Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 1,286: Line 1,286:


Assorted interesting edits by user Dmhco: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=683759389&oldid=683759239 deleted this COIN discussion] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=683759498&oldid=683759389 reverted by Dmhco also]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Harrison_%28Music_Producer%29&diff=679817220&oldid=679772625 Response to another COI allegation when writing about Daniel Mark Harrison's brother], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factory_Banking&diff=prev&oldid=681703325 maintenance templates and PROD removed in "minor edit" with no summary and no talk page discussion]. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]]&nbsp;<small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Assorted interesting edits by user Dmhco: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=683759389&oldid=683759239 deleted this COIN discussion] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=683759498&oldid=683759389 reverted by Dmhco also]), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Harrison_%28Music_Producer%29&diff=679817220&oldid=679772625 Response to another COI allegation when writing about Daniel Mark Harrison's brother], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factory_Banking&diff=prev&oldid=681703325 maintenance templates and PROD removed in "minor edit" with no summary and no talk page discussion]. -- [[user:intgr|intgr]]&nbsp;<small>[[user talk:intgr|[talk]]]</small> 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|FocusEconomics ‎}}
* {{userlinks|Helenajoani }}
* {{userlinks|Helenajoani }}
* {{userlinks|Equitxtere}}
*{{linksummarylive|lh=spam.focus-economics.com}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The listed users are single-purpose accounts whose only contributions involve promotional editing at [[FocusEconomics]] and adding external links to its website, focus-economics.com. I wonder if maybe the article FocusEconomics was created in the first place as the result of paid editing, too. [[User:Deli nk|Deli nk]] ([[User talk:Deli nk|talk]]) 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:11, 2 October 2015

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • 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.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Template talk:Hearst
    Talk:Hearst Communications
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

    (last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

    To sum it up:

    • D0kkaebi has long been suspected, here and on fr:WP, of being a high-ranking member of François Asselineau's Popular Republican Union (2007). His name is believed to appear in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger").
    • Reasons for this suspicion:
    • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

    I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
    However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
    I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
    Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
    1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
    2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything !
    3. [4] he protects bad sources
    4. [5] WP:OR
    5. [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. [10] removes a critical source
    8. [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

    --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
    1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
    2. Same change, same revert.
    3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
    4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
    5. Same changes as above, no justification
    6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
    7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
    8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
    9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

    D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
    1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
    2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
    3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
    4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
    5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
    6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
    7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
    8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
    9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

    --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

    • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
    • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Note: Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI:

    • "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait;
    • The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00;
    • "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these;
    • Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP.

    Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dankonikolic

    I am quite concerned about the editing history and contributions of Dankonikolic, especially those that appear to have focused extensively on adding links or reference to an author who shares the name of the Wikipedia account in question. However, I don't have the time or expertise in the appropriate topics to adequately investigate this right now so I'm letting others know via this noticeboard in the hopes that others can look into this and take the appropriate action(s). ElKevbo (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I am about to make some edits on the page on Practopoiesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as I have read a few publications. I think it is valuable information that should be presented on wikipedia to be available in a way that can be critically edited. While I agree that the author of the page should not be the only contributer to it, I recommend keeping it to allow it being reviewed, extended and amended. Gmulder (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will try to contribute to this topic. It is one of the most important theories of mind with very strong neuroscience foundation and with potential applications in variety fields but especially in AI. If Dankonikolic is really professor Danko Nikolic from Max Planck Institute the Wiki should be proud to have contributor of such a high scientific reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlajkony (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The user doesn't only do self-promotion. They do WP:OR too. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a neuroscientist who is also interested in artificial intelligence (AI). In my opinion, the theory of practopoiesis is an important theoretical contribution to understand the brain and to inspire brain-like AI. Wikipedia is a good place to introduce this advance to a wider audience and such a page will provide the space for critical comments and active discussions. Based on this judgment, I have already edited the page two days ago, which also made the first author of the page not its only contributor.
    Importantly, I also noticed that the page was written in a fairly objective manner, aiming at explaining the theory but not self-promotion. In addition, it does not violate the WP:NOR policy, as the content is attributable to a reliable, published source. 3A104 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The only source that is cited is one written by the editor in question. If there are other sources, I recommend you add them quickly otherwise the article is liable to be deleted again (which raises another question: Can an administrator please compare the current version of the article with the deleted one to see if this should just be speedily deleted?).
    The editor in question has sent me an e-mail message that is quite disturbing; I won't repeat its contents here except to say that it completely confirms and indeed heightens my suspicions and concerns. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can email me using Special:Emailuser/JzG. I am minded to get rid of this person. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A senior editor raised this issue, asking others who have time and expertise to look into the topic itself. Now we got some feedbacks about the value of its content. Do these opinions matter, at all? I thought that in Wikipedia the decision should be made on the ground of community consensus and/or explicitly written guideline, rather than someone’s suspicion, concern, or will to get rid of someone. No? 3A104 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The novice editors who have inexplicably found their way to this obscure noticeboard don't appear to have added much of value to the discussion and certainly don't seem to have responded directly to the serious issues of chronic self-promotion, conflict of interest, POV, and OR that have been raised. Nor have they attempted to edit the articles in question to try to correct any of these issues. ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting text describing this situation is here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/05/wikipedia-cynicism-and-idealism/ , and there are more but curiously, the links to those texts are black listed by Wikipedia and I could not save this page if it contained those links. [[[User:Dankonikolic|Danko]] (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)][reply]

    Avrett Free Ginsberg

    Maybe an admin would like to complete the PROD before the tag is irregularly deleted by an IP from an ad agency, again. Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I semi-protected it, which will allow the PROD to run its course without further IP disruption, but equally will allow good faith removal by any Wikipedian with standing. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Is there any legit editing coming out of this IP? — Brianhe (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like it to me. As Brianhe indicated above, the IP maps [19] to an advertising agency FCB based in New York City. Both FCB and Avrett Free Ginsberg are subsidiaries of the same parent ad agency, Interpublic Group of Companies. --Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends how high your standards are for The Good: in the not-yet-deleted contribs, I see gnoming edits,[20][21][22][23] factual bugfix that was incorrectly tagged as vandalism,[24] blp fix-up effort that maybe could be COI but methinks it is a very long stretch,[25][26] fancruft,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] fan-of-the-sports-team advocacy editing,[34][35][36][37][38] self-reverted test-edit,[39][40] actual vandalism which was auto-tagged as such,[41] prolly vandalism albeit untagged as such,[42][43] likely friends-or-autobiographical COI w.r.t. recruiting-honeypot-article about college alma mater,[44] good-faith deleting linkspam,[45] good-faith removing youtube-sourced info on controversial type of sexuality.[46] Also, allegedly added a NewYorker ref to a COI-encumbered article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    see below. The Avrett Free Ginsberg article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [47]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alvartvnews

    Sockpuppets or meatpuppets likely at work...geographic dispersal suggests job boarding. Sandbox interactions we've seen in UPE cases before when dispersed editors want a clandestine means of communication.

    Alvartvnews connections

    Note - ALVA RTV is the company name, it's headquartered in Ireland. IP editor has stated Ange Luzitu was a founder.

    • 31 May 86.45 IP creates draft [48]
    • 17 August 2015 sandbox interactions take place over a short timespan
      • 219.92 IP adds what looks like a filename [49]
      • Harkennen twiddles filename 1 minute later [50]
    • 1 September sandbox interactions take place over a short timespan
      • Angeluzitu2015 partially reconstructs article in sandbox [51]
      • 219.92 IP blanks sandbox a few minutes later [52]
      • Angeluzitu2015 reconstructs article in sandbox a second time [53]
    Harkennen

    Harkennen has been creating and editing a bunch of business/CEO articles since mid-August:

    — Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    all or almost all of Harkennan's contributions have been helpful. The only one he created himself is an American football player, not a businessman. (Tho I think non-notable -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Buttles (2nd nomination). DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Island6

    Articles

    Users

    This is something of WP:WALLEDGARDEN of articles created and maintained by a group of SPAs. The subjects appear to be mostly notable, however they are promotional in nature and contain large numbers of links to the related organizations. Some cleanup has been done but some more eyes would be helpful.

    User:Coldcreation is the exception in that they are not an SPA. However, at the AFD for the Thomas Charvériat article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Charvériat), the user has exhibited some questionable behavior. On Talk:Thomas Charvériat he states that he knows M. Charvériat and previously had a business relationship with him, but denies any conflict of interest (diff here). During the course of the AFD he stated that he would post sources demonstrating the notability of Charvériat, which he did, but it turns out that those sources are images hosted on a domain controlled by Charvériat himself (see http://whois.domaintools.com/m5project.com). The file dates on this server (see directory listing posted at AFD) appear to show that they were uploaded shortly before Coldcreation posted them at the AFD. This suggests off-wiki coordination. Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff.

    There may be more; this is what I came up with on a first pass. Vrac (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: As stated, I curated shows years ago within which the artist exhibited (mentioned in the article). There was no business relationship, and there is no WP:COI. Coldcreation (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vrac has summed things up well. As to my involvement:

    1. I put up notability tags on Thomas Charveriat, which were removed (diff) summarily by Coldcreation, prior to his disclosure of a connection to the article subject.
    2. I noticed the possibility of a potential conflict for Coldcreation editing the Thomas Charveriat article when he then said " I can attest first hand to the notability of the artist and curator (as well as island6)".[54]
    3. I asked about this and he insisted on disclosing via email, which I declined[55].
    4. He eventually disclosed that he had curated the article subject in four shows at his gallery about ten years ago. [56] To me, that's enough to expect someone should stay back from editing the concerned article, and not participate in the AfD.
    5. More concerning is the sudden appearance, and apparent off-wiki coordination of a set of hard-to-find references for Chévariat, posted on his website [57] and shortly thereafter posted on-wiki[58] by Coldcreation as support for a keep vote. When I looked at the refs provided by User:Coldcreation, I noticed the site hosting the refs was the personal site of the article subject. Wondering when this had come up, I looked at the folder holding these files, and was very surprised to see thy had been posted within hours of Coldcreation finding them. As Vrac says: "Not much of an explanation was given for this remarkable coincidence: diff".

    As Vrac says, there is notable material here that is deserving of article(s), but the normal editing processes are compromised by the multiple SPA's and the above events. My impression is that something is going on that is not in the interests of transparency and neutral point of view.New Media Theorist (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tc262 outed him or herself as Zane Mellupe [59]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of curiosity, what are the odds of two unconnected users having an almost identical set of userboxes, including the same fourteen userboxes, in the same sequence on their user pages? I'm not good at that kind of math, but two users who speak the same languages, and both like the UN? I guess one could have copied the other's. See the userboxes at the top of Tc262's user page] and and and almost identical set on Coldcreation's user page (at the bottom).New Media Theorist (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Combinatorics problem, answer 1/p (k,n) where n=14. If there are exactly fourteen userboxes then the odds are about one in 1011 (i.e. one in 14!). But if there are 100 userboxes to choose from it goes down to 1 in 1026. By the way Wolfram Alpha can do the math. — Brianhe (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is neither here nor there as regards the topic of this thread (and the COI is certainly real here) but it really fries me when people mindlessly multiply made-up probabilities (which, even if we knew them individually, are mutually dependent) to come up with meaningless astronomical "odds against" something or other. Please. 02:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    I am new here, and I have to comment that the anonymous brains behind Wikipedia are very sharp, and very good indeed. And also sometimes funny. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COIN is where the cool kids hang out. By which I mean the über nerds. By which I mean the WikiGods among men (official). — Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate imprecision, so I checked: there are 2526 userboxes in Category:Userboxes. So the math says the odds are somewhat less than 1 in 1047. Putting this in perspective odds of winning a typical lottery are 1 in 14 million. 1 in 1047 is like winning the lottery c. seven times a row (math). Hope this helps. — Brianhe (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God! Now you're making it worse. People don't pick their userboxes randomly. It's obviously not a coincidence, but that's not because of a ridiculous calculation like this. EEng (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More Island6-Coldcreation "synergy": this Google cache of Island6.org's about page: "Antonio Argueta is creative director of island6. He studied art in Guatemala before helping /name redacted/ to open Coldcreation Contemporary Art Gallery in Barcelona." New Media Theorist, 00:46, 18 September 2015‎
    That would make Coldcreation's username a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy. Vrac (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: The username Coldcreation is permitted because it is non-promotional (i.e., there is nothing to promote). The gallery has been closed since 2006 (i.e., there exists no company, group, institution, product or gallery by that name). Coldcreation ( Coldcreation) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly do not understand why it's so hard for Coldcreation to see why other editors might infer a WP:COI, based on widely available sources and his fervent support of Thomas Charvériat's article, and for Coldcreation to recognize this and step back in the interests of transparency and neutrality. Even if Coldcreation has no current financial COI, he has an apparent one given the numerous connections between Coldcreation and the article subject. Seeing as we have no direct verification team in Wikipedia to rule these things out, an apparent conflict brings down the perceived quality and neutrality of the encyclopedia. The sources that connect Coldcreation to Island6 and Charvaeriat are all over the web. Googling "Island6 and Coldcreation" brings five pages of Google hits. All of this information points to a possible conflict, which degrades the value of the encyclopedia when you insist of supporting and editing subjects with which you have, or have had an obvious professional connection. To wit: From Antonio Arguet's Linkedin page: "In between some of the tasks Tony Argueta was the first curator of the gallery helping //name redacted// to organize the first Coldcreation gallery art exhibition, showing and launching for the first time in the careers of the artists like Thomas Charveriat..." Given your amazing contributions in other areas like uploading images of artist's works from the public domain, I do not understand why you persist in a) being cagey about these connections and b) participating in editing and supporting the notoriety of subjects you have had strong professional connections with, and c) not understanding how strong this conflict appears to other editorsNew Media Theorist (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to deny COI, and you continue to not rule it out. In either case, my few edits to the concerned article(s) have been fair and neutral. When you had doubts about notoriety, I stepped in because I was familiar with the notoriety of the artist, and have since listed a series of citations pointing to reliable sources on the subject. This can only help increase the encyclopedic value of the article (when someone else has the time to include the content). I've done the same for hundreds of other articles. There is nothing more to it. I sincerely hope this is clear now and wish to continue going about my business of improving Wikipedia articles. Coldcreation (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are well beyond "not rule it out" at this point. Engaging in off-wiki communication with an article subject that you clearly have a relationship with to procure sources for an AFD, in order to retain a promotional article created and edited by SPAs who are in all likelihood the subjects themselves, and then avoiding responsibility for it, is far from "fair and neutral". This is precisely the kind of scenario that makes the WP:COI policy necessary. The only question left in my mind is whether an admin will find this behavior worthy of sanction or not. In any event I suggest you avoid editing this group of articles. Vrac (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You will see by looking at the edit history of the article(s) in questions that I've always been fair and neutral. Regarding the AfD, notability of the artist is beyond question. The sources exist and they were not difficult to obtain. As far as Googling "Island6", "Coldcreation" (together) I can guarantee you if there were any connection between the two there would be far more than three pages of Google hits (many of which appear to be mirror sites). There is nothing worthy of sanctions. Coldcreation (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply.... Sigh.... New Media Theorist (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Between 2002 and 2006 I curated exhibitions involving a large number of artists. In order to avoid any charges of conflict of interest I have refrained (for the most part) from editing articles related to these artists. The few edits to date have been primarily to revert vandalism, fill in bare URL citations, and other such edits, both fair and neutral. If need be, I will provide (and have) citations published by reliable sources on respective Talk pages or notice boards when notability is questioned, or if other issues arise: per WP:YESPOV, WP:BIO, WP:CURATOR, and WP:Artist. Coldcreation (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to Closing Admin: There is no COI between my self and these artists, as there is nothing in which I have stakes, and nothing from which I stand to benefit. By looking at my edits, it can be seen that I've actually deleted links which did not meet the standard of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. As mentioned above and elsewhere, my few edits to related articles (and other edits within my area of expertise concerning WikiProject Visual arts) have been objective, in compliance with Wikipedia content policies, and have placed the interests of the encyclopedia first. Coldcreation (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested reading: Ethics. Vrac (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coldcreation: there's no closing admin here. That's an AfD construct. Here, each editor reads your comments and decides what to do, whether it's continue debate, edit an article in question, propose deletion, open an SPI or whatever. Admins may also decide to take admin-only action, or ordinary editor action of their own. Rarely are SPI cases closed, they are usually just automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity. Even then, cases can be reopened anytime. COIN is in this way IMHO much more participatory and level between admins and non-admins than the other noticeboards, aa well as less susceptible to gaming by canny editors who know Wiki-legalese. Brianhe (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You could begin your search by spelling Charvériat correctly. See also this article on the subject of the same exhibition at CCCB (Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona), "Los Miedos", BAC IV - 12/2003: F2T? or Free to talk?? (an interactive hip hop installation that works with your mobile telephone, (see video)). Coldcreation (talk) 07:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, you disbelieved in the notability of the artist, I not: As a former curator I was aware of his notability, and demonstrated it to you by providing published sources, in compliance with core content policies. For the record, your assumption of SOCK or MEAT proved untenable, and your assumption of bad faith will too. The assumption of good faith is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, a very reasonable question about your editing behaviour has been posed (i.e. how did you produce the sources posted on Charveriat's site), and you have not answered. The sources you provide above are indexed by search engines. The numerous sources you provided in the AfD from n5project.com are not. I am questioning your actions in the related AfD, which seem to speak of COI. New Media Theorist (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to be specific, here are the "magical" sources hosted on Charverieat's web site that were provided by Coldcreation in the Charveriat AfD;
    If anyone can find a web result that points to these sources at their URL on the Charveriat server, I'd be very interested in knowing how it was done.New Media Theorist (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Your request to produce independent sources attesting to the notability of the artist was answered with the following unedited list; some from the artists' website (for anyone to find), others from elsewhere on the web (none of which, apparently, you or Vrac could find):

    All of the above citations and associated links were obtained with directness and usefulness in accord with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Coldcreation (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    you're good at using the  Done tag but not at answering a direct question. Please provide an example of a search that returns the exact links to the Charvériat-hosted m5project.com refs that you provided. I corrected my typos that you so capably pointed out.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Genocchio

    There have been long-running COI problems at Benjamin Genocchio, which I had thought were pretty much under control. Bgenocchio created Melissa Chiu in 2010. Melissa Chiu is married to Benjamin Genocchio. Bgenocchio has said (if I understand him correctly) on his talk page that I and another editor, Bangabandhu, have an agenda in regard to these two articles and have made "unscrupulous" edits. I'd be grateful if someone else would take a look and check whether any inappropriate edits have in fact been made – and if so, rectify them. Note: Bgenocchio and 1artlovernewyork have been found to be the same user; Artmaven77 is apparently not linked to them. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    What long-running COI problems are you referring to? An independent Wikipedia editor just added to the talk page that i had not touched it since 2013 aside from minor edits? They even asked you to calm down (talk) . What is factual is that beginning in august this year you and the user Bangabandhu began inserting entirely negative commentary into the wikipedia entry for Melissa Chiu, my wife. The record shows this. Every time anyone tried to modify or adjust it in some way you guys rejected and restated all of their edits, even ones where there were factual errors. Because of this we made a complaint to wikpiedia and in turn (talk) moved immediately to block me as a user citing a conflict of interest. You accused me of sock-puupetry even though i am not using more than one account. I use one wikipedia login and it is under my name and have done this for many years. i am not anonymous. i am not the same user as 1artlovernewyork-- that account belongs to someone else even though some entries from the ip address are the same. i will not tell you who this account belongs to for reasons that i will outline below. i have no idea who any of the other users are. i don't use wikipedia often and i regret having got involved here to protect my wife.

    I thought this matter was at an end, that Melissa Chiu's account would be properly revised and edit made by these two users reviewed by others with no agenda. In fact i would note that their original edits have either been removed or modified by other editors. Then came September 6-7, both the same users started to modify my personal wikipedia account. that seemed suspicious. This is what i consider to be unscrupulous because it was done while I was blocked as a user, by them, and clearly in retaliation for making a complaint about these users. Frankly given the negative entries that (talk) and Bangabandhu have been invoked in inserting on my wife's page, plus the fact that he is the one who moved to block my access, that would count him out as somebody who could edit my wikipedia entry--doesn't he also have a conflict of interest here?

    i would note that i have not touched either my wikipedia entry nor that of melissa chiu since this issue began (initiated by their actions, i would add), while both parties are continuing to edit my wikipedia page. in fact they have just introduced two factual errors which i have noted on the talk page of the entry and requested they be independently reviewed. i am a public individual, i do not hide behind anonymous user names, and frankly i do not want to be having to respond to these constant negative changes, so i welcome independent review of both these entires. but i would request please that given the pattern of negative commentary on entries for a married couple that both these users and their connected associates be prevented from making any further changes to them and their edits be reviewed. i am not adept at using wikipedia or familiar with its rules but it seems to me that if i can't edit these accounts as a person with a conflict of interest, which is fair enough, then others who have demonstrated a pattern of bias should not be able to edit them either. on this final issue, it is clear that they have gone into my wikipedia entry as a consequence of me getting involved in my wife's entry. I would tell you who 1artlovernewyork is (it is not me) but i am afraid that they will also be subjected to the same kind of vendetta by these individuals.

    User:Justlettersandnumbers and his associate Bangabandhu have accused me of everything under the sun, COi, Sock-puppetry etc etc. but the question remains why both of them have been so obsessed with and controlling of our wikipedia entries? please explain talk) what is motivating your behavior? Why is constantly inserting negative commentary that is really opinion here so important to you? Benjamin Genocchio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgenocchio (talk • contribs)

    • Comment i read some of the article, the talk page and in particular the back and forth comments between the article subject and the two editors. my advice to Bgenocchio would be to stay away from the pages in question. It's not worth your time. Editors naturally perk up their ears when the article subject starts to exert any kind of influence or commentary on the page(s) in question. If you are the article subject, anything you say comes with a built-in bias, and it going to be received with some skepticism by other editors. Why don't you save yourself some time and grief, and do this instead? 1) have one of your assistants (you must have a few of those) set up a Wikipedia account to monitor and suggest changes to the articles in question. 2) make sure they identify themselves on their user page as being an advocate for your cause. 3) leave it to that assistant to take care of your concerns, not by having them edit the article(s), but rather by having them request other editors to make the edits, using the request { {edit template}}. That's my suggestion. I cannot for the life of me imagine why someone in the publishing business would want to get directly involved in editing their own page or pages related to them, and the attendant public discussion of those edits. What possible upside could there be for you?New Media Theorist (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like my advice was a bit too late. Washington Post published this the same day.New Media Theorist (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

    I am new to the wiki world and I was wrongly self-editing my company's by accident.

    The page has been spottily edited since 2012 and did not have any coherent paragraphs or sections. I work for a nonprofit law firm that does religious liberty litigation and I want to update our page that shows our Supreme Court victories, our history, and the up-to-date cases we have been working on.

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Rgcolby1023 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi@Rgcolby1023:: I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and then making recommendations for changes to the article on Talk:The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Once you have done so, go ahead, and make a request here on this notice board, and an editor can help review those changes, and ensure that the changes are made both neutrally while minimalizing the Conflict. Sadads (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rgcolby, thank you for your disclosure. Don't be alarmed, but I have tagged the article with the conflict of interest tag, to indicate the 40 edits you made to it in the past couple of months may have altered the neutrality of the article. It will be removed once an uninvolved editor decides it's appropriate to do so.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Avrett Free Ginsberg

    COI/SPA editors piling on their employer's website. Afgwiki is a self-declared corp officer [60]. Attempt via WP:UAA to block username as a role account failed, perplexingly. The IP is from FCB, a company also owned by Interpublic Group. These PR companies are an alphabet soup. More Interpublic Group shenanigans are in the archive from a recent, fairly major socking/COI incident. These repeated indications of real black-hat stuff associated with this place are troubling. — Brianhe (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @ any admin (JzG ?) recommend blocking 170.200.144.19 immediately. Just look at their talkpage. — Brianhe (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that Interpublic had probably signed up at Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms but can't see it now. But if anybody can go thru the alphabet soup and find it, I'd appreciate it. Which brings up the thought - why don't we invite them to join that group? This would be a constructive way to address the problem. I don't see any rules that would prevent any editor from making such an invitation, but it's clear that doing it badly would cause difficulties. Let me know what you think on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [61]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:DGG, can you (or somebody) please re-incarnate the Talk:Avrett Free Ginsberg page as well, it was WP:CSD#G8'd. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin COI editing shock

    Resolved
     – Tiggerjay (talk)

    I just added an infobox to Semmle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is my wife's firm. I have given them some advice on posting to the Talk page and how not to be evil on Wikipedia. Dell is one of their customers, but I'm pretty sure it's Dell Software Group, which is a separate business unit - there's no connection at all to the datacenter consultancy practice, which is where I work. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're not employed by Semmle or Dell I don't see any reason to report this, but thanks for putting the info here. I'm not too clear about the "datacenter consultancy practice". Is this part of Semmie, Dell, or another company completely? If it's part of Dell I'll suggest putting that on your user page, as part of a normal, low key COI statement, but it's definitely not a paid editing disclosure that's needed in that case. Hope this helps, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick review of your edits on the Semmle page and they look fine. Good work! As Smallbones said, it might not be a bad idea to make a small/minor reference to your potential COI on your userpage. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazakhstan

    Articles

    Users

    Consistently sanitised content, to the point that it is encyclopedically useless. The article Elections in Kazakhstan for example contains no mention of the fact that elections in the country are widely considered a "travesty", to quote The Guardian.

    The accounts named above are typically red-linked single-purpose accounts focusing exclusively on Kazakhstan articles.

    Previous concerns by Alex2006 and NeilN: Talk:Kazakhstan#Observation_on_content.

    Prior press reports detailing PR and Kazakh government involvement in Wikipedia:

    Given that the last one of these press articles reports that Johns Hopkins University took money from the Kazakh regime for academic reports, it is striking that Human rights in Kazakhstan quotes a laudatory Johns Hopkins report prominently in the lead.

    There is of course an abundance of sources critical of the Kazakh regime – just check mainstream newspapers' reports on human rights in Kazakhstan, or the Kazakhstan report of any reputable human rights org (example: "Kazakhstan heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In 2014, authorities closed newspapers, jailed or fined dozens of people after peaceful but unsanctioned protests, and fined or detained worshipers for practicing religion outside state controls. Government critics, including opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov, remained in detention after unfair trials ... Torture remains common in places of detention." – Human Rights Watch; not the impression you'd get from reading Wikipedia).

    It's just that they're either not reflected, or deleted, as in this case (the accurately cited source was page 55 of [62]), or drowned out by masses and masses of fluff to the point where any critical content is lost in a sea of boring bureaucratic details.

    The overall effect is that Wikipedia supports the Kazakh government agenda, to the extent that I've seen a Kazakh embassy tweet the Wikipedia article on Kazakhstan. [63] Andreas JN466 12:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only totally agree with Andreas. I have the Kazakhstan page on my watchlist, and can confirm that since many months an avalanche of "news" in soviet-bureaucratic style are reducing the information contained in this article to noise. These edits are performed by brand news "users" who after being warned plainly disappear, only to be substituted by new ones. Alex2006 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could these articles be semi-protected to make it more difficult for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Also, checkuser? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elections in Kazakhstan should be rewound to the 2013 revision [64]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another example from President of Kazakhstan:

    Kazakhstan's 5th presidential election was held on April 26, 2015.[6] Nursultan Nazarbayev was re-elected with 97,7% of the vote.[7] 858 observers from 19 countries were present at the polling stations during the election.[7] International and local observers have reported no significant violations.[7]
    International observers from 19 countries commended the organization and transparency of the elections held on April 26 2015.[8] Politicians, professors, analysts and journalists from the US, Great Britain, Croatia, Latvia, etc. praised the openness of the electoral process and the transparency of voting procedures at the polling stations.[8]

    This is cited to RT and the regime's own Astana Times. Here is what the BBC said: "The result, giving 74-year-old Mr Nazarbayev a fifth consecutive five-year term, had never been in doubt. [...] He ran virtually unopposed as his two opponents were both seen as pro-government." Here is what Aljazeera said: "The Central Asian country's marginalised opposition did not put forward any candidates for the election and Nazarbayev ran against two candidates widely seen as pro-government figures." None of that is in the article. Andreas JN466 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a section with international criticisms to the Elections in Kazakhstan article for balance, as this should not be whitewashed. Let's see how long it lasts. Valenciano (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone have access to relevant Central Asian studies journals? JSTOR has Central Asiatic Journal, and the defunct Central Asia Monitor and extant Central Asian Survey should be relevant here, and much more trustworthy than the easily influenced news media. Speakers of Russian may do well to use Gosudarstvo Kazakhstan (not sure of the original title), giving the earlier history of the state, while anyone here should be able to use most of the 1,309 works that appear in WorldCat under the subject heading Kazakhstan--Politics and government. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Nyttend. The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia (2014, Oxford University Press), p. 601, quotes Marie Helene Cote, "A Sobering Reality: Fundamental Freedoms in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Twenty Years after the Soviet Collapse" for its assessment of the human rights situation in Kazakhstan ("Despite promises of gradual reform made by the authorities [...], the situation in Kazakhstan has deteriorated.") That's an Open Access document (pdf Google html cache) that would make a useful source for the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, as well as the Human rights in Kazakhstan article, all of which are currently woefully inadequate.
    Other openly available and fully up-to-date Kazakhstan country reports from organisations regularly cited in the academic literature include:
    I'd suggest these could be summarised in the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, and be used as major sources for content in the Human rights in Kazakhstan article. The current status reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dennis Brown has indefinitely semi-protected Kazakhstan per this request at WP:AN. If you want the others semi-protected, leave a request at WP:RFPP, pointing to this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andreas, Human rights in Kazakhstan should probably be reverted to 14 March 2013 or thereabouts. I looked at a few with a view to adding semi-protection, but there haven't been enough recent edits to justify it, apart from the main article that Dennis protected. Sarah (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sarah. The pace of these contributions is slow, almost glacial; it's just a constant drip-drip. But over time, articles have been built that consist entirely of contributions by accounts named above, apart from a couple of gnoming and bot edits; see [65] for example. Semi-protection wouldn't help, as these accounts aren't in a hurry and achieving autoconfirmation is trivial. Andreas JN466 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One Little Indian artists

    Joewood91 (talk · contribs) and Trincres17 (talk · contribs) (who are likely the same person, at least an edit of Trincres17 to my talk page strongly indicates this, and also seems to admit the COI) are single-purpose accounts promoting artists represented by One Little Indian. Examples are God Damn (band), Wild Palms (band), Olga Bell, Fufanu (band) and various deleted articles (plus various likely copyvio images on Commons). My instincts tell me "block and delete all", but they are writing about possibly notable bands, so I would like some advice here before I do anything more drastic than putting COI tags everywhere. Any suggestions? —Kusma (t·c) 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are not going to allow these band Wikipedia profiles, and I must mention these are all credible bands receiving national radio airplay, and in order for them to have active and proper BBC Music Pages, they must have Wikipedia pages, how can we possibly allow them to have active Wikipedia profiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewood91 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disallowing the bands to have Wikipedia profiles, I have asked you not to create articles about them. In my experience, notable bands will eventually have somebody writing about them. —Kusma (t·c) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Joewood91: - We are very interested in notable bands having articles - see WP:BAND for the inclusion criteria. Your assertion that they have received national attention is not directly cited in the article itself, which is what detracts from its credibility as a band which should receive a WP article. Take a look at that BAND article and fixup the page as necessary. However, the concern that Kusma brought up was regarding a potential for you to have a Conflict of Interest in this subject and the possibility that you might be introducing WP:SPAM into the article. In general, if you have any official connection with these bands, you should not edit them. Fans of bands are the next group of people which often have problems creating or editing articles because they don't provide information in an encyclopedic way. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just note that God Damn (band) are unquestionably notable. Coverage in The Guardian: [66], regular mentions in Kerrang, NME, etc. Same for Wild Palms: [67]. [68] Let's also note that even if Joewood91 were an agent for the bands in question or their record company, there is nothing in current policy forbidding him to edit, provided he openly discloses any paid relationship in line with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Andreas JN466 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this, I am certain the user is an agent of the record company. Unfortunately my interactions with the user go like this (paraphrase; look at their and my talk page for the full story): me: "hey, please familiarise yourself with our policies" they: "what do I need to do to have an article about this band?" me: "please look at our conflict of interest policy and follow it" they: "what do I need to do to create an article about this band?". Apparently I am unable to talk to them, which is why I am posting here asking for help. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the background. I'd say the first step should be compliance with the terms of use, e.g. by a note on the (as yet uncreated) Joewood91 user page that makes clear Joe works for One Little Indian Records. He's willingly disclosed this in his discussion with you, so it's pretty clear it's just ignorance that he did not disclose it on his user page or in any of the other ways envisaged by the terms of use. (Also, Joe, please only use one account.)
    As for the content, the God Damn article looked okayish and factual to me, while Wild Palms has too much uncited material. Now Joe may think, 'Why is that a problem? I know the stuff is true.'
    Joe, this is not a question of not believing you that you're telling the truth, but a question of making sure the material is verifiable against an external source to begin with, so it doesn't morph out of shape over time as people play around with it. (See I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax, How pranks, hoaxes and manipulation undermine the reliability of Wikipedia and Guilt by Wikipedia for examples of how this can happen.) Citing sources does not make it impossible for such problems to occur, but it makes it somewhat less likely. Ultimately you don't want Wikipedia to tell people plausible nonsense about your artists a few months or years down the line. Andreas JN466 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, thanks for the advice. As Andreas mentioned, God Damn (band) are clearly credible and worthy of a page, I have updated the Wild Palms (band) with further references, and will do so for further entries. In regards to openly disclosing any paid relationships, what is the best practice for doing this? Thanks, Joe Wood Trincres17 (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trincres17 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Note that Trincres17 has created another article, Fufanu, and I have asked him to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and threatened a block. —Kusma (t·c) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to add the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages. template at the top of the Fufanu Wikipedia page, but I have possible done it incorrectly, can you assist me in anyway? Before just deleting the page!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trincres17 (talk • contribs) 15:37, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

    Ushtima e maleve

    Hertizsedlon recently blocked as confirmed Orangemoody sock. Looks like this article Ushtima e maleve was his focus. Which makes all editing on that article open to question. Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It was more a generalized question of who was in that article along with Hertizsedlon. I found David Devon, and through that, Khaled Akil that looks like it might have been an orangemoody job. Brianhe (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I remember, Wikipedia asked me to edit this article in a mission while I was working in Wikipedia Adventure, it's not an orangemoody job Brianhe , as for Khaled AKil, a discussion was taking place about this article, and all wikipedians approved this article, Thanks Brianhe David (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thompson Coburn

    Suspected terms-of-use violation (no disclosure). Misleading edit summary: [70] Andreas JN466 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes.
    1. Kindly go through the person's contributions and assess them for neutrality.
    2. Please come to your own conclusions on whether there is a likely terms of use violation or not; if you think there is, please leave the accounts a talk page note advising them of the terms of use requirement to disclose any paid relationship (and if you think there is no such relationship, please let me know, and I'll be able to email you further background).
    3. If appropriate, please add the involved contributor template to the article's talk page, as I am quite sure that the user might return if there were any significant changes to the article they found disagreeable.
    4. Please note ThompsonCoburnmktg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for user name violation in 2013). Andreas JN466 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establishing if they have a COI is rater moot since their are either inactive, or blocked-- and the page has already been appropriately tagged. Additionally you seem to be skipping steps such as attempting to resolve in the talk page, or use WP:BRD methods to resolve your content concerns. A quick review of those edits show either updating statistical information, or the of some WP:SPAM content which would easily be resolved by simply having you make these edits. There is no editwar, or active COI editor, so any finding here wouldn't bear any more weight then you boldly making the changes yourself. That is, unless you have some specific COI or BIAS in this situation, and need another editor to become involved because of your inability to edit the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saks Fifth Avenue marketing team

    This IP has also edited various financially connected articles, e.g. Richard A. Baker (businessman) (chairman of HBC) and extensively:

    The edit pattern resembles that of some other IPs active in the same area, e.g.

    There are probably far more related edits that deserve scrutiny as well.

    Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI:
    I am the "experienced editor" HaeB is referring to. I semi-automatically filed an AIV report already with huggle. While I wasn't involved with HaeBs' decision to come here, this forum may, in fact, be more appropriate. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP geolocates to what appears to be a home cable provider in upstate New York. It might be true, but I'd not accept the claim of their representing Saks on its face. — Brianhe (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Amusingly, this COI editor is annoyed that the history of the predecessor company is mentioned. Over at GM, there's a COI editor who is annoyed that the predecessor company (General Motors Corporation, then Motors Liquidation Corp.) and the current smaller company (General Motors Company, which bought the better assets and the brand but not a lot of old plants and failing brands) aren't treated as a single company. John Nagle (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely. Have set up iplinks above. The last unpolluted rev of Lord & Taylor seems to be 5 July. That's more than a rollback, it's a revert, which anybody can do. — Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Ver

    The subject of the article is editing his own article. I've edited that article in the past and would prefer that someone else handle this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: the user has left a message on Talk:Roger Ver, and a link to a PGP signed copy of the same message[71]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the initial creator of the biography, I believe the editor is simply acting in what should, for the most part, amount to "good faith" given the circumstances and an unfamiliarity with our policies. A standard notice on the article's talk page that he's been caught screwing around with his own article, and a warning to the editor to cut it out should suffice. -- Kendrick7talk 07:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion on the talkpage is now active on whether the Federal explosives charges should be characterized as "selling firecrackers". — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravi Tripathi and others

    Sample articles

    Accounts involved


    I don't think there's any outing issues here as they edit under the names, have photographs on etc, and their PR agency references the Wikipedia work as well as patroller status on hi.wiki. This edit to an archived discussion is quite suspicious too. They've been quite persistent in creating articles and have tried multiple approaches. There's obviously some other accounts that have to be either duck or SPI blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Implausible denials part I
    Hi, @SpacemanSpiff:, It is quite hurtful. I am here denying your all the allegation. I'm not being paid by anyone. It's very hurtful, I'm emotionally attached to Wikipedia. As I'm contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I have contributed a lot not only English but in Hindi Wikipedia as well.

    I have my an other account with Username Jeeteshroxx, as it was created by me when I lost my password of this account. Later i recalled my password from a rough book where I had written passwords of my Gmail, Facebook etc accounts. This is not a new thing you are saying, on Hindi Wikipedia many people knows, as it was previously discussed on Hindi Wikipedia. And i had given same clarification about Jeeteshroxx. When i had recovered password of this account, later when i came to know about that people cannot operate two accounts as per Wikipedia policy, i stopped using Jeeteshroxx. As you can see i am not using that account since long.

    You have pointed that I have edited Ravi Tripathi page. For your kind information, I just want to clear it that I do not no personally know Ravi Tripathi. I edited Ravi Tripathi article just because he hails from district of my native place. No any external link, I have.

    You have given a link of under constructing Blog, alleging that I am linked with any PR firm. No, No, I'm not linked with any of PR firm. And not even interested in it.

    Which link you given that was a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. This company is being planned to be set up my village friend Rahul.

    And me and Rahul is not involved in any paid editing of Wikipedia article.

    Let me tell you about others. I created article Golden Book of World Records, when i had created series articles of world records like India Book of Records, and Asia Book of Records. behind creating these articles i had thought that, these are book of worlds records. it should have articles like Guinness Book and Limca book. So i just created.

    And about Suvigya Sharma, i came to know about this painter through a post shared by one of guy on Facebook. So i goggled about him with curiosity to know more about painter and i found enough media coverages about him, which passes notability guidelines. so created his page. When i was creating about his article i came to know that he received Bharat Gaurav Award, so i created an other article with name Bharat Gaurav Award, as i came to know about it that is one of the important international awards, given to Indians and Indian diaspora. no any personal connection with anyone neither Suvigya nor Bharat Gaurav Award. Your allegation sounds just a harassing to me.

    I edited Muzammil Ibrahim article by thinking to improve the article as it had some tags describing less references. Do not remember exactly, which tag was placed.

    About, Paul Myres, I read about him in News on 17 Sept. His story was quite inspiring. so goggled to know more about this man, and got enough media coverages about him. so created Wikipedia article about Paul Myers. And nothing.

    Well, I think, i should give bit introduction about myself. So that you can understand me in better way. I am pursuing Bachelor of Management studies in Marketing, I am poet by interest, writes in Hindi, i am art lover , I have bit knowledge about web designing, much attracted to know current affairs about politics, bureaucracy, business and arts.

    Here, I clearly denying your all the allegations. Personally, I do not believe in paid editing and conflict of interest. As it is not good for Wikipedia as it would defer the quality of article. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you then explain the PR agency that you run along with the other partner (I see that you have now made the site subscriber only): archived link.?—SpacemanSpiff 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    No, No it is a kind request please do not call it a PR agency. As i have clearly mentioned it that it is a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. Rahul, who is my village friend Rahul, planning to open it but unfortunately he is not much concentrated over there as he is busy in his personal life, getting married in November. He has taken me in his company just because i have bit knowledge about web designing. There is only two people that is me and Rahul, no any partners. In my biography, whatever, he has updated is just to build my profile. As I'm marketing student of BMS. I have studies many subjects, including Public Relations in 5th semester. This is the reason why he has mention about PR. And about blog, I have said that it is in under construction, so no reason to make it live. And Again I'm clearly mentioning I have NO any affiliation with any PR related firm. Denying allegations. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you have to come clean on this. The cached copy clearly shows that you are in violation of the ToU and a testimonial from one of the article subjects. At this point, I don't see any recourse but to prevent you and your business partner from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And then you're claiming here that you've never interacted with Ravi Tripathi, but here you claim otherwise. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brianhe/COIbox24 has the ContributionSurveyor analysis for Jeeteshvaishya. Article creations by Jeeteshvaishya or Jeeteshroxx, as reported among the ContributionSurveyor top 20 results, subtracting purely geographic entities, are:

    This list is completely consistent with publicity-seeking individuals and groups being written about by a PR agency. — Brianhe (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to me quite a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid-editing, especially given the cached website for the PR agency, which was changed once this complaint was filed. I plan to indef. User:Jeeteshvaishya and his sock account for ToU violations and promotional editing but wanted to post here first to check if there are any precedents for/against such actions, and suggestions on how the articles should be best dealt. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The web page is unambiguous, that at least some of this is paid editing. We've sometimes given some degree of amnesty to previous undisclosed paid editor who have come clean, either of the own volition or after an accusation, but this is the opposite pole: not only undisclosed, but denied with an attempt to hide the evidence. I do not think we have a formal policy on blocking for TOU violations, but for ones of this nature I think we have so far had no hesitation in doing it. (In any case, promotional editing is a perfectly good block reason)
    As for the articles, we seem to not have a policy that articles written by undeclared paid editors (before they are blocked) will be deleted. Even after they are blocked, we do not have a policy to delete them unless the paid editor is the only significant contributor. The Orangemoody case was an exception, and in my opinion a bad precedent. Of the articles listed here, Munishwar Dutt Upadhyay, Satyaveer Munna, Ram Vilas Vedanti and Guru Nanak High School, Mahim are unquestionably notable by our usual rules. Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri) and Prem Lal Joshi are most likely notable also. Some of the entertainers may be also, but I cannot judge in that field. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sudoku solver article, Rohan Rao, created by same user. I removed one ref that was a dead link and looked iffy as a source anyway. But some Indian press sources remain; he might actually be notable. — Brianhe (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Implausible denials part II
    @SpacemanSpiff: Your comment seems me quite ridiculous. I said no, means no. I do not know Ravi Tripathi personally and do not have any connection with. Why you guys do not understand that. I emailed him to just seek his permission for using his photo. And Nothing. If can see, when I had created Ravi Tripathi article, that time I picked some photos from Google and uploaded on Wiki Commons, as that time not had much knowledge about Wiki commons and copyright issue. Still I'm not familiar with Wiki Commons. I emailed him for seeking his permission just thinking that if I took permission then I can upload photos on Wiki Commons. But still I'm not able to give or prove that I took permission. Some photographs has been proposed for deletion now. Let me clear you again that I'm not linked with any Ravi Tripathi, I do not know whether my village friend has received any testimonial or not. Blog of Web designing and Software company was created by him only. As per my knowledge, he haven't received any testimonial, might be, he has made any false or fake testimonial. But if he had made any false statement on blog, I'm not going yo suffer it. And again saying and will say more 100 times, i'm not being compensated by anyone. Your are saying, business partner, It is ridiculous and rubbish. Company is still not born. How can you say that business partner. Haven't made any business. Nonsense. And yes, I will again say I haven't violated any rules of Wikipedia.

    Why you people do not understand, I'm a 20 years old guy, who is still studying, I'm student. And Mr you are saying you will prevent or stop me from editing Wikipedia. Oh please, do not say like that. Wikipedia is not yours. It is ours. It is our Wikipedia, I am contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I'm proud Wikipedian.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Abecedare and Brianhe, I haven't made it clear that it is not a PR agency, why you don't get it. It is web designing and software developing company, which had planned to set up, but still not born. Just stop calli g it PR agency. I gain say big No, I haven't involved in any activities, that violates Wikipedia policy.


    @Abecedare: @Brianhe:, Repeatedly I am saying i'm not involved in such activity. I'm not being paid by anyone. And i'm not interested in it too. I respect Wikipedia's each and every norms. Your allegations hurts.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @DGG: Sir, let me tell you, if had created article like Saurabh Dudeja, Rajesh Baniya, the reason behind creating these articles only that I thought these people people should have Wikipedia article. It doesn't mean that i'm involved in any paid editing.

    Just like i created Wikipedia articles Bajrang Bahadur Singh, because he was freedom fighter and served as LG of Himachal Pradesh, and hailed from my native district. Created article Ram Vilas Vedanti, who has been Member of Parliament of my native place. Created Munishwar Duty Upadhyay just because MP and freedom fighter from my native place. Created Guru Nanak High School, because I had completed schooling from here, I love my school. When I was creating article Rajesh Baniya, that time I came to know about that Rohan Rao was 1st in that Sudoku championship, so created article about him. I created article Satyaveer Munna, as he hails from near by my native place. I created Belha Devi Temple, because it is famous temple at my native place. I created some articles like Ali Quli Mirza, Sampat Devi Pal because I used to watch Bigg Boss, I came to know about him through Biggboss. I created articles of Rajyasabh MP Pramod Tiwari and MP Harvansh Singh, it doesn't mean that i am linked with these people, I created just because these people are from my native place. and contributed I contributed to articles like Matunga Road, Mahim, Kabootar Khana, Kadeshwari Devi Temple etc because i know this places, is it is located in Mumbai, my current location. Have contributed to literature related articles on Wikipedia, The only reason is i love poetry. These are reasons behind creating articles. That's all.

    Yet I have heard about harassment on Wikipedia, not I'm witnessing it. It is extremely sad. Please do not harass me unnecessary.

    If you think any article which is created by me, has less news references as per Wikipedia's policy, violates any rules, just nominate it for deletion. I will google and try to find out references, and would introduce to the article and try to improve the article, if that doesn't work, then you can delete it. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading Jeeteshvaishya's denial above, I went back and re-examined the evidence, and while it is clear that the user has made regular (ie non-promotional edits) edits and that some of the articles he created were for subjects who would be notable, I am convinced by both the off-wiki evidence (the PR website that has now been pulled down + editor's facebook page) and on-wiki behavioral evidence that he is involved in promotional editing at the behest of/in collaboration with some of the subjects (I, of course, cannot be sure if money exchanged hands). And this goes back at least three years. Articles such as Suvigya Sharma and Ravi Tripathi, for which the PR agency claimed credit, show clear signs of this; not spelling the signs out per WP:BEANS. See also Bharat Gaurav Award, an article on a likely non-notable award created apparently to support the notability of Suvigya Sharma, and containing a highlighted pull-quote from a company press release.
    Jeeteshvaishya's flat denials, which are not credible, make it impossible to separate out the articles that would require the paid cotributions discosure from "regular" edits, and rule out the possibility that this was simply an issue of not being aware of the rules, which would have warranted us giving them the benefit of doubt and a chance to rectify through disclosure. I have therefore blocked the editor and his alternate account. I see that @SpacemanSpiff, DGG, and Brianhe: are already cataloging and reviewing the editor's contributions; I will try to chip in later this week. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare:. While not socks Indianbloomer and Ratunj Tripathi are also obviously part of this operation, so you may want to treat them the same or at the least keep a watch. —SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The accounts' participation at this AFD and Ratunj's editing of Raghuraj Pratap Singh clearly show (along with the off-wiki evidence) them acting in concert with the Jeeteshvaishya accounts and is further evidence of the team's promotional editing. However, given the meager contributions of the two accounts and the fact that they have been inactive for last few months, I am leaving them unblocked for now; won't hesitate to block if they are resurrected and start similar problematic editing. Btw, the Indianbloomer account suggests that we should keep our eyes open for sock accounts created by this PR firm.
    By the way, in reviewing the articles edited by Jeeteshvaishya, I noticed that the user often cited non-RS websites that contained articles written by other PR professionals or were warmed over press releases (eg [72],[73]). Don't know if this indicates that the Bloomocrats is part of a bigger enterprise, or just that the subject was hiring different PR firms to expand their web-presence. In any case, will need to keep this in mind when cleaning up after the editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing the articles created by the UPE. There are a whole lot of articles on politicians, too many for me to scrub. Here are some high (low) points in what's left.

    — Brianhe (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with the conclusions of Abecedare--not all of this is paid editing, but it is cooperative editing or editing using sockpuppets, involving some degree of COI. The topics are actually not all that implausible --being interested in Indian entertainment figures and politicians and some local places is a very possible combination. The articles are certainly written in a promotional style, with PR-type references and extravagent adjectives--but so are most of our articles by contributors from that area. And it's become clear to me that no Indian newspaper however respected is really free from including promotion--and I've been told they all expect payment from the cinema industry for articles on films. This obviously gives us certain difficulties in sourcing. For films and actors, I think I'd accept from India only objective sources showing box office standing and major awards; there are publications from outside the country dealing with Bollywood etc., some in a comparative context with other countries and they should be more reliable. I imagine its similar with musicians, though I don't know anything about that part. For politicians, we at least have the ability to determine if someone was in fact a member of the legislature or government minister (tho I've seen some positions where I don't think the title actually corresponds to the head of a major dept.) And we all know that most work from there needs rewriting into standard English. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also sourcing to bharatdiscovery.org which should be added on the revert list as it's partially a mirror of multiple language Wikipedias and unattributed user submitted translations. That has been consistently used as a source by this group. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeeteshvaishya opened. More diffs might be helpful. — Brianhe (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Money (2016 film)

    Account appears to have an interest in promoting a film producer, his movies, and associated actors, film technicians and related productions. A lot of the edits appear promotional, including many attempts to promo movies within actors' bios [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:19B6:FBF8:ED0:3A18 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I cleaned up the references, and once that was done there were only two decent ones. Nominated for AfD here. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More I also tagged Atit Shah for CSD. You are right, whoever is writing these is using Wikipedia for promotion. MAsterful use of Twitter, IMDB, forum posts and lousy reference to make someone appear notable. Article needs WP:BLOWITUP in order to even begin to see the facts. User:Ban003 should be given the treatment that best matches their user nameNew Media Theorist (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BLOWITUP sounds really good to me, but I've had poor results proposing it before. E.g. this has turned into a cluster----. — Brianhe (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of blocks, 204.148.13.194 has removed the AfD template twice now... Brianhe (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Novofibre and Oriented structural straw board

    Articles have been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novofibre Brianhe (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    articles
    editors

    I'm suspicious about these two related articles. They were both recently created by new users whose sole edit was to produce these fully-formed, perfectly formatted, nicely wikified articles. They are both promotional in tone. This makes me think that there were created through paid editing. Can someone with experience in these matters please have a look? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably, oriented structural straw board was created only because Novofibre is the "world’s first manufacturer of oriented structural straw board". Deli nk (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This reminds me of the cardboard company article I saw a while back... here it is U.S. Corrugated, was created by an editor whose named popped up here. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Should a report be filed to see if these two editors are in the same group of socks? Deli nk (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not telling you not to, but my personal batting average at SPI is around 0.02. The old group is probably too stale to check by now, too. — Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make the connection between the two editors clear, some of the images added to Novofibre by Charming Dryad were uploaded by Emily in Beijing. Deli nk (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They edited Novofibre within 30 minutes of one another, too. And it's kind of unusual to have two Chinese-fluent eds at this noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a variation on engineered wood. There's something called Eco-Board [80] which seems to be roughly the same thing as this product. There's oriented strand board, which is the same concept using wood strands. There's board made from bagasse, the leftover part of sugar cane. Fiberboard is sometimes made from straw by grinding it down to a powder and then running it through something like a paper machine, resulting in straw board, a form of medium density fiberboard. There's ordinary particle board. This shouldn't be presented as a new concept, but as yet another product in the large family of "little pieces of cellulose stuck together with glue" product lines. I'd suggest moving the better parts of the product article to a subhead in engineered wood, and deleting the product article. John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I am here to confess, Emily in Beijing and Charming Dryad are actually the same person. I am interested in environmental protection materials and company. I got to know oriented structural straw board from a close friend who decorated her new home with this material, and start to look into this material. Oriented structural straw board is manufactured from splitting wheat straw, which is a kind of agricultural residues and is usually burned away by farmers. It can replace oriented strand board in house construction, furniture and interior decoration. The only company that manufactured oriented structural straw board is Novofibre. I thought it would be good to put oriented structural straw board and Novofibre on Wikipedia to let more people know about this wonderful material and the company that manufactured it. If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them. Thanks a lot! Emily in Beijng (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Emily in Beijng, could you post the same statement, but from your Dryad account, so we know you are the same person? Thanks!New Media Theorist (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi New Media Theorist, I am here to confess, Emily in Beijing and Charming Dryad are actually the same person. I am interested in environmental protection materials and company. I got to know oriented structural straw board from a close friend who decorated her new home with this material, and start to look into this material. Oriented structural straw board is manufactured from splitting wheat straw, which is a kind of agricultural residues and is usually burned away by farmers. It can replace oriented strand board in house construction, furniture and interior decoration. The only company that manufactured oriented structural straw board is Novofibre. I thought it would be good to put oriented structural straw board and Novofibre on Wikipedia to let more people know about this wonderful material and the company that manufactured it. If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them. Thanks a lot! Charming Dryad (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them" sounds like an invitation to help you BOGO. Which isn't really very charming. @Emily in Beijng and Charming Dryad:, would you mind answering this: did you create the Oriented structural straw board or Novofibre article for any kind of compensation? In other words, are you being paid to edit Wikipedia? — Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Emily! I thought the articles were well written, although we are a bit concerned about the advertising aspect. As Brianhe says, maybe you could tell us if you had to work with the company to write them? The photography was really great too, it looks like it came from the company web site, so we were just wondering about the connection.New Media Theorist (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think @Drmies: will be able to press the proper buttons to fix the two accounts you describe above as being the ones you used to write the articles.You saved us some time trying to figure things out. Since you confirmed above that Charming Dryad and Emily in Beijng are the same user by posting the same message from the two accounts, this saves a lot of time and now Drmies will know what to do. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Brianhe and New Media Theorist, I wrote these two articles on my own and out of my personal interest, and no one had pushed me to write this or paying me for this. However, I have to admit that some of the photos did come from the company website, while some came from other internet sources. I now realize uploading those photos on wikipedia and stating they are my own work violates copyright, and I will figure out how to delete all the photos that were updated by me. Please give me some time. And Brianhe, I am sorry that I said "If any of the contents violate the rules of Wikipedia, please tell me how to improve them", if I may take back those words, I will definitely take them back. I am a new learner of wikipedia editing, and I will learn how to improve my work by myself. Thank you all. Charming Dryad (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    having two accounts and editing related articles with them is about the worst thing you can do on Wikipedia, as it breaks community trust. Have a look at WP:SOCK. New Media Theorist (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi New Media Theorist,thanks for your reminding. I have read the introduction of sock puppetry thoroughly, and I am now aware how bad it is for me to violate this important rule. I would never do this if I study the rules of wikipedia more deeply, and I feel very sorry for my actions.I fully understand your maintance of wikipedia's guiding rules to make it a better place, and will be fine if you block any of my two accounts. At last, I have a request, would you mind keeping the account Emily in Beijing for me? I know I have too much to learn to be a qualified Wikipedian, please give me a chance to correct my bad actions. Thanks!Emily in Beijng (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi New Media Theorist andJohn Nagle, I'd like to explain the difference between Oriented strand board and Oriented structural straw board here. The main difference is that, Oriented strand board is made of wood strand, while Oriented structural straw board is made of wheat straw, which is more eco-friendly as it reduces deforestation. The two kinds of boards are so different that I suggest that you do not merge oriented structural straw board with oriented strand board. And as oriented structural straw board is made of wheat straw, it is not wood products, so it may cause confusion if you move oriented structural straw board to a subhead in engineered wood. Thanks. Emily in Beijng (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi New Media Theorist, I have removed the contents that seem promotional in both Oriented structural straw board and Novofibre, and have linked my two accounts in my user page. If you still think it's not appropriate to have the two articles on Wikipedia, then feel free to delete them. Thanks.Emily in Beijng (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a brief section on oriented strand board from straw at Oriented strand board#Related products That should cover it. John Nagle (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Baystate Health

    Two editors heavily involved in these articles/drafts. Copy like "The Hospital of the future...Baystate Medical Center built a visionary new facility..." speaks for itself. Brianhe (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a start, I redirected them all to the main article, Baystate Health. The give-away that this is promotionalism is the 2015 attempt to write an article on each hospital on the whole system. The main article has been here since 2011. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it proper for this paid editor to post requests for edit assistance on individual user talk pages? They do disclose that they are working on behalf of the subject (without mentioning they are paid), and that they prefer not to make direct edits to the pages.

    Does this amount to forum shopping which provides only the appearance but not the effect of disconnecting the COI editor from the edits?

    Other than the protocol question, there are other concerns. Two of these, marked with asterisks, were posted on talkpages of users who have appeared at COIN before. There are content and concerns as well. For instance, Heatherer has proposed additions at Talk:Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft for sections Areas of practice, Recent recognition and Pro bono work. Although claimed to be well sourced, these look entirely WP:PROMO and/or non-encyclopedic to my eyes. The first sentence of one of the proposed sections is "Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft has been recognized as being among the top revenue earning law firms and for its prestige." This demonstrates a failure to distinguish between POV and NPOV content. — Brianhe (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm interested to hear what other editors think about this. Whenever I reach out to individual users, it is only because I've exhausted other resources. To explain my process, I always start by posting a note on the article Talk page and wait for any editors who have watchlisted the page to respond. If there are no responses, I typically add a {{request edit}} template and post messages on related WikiProjects. If there is still no feedback, then I reach out to individual editors who are active and members of the WikiProjects I posted to. These messages always summarize my request and direct editors back to my original Talk page thread for more information (about what I'm suggesting and about my COI). I might skip posting to a WikiProject if there is an editor who has already worked on the article, but I always start on the article Talk page and make that the primary place of all discussion.
    I don't believe any of what I described is forum shopping. I don't reach out to editors that I think are more likely to help (except insofar as they are members of a project that deals with the same subject matter and I think they might be interested in the article topic). There are also editors who spend time reviewing COI requests, regardless of subject. These editors are also more likely to help based on their editing interests, but I never go to them first.
    To address the users I recently posted to who have appeared on COIN before, I have to admit: I did not realize who I was reaching out to. I found both editors on WikiProject Business after getting no response to my message there. I have responded to both editors and let them know that I will be looking for assistance elsewhere.
    Finally, when it comes to content: I always welcome feedback. The reason I ask editors to review my drafts in the first place is because I am open to working through any instances of promotional language and removing information that others do not feel is encyclopedic. I have yet to find anyone to review my Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft draft, so if you or anyone else have suggestions there, including about the sentence offered as an example here, I ask anyone reading this to consider responding to my Talk page message. I think you'll find that my conversations with editors are productive and I have no issue making changes based on feedback. My primary concern is making the CWT entry a better Wikipedia article.
    If there are clearer ways for me to disclose my COI or other things you believe I should be doing to be more transparent, let me know. I have no need to hide that I am being paid or be secretive about my work on Wikipedia. Thanks, Heatherer (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've worked with Heatherer before, via the {{edit_request}} queue ... well, in truth I started working with Heatherer but then got mired down (I've still got three open tabs on Coleman though) ... which I will point out, she is still languishing away, therein. She's a good apple, not a bad apple. User:Brianhe, suggest you take her under your wing, and help her understand the nuances of WP:PUFFERY. But no, per WP:IAR and per WP:EXPERT and per the wide latitude that folks are given on usertalk, I have exactly zero problem with her contacting other wikipedians individually. I much prefer she do it here on-wiki, in the open, rather than via email or via eLance, right? Quite frankly, since the wp-edit-request-queue is stuffed to the gills, direct contacts to other wikipedians is the only thing that actually works.
      Heatherer is here to improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia, methinks, though good faith obviously doesn't translate to perfection, she's made mistakes in the past and no doubt will again (especially since the wiki-policies are a shifting sand of purposely-unwritten ambiguity). Anyways, my specific advice, Heatherer, is that you are perfectly fine to contact people directly, and doubly-especially if they are listing themselves in some wikiproject, that is the point of them listing themselves in the wikiproject, so that other wikipedians can contact them about articles in that topic-area. You are also free to ask for help at the various appropriate venues, which are generally open to giving help: WP:TEAHOUSE, #wikipedia-en-help connect, and as a last resort since it is not as need-help-editing-specific WP:HELPDESK. You are also welcome to ping my usertalk, though it will help if you can chunk your requests into short easy-to-grasp pieces that will help. With any luck, Brianhe will extend you the same offer, they have a keen eye for promotionalism and will be a good balance to the inherent difficulties of working closely with the article-subjects. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm supposed to lend my expert advice to this person instead of everybody else taking a place in line at edit request queue? I don't think so, even if I were interested in BOGO, which I'm not, I'm even less interested in expedient shortcuts at the expense of those other people. If this is some kind of guilt trip it ain't working. What you call "improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia, methinks" is exactly the kind of product improvement at the expense of process—collegiality, waiting in line, forum shopping, POV clarity, BOGO—that I have begun to speak out against forcefully, as a commodification of Wikipedia and its volunteers. — Brianhe (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not a guilt-trip, just a prompt to check your premises, and perhaps moderate your phrasings. Wikipedia is a product, specifically an online encyclopedia, and wikipedia is not a process, see WP:BURO and WP:IAR. Per WP:CHOICE, you need not help Heather. You can continue seeking out paid editors (or people you suspect might be), and ordering them to cough up their COI, and tagging 'their' articles, and generally doing what you can to make the wiki-culture as unpleasant a place as possible for them. But to remain internally consistent, methinks it is pretty hard for you to argue that Heather has to wait her turn in the wp-edit-request queue, when you know full well that the queue is stalled, and has been for months. Arguing that *she* has to wait in the queue, until you get around to helping her, and cannot contact wikiproject members directly, is especially ironic. She is also perfectly free to exercise her WP:CHOICE and to try and improve the encyclopedia, and that goes double when the 'official process' is obviously borked. (We are now into triple-digits for the coi-queue, and steadily growing. The oldest still-active request is from March 2015. The estimated wait-time is well over a month for any response whatsoever; I don't have data on what the estimated MTBC is for actual closures.)
      But my main point is this: we, meaning not just you and me, but we as wikipedians generally speaking, ought to welcome her contributions, to the extent they are legit NPOV reliably-sourced improvements, and criticize her mistakes (failing to stick to NPOV or failing to follow the letter of some wiki-law or whatever). If instead, we -- again meaning we-as-wikipedians-generally and not specific to you Brianhe -- treat the disclosed paid editors as Bad People Who We Wish Would Leave, the actual outcome will be the opposite. Instead of monitoring COI becoming easier and more productive, and dishonest undisclosed TOU violations being the exception, there will instead by the unintended consequence that future Heatherer-type-editors will see how Heatherer was treated, and conclude, that it is not in their interests to disclose, and that if they get taken to the WP:COIN noticeboard, their best path forward is to spawn a new username. That would NOT be a good outcome.
      Heatherer is trying to do a good job here on the 'pedia, in her role as a wikipedian who sometimes gets paid money for editing, and she is mostly doing it. She needs some advice, from an expert, on some of the finer nuances of WP:TONE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But she's striving to comply with the TOU, and striving to improve the 'pedia. You need not help her, sure, but I would strongly urge you to admit that she is not the wiki-enemy. You have WP:INDCRIT accused her of forum-shopping, which she was not -- contacting listed members of a relevant wikiproject is certainly no violation of WP:OTHERPARENT. You have also raised "other concerns". Are your concerns now satisfied? If not, what specifically can this good faith editor Heatherer do, to satisfy you that they are a good faith editor, and deserve your AGF? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hogan's Heroes (band)


    CombatMarshmallow and various New Jersey IPs (especially 73.193.195.69 from Toms River) have been pushing the importance of the hardcore punk band Hogan's Heroes, formed in 1984 in Toms River, New Jersey. CombatMarshmallow admits that he also edits logged out from 73.193.195.69, saying "When Im at my GF house Ive been signed out without signing out... Also, if Ive been signed out and did some editing, to reply I Have to sign out willingly on my own to reply so people know who is replying. Not trying to show her IP, really simple stuff."

    The conflict of interest arises from the persistent addition of YouTube links of band music. The links were seen as a copyright violation by myself, several other editors, and a bot. CombatMarshmallow said that the links were allowed because the band's approval was given.

    For instance, at Hogan's Heroes (album) a YouTube link was added on July 28 by an IP6 address from the general area of Dover, New Jersey, the link called "backing tracks", uploaded to YouTube by hardcoremetalglobal, the video having since been removed from YouTube. Then, the link URL was changed by IP 73.193.195.69 on September 19, again uploaded by hardcoremetalglobal, again called "backing track", taken from the 1989 self-titled album Hogan's Heroes. Credited on the YouTube track is George Barberio on guitar, and John Cuccinello on bass (no credit given to the drummer). Note that this track was never published in this form; it's just a partial studio mix of the song, with the vocals removed. Only someone in the band or in the studio would have access to this partial mix.

    Since late September 22, the YouTube "About" page of hardcoremetalglobal says "THIS IS AN OFFICIAL BAND PAGE RUN AND ALL CONTENT UPLOADED BY HOGAN'S HEROES as per wikipedia Request". This was in response to CombatMarshmallow being told that the YouTube page must be an official band page or else it's a copyright violation. CombatMarshmallow came back to Wikipedia early on September 23 to say that the official band page requirement has been met.

    Unfortunately, CombatMarshmallow says in his edit summary that he does not have a conflict of interest: "No Conflict of anything". I would like folks here to look at the situation and weigh in. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not realize that the IP and CombatMarshmallow were one and the same. That's good to know, as the IP has received multiple blocks from me in regards to edit warring and other disruptive activities. I personally don't know if their activities listed here are due to s COI, or just fanboyish POV pushing, but the IP (and thus, CM) are about one one disruptive edit away from a very long block for their disruptiveness... Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Look how long and friendly the tonality is above on 99% of every reply what I had happen. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Metal_Music_Archives.Also, helpful. and I have to have binksternet and sergecross follow my edits and page around. Do you know how big this webspace is. I like people who show helpfulness and are positive people. I don't want this to be a negative experience here at wikipedia. I have a brain and I am going to share it. Wow. I feel like throwing the computer through the wall. Out of all places I thought I could at least deal with some nice unbiased people here. Then I have to of course see a "familiar" name and not in a good helpful familiar. Someone who seems to assume Im some sort of "bad guy". I know my stuff and am very well versed if that aggravates some people, its not my fault debating or working together on something means the best ideas must rise to the surface. It doesn't mean I should be followed around the web. It says at wikipedia people aren't supposed to make good editors not want to contribute anymore due to basically harassment. "You'll get a block with no warning". This should be a no "politics" kind of environment but thats exactly what it is sometimes, "you aggravated my friend because you're smart and now Im going to aggravate you back". Thats not a Professional environment. Just seeing that name is aggravating. Good Administrators and Editors are Helpful and TEACH. They don't THREATEN and Assume. Its just not good. Sorry. Thats what I know. I haven't seen any good experiences with sergecross. Nothing personal, also Im not a "kid" I grew out of that stuff decades ago. In in real life am an old soul, mature, light, helpful, knowledgeable. Wow. Same thing with binksternet, hands out more warnings to me in one week then Ive had in about 7 or 8 years. Doesn't work together. If he gets out debated about a topic tries to "get you back". Really. Lets not forget, Professional Before Feelings. Some have it, some don't. I have that ability. I don't hold "grudges" I'm not a kid. I ran a 5million dollar DVP account and had accounts at 7 of the Biggest Brokerage firms in the world. I know what professional is and the environment of. This emailing and getting people to basically harass when it happens doesn't reflect on me it reflects on the Administrators and Editors who engage, in it. When an editor comes across an Administrator who is nice , helpful and doesn't seem to let web-friendship with other editors or administrators affect the way a person is treated that administrator is treated like gold because they are one of the Good ONES. Anyhow its no mirror. Ill just add it like every one else who used the source, they weren't victim to "politics" if it gets removed It can go to content dispute. have a nice night. Thats what I typed, the person who was supposed to be "helping" co-incidentally did all this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogan%27s_Heroes_(band)&action=history Politics ruins his website. By the way I don't live in "Dover" thats written so poorly up there at first I though well, obviously the uploader at youtube must live in Dover. Then I realized binksternet thought I live in Dover. No I wouldn't commute like an hour and a half to my GF house. Plus they signed me out on purpose while I was editing. Getting notification is simple. There are hardcore pages on FB. I go to some of them. Ive seen hogan's heroes posted on them with either pictures or photos and sometimes the page puts the members names in blue. I asked someone at the page, ask them if the youtube is their page and if it is can they put a message on it, I write their page and I need to use the tracks for the article as it helps define the article.

    Im glad serge has been following me around on wikipedia for about 2 years now. Such a great experience when types "You'll get blocked with no warning". Also I was blocked by serge I think once. Nice exaggeration. When I get signed out the 79. ip shows. I only live in the next town from her. I don't "commute" probably about 120 miles to have a gf. Anyhow good faith and other things. Who really practices them, the contributors who don't use wikipedia to feel "powerful". Yeah sure. A "fanboy". Oh boy you tried to "hurter" my feelings. How Professional. Wow you don't work with others and just like to block people, thats real "helpful". Anyhow. the night is young and the coffee is warm. Good night. Remember, Assume Good Faith. Im sure there are plenty of people with an agenda or out to harm the wiki. Im not one of them. I wish I could just make "sergecross" and "binksternet" invisible to me and all their web-friends. Look at this person currently, guess he got "mad" at my honesty. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogan%27s_Heroes_(band)&action=historyIs that the best of their ability to help and teach. No. Its not actually. Sorry to any of the good administrators who should read this stuff its beneath me too.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, here is the IPs public block log. I have no agenda against him, other than he continually breaks policy. If the IP and CM are the same, then we can probably add a new one on there too - block evasion. (Which is all but confirmed, since this is my first interaction that I ever recall from CM. The IP, on the other hand, I've warned and blocked numerous times. Only the IP would say that I've followed him for years, yet that came from CM's post. Also, I am not "following the IP or CM around, considering 1) Neither had edited here yet when I first commented here, and 2) I was only here because I was pinged about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pixel_Press below... Sergecross73 msg me 11:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked @CombatMarshmallow: this very question on here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Metalcore_dispute "You have written most of their article and took a blurry photo of them, then installed it on here where it currently appears in four articles. What is your involvement with this little known band?" The user has accused just about everyone of edit warring with him/her and having some sort of beef with them. I could care less about any specific band. I myself followed my own brothers heavy metal/hard rock band around Ireland and I am very much for all bands that perform and tour as it is not as easy as it appears. The issue here is the users closeness to the subject, not just on wikipedia but all the other sites online he/she has edited. As Binksternet stated the references used by CombatMarshmallow are WP:Circular in that they have the same material uploaded on here. CombatMarshmallow has edited other sites, such as MTV.com, and tried to use it as a reference as seen in the heavy metal talk page. I don't see ANY shred of notability with Hogan's Heroes and I don't believe they warrant any mention on here. The tiny little mention on some obscure site does not mean they should be on here. There are thousands of bands who don't appear on here that has done more notable stuff. CombatMarshmallow is clearly a devotee of the band and has connections in some form, as I am with a few local bands in my area. He/she shouldn't take anything personal.RyanTQuinn (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where he ever answers the question. If he hasn't answered this somewhere already, it will be required here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The location of Dover, New Jersey, is not necessarily where the person was when the IP6 address was assigned. Instead, Dover is probably a central office that assigns IP6 addresses for a much larger region. I have seen the same thing in North Carolina where Raleigh covers a huge part of the state's IP6 addresses. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trafigura

    Hi, I've suggested a few updates to Trafigura (see here on the talk page). I was working with a couple of editors on and off but haven't been able to get any eyes on it for a while now. If anyone feels like taking a look and posting there or on my talk page that'd be very much appreciated. As stated on my user page, I'm a PR professional and Trafigura is my client. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ranjit mahali and Moonlight Productions

    Can someone take a look at Ranjit mahali (talk · contribs)? All of his edits have been to promote his business or justify these edits: spamming/vandalizing American Psychological Association, spamming RSN, and filling his User page, Talk page, and Sandbox with his contact information and YouTube videos. I have warned him with templates and he responded on my Talk page with "it's my profile", so I tried a personalized message. His reponse today was to spam my Talk page and add more spamto his own Talk. Woodroar (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked and deleted the pages, but this is more a case for WP:AIV. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was quick, thanks! I'll keep AIV in mind if/when it happens again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    TejaswaChaudhary sockfarm

    articles

    I opened the case SEO firm August 2015 advert about a month ago. The active SPI WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TejaswaChaudhary indicates that the prediction might have come true. About 25 confirmed socks under the master who was named as one of the possibles in the COIN case. — Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the deleted articles in the SPI case is for a company offering reputation management, SEO and social media marketing services. — Brianhe (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like TejaswaChaudhary socks created Mark Leigh and some other things. Also noting that LeiaWriter canvassed several editors for BOGO. Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Burjeel Hospital connection with suspected sock that was missed previously. Opened new SPI. - Brianhe (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pixel Press

    Concern was raised at the Video game WikiProject and after taking it to the wrong place because this isn't my forte, its here now. The fact that a new editor suddenly makes an article with the quality it is now does raise suspicion, especially after the discovery of OrangeMoody. GamerPro64 02:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I addressed your concern at the games notification board. I am not associated with this company nor am I a paid editor. Thanks for the comments about the quality of the article, but the comments and accusations on the other notification board are hostile and not appreciated. See my talk page, the talk page of the Pixel Press article, and the video game notification board for more information if needed. --Bathchurnning (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

    Both these editors made COI edits to MSKCC over two years ago, and have subsequently been tagged as such on the MSKCC talk page. I was recently contracted on MSK's behalf (disclosed on my talk page) to help clean up and improve their page. These two users have requested help removing their COI disclosures on their respective talk pages, which admittedly, are some of the least visible places to do so. Beggf is no longer an employee of MSK, but Davidthelion2 still is. However, it seems that nearly all of his edits have been reverted or changed via this diff. Can someone help me help them navigate this situation? While I'm familiar with the rules regarding disclosure of COI, I can't say the same for removal of said disclosures.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ozebooks

    I can't quite makse sense of Ozebooks. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a bunch of fansites, but refers to a possibly notable museum book publishing house. But then there are no links to the publishing house. It possibly falls under COIN, possibly WP:SPAM, I just don't know. For completeness I've listed one linked article that was just PRODed; it was entirely sourced to a fan wiki. Updated to add: It's possible that "Australian Industrial Archives" is made up or some kind of DBA name. If so, it should probably be PRODed. — Brianhe (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Historic Construction Equipment Association they mention is real[92]; they have a museum full of heavy earthmoving machinery. The "Australian Industrial Archives" appears in Google only in Ozebooks promotions. The Ozebooks web site [93] doesn't seem to mention construction equipment at all, and has a date of 1996. Not seeing any indication of notability here, or any reliable sources at all. John Nagle (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks John. Proposed speedy deletion of Ozebooks as G11: pure promotion. — Brianhe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Venafi

    Many SPAs, two cable ISP IPs that geolocate to Salt Lake City with zero or one other edits, and a corporate IP all tending an article about this company. PRODed Venafi. - Brianhe (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Risklens

    It is possible that an Elance contract write up "proprietary software and our information risk management model" was carried out at the article. Job put up on 12 August (US time?), edits made on 11 August (UTC), feedback received on 11 September.

    Protandim and OCEAN Style connected to same Elance account. This Elancer has completed many Wikipedia related jobs back to 2011 and is clearly socking. I have opened an SPI. Probably CastleKing1440. — Brianhe (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FlowerStorm48 sockfarm cleanup


    All this stuff was created and/or heavily edited by FlowerStorm48 and their confirmed sockpuppets. The articles need a look except for cases marked. From another case, I think this might be part of a bigger group of socks under the master CastleKing1440.

    Clearly this sockfarm needed to be cleaned up after, but we missed the opportunity since 28 May, when the socks were confirmed. This is bad for Wikipedia, as the undisclosed paid editor had a time window to get paid for their bad work, a time window which might have been closed. Maybe there needs to be a procedure to link sockfarms to new COIN cases?

    Additional forensic notes. The quantity of work here, and tone of editing seems consistent with a single editor who is proficient with English and has a good vocabulary. Monroe Hodder is a good example. Account usage generally followed an assembly-line procedure: account created, twiddled a few articles, then kept on ice a few weeks until needed for an article. Tradecraft was meticulous: after editing, accounts were generally thrown away. Only in one case did I note two socks editing the same article. Practices and topics match at least one known LTA operator. — Brianhe (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing this up. I've started some clean up and added more articles created by related SPAs that I don't think had been noticed before. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on for years as evidenced by Special:Contributions/BubleLover55 who created Hamilton Jewelers in 2012 and fits the patterns of the other socks. I noticed that Food_Tank:_The_Food_Think_Tank was created by Neurosciency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who disappeared in 2013 after they were outed as an elancer. There are many other articles that weren't ever cleaned up including:
    That also lead me to Brandhorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who edited Fabrizio Boccardi recently and hasn't disclosed any COI. SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: Can you add Brandhorse to the open sockpuppet investigation WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MayFlowers2014#26 September 2015? Also noting Jimbo Wales commented on that Neurosciency paid neg-BLP piece. — Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: All of those accounts are stale so there doesn't seem much point. SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the book The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending is supposedly based on the life of Fabrizio Boccardi. The corresponding article was written by The Librarian at Terminus and his sock Commonplace Book. We have a new SPA Creoleo active there in the last ~72 hours. — Brianhe (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Mc Kevitt

    I have userfied the autobiography and removed mentions added to other articles by the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I came across this article when I was looking through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements]. Immediate warning flags went off when I noticed that the person who created the article had the same name as the subject. Even his user page admits it. But while that's an obvious COI, I'm not so sure about the other two IPs. Both have done a fair amount of editing on the page. 86.41.222.175 has edited Paul McKevitt's page primarily while 193.61.184.132 has edited that page and others like Magee College, where the professor currently teaches. Just something that might need to be checked. GamerPro64 15:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We are happy to edit anything which is considered promotional or non neutral on this page; at present we believe it is a truthful and honest representation of a Living Person (Professor) which has citations and references as back-up. 86.41.222.175 (talk)

    What do you mean by "we"? GamerPro64 22:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "We" means the University (Magee) or the Professor (Paul Mc Kevitt) or members of his Department; if there is anything non-neutral or non-truthful it can be edited Paulmckevitt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So basically this is an admission to a conflict of interest. Guess the honestly is worth some merit. However, in terms of COI, you're not supposed to edit things like this to begin with. GamerPro64 14:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    point taken, but looking at lots of examples of biographical data on wikipedia subjects of the biographical data and their associated organisations are editing them all the time....86.41.222.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that should be checked into more. There could be possible undisclosed paid editing with these COIs. A lot of us don't want another OrangeMoody to happen here. GamerPro64 23:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no paid editing in this case; don't know who OrangeMoody is; must check into that 86.41.222.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's been a bunch more COI editing on Paul Mc Kevitt, which has been AfD'ed, and an SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paulmckevitt. — Brianhe (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI is now closed. Paulmckevitt (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jrleaguedoe

    editors

    These might be part of the FlowerStorm48 sockfarm via crossover at Food Think Tank, not yet mentioned at any SPI I'm aware of. Note that Jrleaguedoe is active as of this month, and JamieCW777 popped up earlier this year after a three-year hiatus, about the same time the account Jrleaguedoe was created. — Brianhe (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Connected sockfarms look likely, an IP in this set apparently created Food Tank: The Food Think Tank, which was recreated as Food Think Tank by FlowerStorm48 sockpuppet JadeRing8293. — Brianhe (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I apologize if I'm going about this the wrong way. I'm fairly new and have not found wikipedia to be user friendly. I am not associated with the other folks on this list and am not a paid contributor (it would be silly to pay me since I don't know what I'm doing). I am a bit frustrated that the Food Tank page keeps getting deleted. I certainly understand the rules against paid contributors, but I also believe that, despite their involvement, the organization is notable. What is the best way to go about making that argument? Thank you, and, again, I apologize if I'm going about this the wrong way. Vxbxl (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jklmuseum

    User has added promotional material as well as original research to an article about the organization their username demonstrates they represent. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangemoody cleanup

    Leakers from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangemoody#27 September 2015, again showing that there's a missing connection from SPI to COIN. Noting that jewelry companies seem to come up a lot here. — Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A time sensitive new cleanup task: ~100 new accounts at WP:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts#Blocked after August 31 announcement. The bad news, ~100 new accounts to check. The good news, it's usually zero or one articles per throwaway account; also many have been scanned now. But we need to do this fast to block potential payment to OM. — Brianhe (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Smile Foundation and others

    editors

    Appearances of some kind of promotion of various Indian topics. First noticed this in checking contribs of Jeeteshvaishya but I think he was only incidentally related. Ditto for LogAntiLog. Strongest indication of interrelationships is at I Am Kalam, edited by all the listed users and IP. The IP is reported by whois query to belong to Smile Foundation. Brianhe (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hema Hattangady

    Nominated for speedy deletion by DGG and subsequently deleted. Brianhe (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request second opinion on this advertising agency exec/CEO biog. May have been created by GF editor, but reads like a resume. Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged for deletion as G11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    series of promotional biographies

    Edits by User:Jumplike23. I can't tell if they're COI, or paid editing, or incompetence, or a confusion between WP and press releases. The editor's habit of repeatedly blanking his talk page makes it harder to see the extent, but consider the following (not all of which are strictly speaking bios):

    Take a look at another kind, gracious user who informed me about the blanking of my page. I didnt know about the archive. That is user epitomizes my experience thus far on wikipedia. Here, on the other hand, we have this nominating user throw this in as to imply some malignant intent on my part. That should color this inquiry. However, consider the merits of each article. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciated your suggestions and changed my layout decisions accordingly.I like headers and know they help readers--but maybe I used too many here and changed it up.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, this user never once proposed changes to any of these articles with the exception of Bryan Stevenson, and I responded accordingly there. I think this is a very significant fact. --JumpLike23 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whiquitta Tobar see the afd at ]]Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiquitta Tobar]]
    Again, user helped improve the article but went the route of deletion to make his point. In a way, sort of strong arming me.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steve Gatena probably notable as an athlete, but the rest of the career is not. The section on REP Interactive is as blatant promotionalism as anything deleted at AfD: it consists of quotes where he praises himself in his own words. the actual awards are for not-yet-being-notable.
    See the numerous sources discussing his career as an entrepreneur. Other editors have inquired about the article in a more civil way.--JumpLike23 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alan Purwin -- highly notable, but the article is full of overpersonal statements, little quotes from the subject, and details emphasising the goodness of his heart.
    Again, his proposal for speedy delete was clearly frivolous and unthoughtful. It was rejected.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheryll Cashin notable, but "Her mother Joan and father John were both involved in the civil rights movement, which greatly influenced her belief about the importance of political engagement, and instilled values which she researches and discusses today." followed by extensive information about her family. Doesn't discuss what's important, which are her books-- see Worldcat; references only to blogs, worded to not make it obvious that they are only blogs. Writing about notable people isn such a way and with such poor referencing as this is a failed attempt at promotionalism, and every bit as destructive to the encyclopedia as writing about non-notable people.
    Very confused as to what I did here? Again, this user is very lazy. A moment's glance would have revealed I have made very minor changes to this article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deidre Behar was for some reason found notable at afd, but at least it's short and to the point.
    Again, the nominator makes no point. This is harassment and I would like an apology. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eli Northrup, less than notable in three careers: football, law, and rap. The's so junior in law that the article is about the fellowship he got as a student and the work he assisted with in a clinic.
    Northrup has several articles about his career as a law student/ law clerk and a rapper, and clearly meets the criteria for an article.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allen Johnson (activist)now at afd: his notability is that he has done work in organizations and causes in which notable people have also worked.
    I responded at Afd as to notability. He was a leader in MS during the civil rights movement. He is mentioned in over a half dozen sources, and my article allows them to come together. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Have A Name Project, not a bio, but written to magnify the role of Jon Linton. It takes checking the refs to realize this is all in only one city.
    The project is well-known on the internet has several sources, and Jon Linton is the founder and main contributor to the project.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesuit Volunteer Corps a highly notable organization, but written as a press release "After completing their service with JVC, many former jesuit volunteers (FJVs) create a subculture of faith and service in the church" "Jesuit volunteers can make a lasting impact in the placements in which they serve."
    Take a look at this article before I contributed to it. Sure, changes could be made, and I already made some based on the nominator's criticism.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eric Thomas (motivational speaker) now at afd. I don't think "While he was homeless, he met a preacher who inspired him to go back to school and eventually change lives.[8] Thomas recalled that time in his life: “He really just spoke life into me at a time when I was lost. He told me I had an untapped gift that if tapped into, would save lives" belongs in an encycopedia, even if cited to the subject himself.
    Eric Thomas is highly notable. Any search of google news would show such. Again, user helped with editorial oversight, but clearly made a frivolous nomination for deletion.--JumpLike23 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's just since Aug 4, 2015. I suppose I should say that I think the careers of many of these people honorable. The ones who are notable deserved decent articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, it does not matter whether these people are honorable. They all qualify per the wikipedia standards on notability and they certainly do not read as press releases. If they do, make minor edits as he did with Alan Purwin, not make this big attack on me and troll me for hours. The nominating user basically has an essay on his user page stating that he does not agree with the wikipedia notability norms. --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When I edit or use delete processes I follow the prevailing interpretation, or I would hardly have had any success here. (And in particular, in using admin tools or giving advice I think it necessary to be absolutely orthodox.) In making an argument, I do sometime urge the interpretation be adjusted a little, and sometimes the changing consensus at afd does adopt this eventually, and sometimes it doesn't.
    But I have not been for the last year or so primarily concerned with notability, but rather promotionalism. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. Not all promotional editing is direct COI; some of it is well-meaning editors imitating the work of true promotional paid editors. They can't help seeing it here, for there is a good deal of it yet to be removed, as we were less vigilant in previous years. And a promotional style of writing is so prevalent in the real word, where so much of what passes as journalism is basically instigated by PR.
    As I said, I think most of the subjects are at least borderline notable. For someone I consider a good faith editor, I try to deal with articles on clearly notable subjects that need improvement by improving them; if I am reverted, then I start to wonder, and bring it to the community. (That was exactly the case here for the first article I listed.) DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with your accusations as to promotionalism are that they are conclusory. However, I have made changes to all of the articles you have listed. To your credit, I found your edits with Purwin and appearance of promotionalism to be helpful, and they were not reverted. As for Stevenson, I reverted and asked for you to explain with specific facts why my edits generally were promotionalism. Then, after considering your suggestions, I made significant changes to the layout of the article. I feel that we met good common ground with the Stevenson article, and I am proud of that article. Your insights helped improve that article for readers. And, you also helped with other articles as well.--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will judge by how well you like my further suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "This page is currently being updated by the staff of Portland Monthly magazine."

    Regarding article Portland Monthly:

    See post at talk page of article, "This page is currently being updated by the staff of Portland Monthly magazine.".

    I originally had brought this article to WP:GA quality and was surprised to revisit and see its sorry state having been ravaged by WP:COI.

    I've cleaned up the page for now.

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jorge Horacio Brito

    Initiator of case has been blocked by Berean Hunter. - Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is a conflict of interests since DaltonCastle and Dewritech want to keep corruption allegations that are not proved yet and Tuquoquefili and Superagente86 want to erase that information. ClufoWatson (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    No conflict here - just reverting perpetual attempts by Sherlock4000 and confirmed socks Tuquoefill, Superagente 86, and Danielseo451 to remove sourced content. That a SPA raises now this allegations does not surprise.-- Dewritech (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from the sockpuppeting cases that are a relevant issue here, if you compare the two versions of the article, there is a conflict between the users who wants to keep the corruption allegations and the users who are against including this kind of information in Wikipe Shouldn't we analyze if this information is certain or not to be here? I mean, it is all sourced in Spanish and I understand that those allegations are still investigated. Shouldn't we discuss this kind of content? I would like to have other users' opinion than the users who are involved in this case. Many thanks!--ClufoWatson (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    CMS Energy and others

    editors

    Smartse has uncovered a probable UPE ring and initiated WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yekhai Noting here in case we can help identify actors and further connections.

    Noting for the record that the major changes to CMS Energy involved adding large sections on how great they are for the world, with new sections on philanthropy, environment, and awards. They also renamed the "criticism" section to "history" and removing their Ig Nobel Prize in Economics. This wikiwashing work is typical of advocacy editors, and something we should be vigilant for in all corp articles. — Brianhe (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticism section fixed by others. Removed some peacocking. Fixed broken ref template. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Artelia Communication

    This account (which I encountered whilst answering a tagged copy-edit request on the above article), appears to be an abandoned corporate account (two edits, both here). Judging by the standard of the article, the operator clearly knew/knows their way around WP. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added "Corruption" section; in July 2015 Artelia was barred from World Bank funded projects for a few years. More news would be helpful, but it will probably have to come from the French press. English sources are few.John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks John; the subject seems to be notable but I think this SPA should be blocked as a sock, even though it's currently inactive. An SPI would be pointless since the checkuser data is stale, but someone in future might be able to tie this to a known sock-puppeteer. Anyway it's not my call and your mileage might vary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Spacious and others

    Case #1

    Case #2

    Case #3

    Lumping these together due to the interrelated editor lists -- there is an SPI on one or more of these editors but it looks like it's not going to result in technically confirmed relationships. However, feel free to refactor into multi reports if you think it's better. There is a fresh Contribution Surveyor report on Ireneshih here. — Brianhe (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AdPushup

    A deleted Orangemoody corp article recreated by zero-history SPA in a single edit [95]. Looks like WP:TOSOON at best. Lots of dodgy Indian business sources (DealCurry?), 2x passing mention in Economic Times, nothing that would be considered solid elsewhere. Brianhe (talk) 06:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At AfD. No one has argued for keeping it. John Nagle (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Balkin

    I really have to try hard to hold my tongue on this article on a "international thought leader on banking ethics". So just the facts. SPA author. Single author. Complete article made in one edit. Large section titled "honors". You get the idea. Brianhe (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #639,327 in Books. But #73 in Books > Business & Money > Industries > Financial Services, which is respectable.
    Cleaned up most of the junk. Now we have to put stuff in. Trying to get a handle on who this person is. See [96]] for some insight. He's the son of David Balkin, a senior director of McKinsey & Company. He seems to have inherited money, but hasn't really done much on his own except write a book and give a TEDx talk. The "banking executive" job was at the Macquarie Family Office, which manages money for rich families. There's a claim that he worked for the Australian prime minister, but that's cited to his own article on LinkedIn. The Amazon reviews for the book show signs of similarity. He apparently talked about running for political office at one point, but that went nowhere. Someone else take a look at this. Does he meet the threshold for notability? His father is more notable than he is, and doesn't have an article. John Nagle (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a cite re Prime Minister - he worked on the prime minister's campaign, not for the Government. John Nagle (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Irish Parliament IP

    Minor scandal over pol self-editing; details at Jim Walsh (politician)#Wikipedia editing. Looks like same IP has been fairly busy wikiwashing [97][98][99][100] and promoting [101][102] various other pols and their staff as well. Apparently for years without notice until recently, although WHOIS identifies the IP registrant clearly. The list above is by no means exhaustive. — Brianhe (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okey Uzoeshi

    See discussion at WP:AN/I#Somebody please help! This editor is driving me up the wall!. This is a typical pop culture figure article with an SPA pushing the article. Extensive, but non-fruitful discussion at AN/I. We may be able to do more here than AN/I can. John Nagle (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Initial fact checking: List of films in which actor played.
    • "Fatal Imagination" - not in cast list. [103]
    • "The Rivals" - not one of the lead actors. [104]
    (more checking needed)
    Band member of "G-xploits".
    • Claimed MTV "top 10". Not finding any hits for "G-xploits" MTV.
    This article is going to need substantial editor time to clean up. If any uninvolved editor has spare time and an interest in Nollywood cinema, assistance is requested. Thanks.
    John Nagle (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi John Nagle thanks for moving this conversation here, I agree that it is better suited for this discussion board and hopefully we can reach a solution quickly and resolve this amicably. At the end of the day, I'm after 'accuracy' as opposed to 'winning' a battle. Let me clarify; for Jamie Tubers benefit - 'I'm a 'she' and not a 'he' :) (not that I expect it will get me any favours). I simply prefer being referred to as a lady!
    I have been on wikipedia for little over a week, so new to this process. I want to get this right so that lessons learned from this can be taken on board before I proceed to update other pages, hence the reason why I have not gone on to contribute to other pages
    The points you have mentioned above; 'Fatal Imagination' and 'The Rivals' were part of the initial article on wikipedia (before my contributions). 'wikipedia' as a whole is about collaborative editing. Each of us bringing our own nuggets to the table. My edits were more about splitting the article into appropriate sections and doing a bit more research , so that text was a bit more refined, I am not sure how I have promoted the subject, and would be extremely grateful if you could advise.
    i also gave accurate reasons why I made so many contributions, I simply save my work as I go in everyday life and did not realise it could be considered 'weird' on wikipedia and for this I apologised as I see how it could have been perceived 'wrongly', I was still learning the ropes
    This is a page created by Jamie Tubers that refers to another Nollywood actor, who was in the same season of AMBO as Okey Uzoeshi and I'm not sure how my contributions differ astronomically to his and why this page does not carry the COI template. Other pages of Nigerian actors are here and this here, again my questions have been around why similar templates were not applied to these also. I have just felt so targeted in this process, If I am being honest, but determined to resolve the issues. All I have asked for is for specifics to be called out by [User:Jamie Tubers|Jamie Tubers]], so that I can fix them and learn from them. Another editor went in there and took out 'some of the weasel words' and Jamie Tubers still reapplied the templates without reading the updates
    Let me reiterate, I have no problem with templates but they must actually be the 'right ones' and be geared at directing editors to contribute appropriately, not badges and badges that are duplicated or disruptive with no guidance to other editors.
    • Discussion Points
    • I am not sure who called Okey Uzoeshi out as a lead on 'the rivals' but there are quite a few mentions of him playing a role in the movie - particularly as the film either won or was nominated for an award at the NY film festival (If I recall correctly)! Yes - found it here The Rivals (winner, Best International Drama at the New York Film Festival) ... He was called out by Iroko TV. Iroko TV is THE leading distributor in Nollywood movies and known globally, so in my view - a reliable source
    • Claimed MTV "top 10". Not finding any hits for "G-xploits" MTV. - Again this was part of the initial article on wikipedia before my contributions and also mentioned on the Iroko TV excerpt, it may help to look at the initial write up
    • However 'fatal imagination' is specifically called out by Uzoeshi as his 'first appearance in front of a camera' here in an online interview. If this is not felt to be a reliable source :::: then that is fine, I am happy for it to be taken out
    • My issue at the start with Jamie Tubers, asides from his tone, has been the COI template, I took on another editor's point that as an 'avid admirer' or 'fan' I may be conflicted and decided to call that out by using the ' connected_contribute' template, which I still think is not appropriate, however if those are the rules then those are the rules. I am happy for the page to be validated. However I do not think it should be deleted as the subject himself is a notable 'Nollywood' actor, whose page was on wikipedia way before me.
    • I also think that if the 'Okey Uzoeshi' page is indeed deleted then, maybe other actors in Nollywood who are of lesser notability should also be deleted and how would you measure this?
    • If you are interested in finding out more about 'Uzoeshi' there are a couple of interviews here and here that you can watch to get a feel for the subject as well as a ton of his movies or IrokoTV and IbakaTV
    • Please note that I do work during the day and fortunately or unfortunately, I work in an investment bank - the reason I have mentioned this, is the Corporate Security Network means I will not be able to contribute to this thread or make any updates while at work but happy to pick up when I get in, in the evening, can I ask that we do not close this thread till I have had a chance to reply please. Thank you!
    In Researching Jamie Tubers, it appears he does do quite a bit of writing on Nollywood writers and actors, the fact the he has picked a handful out of hundreds may also lead me to decide that he is conflicted or the fact the he seems to have written up on 'every' - "Kunle Afolayan' movie or gotten other editors to 'contribute' specifically to those may again lead me to say I think he is conflicted. However I believe in 'good faith' and improving the 'overall quality' of wikipedia, not in being petty and picking apart every editors' contribution. If I'm given a fighting chance I will contribute to other pages, but new editors have to be treated in good faith - after all behind every username is an actual person with values and lives beyond wikipedia. Finally after being threatened re/; being banned/blocked or accused that my account is purely for 'promotional purposes' (which is extremely untrue), I did mention that there must be other avenues for escalation, I live in the UK, which for the most part is fair, surely there must be other forums, channels for escalation. 'Vicious' editors are a huge issue for new editors and a whole lot of other people who want to contribute to Wikipedia but are too scared, there are articles that specifically call this issue out!. We should be passing on the ropes for continuity not threatening, dismissing new editors as if their contributions are not valuable. Every editor on wikipedia was once a 'new editor'. I look forward to hearing from you and that includes Jamie Tubers, let's resolve this amicably! Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. There's no rush; this is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Other volunteer editors will look at this article as time permits. Since you're new to Wikipedia, it's often helpful to read more of the policies and edit articles other than your favorite, to gain experience. Reading WP:ACTOR and WP:V will be helpful. The article has been sent to Articles for Deletion, because, after the unverifiable claims are disregarded, the subject of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. That was done by a previously uninvolved editor. For articles which look promotional, those criteria are often strictly applied. Wikipedia regularly rejects articles about minor musicians, bands, DJs, and actors, usuallly because there just isn't enough material about them available from reliable sources, as Wikipedia uses the term. See WP:RS.
    You can argue against deletion on the article's deletion page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okey_Uzoeshi, if you wish. However, ranting at length without references to hard facts will not help. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Nagle, Jamie Tubers My argument was never re: 'notability', it was always COI, frankly this is really tiring, so happy for the page to be deleted, it was on wikipedia way before I decided to edit it. This way my contributions will also be gone. So deletion fine by me. All yours Wikic¤l¤gy Thanks! Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is how Wikipedia works. You write something, and others check it and edit it. It's sometimes painful for new editors not used to this. It's why Wikipedia doesn't read like PR Newswire. John Nagle (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    John Nagle I am not really sure I understand your point. i contributed and was corrected, tried to fix the errors, another editor contributed and the issue was that the templates were continually added back. The template, I mostly disagreed with was COI and because I am indeed an 'avid admirer' of the subject and it was 'explained' to me that as a fan, I may indeed be conflicted; I actually added the COI template to the subject's talk page and was STILL called out in the rudest, most disruptive manner and threatened to be banned without the 4 levels of warning adhered to.
    Frankly I AM happy for the page to be deleted. The page has been on wikipedia for years and no one edited it, as soon as I edited it. Everyone started coming out of the woodwork. Only one editor assumed good faith and actually 'helped'. Disappointing but hey I will choose to AGF, as mentioned I'm happy for the article to be deleted. Thank you! Adeadeyemi21 (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nirvana Chaudhary

    Help. Persistent editor restoring resume style material to this BLP. Unreferenced, of course. I have to lay off due to 3RR. Brianhe (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Has it been proposed for deletion yet? --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Only proposed speedy in 2011 but it didn't stick, obviously. Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirvana Chaudhary. --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Ressler

    Anon editors at Charles Ressler making concerning edits especially since it was created by Smileverse, who has been blocked for TOU violations. Brianhe (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Mark Harrison

    Lots of WP:NPOV fail here. The primary editor "dhmco" is a reference to the person's website dmh.co. Common for many COI editors, the editor has a disregard for doing things properly, for example, the photo on the article has a caption saying "Photographed in the Financial Times in August 2015 Daniel Mark Harrison", but the copyright notice at File:DanielMarkHarrison FT Aug 2015.jpg claims that user "Dmhco" themself was the author and that it's a public domain image.

    To a question about COI at User talk:Dmhco#Affiliations, some other user called Gankdolf (????) replied "Not in any way affiliated or have any connection". I posted a follow-up question, but neither have replied or made any edits since then. -- intgr [talk] 09:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A reply has been left for you now. There is no COI involved and your penchant for tackling this indicates that serious COI may be applicable on your behalf esp. with regard to De La Rue for whom it appears you work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmhco (talk • contribs) 09:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dmhco: Please tell everyone the evidence you have for my alleged affiliations, I am very interested. I guess my user account on WP is a conspiracy started 10 years ago to take down Daniel Mark Harrison in 2015. :) -- intgr [talk] 09:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The naming issue does seem terribly obvious. And the fact that Gankdolf (talk · contribs) shows up out of nowhere for the sole purpose of defending Dmhco (talk · contribs) (in the first-person) is even more suspicious. clpo13(talk) 09:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User Gankdolf claims to be from Singapore, but the IP 171.101.83.163, that has similar editing patterns with Dmhco, is from Bangkok, Thailand per MaxMind GeoIP. So either he's lying or they are different people. -- intgr [talk] 11:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assorted interesting edits by user Dmhco: deleted this COIN discussion (reverted by Dmhco also), Response to another COI allegation when writing about Daniel Mark Harrison's brother, maintenance templates and PROD removed in "minor edit" with no summary and no talk page discussion. -- intgr [talk] 10:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Linksearch [[special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|en]] - [[:m:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|meta]] - [[:de:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|de]] - [[:fr:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|fr]] - [[:simple:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|simple]] - [[:wikt:en:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|wikt:en]] - [[:wikt:fr:special:linksearch/*.{{{1}}}|wikt:fr]] • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: [[special:search/{{{1}}}|en]] - [[:fr:special:search/{{{1}}}|fr]] - [[:de:special:search/{{{1}}}|de]] • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.focus-economics.com.{{{1}}}

    The listed users are single-purpose accounts whose only contributions involve promotional editing at FocusEconomics and adding external links to its website, focus-economics.com. I wonder if maybe the article FocusEconomics was created in the first place as the result of paid editing, too. Deli nk (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=683774869"