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 599: Line 599:


== User:Philip Cross ==
== User:Philip Cross ==
{{archive top|Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)}}

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{la|George Galloway}}
* {{la|George Galloway}}
Line 622: Line 622:


Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, [[RT]] published [https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/ "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia"] and on May 16, 2018, [[Sputnik (news agency)|Sputnik]] followed up with an interview of George Galloway, [https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cross-galloway-wikipedia-obsession/ "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway".] I cite these not as [[WP:RS]], but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye. [[User:KalHolmann|KalHolmann]] ([[User talk:KalHolmann|talk]]) 20:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, [[RT]] published [https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/ "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia"] and on May 16, 2018, [[Sputnik (news agency)|Sputnik]] followed up with an interview of George Galloway, [https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cross-galloway-wikipedia-obsession/ "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway".] I cite these not as [[WP:RS]], but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye. [[User:KalHolmann|KalHolmann]] ([[User talk:KalHolmann|talk]]) 20:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

Revision as of 20:47, 18 May 2018

"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

    User:Potatornado

    Just indeffed this user for spamming and undisclosed paid advocacy editing. [1][2][3] and [4] are choice picks. Was sockpuppeting in the past, at least once, and has had several articles deleted as spam. MER-C 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more spammers busted with the same technique. MER-C 11:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sony Crackle

    I have noticed that one user User:FerenComm might have a conflict of interest in regards to the edits they have made on the Sony Crackle page. The edits they have made to the page have seen it rewritten in a manner that appears to be more promotional rather than encyclopedic, as it was before. A Google search of that username has turned up Feren Communications, a television publicity company (see their website: [5]). The user was notified on April 26th on their talk page by User:Netoholic that their edits may pose a possible conflict of interest. They did not respond to the message and today they continued to edit the page. BoogerD (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick bit of Googling finds some press releases such as this that show FerenComm handles at least some of the media relations for Crackle, so this does look like a COI. Shritwod (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FerenComm was blocked as an obvious WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent contributions of this IP seems to be connected as well. Geolocate shows it as a ~nyc.biz~ connection, where Feren Communications is based. I think this edit in particular displays the promotional tone BoogerD has mentioned. -- Netoholic @ 16:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    drewmonda

    Further information has come in, the more we have dug into this. The oldest account is actually drewmonda and there are lots of socks, and lots of articles. The title and listing have changed as of today. It was formerly titled "Greg J Marchand" and was focused on GuinnessFreak, so some of the discussion will be odd unless you keep that in mind. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    master
    socks
    pages

    Person GuinnessFreak claims that they are just a Guinness World Record fan who has no connection to the article subject, Greg Marchand. Article is horribly promotional and completely aligns with subject's own PR. Image used is obviously downloaded from subject's website. Very likely UPE or direct COI. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously? I'm interested in Guinness World Records so I google some people that have world records that I think WP:Notability, and decide to write articles. This Jytdog guy has been all over me. First a speedy deletion nomination, then when that fails, articles of deletion, now that the consensus is that the article has some merit, he goes down this COI road. I am NOT in any way connected to my subjects. Can you please block this guy from messing with me. I don't know what I've done to upset him, all I've done is ask for help editing the article and for suggestions on how to improve it from the start. With all the energy he's put into flagging for deletions and fake COI, he coulda just re-written the article. Also as you can see, all my pages include big sections on controversies and negative details about my subjects as well. I work for nobody.  :) GuinnessFreak (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fleshing this out more. User:Serial Number 54129 asked GuinnessFreak here about paid editing/COI and prior accounts, and GuinnessFreak replied here saying no, none. Serial Number 54129followed up, GuinessFreakagain said no with some freaking out about the word "shit" appearing in Serial Number 54128's customized signature, which was resolved, and at the end of which GuinessFreak again denied any connection or any editing for pay.
    User:TonyBallioni then followed up about past accounts and GuinessFreak again said no.
    I then came across the horrifically promotional page about a doctor, and wrote this and GuinessFreak again said no.
    The more I dug into the article itself and the more vehemently GuinessFreak defended it the more clear it became to me that the denials are not credible.
    At the AfD we have also had:
    * an IP come !vote
    *An account whose last edit was in 2009 (contribs) came and vote... someone who is casually familiar with me per their edit note: just another jytdog COI fight at the old wikipedia corral.
    So there is some more of the background here.
    The main evidence is the terrible page, of course. Content is what matters. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    except almost no one else sees it that way. admins and users have edited and reviewed the page, the consensus is that is balanced and not overly promotional. you have offered zero edits to improve it, and no edits from anyone have been undone by anyone. I am a world records enthusiast making pages in good faith. I worked hard on putting it together and want to see it improved. I dont see why we can't fix the page together. lots of other good edits have been made by other users. why not rewrite the page together? this subject is interesting and notorious. maybe stop fighting and start writing? GuinnessFreak (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    no. No admin has edited the article or commented at the AfD. You have interacted with precisely one admin - TonyBallioni. You exaggerate even when you just talk about things, for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly as you said, the admin saw the page and did not flag it as remove for promotional. Instead he/she was only concerned about a possible COI, of which there is none. Do you think they would have done that if it was a promotional commercial?? Many people have read and edited the work. Only you maintain the idea that it is completely unsalvageable. The page was also reviewed by one initial user, and other users have made considerable contributions. I originally thought that anyone who has special privileges in WP was an admin, but I see hat is not the case. I can honestly say that you are not the first person to tell me that my writing style is exaggerated. I have tried to work on that to make better encyclopedia articles, but I may still need some work. I have spent a lot of time putting the research together on this page, and I chose the subject from a lot of guinness recipients who did not have pages. This is a great subject, certainly meeting all the noteablities, and also notorious to some (literally spreading cancer and killing people!) and academically revered by others (med schools literally teaching his surgeries.) I'll accept that I'm a crappy writer or that I exaggerate too much, but I'm not going to accept that through all of the changes and edits that have been made by so many editors at this point (none of which were undone) that this article has no value at all. I strongly recommend you conclude your AFD and together we write the article that wikipedia deserves. GuinnessFreak (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You continue to exaggerate. 9 people have edited and most of those were quick touches removing garbage or fixing small errors.
    and "revered"? What??
    Your editing is not only promotional as hell on the surface, the sources you used were terrible and you did WP:SYN things all over the place. I took up the gauntlet you have been throwing down. here is the result of searching for high quality sources and looking at what Marchand has done to generate press to better help identify churnalism. I worked over the article and was left with this, which makes his lack of notability very clear (then self reverted). You used so many bad sources and padded it like crazy. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that it is promotional, I think it is intended as an attack page to highlight concerns about the subject's surgical procedures. That criticism has been in there since the first draft. Something purely promotional would probably not include that potentially serious accusation. Add to that the negative comments from GuinnessFreak about the subject in discussions, and I am inclined to think that the promotional copypasta is merely there to flesh out an article that is actually a case of WP:COATRACK. Shritwod (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No the morcellation stuff is just a headfake. Most people read only the lead and that is high octane PROMO. The two "sources" used in the lead about the morcellation are driven by his PR and both include the exact same quote: This doctor believes he has all but eliminated the risk.. Both of those "sources" are Nextar.com affiliates. That media company promises on their website: "Nexstar Media Group offers superior audience engagement across all media devices and local broadcast television’s unrivalled influence on consumers’ purchasing and political decisions.". This is absolutely raw sewage dumped in WP to promote this guy.Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I requested a CC0 image for my article from several sources. (every email I could find.) I did not offer anything in return. I was emailed and given instructions on how I could get it. I noticed the account name was clarabell89. I assume that is someone related to my subject. I have no knowledge of any other accounts. I can provide the email exchange if needed. I have done nothing in exchange and have no coi.GuinnessFreak (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    whoa sorry I didnt know what SPA stood for. I am not a single purpose account and I will release 3 more very high quality articles about Guinness recipients in the next 2 weeks if you can guarantee jytdog won't do "this" to them. GuinnessFreak (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are this bad they will also be deleted. You don't seem to have an interest in learning what is acceptable editing here. That is too bad. A waste of everybody's time. You should put future edits through WP:AFC which will save some drama. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the apparent sockpuppetry and pretty obvious COI here, a review of Dmonda's edit history shows just two other entries, both in the same field as Greg J. Marchand, i.e. Vincenzo Sabella and Liselotte Mettler. I would suggest the former certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, not so certain about the latter. Thoughts, anyone? Shritwod (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • so more socks, and listed more articles. I also changed the title to the sockmaster as this is a bigger deal than just the Marchand page. It is pretty obvious that somebody has a business doing PR for surgeons. It appears that Demir and Marchand started the "Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons" to market themselves. The society has no functioning website but it has a youtube channel here, which has a marketing "welcome" video by Demir. The website is registered to the address of a place that offers co-working and virtual space in Seattle. This is sordid. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sbelknap

    escalated to AN Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Closed with a TBAN here. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2018 (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.

    As stated in the previous notice by Jytdog, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 113, Sbelknap has confirmed his identity, and advocates for raising awareness of sexual side effects of 5α-reductase inhibitors and has authored several studies on adverse effects of the drug and persistent side effects, which he has cited before in his edits. The majority of these edits emphasize these effects and are buried within multiple edits at once. Here is a recent example to the lead section here. And in the side effects section here, here, and here. It appears based on the talk archives this has been a consistent problem. This appears to be a clear COI, especially given past behavior as detailed in the previous noticeboard post and the continuation of placing undue weight on side effects, leading to disruptive editing that often has to be reverted by admins. Jojomuju (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The self-cite stuff in the archive link is a concern. But having an opinion on a topic, even a strongly held opinion, is not in itself a COI. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris pushing a pet theory is discussed WP:MEDCOI. It is a problem. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I get that, but we sometimes have people who claim that an academic who edits consistent with the mainstream of their field has a COI. (I think this is less of a problem than it was a few years ago.) We need to be careful not to give those folks ammunition. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
    I hear that; the actual behavior here - the single focus on their own publications and then on 5α-reductase inhibitors, makes this easy to distinguish. It is a damn shame as somebody like this could be so valuable if they focused on the mission of the editing community instead of self-promotion and this single issue. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The COI seems fairly apparent here. The editor has fought fiercly about the superiority of one study PMID 26296373 that cites his work, suggesting it can fix weight issues in the article, attempting to overhaul the article without reaching consensus, even after multiple reverts, suggesting this editor would be better served by posting suggestions on the talk page instead of editing directly. Jojomuju (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the editor has tried to supercede discussion on the topic also by filing a request for mediation without discussion on the talk page here, which was denied, also placing a factual accuracy template on the article here which was removed shortly thereafter. It seems clear, aside from the COI, this editor isn't willing to collaborate with other editors and if disagreed with will try to "go over their heads" to achieve his goals. Jojomuju (talk)
    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.

    59 Club

    Pretty self explanatory, user The 59 Club is clear working for the subject of the topic, the 59 Club and using topic to promote its own future events in 2019, as per WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:FUTURE etc. 148.252.129.118 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That ipv6 editor has added a ton of non sourced content, which is now being removed. scope_creep (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can tell he's part of "the ageing Ton-Up/Rocker scene." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly the same user as "The 59 Club" not logged in? Does not get WP:CRYSTALBALL and is using page as advertising. Does not play by the rules. --148.252.129.112 (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Masc (band)

    Left a COI message at the beginning of April, but doesnt seem to want to confirm. StanMASC left me a coupla ugly talk page messages, this afternoon, which have now been removed. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Merrimack College

    Much of the article is in first-person ("our logo," "our colors," etc.), and is glowingly positive. Been mentioned in the talk page since 2005.67.141.87.150 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if theres anything there that isnt copyvio from the school website? Curdle (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed the posting... Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and scrubbed the article. bunch of COPYVIO. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2000+ accounts blocked

    Still getting my facts straight, but this appears to be a sockfarm with 2,000+ accounts blocked on French Wikipedia and investigation still under way on enwp. Berean Hunter seems to be most involved here, so maybe we can find out from them whether there is likely a COI. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unknown. Someone was trying to do some industrial-size sock farming so there is a good chance.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri it might be worth setting up a subpage to go through and check the contribs of the accounts systematically. COIN doesn't have the room for that many accounts, IMO. Maybe Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Meleshoui could work. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a spot check and a rough translation of the fr.wiki investigator notes, it appears only one account actually edited a userpage on meta and Commons. But yeah a systematic check would be good. Maybe there's a more automated way to go about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    holy cow. this is large scale, important work. I really, really appreciate the people who do that work. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll be pleased to know that between these accounts, not a single one has edited the main namespace. MER-C 19:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Palantiredit

    editors

    This user's main purpose appears to be adding links to "reports" by Fundera to high-profile articles, such as South Dakota and Education; they've also edited the Fundera article heavily. No COI is declared but I assume one exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Added another user who added a lot of Fundera refs in 2016. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another article & editor whose editing on Fundera looks similar. Probably the whole topic Peer-to-peer lending needs more eyes on ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bambikha

    Self-evident. Death pool (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked by TVGuestpert to help them to create this page. I am an independent person and do not work for them as a regular employee on payroll. I do other work for them like website development. I would like for it to get rewritten to maintain Wikipedia standards, if possible. Bambikha (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied at Bambikha's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:420CapeTown

    Self-evident. Only edits to company and its CEO. Death pool (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    yep - tried to open a discussion at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ProfAntonioRaggi

    This is (apparently) an SPA, dedicated to publish the results of a paper by Simone Marino in various articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I have pointed out this lends WP:UNDUE weight to a fresh (and more importantly) uncited article, but that did not leave a lasting impression. An invitation to discuss this has gone unanswered. While I suspected a WP:COI from the getgo, this message on my talk page clinched it. It also makes me suspect the account is in fact used by multiple persons to promote the research of an (unnamed) "research centre". Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gotta love the "Worm regards" signoff. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.Yaghoubi

    I think it is pretty self-evident from the edits and the username of the user. Special:Contributions/M.Yaghoubi   Varsha|talk   13:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Taipei Base Design Center and related articles

    Socks per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hychiang

    These four articles are promotional in nature and the product of multiple confirmed socks. It looks like COI and/or UPE to me. I prodded the Taipei Base Design Center article, but I don't have time at the moment to look close at the other three or to look into other articles beyond these four which were created and/or edited by all the socks, but I will do so soon. (I'm not bothering to notify the accounts because they are blocked socks.) Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Added one article to the list and prodded another. Deli nk (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added several more articles to the list. Deli nk (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ssgajimouli

    tasty dinosaur snack has been dispatched. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (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 created
    articles edited, adding links to the above

    Seems pretty clear what is going on here. I tried to open a discussion at their Talk page, which they removed, then yelled at me a lot on my talk page diff, diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been watching your Jytdog's agenda driven vandalism, and dictator ship, and manipulations on this articles.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop your vandalism on CRO articles. This is not spam. These are notable 25 yr old companies. I will report your agenda driven vandalism to administrators, you are deliberately creating a conflict of interest, when there exist none. I think you have connection with these articles, and you Jytdog are obstructing creating articles on competitor companies.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing out that. I missed it in all the shouting. Yep. This is a WP:PAID violation. Not to mention the unpleasantness. This person is heading for an indef - WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather here to promote their employer. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not related to tpg capital. I will create the Novotech-CRO article.Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    When one is walking on eggshells, one should refrain from hopping
    ''''''I HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT COMPANY. you tell me what kind of promotional content I HAVE USED IN MY ARTICLE. YOU ARE HERE TO TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON EDITORS POV OR CONTENT OF ARTICLE. I WILL RECREATE THE NOVOTECH-CRO ARTICLE. WHICH IS A 20 YR OLD COMPANY'''''Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While googling for key phrases from the Novotech (Australia) Pty Limited article this editor created, I found substantial overlap with the WP article and the company's website, but also the company's website with a different company. So many me-too corps, so little worth being created, so much wasted time they cause on WP. DMacks (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2018 (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.

    50.74.190.142

    Addition of unsourced promotional crap ("Award-winning explorer and underwater robotics expert Tim Taylor, President and CEO of Tiburon Subsea..."), almost certainly a COI. I removed the crap but got reverted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting. I see the IP has been addressed and their edits reverted. I am watching as are others I am sure. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Soubhik Das

    NAC: Blocked as a sockpuppet - See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritualbanda. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2018 (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.

    The article is being disruptively moved between article space, draft space, and back to article space to avoid Articles for Deletion. This sort of ownership behavior typically indicates a real proprietary interest such as a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2018 (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.

    Malao Film

    The author appears to be a single-purpose account trying to get this draft accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Malao Film requested and was denied a username change to EdwardGross. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange Angel

    Noticed this user's edits on the Strange Angel page. Took a look at their user page and noticed that they mentioned that they work for CBS Interactive which owns CBS All Access which streams Strange Angel and other shows that this editor is editing the pages of. Seems like a conflict of interest. – BoogerD (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the official site to the new show Strange Angel because it was missing. It is common for all Television show pages to have their official site listed. The link is consistent with all of the other links listed for CBS shows and is easy for anyone to confirm. I think it might be a conflict of interest if I was publishing content about the show, but I do not see how it's a conflict of interest to make sure Wikipedia is linking to the correct and official site, which is of interest to readers and common practice. – Jonhenshaw —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Netoholic:, Any thoughts on this? – BoogerD (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Jonhenshaw keeping official urls up-to-date seems uncontroversial and actually very helpful. Adding metacritic links is very borderline, as adding it for highly-rated shows but not for lower-rated shows could be seen as a strong conflict of interest - so be consistent, all or none - and don't add it if there is already a Metacritic mention in the "Reception" section on the page (as done a few times like here). I don't think a paid contributor should remove fan site links (this edit). This is the sort of thing that should have instead been requested on the talk page. Just my two cents. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netoholic:, thanks for the guidance. Also, thank you for what you wrote on my talk profile page. I'll update my profile accordingly, and will also make sure to mainly stick to updating official URLs as needed for keeping them up-to-date. – Jonhenshaw

    Just an update. Jonhenshaw has updated his user page with the {{paid}} template and I've found him to be very receptive to feedback. We certainly have a shared interest in keeping official website links up-to-date, so I don't see that activity as controversial going forward (especially since external links are set to m:Nofollow anyway, and so don't contribute to link spam). Its just helpful to readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Neha Chowdhury

    Draft:Neha Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

    See the following comment on my talk page, which states that a “professional” editor is being used, but the proper declaration has not been made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=840654518&oldid=840323315 

    Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Pose

    The user keeps attempting to add unsourced information into the page for Pose. Based off of their username they seem to work for the person whom they keep trying to add to the page. Seems like a conflict of interest. – BoogerD (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @BoogerD, I was unaware that I was breaking any rules. I realized that there was a mistake in the page, as Sherry Marsh was not mentioned in the list with the other EPs. I was simply trying to make sure that the page was updated with the correct information. She was the original EP of Pose and as such should be listed alongside her other producers. So I made a page to update. Once I was informed that it was against a "Conflict of Interest" rule only 10 minutes ago, I stopped editing. However, all of the information is absolutely sourced. Sherry Marsh is mentioned as an Executive Producer throughout the Pose Press releases.- Marsh Assistant

    Griffin Guess

    There appears to be at least one person with a conflict of interest editing the page in a promotional way, over a long timespan, after having received information regarding unwanted promotion in 14 April 2017. Some edits have even been undone by Cluebot for appearing to be disruptive. I have added a COI-welcome message now, but I'm afraid that:

    • article cleanup is strongly needed, and
    • Kelseykukui might need to avoid further direct editing of the article.

    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It was deleted via AfD in 2007. I have nominated it again. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

    See article history and talk page. Advocate editor (paid editor on his other account) repeatedly removing tags on the article, on the primary sourcing and on the failures to verify, redlinking extremely unlikely article subjects. Perhaps I have completely misconstrued things, but this appears difficult to distinguish functionally from straight-up promotional whitewashing. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First, I do not have a conflict of interest on this article. I'm a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence for NIOSH, a U.S. federal government laboratory that performs research on workplace health and safety, and I have a declared alternate account for this. Promoting nanotechnology is not part of that job, and in fact one my goals has been to add reliable information about the hazards of nanotechnology (for example, Health and safety hazards of nanomaterials). I have no relationship whatsoever with the Foresight Institute. All edits to the Feynman Prize article have been in my volunteer capacity.
    Second, David Gerard raised a legitimate issue about the article lacking secondary sources, and as I have been dealing with those concerns through improving the article I have been removing the tags, as is proper. In some cases I've disagreed with David Gerard's interpretation of policy (mainly WP:SELFPUB), but I thought we were discussing this constructively on the talk page. I thoroughly justified each tag removal in the edit comments in order to make my reasoning known so David Gerard and others can respond to them. Other editors such as C-randles, StrayBolt, and Arxiloxos have been involved in discussions and edits to rescue the article as well. I'm happy to have more people involved in the discussion and will accept the outcome of the consensus. I feel that continued discussion on the talk page will resolve these issues and formal conflict resolution is not yet needed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    May also belong at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (paid advocacy in fringe field) - cc @Jytdog: @JzG: - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this have to do with fringe theories?? I am genuinely confused. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping. This is a board about conflict of interest; advocacy issues are similar but handled differently. I don't see that anybody has asked the question, so I'll do that.
    User:Antony-22 above you wrote that you have no conflict of interest on this article, but sometimes people make wrong conclusions when they judge things on their own. What we ask folks to do is to disclose any connections they have, and the community determines if there is a COI or not. So - would you please disclose any real world connections you have with the Foresight Institute or this prize? If you have none, please say so. Thanks for your patience working through this. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: I have no connection at all with the Foresight Institute as an institution, and I have no direct connection with the prize itself (haven't won it, wouldn't be eligible for it at this stage of my career). Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your clear answer. I find that credible and it is what i expected.
    In my view there is however some advocacy going on, per WP:ADVOCACY. I don't understand why the prize article exists. It basically just replicates stuff on the Foresight website, and per WP:SOAP, Wikipedia is not a proxy for anybody's website. The lack of secondary sources on this stuff is... glaring. You've been around a long time, and that you are pushing so hard on this is kind of a sign that you are maybe too passionate about nano. Maybe. I plan to nominate it for deletion and my guess is that it will be merged to Foresight page. But we'll see. But please stop using primary/self-sourced references around nano -- the higher you aim with respect to sourcing nano things - giving WEIGHT as reliable, secondary sources give things, the more solid the ground you will be on. Experts are super valuable here, because a) they can generally see where we have holes or UNDUE weight on topics in the field; b) knowing the literature they can put their hands on high quality secondary sources where experts in the field have summarized "accepted knowledge" in the field, at the time, for people in the field. So valuable. I hope that all makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Thanks for your consideration. I will of course accept the outcome of the AfD. Given that all the article prose is now supported by secondary sources, I think the article could possibly survive AfD, but if it is merged with the information intact, I would not consider that a bad outcome. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2Joules

    editor
    pages


    Editing is generally low quality. First three topics are listed are common paid editing subjects (crypto company, theme park, tourism site) and fourth is also a tourist attraction and included adding content in this diff series that appears directly translated from this personal blog; google translate.

    Hard to tell if their editing is just bad or if it is actually commercial.

    There is an open SPI.

    I asked about any connections, and their initial response was unhelpful as was their second and third. So I have brought this here. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User Jytdog has been disingenuous in creating this report. Three of the four articles exist in other wikis, spanish and french. They are not just merely tourist attractions. Only the theme park can be said as such. The Coca castle is an important historical landmark, while Graoully is a Legend. Legends are not tourist attractions, they are fables and tales. The Hashcash article is a multinational corporation that works with some of the biggest banks around. My original response to Jytdog was that if someone from a multinational corporation, or an ancient dragon was paying me, I'd be rich. He should have understood that I found it laughable that a simple wikipedia editor would be on the payroll of large corporations and governments. I agree with Jytdog that the translation is a copyright issue, when I created the article, I was not aware of this. I will create an appropriate citation in a couple of days, and that will be resolved. As the edits have been reverted, I see no issue there, adding that to the Conflict of interest is something I do not understand. To summarize, I am not paid to edit, Jytdog is mistaken. 2Joules (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two issues with what you wrote there about the dragon, one about copyright and other about the source that was plagiarized. First -- citing doesn't solve a copyright issue. You cannot copy/paste from another source, nor directly translate it into WP. Nor can you extensively quote. The second issue is about the source - that website is also not a particularly reliable source in any case. It is somebody's self-published webpage; see WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The clear instruction on the top is that 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. You have engaged in no discussion, you removed reliable sourcing, and you are now trying to pick a fight. Just give your evidence and let the sysops decide the issue. You removed the copyvio from the dragon and I did not revert, so there is no issue with that. I will add that material with proper citations as I was not aware of the translation guidelines. The school is based on castle grounds and is therefore part of the history of the castle. So stop trying to pick a fight and let the admins decide. 2Joules (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Behavioral Signals

    This draft is the work of two single-purpose accounts. First SPA has been asked about conflict of interest and has not replied. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The first account replied on my talk page and denied a conflict of interest. They also indicated that they live in Turkey, which currently blocks access to Wikipedia, so their ability to edit is severely limited. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lakeview Centennial High School

    Le sigh. Misguided enthusiasm is a wonderful thing, but defiantly denying a COI "because school" really doesn't fly. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 15 May 2018 (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.

    Oshwah, Plandu and me have tried to peacefully resolve this conflict, but the editor appears to be using a shared account ("we"), implies representing the school without properly disclosing employer, client, and affiliation. They're asking me to "stop undoing", which I only did exactly once. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I work at the high school and am only tying to update it with current information. If thats a conflict of interest then please explain to me who would know more about our school than someone who works there. Please review the edits and specifically tell me what is in violation. All we wanted to do was update it. The community obviously hasn't CflemLCHS (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What takes COI completely out of the picture is that we are a HIGH SCHOOL - completely not for profit... (this is directly from your own COI guide) we aren't even a business. CflemLCHS (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    CflemLCHS, have you been tasked to update the school's Wikipedia article as part of your job duties? John from Idegon (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all. I am just doing what needs to be done. Thats it. CflemLCHS (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note: This has unexpectedly moved to my talk page, where Javert2113 and me have then written detailled explanations of the problem. The COIN notice has been very helpful; SamHolt6 and John from Idegon have taken the time to restore a neutral point of view.) Thank you all very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor who is subject of this post has stated on TBF's talk essentially that if they have to edit like a Wikipedian, they're not interested in editing. This can probably be closed. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2018 (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.

    TicketSource

    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.

    Liam at TicketSource describes himself as a "Wikipedia contact for any issues or questions for TicketSource Ltd.", but does not seem to feel obliged to make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure. As a result, we have what appears to be a paid advertisement for his employer, and promotional pages on two events sponsored by that employer. At Cardiff Fringe the editor today removed the {{undisclosed paid}} tag I'd placed there. It looks to me as if this is a promotion-only account. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it. Cardiff Fringe is a brochure article, with no encyclopaedic content. TicketSource is also suspect. scope_creep (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor isn't an undisclosed paid editor. There is no requirement to use the {{paid}} tag, as long as the disclosure exists in some form, which it does: in the username and on the userpage. There is no question of conflict of interest because it is clearly disclosed, so there is no need to create an entry here on this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (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.

    Draft:Ray Carr

    The anger and shouting at User talk:Legacypac over the decline of Draft:Ray Carr is characteristic of paid editors who aren't getting their page accepted, not of volunteer editors who are being declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon, according to his/her post here, it's an unfortunate employee who's been told by the subject to get the job done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. They have been trying for three-and-a-half years to get an article on a non-notable person. Well. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mining Industry Human Resources Council

    Editor admits that he works for and is editing on behalf of the Mining Industry Human Resources Council. He was given a COI warning on 30 April, but has failed to make the mandatory notification on his talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JDCM2017DPI

    Appears to be a WP:SPA related to IMSA Sports car racing team JDC-Miller Motorsports. All edits are related to JDC-Miller driver Mikhail Goikhberg GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shlomo Rechnitz

    Seeking guidance on this; created by sockfarm operators recently IDed as Fiveblocks (crisis management PR) by Doc James. It appears to have been built out subsequently by enemies of the subject with terms like "alleged criminal activity" & "reported on rumors" (refs #8 through #12). Then there's a "Philanthropy and community work" and "Personal life" sections that's about half the content of the whole article, and over half its references (#14 through #30). Maybe an AfD is the right thing to do? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SOHO China, again

    The previous COIN report ended with a successful SPI that blocked the sockmaster and socks. However, apparent paid editing returned to the articles with more meat puppet (rather than sock puppet), mixed with newly registered users that just "suddenly" interested in editing in that very niche area of interest. Matthew_hk tc 01:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    add more name. Matthew_hk tc 11:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    HiWorldOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be taking instruction from an external entity, adding news piece citation as requested scope_creep (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    either paid editing from external agent or requesting whole department to edit, the case seem more likely to be the case of meat puppetry which now suddenly 8 new users plus 1 returning user who declared he/she is an employee. Matthew_hk tc 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For HiWorldOutside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), @Scope creep:, it seem the user was more likely to refer to the {{fact}} tag. (See Special:Diff/841344458). Matthew_hk tc 13:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the 9th "new" user. Matthew_hk tc 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Brand new SPA came and reverted: WikiNewbieTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk about rank abuse. They really dont give a ff for Wikipedia. I've requested page protection.scope_creep (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The yelling in User talk:Yuese123 either refer to the revert in Zhang Xin (businesswoman), or he think my action to fix his reply that intersect with the templated message, was a revert. Matthew_hk tc 13:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Faarshadaj

    James R. Johnsen

    Left a note to this effect on the article's talk page last week after noticing it in article space while patrolling new pages. I'll state upfront that I've long expressed concern with AFC dumping content and running and leaving messes just like this for others to clean up. There's also the matter of a lack of common sense and walled garden attitude revealed in the robo-messages from AFC, where this guy is the president of a statewide university system and they're attemping to define notability solely in terms of a snapshot of sources present in the text at a given time? Little wonder that I lack the time to really help out around here anymore. Anyway, the editor who submitted this created a user page which revealed her COI, yet it appears that any number of other steps were overlooked along the way. My specific issue is that this person works directly under Johnsen in a public affairs position, and I see an article heavy on promoting Johnsen's agenda in his current position. That SHOULD have been a red flag. I assume that this makes her a paid connected contributor, yet I'm not 100 percent certain of that or of what other steps were supposed to have been taken and weren't. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, the user who accepted this article is not on the AfC participants' list; they just manually moved the draft into mainspace. I chopped out a few fluffy sentences from this article but it needs more work. /wiae /tlk 11:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyckr

    This editor has a clear COI as an undisclosed paid editor - a Google search clearly shows his link with the company, and his user page indicates a link too, but he has not engaged with any of the warnings on his talk page and continues to edit the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, he has (vaguely) disclosed his employment at Kyckr on his userpage. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The comments on his user page were actually abusive, not factual, and borderline defamation. The author is very respectful of wikipedia, and does not entertain trolling, he was surprised and disappointed by some comments. Well intended Wikipedia edits which improve the neutrality and objectivity of content are always positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardadoyle (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there some reason you're speaking of yourself in the third person? I would agree that "edits which improve the neutrality and objectivity of content are" (nearly) always positive. The trouble is there's dispute over whether your edits actually do that. I haven't looked in detail at your edits, but considering you have a COI and you appear to have little experience with editing wikipedia, your judgement on whether your edits "improve the neutrality and objectivity of content" may not be the most reliable. Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasmine Directory

    This article was created by the site owner. To be clear, they followed COI requirements perfectly, but seem to have been given poor advice at AFC in that the website is very far from meeting WP:NWEB as it has zero coverage in RS. I nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory but 3 editors reappeared from fairly long hiatuses (6 month +) to !vote keep and it was duly non-admin closed. It seems fairly obvious that WP:MEAT occurred, even if it was done in good faith. It should probably be sent back to AFD, but obviously it needs more independent eyes on it and I would prefer not to nominate it myself again. SmartSE (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everybody! First of all, as an editor I am very well aware of WP's standard procedures. I think I was respectful of Wikipedia's policies, never trolled and if I had any doubts I seeked for help in the designated sections. All my edits on various articles I've been improving or the ones I created can backup this belief (please correct me if I'm wrong). My account is open for any sort or verification (please check my edit history as well as WP:SOCK if any administrator with CheckUser rights is willing to - and please place an indef. ban if I have broken any possible policy). As I already stated, (and Smartse highlighted) I followed COI requirements perfectly by disclosing it on all possible pages; the article in question was not created by me, it was draftified, than I have followed the rules e.g.: given here, than it was approved via the AfC process (link). Ever since, I haven't touched the article's content other than the edits permitted by WP:PSCOI. I haven't added any word and anyone can check the diffs. I have never, under any circumstances, pinpointed to any of the existing Wikipedia articles about web directories, even if I do have a vast knowledge in the field. WP:NPOV of the article was also checked a few times. The entry was AfD-ed and the result of the debate was to keep it. As for coverage in RS, I'll name a few sources that I consider quite reliable industry specific publications which can only backup the already published statements in the live article: Search Engine Watch - ([7]), Daily News Egypt - ([8]), The London Economic, TNT (magazine) - ([9]), CifNews, a pupular news portal in China - ([10]), The Good Men Project - ([11]), a self-regulatory association formed under the Charter of Associations granted by the Government of Canada [12] conducted a comparison which was published in Internet Information Resource Book - Guide to Search Engines, Directories, Online Archives avalilable here, p. 39. The directory was reviewed several times between 2013-2014, here are some archives: Feb 3013 Review, Jun 2013 Review, Sep 2013 Review, Nov 2013, Review, Mar 2014, Review, Jun 2014, Review, Dec 2014, Review, Sep 2014, Review. A few more: [13], [14], [15] and there are more. Obviously, there is no web directory (that I am aware of) that received full coverage by NyTimes, Forbes nor books dedicated solely to them because they're just a part of how the Internet "came to life" (Web directory) and what it is today. Given the concern that has arisen, I want to stay as neutral as I can, however, I have absolutely nothing against deleting the article without any consensus at all, although an attempt to improve the article is currently underway and I do believe that a few articles about some web directories should be kept. Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyrebird (film)

    The user continues to add information to the article that is unsourced and improperly formatted. After explaining this to them after I reverted their edits, the mentioned in their latest edit summary, "Please note, if Imperative Entertainment is paying a publicist to misrepresent the basis of this film, Imperative Entertainment is in gross breach of contract. Do not revert these changes." This would appear to be a gross conflict of interest as this user is clearly a paid contributor. – BoogerD (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Marder

    Yet another academic abusing Wikipedia to promote himself.

    Obvious self promotion is obvious. See past discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Michael_Marder. This is so disheartening; even philosophers abuse WP for self-promotion. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Michael Marder notable? scope_creep (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Full professor at a major university, I suppose he is. scope_creep (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit history is a real eye-opener. Several SPAs, but the very earliest revision of the article is not what you might expect. Shritwod (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dmytro Kremin

    Svetlana Ischenko is apparently Dmytro Kremin's translator, which is an obvious conflict of interest, but I also wonder if it might also qualify her as a paid editor? In any case, this article could do with some attention, if anyone is willing to take a look. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cordless Larry, I can take a look, but as no sources are present regarding his work history, it will takes weeks to sort, with some searching. Emails dont work with the Russian/Ukrainian university folk, as they dont reply. I have added a ref, which disambs on the prize awarded to him, in the lede. He was one of 10 or 20 or so, who were awarded the prize, so WP:PUFF that was presented before, when it said he won a major state prize, has lessened somewhat. It could be full of puff, but Worldcat has multiple book listings written by him, so he is notable. scope_creep (talk)
    Thank you, Scope creep. I don't have any concerns about notability here, just promotionalism. Anything that is unsourced could just be removed until such a time as sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    60.234.42.253

    The current version of Vista Outdoor contains extensive content created by an unregistered editor (60.234.42.253). Most of this content was added on 2018-05-09 and 2018-05-09. On 2018-03-02 and 2018-02-27 60.234.42.253 changed, mostly by deleting, information regarding boycott efforts against Vista Outdoor's various brands. Some of this information had been added just minutes prior. Edits on 2018-02-27 devolved into a bit of an edit war with Legacypac.

    60.234.42.253 has been active only since 2018-02-27, with almost all edits being on Vista Outdoor or the associated talk page. Exceptions include three edits to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, relating to the section on "Vista Outdoor and recent mass shooting" section 60.234.42.253 created, two edits to "American Eagle (ammunition brand)" and "Bell Sports," both Vista Outdoor brands. The other two edits by 60.234.42.253 consist of deleting from it's own talk page polite warnings by Slatersteven and Legacypac.

    In 2016 Vista Outdoor required extensive cleanup following a sockpuppet operation by user Lesbianadvocate. Said operation resulted in a SPI which banned Lesbianadvocate and associated accounts. Based on the history of Conflicts of Interest on the Vista Outdoor page, and the focused, one-sided edits by 60.234.42.253 I believe some issue requiring attention above my authority is required, but am unsure as to exactly how to alert administrators of the issue. Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I did notice this was a single purpose account, which is what my warning was about. I also asked if they had a COI, which they did not answer. I think this is a COI editor.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Philip Cross

    Zero evidence of COI. Galloway has picked a fight with Cross, not the other way around. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (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.

    With 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His most recent involvement was today, when he removed 1,347 bytes. That edit violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

    For the past six years, Philip Cross has engaged in a running dispute on Twitter with the subject of this BLP. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a Talk page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

    On May 12, 2018, George Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he today called "an unhinged stalker".

    On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP.

    Also in the past, Philip Cross has frequently edited Wikipedia's page for each of the other "goons" with whom he is at war—@mwgbanks, @CraigMurrayOrg, @NafeezAhmed, @Tim_Hayward_, @PiersRobinson1, and @medialens.

    Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and on May 16, 2018, Sputnik followed up with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and threatens to damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye. KalHolmann (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2018 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=841903488"