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
Line 883: Line 883:
::Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association [[Airlines for Europe]], the Russian company [[Novaport]], the Fairmont/[[Raffles Hotels & Resorts|Raffles]] chain and [[Benjamin Swig|associated people]], [[Régis Schultz]] a European corp executive, [[Sok Kong]] a Cambodian executive. More [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Pritikin&type=revision&diff=805505320&oldid=799671145 exec/philanthropist] stuff, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outrigger_Hotels_%26_Resorts&type=revision&diff=803722916&oldid=793797176 resorts], all [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beam_Suntory&type=revision&diff=808644433&oldid=797262778 this] about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
::Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association [[Airlines for Europe]], the Russian company [[Novaport]], the Fairmont/[[Raffles Hotels & Resorts|Raffles]] chain and [[Benjamin Swig|associated people]], [[Régis Schultz]] a European corp executive, [[Sok Kong]] a Cambodian executive. More [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Pritikin&type=revision&diff=805505320&oldid=799671145 exec/philanthropist] stuff, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outrigger_Hotels_%26_Resorts&type=revision&diff=803722916&oldid=793797176 resorts], all [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beam_Suntory&type=revision&diff=808644433&oldid=797262778 this] about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --[[User:Qwacker|Qwacker]] ([[User talk:Qwacker|talk]]) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --[[User:Qwacker|Qwacker]] ([[User talk:Qwacker|talk]]) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
::::So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edit happen to be to articles about hotels and other related subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the [[WP:DUCK|"duck test"]] is a method of determining whether two accounts are [[WP:SOCKPUPPETS]]? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
::::So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the [[WP:DUCK|"duck test"]] is a method of determining whether two accounts are [[WP:SOCKPUPPETS]]? [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Blueberry+Hill], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Qwacker]? The coincidences start to accumulate. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


== Accusations of UPE from Investigator87 ==
== Accusations of UPE from Investigator87 ==

Revision as of 09:43, 8 November 2017

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    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:A Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Access Industries
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:BP
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Carbon Trust
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Liborbital sockfarm

    Evading ACTRIAL

    Seems likely to be paid editing. At the very least, it's clear they edited until autoconfirmed status to evade ACTRIAL. ~ Rob13Talk 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Katie Geralds

    It would appear this user (all four accounts appear to be posting similar information) is a former partner of Katie Geralds and due to some personal conflict that ended their relationship appears to be adding inflammatory content to this page. Based on the name it would be obvious that this is a conflict of interest. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shootmaster 44: Thanks for posting. I'm keeping an eye on the article and will take action as necessary. May I suggest though that {{uw-defamatory3}} would have been better than {{uw-vandal3}}? SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Sounds good thanks. I didn't realize that was an option to be honest. If I notice anything again, I will use {{uw-defamatory3}}. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Hardest

    A promotional editor who has declined to disclose.

    First edit was to vote in an AfD and they already new about GNG.[2] Followed by adjusting piped links.[3]. So this is not their first account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • IIRC, there was a paid editing ring involved with the Raheja articles. I think the Hardest account was warned about issues then. Some other accounts were definitely picked up, per the templated list at Talk:Raheja Developers. I think that article has also been reported here in the past. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiaccnt1234 SPI. More COIN archive links and notes at User:Bri/COIbox32 ☆ Bri (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is obviously a seasoned paid editor as I've asked for declarations at least since Dec last year and they never responded, instead they have these nuggets on their userpage: "I only edit pages that are of no professional interest; other than to further the knowledge within an area.", "n my short time on Wikipedia, I have found promotional material to be a major issue here, and I may go a little loose on my criteria for deleting such articles." Now they've acknowledged paid editing in their unblock request (I declined). Obviously not the first account, and likely not the only one active right now either, but I can't figure out under what name to file an SPI, I do see another possible account based on the similar Commons Copyvio uploads related to Nivaan Sen. Just pinging Berean Hunter as he handled the last SPI linked above by Brian. —SpacemanSpiff 08:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManishMuradiya is related and likely to be with the group Bri has listed.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni:--Yeah, they are definitely plausible redirects.Thus, the option would be to delete the pages and create a new redirect, in place.The paid content, written while evading blocks and puppeting, need not stay; even in page-history.I neither think that Sitush will dis-agree.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have written to EdwardX about Niladri Paul.And what happened in the case of Jafar Dehghan?Doug nominated the page last time and it does not appears that he will dis-agree! Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only ones I declined were the redirects. I don't see a need to delete them just to get rid of the page history, and in fact there are reasons why we might want to let that stay that I don't want to get into here for BEANS reasons. The ones that still have G5s on them another admin can assess. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another paid editing sockfarm

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michakellies

    Potentially all part of one or two SPIs. Details to come. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added Avaza as well, which I found in Special:Undelete. Its largely the same article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Stone & Company Entertainment

    Editing only on these articles, and username indicates he/she is a company employee. Redirected article consisted of promotional content of non-notable subject. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan D. Winitz

    Rug Connoisseur is an employee of Claremont Rug Company: Our page has now been deleted and I request that it please be restored and in the future, I will not add written content to corresponding pages from our website. My intention was to provide more educational information about these types of rugs to enhance the user experience when searching through Wikipedia for these rug types and then reference the source not to promote our website. Thank you. [4]

    Jan D. Winitz is the founder and president of Claremont Rug Company.

    The editor has attempted to create an article for Claremont Rug Company (speedy deleted for being promotional), spammed the company's website, and copied information from the website into an article [5].

    I've reverted the latest edits from Rug Connoisseur because they once again used poor, promotional sources originating from the company (a press release and a article for an insurance company's newsletter written by Winitz).

    At this point, I'm thinking a block might be the best solution. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understand there may be a conflict of interest, the intention of making the last revision was to remove content that may be overtly bias or promotional on the 'Jan David Winitz' page and instead just leave the factual content of his life and career. I added in citations from more sources that we not written by Jan himself or linked to Claremont Rug Company's website instead using supporting sources like the three I used in the first paragraph of the 'Life and Career' section which were articles written by staff writers from the San Francisco Chronicle [1] and the Houston Chronicle [2]. Are these sources considered poor, promotional sources on Wikipedia? The intention of this last revision was not for promotion it was to add additional sources to hopefully have the tag removed from the Jan David Winitz. Appreciate your advice, thank you.Rug Connoisseur (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had read and followed the advice on your talk page, we wouldn't be here.
    All the sources are rather poor, and your attempts to improve the article highlighted a press release and an article by Winitz.
    I've gone ahead and trimmed back the article to something with far fewer problems to work from. If there exist better sources about him, we certainly could use them. Sources written from outside the hype of art promotion would be especially helpful. Shall we continue on the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Herel, Susan (16 January 2011). "From Rugs to Riches". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
    2. ^ Rufca, Sara (19 June 2014). "Stunning Houston Rug Collection is Gallery-Worthy". Houston Chronicle. Retrieved 11 October 2017.

    Absolutely, I have a few more sources I would like to provide you for review to support the content on the page. Would you like me to add these sources and the content they support on the article talk page? Thank you.Rug Connoisseur (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article talk page is indeed the place for such discussion. As an aside, the picture of the guy in the article is truly godawful -- isn't there something better available, like a candid shot? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks from this week

    articles


    Feel free to split this post up, but I just wanted to list them here whilst I have the time. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    D. A. Davidson & Co.

    Article on Wall Street bank, created and principally edited by the above SPA. Requires major work, and also the editing activity indicates probable paid editing, COI at a minimum. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Divshirsat12

    articles
    other

    Editor has recreated Rajesh Shah, already AfDd three times (twice with result delete). Other articles created include a number of Indian playback singers, in a pattern that fits WP:Identifying PR, for example, a list of "appearances at various national and international events, and television reality shows" and brand ambassador endorsements.

    There is a connection to another editor whose history includes recreation of a repeatedly deleted article, Bookeventz, and another one who created Akhil Talreja. In addition Rohanpednekar38 uploaded a homeopathy-related file, now deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Socking now CU confirmed ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    MusicLover650

    Not for immediate action, just awareness. A recent SPI has indications that MusicLover650/Earflaps (COIN archive 109) may still be active. Will follow up if anything especially interesting occurs. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How to handle denial of WP:PAID

    This is a general question which may lead to a specific report, depending on the discussion. I found a draft about a business tagged for WP:G11, created by a new editor. As I frequently do, I use search engines to cross-reference the username and the article title to find any connection. In this case, I found a social media account that shows that the editor works for the company.

    I left both {{uw-paid1}} and {{uw-paid2}} notices for them, but didn't mention anything about the social media evidence. The editor replied and denied being paid. So would it be considered WP:OUTING if I showed them the evidence to the contrary that I found? And should it be confined to their talk page, or is it appropriate to display more openly at WP:COIN? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drm310: Please refer to the section of WP:OUTING that has the text Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes these paid editors try to split hairs: Both of the statements "I'm not being paid to edit" and "I am an employee of the company I'm writing about" may be true at the same time. From our perspective, either way, the person is being paid by the subject, even if not being paid specifically to write a Wikipedia article.
    For that matter, here in Silicon Valley where I live, there are thousands of employees of start-ups who aren't being paid at all, hoping to strike it big someday. I would still say that any representative of a company would fall under WP:PAID when writing about that company, regardless of the company's actual financial arrangements with that person. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably those not-now-paid employees in Silicon Valley expect to get some benefit in the future, so they are paid according to the ToU. Splitting hairs does not work as well. The community here has defined the rules, we know what "being paid" means according to community standards. The company involved does not get to define the fine points of the rules. That said, it would benefit everybody involved if we publicized our rules better to companies and the general public. Ultimately it comes down to: we get to investigate apparent violations of our rules within limits, we get to politely ask editors "Are you being paid for this work?", and we get to decide, according to our own rules rather than the rules of evidence required in a court of law, whether somebody is breaking our rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The interpretation we've always used in the past is that you have a COI if you are employed by the company in question, but only WP:PAID if you are expected to edit Wikipedia as part of your job. A financial services officer, for example, updating an article about their employer is typically editing with a COI, but is not being paid to edit WP. Someone working in marketing, on the other hand, is regarded as a paid editor even if they are not specifically told to edit WP, as online media is likely to fall under their responsibilities anyway. - Bilby (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another group of connected accounts

    • Dance17 blocked for copyright and TOU problems
    • G2003 blocked for spam long time ago
    Articles

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Binary options and ICOs

    Israel, the home of most binary option scams, has now passed a law criminalizing the selling of binary options. I think that marks the end of this particular scam, but folks here should be aware that these things often come back from the dead. They have been mentioned innumerable times on this page and in AfDs. For future use - e.g. in determining how pervasive and costly paid editing is - I'd like to put some kind of number on this. Can folks here help me find the number of deleted articles about binary options firms? The number still in article space? What was the earliest binary option firm to advertise here? What was the latest?

    Part of the problem with scams on Wikipedia is that the firms often change names, even the names of the scams often change, so it is difficult to get exact information on any individual firm. If people let a firm have an article despite there being only fuzzy, self-generated information on the firm, it is difficult to get more neutral info. Is there any way we can overcome this built in bias to prevent scams from advertising on Wikipedia?

    Not to be alarmist - I don't have enough info yet - but the next rumored big scam seems to involve Initial coin offerings. It would behoove us to at least keep on eye on this type of article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding timelines, a little harder to sort but the COIN archives mentioning binary options give a hint.
    My humble observation is that a lot of this stuff has been/is/will be sockfarm and LTA related. For instance Cypriano created a lot of the Cyprus related stuff, and the notorious Morning277 LTA created Banc De Binary almost certainly for a large bounty. UPE is part and parcel of keeping the scammers' preferred way of controlling the narrative about these instruments and the industry. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we need some serious tools to address this sorts of issues. They are going to get worse as time goes on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Aireon

    That page might need some cleaning up. I came across this account and page while looking into a proxy service being used by an unrelated sockmaster. It looks like possible paid editing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Shahin Novrasli

    The usual. Subject is transforming his biography into a promotional press release. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello, and thank you for your message. This is not paid editing at all. This is Shahin's wife. All the pubslishing, concert halls, magazines, almost everyone takes information from wikipedia, unfortunally the information here is not very much reflects Shahin's present concerts, and his family and real bio, what I am trying to do , from my side to write with many references the information, which would be more close to him. (Shahin Novrasli (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Unfortunately, conflict of interest is very much an issue. You've added a lot of unsourced and promotional content about your husband, like This classical background is often to be heard in his jazz compositions but his love for American music - its jazz, rhythm, harmony - prevails. Combining all the musical skills, from playing to composing, jazz opened the way for Shahin to express his inner world, his music and it was not long in becoming the main focus of his creativity. That is fine for a personal website, but not for an encyclopedic entry. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your remark and help, I will take this out and will think to add later in encyclopedic entry, the wikipedia language is not easy for me, so it takes a lot of time for me, being musician as well. (Shahin Novrasli (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
    Given your clear conflict of interest - that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing, it means you care about and benefit from your spouse's success -- you should avoid editing the article directly. Rather, use the article's Talk page to suggest edits to other editors, letting them decide whether the material meets Wikipedia's guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional link spam

    If you happen to come across accounts with 1-2 edits being used solely to spam a link (usually in ref tags), please drop me a line to let me know about it. I've blocked about 50 accounts from one particular sock ring in the past 48 hours, and I've found they cross-over with a couple more "traditional" promotional sockfarms, so I figure some of you will come across them in your normal work at COIN. ~ Rob13Talk 01:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @BU Rob13: I see this stuff all the time. Domains added by this bunch:
    Extended content
    @BU Rob13: MER-C 04:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: replied with email. We have a black hat SEO operation here. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just whacked 32 accounts and a pair of VPN ranges. @Bri: That doesn't surprise me. These can be tied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrgrayzon and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin. ~ Rob13Talk 10:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another batch of domains:

    Blacklisted sedamipo.com fursan.qa. There's four more unblocked accounts:

    Probably related (both accounts unblocked):

    @BU Rob13: MER-C 11:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's it as far as I can tell. Vend (software) came up in the sockfarm above and should have the axe taken to it.
    You may be able to find work to do by going through my recently CU blocked accounts... [by] searching for more accounts by the URLs they're adding.
    Indeed, that's how I derived all of the above lists. The linkwatcher database works wonders when combined with CU. MER-C 13:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran down the example in SmartSE's black hat SEO link and found this insertion of chicagofed.org ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely to be related based on the behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You were right. The diff I provided was a moved link not an inserted link. An anon editor added the link 25 july 2014. Bri.public (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Another group of concerns

    Articles

    Account is not their first one by what it looks like... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Have started an SPI[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They say they're just an enthusiast, so I'm not sure where we go from here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Snak The Ripper

    Editor is definitely associated with article subject as he/she took the photograph used for infobox image. Nearly their entire edit history is on this article that is promotional in tone, in addition to editing subject's name into related articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beemer69 and Berean Hunter: Thanks. I've been meaning to do something about this myself. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Berean Hunter: Were you planning any blocks/warnings? Doug Weller talk 19:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cu blocked the SnakTheRipper account which would be due for a username block anyway. So far, this looks like a regular COI and not UPE so RipMachine would be handled with a standard sock block of 72 hours with the hope he wouldn't go down that road again. I'll leave that as a block for those you to decide as there is the possible account remaining. OTOH, if someone finds out that UPE are involved, it could go to indef quickly. I will add that RipMachine may likely find themselves behind an autoblock before an SPI block is ever actioned
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeremy112233

    probably not eligible due to deletion debate history but worth consideration given new information
    probably not eligible if creation date is strictly observed, but worth consideration

    This large family of socks appears to be the group WikiExperts who were community banned in 2013.[7]. This should now allow us to go farther back with our deleting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Doc James: I had a quick look and none of the tagged socks has edited since 2016. We did a cleanup after "370 articles created by Jeremy112233 sockfarm" thread when I listed their known creations. The remaining articles created after the 17 October 2013 ban are listed above. Is there anything else we should be looking for at this time? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated everything in the "undisputed" list above for g5 speedy deletion except Jacket wrestling which has already been sufficiently cleaned & doesn't seem to have a particular POV/promotional bent anymore. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional nomination of James Cummins (author) under g11 alone; it was created in 2012 to tout one of the WikiExperts executives. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eben Alexander (author)

    Although some of his edits have been trivial, after this edit I advised him that he should not be making that type of edit. He didn't respond on his talk page but later made this edit to the lead, which is already unbalanced. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing to make major and pov edits. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that he's engaged on his talkpage now (albeit WoT posts like this). Not sure what this noticeboard can do to help at this point. Maybe someone else here will have a better idea ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Duncan McClure Fisher and his enterprises

    At a cursory look these are full of WP:PRIMARY and raise questions of UPE. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Taylor Henry

    An involved account was blocked and is a recently recognized WikiExperts operative. Looking at the list of recent contributors should make the ongoing issue clear. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association) is quite notable, I will be AfDing the article.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    NotLazyAnymore

    I've just blocked this user as they are obviously an experienced UPE.

    Not a creation but obviously UPE too:

    These are obvious  Stale socks:

    SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Bavli

    Requesting a second opinion on Guy Bavli, created by prior account of an indeffed editor. According to logs they also uploaded images of subject & unless I'm mistaken at least one is now OTRS tagged as having come from the subject, not the editor. Coincidentally, we also have a large edit from another indeffed UPE editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?

    You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Discussion was already closed "snow no" when I clicked through. Interesting commemts, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri:--The disc. has been re-opened.Feel free to let out your thoughts:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Monero (cryptocurrency)

    A new user,

    helpfully alerted folks to a reddit thread about the WP article about this cryptocurrency that includes things like YEAH! RAID WIKIPEDIA!!!! GO GO GO!!! (Note, a person who said they wrote that remark, has posted on my talk page here saying that was sarcastic/ironic. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)) which is just the latest of several threads there. Monero is mostly driven by its reddit community, as I understand it.[reply]

    Another new account,

    also showed up and tagged the talk page with the Template:Recruiting tag. Their only edit.

    In any case, the accounts above appear to come from Reddit. The most aggressive of these has been DreamingSea, who showed up today and left this "throw-down" on the Talk page of the Monero article, then restored a bloated, badly-sourced/unsourced version of the article. The other account and IPs then jumped in to try to "keep" it. Clear SOCK/MEAT going on. The article has now been extended/confirmed protected.

    Per discussion at WT:COI, holding a cryptocurrency and editing about that cryptocurrency is a financial COI, so this behavior goes beyond organized advocacy/MEAT (which is a violation in itself, of course).

    I provided notice of the COI guideline to DreamingSea who blanked it and left this charming note on my talk page.

    I have also provided COI notice to TimeWalk, who has not had time to respond yet.

    Because DreamingSea is unwilling to address the COI issues at their Talk page, have posted here so the community can help manage this. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there! Just noticed the message that there's a COI discussion about that talk page. Thanks for initiating the discussion
    The reason why this rally started is because of a Bitcoin Talk forums post (site blocked, see link included inside next reddit post) talking about how the article was slowly reduced as an act of hidden vandalism. This was caught up and posted in this reddit thread. This stretched out into multiple threads with a small part of the community (community is split up over IRC, Slack, Telegram, Reddit, ...) rallying to revert the edits as a counter to "the possible shill or organization".
    At least in a good news, one of the core developers of this cryptocurrency did write a new Reddit post defending Jytdog's point to be legitimate edits and not an action of vandalism.
    I hope that I wasn't too much of a burden as I do value the integrity of Wikipedia and in no way wanted to do bad-doing. After reading up I first thought that it was really a matter of slowly blanking the article as it is after all a financial matter and people would prefer to spread FUD and potentially rally up. In no way was it intended that I look like a sockpuppet account.
    TimeWalk (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that was a helpful response here. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I note also cryptocurrency blog The Merkle has weighed in calling Jytdog a vandal, expect more advocates and holders along in due course; more eyes on the article would probably be welcome - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alarming, Please Investigate.

    Filing party was found to be a Susana Hodge sock. This is a sockfarm formerly under investigation at COIN. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2017 (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 recently joined upwork and now I am able to understand the issue, some clients told me that some users are claiming they have special rights on Wikipedia, they could be admins. They even told me that they own multiple accounts and even give guarantees and approves low rating articles. I have evidence of most of the cases. I have seen many profiles on upwork charging a lot of money. Maybe you guys should investigate which admins are involved in paid editions and reviewing lower grade articles as I have seen on Wikipedia that the article, if approved by an admin nobody touches it. I read investigations and archives and have seen some projects I think users here who have many problems with paid editions are those users on upwork who are charging that's why they only hit those articles (and users) which they don't get or have an open project description. eg, this article Le Trio Joubran there was a job on upwork for this article and it was updated right after that on October 7, 2017, and the client was looking for an admin with rights to edit a protected page. There are three more people active and I hope @Smartse: will investigate this as well.

    Also, see who approved these Ntfrmhre and FreshAddress and this Oliver Isaacs article's reviewer and creator is a paid editor. I have evidence for all of them and surely who approved those and others I have listed are surely paid admins who are hidden and only hitting new users who create articles where they don't get that job on upwork and start investigating those articles. Obviously, if people are posting jobs on upwork for editing Wikipedia articles, multiple people could apply and I have seen some high ranked profiles. I have some names that I can give who I think are paid admins.

    I have also seen that this process say that do not post anything without evidence while most of the accounts were blocked without an evidence and also reverted changes without any solid proof, again all those mentioned admin accounts involved in these quick actions. So please, investigate that also if you are that much sincere and loyal with Wikipedia terms. I have other pieces of evidence as well that I will share soon. Investigator87 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List below of affected articles and users:
    Note the usurping page tactic used here which could help link this account to a known sockfarm- @Bri: for any ideas?
    @Investigator87: Le Trio Joubran was edited 7 October 2016. Before sharing evidence here check you are in compliance with WP:OUTING; it may well be better to email a trusted user e.g. User:Doc James who's quite involved with these things. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Investigator87: It's highly, highly likely that whomever is claiming to be an admin actually isn't one. ~ Rob13Talk 20:59, 2 November 2017 (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.

    Andrei Popescu (businessman)

    Almost certainly paid editing. ~ Rob13Talk 21:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing useful in either of the deleted pages. MER-C 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bowery Electric

    There has been a recently flurry of activity at Bowery Electric. At least four SPA accounts have been created and a couple of IPs are active suddenly. I'm not sure if any actions are necessary. I'm not an expert in the topic space or in COI, but it seemed fishy to me. --Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scandinavian sockfarm

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruudtelemark. I've blocked the first three. GABgab 20:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Ronald H. Winston

    This is an odd case, in that the author is using the name of the subject of the biography of a living person, but has stated that they are not the person. They first stated that they are an employee (and are using the name of the person based on the occasional error that one account should correspond to one article as its maintainer), and have subsequently stated that they think that the deletion of the article was an injustice. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    More spam socks

    The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

    These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

    The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

    Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
    The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Damian Mingle

    This looks promotional to me. The author's other contributions also suggest possible paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur and also noticed that Sumitk c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously created Flyrobe. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

    The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
    Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
    Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
    Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SEO and PR on hotels articles

    For more context see

    Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

    One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Wikipedia. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. --Qwacker (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). --Qwacker (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [8], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [9]? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of UPE from Investigator87

    I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tove Lill Løyte

    User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:BLG Logistics

    I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

    The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

    About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cpicciolini

    Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=809308041"