviser at National Security Council of Georgia (where Rakviashvili works). If they aren't socks they are at the very least UPE's. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating new drafts although a possible COI exists?


Dear Wikipedia-Community,

the following case occurred to my accounts: My original account has got blocked for having a firm name in it, my drafts have been deleted. Due to this issue, an admin stated that I have a COI on my current account. I read a lot of guidelines regarding this concern, but the guidelines are, in my view, a little bit unclear. My question would be: If I have a COI, am I still allowed to create new, neutral drafts of the topic I’m involved in? Of course, I will keep neutrality, reliability and cover relevant aspects in the consent of the Wikipedia guidelines. I am willing to create and improve these drafts without any promotional content to ensure that my articles are neutral, justified and reliable.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Best regards. Dr.Booom (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for "the Wikipedia-Community" (no one person can!) but I don't see any reason why you couldn't write a draft article as long as it clearly notes your conflict of interest in Talk. I'd think that you'd want to seek input from other editors and be open to their suggestions and edits and perhaps even ask someone else to determine if the article is ready to be reviewed and moved to article space. But other editors may have different advice or different interpretations of our policies and practices. ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree with this. Furthermore, the journals are all or mostly notable and appropriate for articles. The articles however are promotional in tone and content, and possibly copyvio, and do not give the basic information necessary for an article on a journal, such as indexing. This is why we discourage COI editing even if declared--there is no inherent reason why an editor from the firm could not do this properly, but it almost always they do what they would do for aPR or a webpage. Some learn, but most do not. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:AnnieCR 1991

AnnieCR 1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Draft:Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Chris Wilson (pollster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Todd Vitale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Bryon Allen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:WPA Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Alex Muir (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnnieCR 1991/sandbox/Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All of this editor's edits have to do with persons associated with the political consulting firm of WPA Intelligence. The editor has attempted to declare a conflict of interest with regard to Stephenson (but has created a malformed declaration box) but has not made any declaration with any other subjects, and they are all associated with the same firm.Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have nominated all of these for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WPA Intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Robert, the editor has now made such a declaration on their user page. Lourdes 06:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike Bullard (comedian)

The user Mike bullard is repeatedly editing the Mike Bullard (comedian) article to remove the section about legal issues. The information is properly sourced, and the username implies an obvious COI. --Zman9600 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

UglyDolls (film)

These two users continue to add a so-called actor named "Jonathan Favela" as a character voice in the Uglydolls movie. No actor with this name seems to exist, but the user with the name Jonathan Favela has created two sandboxes, one on the account of the other, which seems to be a false attempt to paint himself as a legitimate author source as well. ZootyCutie (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Voice for Labour

Per diff, @RolandR: admitted a COI in relation to this small activist group. Today they reverted information sourced to The New York Times from the article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

His edit seems perfectly correct? You took a quote from a news article and attempted to restate it in Wikipedia's voice without even attributing it. This is a cut and dry BLP issue. Parabolist (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not a quote - it is in the NYT's voice - "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party". The attributed quote of Goldstein is there since I inserted that elsewhere in the article - attributed to Goldstein (and I wanted a single ref) - but the line on the founding of the group is clearly made by the NYT itself. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The full context (if you can't see NYT behind a paywall) is "Ms. George said she meant only to say it was "<long quote of George>". Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, defended Ms. George." - so no - this is not a quote in the NYT, but the NYT saying it itself. Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Kilgore College Rangerettes

Does COISELF extend to organizations/companies connected to a family member? While a person is genreally considered to have a COI when they are trying to create/edit content about a family member per WP:COISELF, I'm wondering if the same can be said about persons creating/editing content about organizations, etc. which are directly connected to a family member. For example, a person editing content about their spouse would be considered to have a COI, right? Would the same person, however, also have a COI if they were editing content about their spouse's company or some other organization in which the spouse held some position of authority?

The specific example I've come across is Kilgore College Rangerettes where KingOfKilgore has been expanding the article. He has stated on his user page that he is married to assistant director and choreographer of the Rangerrettes; the editor may also be working on a userspace draft about his wife and one of the photos (File:Rangerette Assistant Director - Shelley Wayne.jpg) added to the team's article may be of his wife. While the licensing on the photos seems OK, the fact they were uploaded "for publication and marketing the Kilgore College Rangerettes on Wikipedia and other publications" makes me a bit concerned about why they're being added to the article.

Anyway, I've already posted about some general COI stuff at User talk:KingOfKilgore#Conflict of interest editing, but I figured it would be good to get other opinions on this after reading KingOfKilgore, and also in case I'm the one who's really in the wrong here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a personal comment to the article as done here about images not being allowed in the article is another reason which I feel KingOfKilgore probably should refrain from directly editing the article except per WP:COIADVICE. A non-free image uploaded by KingOfKilgore was previously removed from the article per a WP:FFD discussion because it was deemed not to comply with WP:NFCC. The comment added to the article seems to be a response to that. Being frustrated over something being deleted is understandable, but articles are not really the right place to express such frustrations whether you’ve got a COI or not. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly I don't think you're in the wrong, and especially not after his comment on the talk page here. valereee (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Emily Jane Fox

User:Emilyjanefox1 has edited Emily Jane Fox. Some talk page and/or user talk page templates may be needed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, someone called "Emilyjanefox" has edited the article before. This is noted on the article's talk page, in the connected contributor template. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, both accounts have now been templated to within an inch of their lives. However, note that both edits made by these accounts were simply to remove patently false information, e.g. [16]. In one case the "information" involved doctoring an alleged statement she made to MSNBC not supported by the reference [17]. She did not ask for this article, and frankly I don't envy her the position she's in. Perhaps a little more of the personal touch when communicating and little less might be considered. Voceditenore (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Gab (social network) and Gab Dissenter

The site's founder and owner, Andrew Torba, has for months now been recruiting COI and possibly UPE POV-pushing on the main article Gab (social network); one such SPA editor was already TBanned from the article for a month (and has now returned to it). Today someone created an article on the spin-off product Gab Dissenter (not independently notable; currently less than 250 words long), and random seemingly canvassed people are coming out of the woodwork to !vote on the merge RfC: Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge. Could use some eyes. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I will not be remotely surprised if the site-banned User:Ridiceo and their two other block evading IP socks is actually Andrew Torba or someone from his company. Having random, seemingly experienced editors coming out of the blue to cast !vote and edit the dissenter article before the merge discussion becomes an RfC is indeed strange. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 16:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have asked the following editors to clarify if they have a COI connection to the subject: Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 08:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not employed by any of the subjects under discussion nor are they clients of mine. I have never taken compensation of any kind, including payment, for editing Wikipedia nor do I expect to do so. If this ever changes I will of course follow applicable policies. --vsync (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender:@Tsumikiria: No, I do not work for Gab or Torba. I've been editing Wikipedia way before I discovered the Gab article and have made many edits to other articles. X-Editor (talk)

Comment: The original notice here is not without irony but I concur with the need for uninvolved editors/administrators to assess the discussion. Heated comments are flying and before they land the participants leave the discussion to edit-war over forcing the issue. For my part I cast my vote, followed up on interesting counterarguments, and stated what would change my view; vested editors tagged all my comments. I made 3 substantive edits, removing vendor hype; they suggested I was paid by that vendor. I directly expressed concern about one editor's statement casting the service as an attack on Wikpedia and thereby undeserving of an article; notably this was one of the few comments not replied to. When an editor was called out here without notification I simply supplied it rather than see things escalate; for this I got mocked, variously, for how much I do or don't edit Wikipedia. This is not an environment that encourages one to contribute further. -- P.S. As a new service a discussion about it is bound to involve new editors. P.P.S. I've just learned about WP:1RR and this article seems as good a use case as any I can imagine. vsync (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I replied to that concern on another location. I've reiterated in a direct reply to you just now. For a new editor, citing WP:POVRAILROAD is rather impressive. We might be overalert due to past disruptions, but WP:DUCK concerns aren't invalid. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Debbie Tisinger-Moore

User was warned by Agent00x of policy. Edits have persisted at clearly connected article nonetheless. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Howard Pechet

Laurie Wallace-Lynch first came to my attention when they added mass additions of unsourced (and unencyclopedicly worded) content to Howard Pechet [18]. Despite asking the user directly if they were paid [19] (as their username matches a writing/communications website) they have ignored my warnings and continued to edit without disclosing. They also have appeared to have tried editing while logged out [20]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lminati

Lminati has added new sections dealing with his own work to about a half dozen articles. Here is a representative sample. I pointed him to WP:REFSPAM (admittedly, I could have avoided the suggestive redirect name) and how he's accusing me of trolling him. That's fine, I've got a thick skin, but now that the dispute is personalized I would appreciate it if some other folks could weigh in. If I'm the one in the wrong here, please tell me so. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, MrOllie, thank you for raising the issue here, it is a good idea. Let us seek guidance and I will absolutely abide to what what advice is given. I have added recognized academic contributions that we have given to the following articles, trying to be balanced and just briefly mention results that have been widely recognized as important and are published on peer-reviewed scientific articles and journals - nothing related to personal business, websites etcetera. I have also added some references to the work of others. I have taken the liberty of creating and adding several illustrative images, that have been found helpful in academic presentations etcetera, I hopes they would be appreciated. This seemed to me to be a valuable contribution, but maybe I am incorrect. All my changes on all pages have been systematically reverted, twice, without any discussion on the scientific content, which I feel very demotivating. If it is inappropriate to include these results, they can be deleted and I will quit this community and refrain from making any further contributions. For the benefit of those involved here is the list of pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_pattern_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_analog_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexapod_(robotics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_instruction_set_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_lamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_oscillator Thank you in advance for the guidance and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC) I would also, politely and humbly, request that due notice is taken of this rule [21] "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." It is very hurtful when as a senior academic you try to contribute, and someone chases you everywhere to delete everything repeatedly, with a blanket accusation. I have not promoted myself or my company, only attempted to divulge scientific results by adding academically appropriate citations: these have been peer-reviewed and are citations to official journals, so it is not just "my work". Additionally, I have little or no benefit from a citation on Wikipedia, which, as we know, is not officially counted. Then, I am new so I trust that the community will give me feedback: if what I did was wrong, or is otherwise unwelcome, I shall withdraw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lminati (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your semi-regular helping of suspicious articles

I've rejigged the heuristics used to generate the list - hopefully there are a lot less false positives this time around but less places for spammers to hide. For reference, this is about 16 days worth of pages. MER-C 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, missed a bunch. I think you'll find even richer pickings in this sublist. I've also found a way to reduce false positives further. MER-C 16:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Batch until 9 March

Have fun! MER-C 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Management University

User has been defiance in maintaining page’s independence by restoring promotional materials on the following dates:

- 21/02/2019
- 27/02/2019
- 09/02/2019

Besides the advertisement tag and third party tag (added on 05/03/19) placed by administrators were remove without resolving outstanding issues in the page.

Please be the judge as this user has shown unrestrained aggressiveness. Rongyao (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons clearly numerous times but this user Rongyao has chosen to bulldoze them. This user is also suspected as a sockpuppet of other users who have been banned for using this advert template and promotional concerns as a reason to just delete relevant materials, key achievements, and legitimate history that is common to and needed for most institutions especially universities. S/he is the one with a conflict of interest. He has also been suspended several times for abusing his editorial right. Bluestsky99 —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sword and Scale

Obvious conflict of interest, owning the article and removing cited controversy. More eyes on the article would also be good to help regulate that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Comment: The "cited controversy" has been repeatedly removed and re-added countless times and it appears that MBoudet is doing so for WP:BLP reasons per this edit summary. This might be allowed per WP:COIADVICE and WP:BLPCOMPLAIN, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this at all on the article's talk page or at a place like WP:BLPN; maybe there should be (see WP:BLPN#Sword and Scale) and perhaps it should be left out until it's determined not to be a BLP violation. The editing warring going on over this by both Satani and MBoudet has really not been productive at all, and edit summaries like this and this left by Santanai were not very helpful, particularly because of the defamation claim, and probably only led to more edit warring. It's surprising that this didn't end up at WP:AN3 with one or both editors being blocked over it.
    There are, however, some other issues which need to be resolved. MBoudet is the creator of the article, which is basically about his podcast. Whether the article is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article to exist, it's quite clear he (if he's really MBoudet, but that's a WP:REALNAME issue) does have a conflict-of-interest with respect to anything about the podcast or about himself on Wikipedia and, thus, shouldn't be editing such content directly (except per COIADVICE). It's also possible that his conflict-of-interest is also a WP:FCOI which means that WP:PAID is also applicable. So, MBoudet needs to properly disclose his COI per WP:DISCLOSECOI and also declare his status as a paid contributor as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added Reality Kings, an article that he created as well as his sandbox version. COI needs explored here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Alhtough MBoudet created the "Reality Kings" article, he doesn't appear to have edited it (at least not with the MBoudet account) since 2011. A Mike Boudet is specifically mentioned by name in Sword and Scale; so, it's not much of a reach to see how MBoudet might be connected to that article. I'm not, however, seeing any obvious connection between the account and "Reality Kings". What about the article makes you feel that he's also somehow connected to it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Soundwalk Collective

User:Sonnenalle44 previously had an account name that identified them with Soundwalk Collective, but has subsequently changed their name, and has not made a declaration under the new account name. Soundwalk Collective is tagged as having undisclosed paid editing. Draft:Draft:Stephan Crasneanscki, on the founder of Soundwalk, also has not had a declaration made. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Soundwalk Collective article has a long list of suspected connected contributors. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear editors, I understand it might look like I have an involvement in Soundwalk Collective financially, but I do not, I am a big fan of their work and Stephan Crasneanscki as a stand alone artist. I have followed Soundwalk Collectives work for many years, I do not know any of them personally. Can we please work together on cleaning anything up? It would be a shame for this work to go to waste. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like nonsense to me, and please explain how, if you don't know them personally, you took the picture? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear all, the photo was given to me by a photographer friend of mine. She was in Abu Dhabi at the same time as Stephan Crasneanscki. I own this photo, but I did not take it. Hi Roxy the dog, Is the underlying issue that Stephan Crasneanscki is not 'noteworthy' enough for Wikipedia? Sonnenalle44 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sonnenalle44:,Ok but the statement above makes it sound like your friend met Crasneanscki by coincidence. Did your friend take all three images you have claimed? SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The underlying issue is that you have a COI regarding Soundwalk Collective, as indicated by your editing behaviour, and your previous username. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Jaleh Mansoor

Longish bio of a frankly pretty obscure associate professor, by a new account that has done very little else. Done at a local Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism_2019. The editor also took the (rather nice) photo 4 days ago. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's quite possible the editor is a student or colleague of the subject, but... even if either were true that's a pretty minimal COI and the article isn't promotional. Jaleh Mansoor was added as a suggested article (then a red link) back in January by a completely different editor when the edit-a-thon was being organized [22]. The article was started on February 6th in the editor's sandbox, the date of the first workshop for the edit-a-thon. Observe the first draft, obviously notes from the workshop. It was then gradually built up. It was one of the organizers of the editathon who moved it into article space [23], not its creator. Whether or not the subject is notable is an entirely different question, but that's a frequent problem with these sorts of events. I'm not seeing a COI problem here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Bhavi Chand Jindal

This article could use some extra eyes. I tagged it for G11 but that was judged to be a very bad call ("bogus"). Meanwhile, the article creator has been indeffed for promotional editing and most of their articles deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


Max Schneider

This article could use some extra eyes.

There has been long term disruption on Max Schneider related pages by COIs since February. The IP listed above claims here to be his manager (and was warned about COI editing). Their edit here was subsequently replicated by Cantfullstopmenow [24] showing they are the same user or working together. Their edits were overtly promotional and rejected. However, today Dml407 made a similar edit with a less over promotional tone [25] but used similar text like "MAX is an iHeart 2019 ‘Best New Pop Artist" nominee to begin the paragraph and Lights Down Low charting. They also spammed a bunch of his performances with Youtube references which seems to just be to boost Schneider's resume. None of these users (or IPs) have followed proper COI procedure despite them all receiving warnings. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Adani Group

This is a highly influential multi-billion dollar corporation and their page reads like an advert. There are not many eyes on the article because the company is based in India, not California. The main contributor of article text is User:Adanigrouponline. The editors are now blocked but their advert remains. I have added a COI tag but think most of the content would usefully be removed, though it is referenced. Anna (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrzej Sztando

Seems to be an obvious coi owning the article and fighting to keep it from being deleted with Afd discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrzej Sztando. Some more eyes on the Afd discussion would help. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be cleared up. scope_creepTalk 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Josephintechnicolor and WP:UPE

Was referred from declined CU request and SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohamed Ouda. So, Kelly Hyman, which was recreated at Kelly Hyman (lawyer) and Kelly Hyman (attorney), was yet again recreated by Josephintechnicolor in namespace Draft:Kelly Hyman due to main space was SALTed to new user. It was recently MFD.

Based on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Contentious Deletion Discussions of EverlyWell and Draft:EverlyWell and User:Mohamed Ouda. It seem the user Mohamed Ouda was paid to do so to create Kelly Hyman. On the AN thread, it was mentioned a few other user, which User:Experio2018 was a sock of User:Marcelo842, while User:Brio was another sockmaster that have 3 other socks that was mentioned in SPI of Mohamed Ouda by admin BU Rob13 as "the four accounts I blocked were related". So, it may be a WP:MEAT on paid editing, and unlikely a new user, by coincidence , recreating Kelly Hyman in Draft:Kelly Hyman just by random chance of overlapping interest (despite it was different in structure by compare Draft:Kelly Hyman and Kelly Hyman (attorney))

Also, the user Josephintechnicolor somehow tagged himself for COI (see user page edit: Special:Diff/844292616) for the subject "Giuseppe G. Ruisi", which he then created Giuseppe G. Ruisi. Despite Ruisi was deceased. User should not edit further in wikipedia unless they are disclosing their paid editing employer, and binding to WP:COI guideline on avoid direct editing subjects and articles that have COI. Matthew hk (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

PR Pundit

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aditibhalotra94 we have presumptive UPE probably connected to the Indian PR firm "PR Pundit". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Jusinjacob

If anyone can read the (deleted) article on Saikatham Books, it is mentioned that the director of the company is Jusin jacob. The user himself added this The promotion doesn't stop with that article, he also goes into other wiki articles and adds his company's site link to them. Daiyusha (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is resolved for now. I've done a run through for links to the website, and left some advice on the editor's talk-page. Unless I missed something, this can be archived. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

QuisLex

Last week I posted a brief comment asking Dylanexpert if they had a conflict of interest, and explaining WP:PAID. This was based on this block of edits to QuisLex which added "award-winning" to the first sentence, and a lot of bland, vaguely promotional descriptions based on flimsy sources. After looking at their history, several other articles had similar problems with flattering-but-vague bloat. Most of these articles are connected to the California Innocence Project, such as these edits to the Brian Banks article.

Today they responded with this monster of a post. There's a lot of filler here, but three things seem pretty alarming:

  • When I was approached by my client, representing the organization QuisLex, to edit their page for compensation, I thought “why not”? Obviously you disagree, but if all information in an article is properly sourced, it shouldn’t matter whether an editor has been paid or is working for free. - It's not that I "disagree", it's that, well... hopefully the problems here are obvious.
  • However, I was recently approached by a client to represent a company that has had many legal claims and other public complaints against it. I was appalled by this company and immediately turned the client down. I refuse to edit the Wikipedia page of a company that I believe may be fraudulent or otherwise unsavory. - This suggests freelance paid editing. Why is this editor being approached? Who is the other company, and did they sucker someone else into editing? This seems like a good illustration of a problem with paid editing, as disclosing this would improve the project but would also potentially hurt this editor's chances of finding more work. We should be concerned with neutrality and notability, not with how "unsavory" a company is.
  • The rules say that paid editors are strongly discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia. It doesn’t say that they are forbidden from doing so. I suspect that that wording is included because to forbid editors from making edits to an article for which they are being paid by a client would constitute restraint of trade. Certainly, I would claim restraint of trade if I were thus prevented from editing this article. - This is an implied legal threat. My response on my talk page mentions WP:NLT, and I have asked them to respond here.

As this editor explained in great detail on my talk page, not all of their edits are promotional, but unless they disclose all activity, it's not clear exactly which are clean and which are not. The above articles seem like plausible candidates. The edits to Lynne Serpe suggest that this might be a long-term behavior, since that activity dates to 2013 and includes acommons upload which later received an OTRS ticket. Normally this wouldn't mean anything, but combined with the comments about "clients", it's an additional red flag. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This matter should never have been referred to the Noticeboard. Please note the first bullet point of the “Additional Notes” above: “This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.” Obviously, my actions do not qualify as “repeated” or “extended”: indeed, I’ve taken no action at all to edit the QuisLex article since Greyfell posted his comment on February 24 on my Talk page. In addition, Greyfell did not at all use our discussion on his Talk page to resolve this matter, dismissing my sincere questions as “filler.”
I also included this sentence: “Particularly, if you happen to find any negative articles about QuisLex, by all means let me know, since to help maintain NPOV, I will gladly include references to those negative articles in the text.” (This is on the theory that his Internet search might uncover something I overlooked.) Apparently, Greyfell has plenty of time to put me on the Noticeboard, but not to do some simple research that might have made the QuisLex article better.
Also, Greyfell completely fails to mention in his comments that in addition to posting his brief comment on my Talk page on February 24, he literally deleted all my work on the QuisLex article, as well as the work of a former editor or editors. This is despite the fact that the main objection he expressed to my edit of the article (other than the possible conflict of interest) was my use of the words “award winning” in the first sentence of my version of the article, a phrase which was, in fact, supported by a cited reference to this blog post by UK-based attorney Chris Dale, who is described here as the creator of “an authoritative and objective web site and blog on the subject [of document discovery] and is a well-known speaker and commentator in the UK, the US and any jurisdiction which requires electronic discovery of documents.” (On the article Talk page, Greyfell disagrees that Dale is a legitimate authority, calling Dale's post an example of “acrylic paperweights”!) However, Greyfell completed ignored my offer to delete the words “award winning” (and the citation) from my version of the article, which would have resolved the problem.
On the other hand, I apologize for my carelessness in not realizing that I had to reveal publicly that I was being compensated for my work on the article. I have already indicated the fact of my compensation on the QuisLex Talk page, and will shortly indicate it on my own Talk page as well.
Also, I apologize that I gave the misleading impression that I was threatening Greyfell personally with legal action, which was not true. However, Wikipedia:NLT does specify the following: “Administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt.” Greyfell did not allow me the opportunity to apologize and retract my statement. He simply went ballistic and posted to this Noticeboard.
I know that the dispute between Greyfell and myself has been of too brief a duration to qualify as harassment, but I certainly feel harassed! And as I informed Greyfell, situations like this do not encourage talented editors to contribute to Wikipedia!
I strongly encourage other editors to view the history of this dispute and of the article and to respond. Thank you.
Dylanexpert (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Dylanexpert, first, I am not an administrator. This post was to bring this problem to wider attention people with more experience dealing with these issues.
As I explained, this wasn't merely about QuisLex, this was about several years of past activity writing promotional articles, which are listed above. You have admitted to writing for pay, but have carefully avoided explaining any details, or discussing previous edits.
I have enough first-hand experience with legal action and Wikipedia that I don't take it lightly. You made an implied legal threat, and you still haven't clarified your intentions. It's not just me that you implied you would take legal action against, it was Wikipedia. Just spit it out, why would you even mention restraint of trade if not because you felt if gave you grounds for legal action? Instead of vague legalize, and complaining about policies, state your intentions using direct language.
You also have not explained how you were approached, nor why some other company approached you. As I said on my talk page, you need to be transparent about all this. Who else has payed you to edit, and is anyone else still paying you to edit? What other articles have you written for pay? Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Given the responses you were already giving to Greyfell, where you were denying the import of noting paid editing, and given that more eyes could be used to look at your prior edits, then yes, Greyfell was acting appropriately to bring this matter to the attention of those concerned with conflict-of-interest editing. Your eagerness to call having noticed your legal threat as going "ballistic" and say that you were feeling harassed for having your problematic edits and statements noted is inappropriate (as is any suggestion that you be entrusted with adding any negative material to your client's article.) I recommend that you not edit your client's articles, but use the Talk page to suggest edits, so that they may be seen by editors who are not inherently biased before inclusion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Dylanexpert, you asked for advice here, and received some that seems to me very good indeed. It's a pity that you haven't followed the first suggestion, which was to list on your user page all articles that you've edited for pay, with details of who paid you, and on whose behalf (and yes, I've seen that you've placed some {{Connected contributor (paid)}} tags). Until you do that, all your edits are under suspicion. It might be good to do this before you make any further edit elsewhere. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for weighing in, but I'm a bit puzzled. I never said anywhere that I didn't intend to list on my user page any articles that I've edited for pay. In fact, as you can see, when the editor Grayfell brought up the subject on my user Talk page, I wrote, prior to your edit above, the following sentence, "I am going to put all the information in when I have time," meaning within the next day or two, owing to personal pressures that I have had to deal with. Also, my placement of the Connected Contributor tags on the relevant article Talk pages would seem to indicate my good faith in this matter. Unfortunately, I had originally believed that the COI information should go on my Talk page, rather than the main user page. I have rectified that error, and the statement has now been entered on my main user page for all to see.
As an additional note, I want to declare that I was not compensated for my work on the Lynne Serpe article.
I want to apologize that I unknowingly violated Wikipedia's Terms of Use and want to assure you and others that it won't happen again. I'm also sorry that I reacted overly emotionally to Grayfell's original concerns about the QuisLex article. Thank you again.
Dylanexpert (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

During the 2015 trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy an individual named Mark Bourrie testified that he had been paid to edit Duffy's article. (See this news item). It appears that this never came to the attention of Wikipedia. I have noticed that there are editors heavily editing both articles to this day and I'm wondering if admins and checkusers can look into it and the articles. 199.7.157.61 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_140&oldid=1138418448"