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 830: Line 830:
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The article about Rupert Lee-Browne, investor in Caxton FX was created in Jan 2018 by the editor in question. The editor remains the main editor of that article. There have also been a number of creation of an article about Caxton FX over time, which were eventually deleted. The editor did not respond to COI notices, however eventually - after over one year of editing on those two topics - admitted to being a marketing agent who works for Caxton, when being put on the spot. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesmaharrison&type=revision&diff=895971376&oldid=895961116&diffmode=source diff]). Given the long running COI editing, I suggest deletion of the article currently in draft, salting and a ban on directly editing and creating articles on said topics. <sub>pseudonym</sub> [[User:Jake Brockman|Jake Brockman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jake Brockman|talk]]</sup> 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The article about Rupert Lee-Browne, investor in Caxton FX was created in Jan 2018 by the editor in question. The editor remains the main editor of that article. There have also been a number of creation of an article about Caxton FX over time, which were eventually deleted. The editor did not respond to COI notices, however eventually - after over one year of editing on those two topics - admitted to being a marketing agent who works for Caxton, when being put on the spot. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesmaharrison&type=revision&diff=895971376&oldid=895961116&diffmode=source diff]). Given the long running COI editing, I suggest deletion of the article currently in draft, salting and a ban on directly editing and creating articles on said topics. <sub>pseudonym</sub> [[User:Jake Brockman|Jake Brockman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jake Brockman|talk]]</sup> 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello - first of all, I have been totally transparent in who I am and my relationship to Caxton. In addition, when discussing this with [[User talk:Jake Brockman|talk]] who was at first highly aggressive but then became more civil once I tried to have a two way dialogue with him -he made it clear that the Caxton page was too promotional which when discussing with him I was in agreement. regarding the Rupert Lee-Browne page, this was written long before me and deleted, i rewrote it and then reposted it to fit in with guidelines working with page editors to make it right. I am very happy to stop editing the page but given how important and influential Mr Lee-browne is to the UK fintech and financial services scene - as proven by this article and the regular mentions, invitations to events and references, i believe it would be naive to remove his page.

In addition there needs to be a better way to make it clear that if you have a relationship with a brand/person/object you have to state it - by the way - having worked in the marketing industry for the last 20 years you should be aware that the creation of wiki pages is a standard service offering world over. I would be very happy to work with you to create clearer and more appropriate guidelines around this.

Finally - perhaps you need to also have a think about how your page editors behave and represent Wikipedia.

[[User:Jamesmaharrison|Jamesmaharrison]] ([[User talk:Jamesmaharrison|talk]]) 11:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


== The Murder of Hae Min Lee ==
== The Murder of Hae Min Lee ==

Revision as of 11:36, 9 May 2019

"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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cinq Music Group
    Talk:Clover Health
    Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Sonalde Desai
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grayscale Investments
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Hannover Re
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Huron Consulting Group
    Talk:Illa del Rei
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Labcorp
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moody's Analytics
    Talk:Moody's Corporation
    Talk:Moody's Ratings
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:One Energy
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pallywood
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Research Corporation
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Julie Sweet
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Vista Equity Partners
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Wingtech
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Singapore Management University

    User had been adamant over a few days to restore advertisements in Singapore Management University page. Additionally user has removed the advertisement tag without solving the outstanding issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rongyao (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

    Iridium Communications

    Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

    Wikibaji sockfarm

    articles (partial)
    sockfarm (partial)

    I'll come back this evening and put more info here. There's an SPI that hasn't been quite closed yet. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional spammers:

    MER-C 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Favor to ask of any admin including MER-C : could you evaluate Special:Permalink/812581456 (by sock Apmsia) to the deleted version of Draft:Kraiburg TPE (by another editor sock Apmsia) and let us know if it is similar? I suspect another undiscovered sock related to this group. Bri.public (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are indeed substantially similar. MER-C 20:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I swapped the labels above (now struck/corrected) but I guess it doesn't really matter now. Bri.public (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting until this case gets merged, it is only visible at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SaiLeeKom - Bri.public (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockfarm still active. New drawer of socks was just CU confirmed. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just blocked:
    See [1].
    See Adel Sajan/Draft:Adel Sajan.
    as suspected sockpuppets. MER-C 10:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Oluwatobi Oyinlola is back, courtesy of Dopedaniel. MER-C 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    VentureBeat

    This user's only editing has been to add content from VentureBeat to other articles, usually written in a somewhat promotional style. Have reverted many of the recent additions, but they are extensive, and there may be other accounts involved. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Inquiry on current best practice

    As background, please read the note I left on the talk page of Yana Peel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Yana is a friend who very keenly wishes that all proper procedure at Wikipedia be followed, and who is also keen to see some updates to her Wikipedia entry. Her page was tagged a few years ago with a conflict of interest editing tag - I don't have any direct knowledge of whether that was correct, but I think we can assume that it was correct at the time.

    It is a common thing that someone edits Wikipedia with a COI, but more or less innocently just trying to help. Even in cases where the edits are a bit too promotional, I believe that this is also often (but not always) "innocent" in the sense that people are naturally prone to speak in a positive way about things they've achieved or done in their lives.

    When something like this happens, the result is often an extended "punishment" (although nothing in Wikipedia should ever be punishment!) of a tag on the top of an article which languishes for years.

    So here's my inquiry: what is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?

    I'm well aware that there are persistently annoying people who exhaust our patience with repeated efforts to "puff" their entries. That's also an interesting case, but it's not the sort of case I'm asking about right now! I'm talking about nice people.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimbo Wales: I would suggest it is you who have the conflict of interest. As you are aware, there is no punishment on Wikipedia, only prevention. Those COI tags help prevent disruptive editing and, for that reason, should remain there forever. We also don't have rules that apply to "persistently annoying people" but not "nice people". Such value judgments are subjective and suspect. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I have a conflict of interest on the general topic? I think there is no evidence to suggest that such tags "should remain there forever". That's just an obviously wrong position that only makes sense in a "life sentence punitive" way of thinking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI tags help warn readers of problems with the neutrality of the article. If they want changes made, they should submit them on the talkpage thru the edit request system. COI punishments are preventative because they prevent the article from becoming promotional. We don’t give exceptions to the rules for “nice people”. End of discussion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't give exceptions to the rules for nice people, but neither do we seek to punish people for mistakes. You may have heard the expession "Assume good faith" - it's a core value of the Wikipedia movement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard procedure is to use the talk page and propose changes. As for when 'removal' of a COI tag is warranted, it's when a consensus of editors agree that the current version of the page is fair and balanced, and that the edits from the person who was suspected to have a COI were reviewed as non-problematic, or when the problematic parts of those edits were expunged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend that editor begin a discussion in the article's Talk page. If no one responds, post a note in the Talk page of one or more relevant Wikiprojects. If that doesn't work, drop a note here.
    The template shouldn't be used as a badge of shame or punishment; if another editor has reviewed the edits and made the appropriate changes - perhaps none - then the template should be removed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Before we rush to do favors for "nice people", could someone please look into whether the following editors were coordinating their efforts to promote content related to Yana Peel?
    • User:Serpentine_gallery_press_dept (pre-dates Peel's tenure, but establishes a pattern)
    • User:Newcombe45 (seems keenly interested in Mr. and Mrs. Peel and Intelligence Squared, the company she helped purchase, which is headquartered in Newcombe House, at 45 Notting Hill Gate)
    • User:Outset.uk (edits only about Outset Contemporary Art Fund, co-founded by Yana Peel)
    • User:JLMLand (edits only about the artistic director under Yana Peel at Serpentine Galleries)
    • User:Vennietweek (edits only about Para Site, co-chaired by Yana Peel from 2010 to 2015)
    • User:Varez33 (edits only about Stephen Peel)
    • User:Natalia_Cherenkova (strangely only edits about an art collector, Faberge art, and TPG Capital -- Mr. Peel's firm)
    And lastly, there is this. Does the fact that the Peels have donated at least $10,000 (perhaps $30,000) to the Wikimedia Foundation influence whether Wikipedians do a favor and remove from her biography a conflict of interest notice to readers and other editors? If so, which way does that influence go? Considering the various mysterious editors above, are we certain there is no further risk in seeing conflict of interest on the biographical article? - Wacomshera (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no reason why someone's donation history should ever matter to Wikipedia editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the donation matters, unless they get preferential treatment. And they are not getting preferential treatment, as is seen in the article. All Jimbo is asking is if someone can explain the current policy, and a request edit on the talk page. Seems pretty free of influence to me.

    People are allowed to have friends. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (arbitrary break)

    Jimbo, thanks for asking the question here. It doesn't seem like you got a succinct reply. I think the answer is "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved...", from Template:COI#When to remove. That textbook answer does seem to be aligned with my experience of how things work. Hope this helps. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per Bri's comment, and as a completely uninvolved party here in my living room far from the art world or Wiki headquarters, I made a dozen or so edits to reduce the promotional nature of the article. The tags are still there as they are valid. The article is still promotional and could use the eye of a more experienced editor. I don't see an issue with fixing an article in order to remove a tag and improve wiki qaulity, assuming notability, irregardless of where the request comes from.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'm wondering about sort of the same thing. Unlike other noticeboards, I see a lot of entries left open and hanging. A case I created , Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Outside_In_(organization) involves an organization that shows signs of a long-term (over a period of years), direct PR engagement by people with affiliation. I'm not sure how long the COI template should remain, but even after neutralization, I feel like this is one of those where something needs to remain on the long term. The latest edit was a reference to unionization being removed by an account that appears to be related to the organization even though the account owner said he was not "paid" or "directed" to make the edit. Basically, I think employees/interns/volunteers who edit on the company's computer or making the edits with consent of management ought to be considered "work related" activity and ought to subject to mandatory disclosure. If the edits are made by salaried staff, it's all too easy to claim they weren't paid "for editing wikipedia" but if that conduct is deemed acceptable work related use of time, then it would be within part of their job. Graywalls (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but we are not here to punish system abusers; we're here to build a good encyclopedia. If a tagged article can be turned into a good, neutral article by editing, that is the optimal outcome. Think of any family or organization. Sh*t happens, but you move towards the main goal of your family or organization; you don't spend years punishing the kids or your employees. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And we also can, and should, make a nuanced distinction between "system abusers" (who absolutely do exist) and people who have make mistakes in the past but now want to walk away with dignity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If article subject company has a tendency to do direct PR editing over a long time, a notice would serve to help readers informed to check edit history and be advised that changes made by the organization itself may continue to occur. It isn't "punishing" the organization. It's keeping readers informed. Graywalls (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone in your family has a history of violating your family's rules, sometimes an honest intervention is helpful before you naively accept an endorsement from their "friend" that they (and their spouse and their corporations that have also been violating the family's rules) are a "nice person" now. - Wacomshera (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point but watchlists do that in the background. PR edits, we revert. Leaving tags on purpose for months or years and focusing on the abusers rather than article improvement is counterproductive. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Are you, or have you ever been, paid by anyone to edit wikipedia? Thanks! 199.247.44.10 (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Ohio! The answer is no and no. Did you forget to log in?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope! Ohio, huh. Man, I get around. 199.247.44.10 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The matter of connected and paid editing seems more pervasive than I was expecting. When I discovered connected editing at Outside In (organization), I thought it was a relatively isolated issue. Then, I found the same issue at Pride Northwest involving executive staff editing the page. As I click around categories, pages for my area, pages for local papers referenced within articles and mostly from just poking around, more such issues surfaced. Special interest group and an alternative newspaper publisher Street_Roots was added by the account named with its own own; and that of the executive editor (who is identified within cited sources). Then, I've found edits to an article from an IP originating in the article's company that was helping themselves to the article and adding things into the project list; formatting the layout in the way they want it laid out. That is one of the largest privately held company in Oregon Hoffman Construction Company. Are we to simply neutralize things and let it go on as if nothing happened whenever it happens? On Street Roots, the talk page already had a "connected contributor" tag, but people don't really look there. This is a great example of delayed discovery. I added this template since after reviewing evidence present, I had good faith reason to suspect UDPE. The template was met with resistance from another editor within hours who wanted the article sanitized and wanted the "branding" gone yesterday. Is it the current best practice to just wipe off contentious contents and let the template come down immediately? There seems to be no deterrent to this behavior as promotional contents would stay until caught, and if caught, all they have to do would be remove the contents and any marking of such attempt just vanish into the thin air for all practice purposes as people don't generally bother go digging in the edit history. Graywalls (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove tag - I agree with Jimbo Wales, Headbomb & Bri - the tag is used when the article is problematic as a direct result of COI editing. When CE and other clean-up is performed to make the article compliant with WP:PAG (by at least one editor who is not connected), the tag should be removed. Leaving the tag makes the page seem less encyclopedic and more welcoming to COI editors in that we've created a placeholder for them, at which point we might as well include text like This article was presented to you by Outside Contemporary Art Fund...and maybe consider charging them for the space; a bit of hyperbole but close to reality nonetheless. Atsme Talk 📧 13:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leaving the tag makes the page seem less encyclopedic and more welcoming to COI editors in that we've created a placeholder for them" This is not true; your opinion is wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    An opinion based on one's impression is neither right nor wrong. We're entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. You can disagree all you want but you have no fact-based evidence that it's either not true or that it's wrong. Perhaps you should refresh your memory about the conditions under which we use and remove Template:COI. For removal, it clearly states: When to remove - This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found. Atsme Talk 📧 17:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Something to keep you busy over the long weekend

    Batch ending 19 April

    Happy Easter, from the spammers. MER-C 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. You have drafted HealthPocket, Inc, but now there are 2 drafts for the same subject: Draft:HealthPocket and Draft:HealthPocket, Inc. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've history merged those two since Tramontinaberbera created one as a cut and paste move. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That draft is all the more interesting given this unblock request. MER-C 08:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins have been amenable to speedy deletion criteria G11 (promotion) and G5s (creation by blocked/banned, e.g. Wikibaji) in many cases. I didn't notice before, but at least one was eligible for G4, recreation of deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulugbekhon Maksumov). Based on who did the moving perhaps the drafts are retained as honeypots? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and to minimise the amount of community time dealing with the trash. MER-C 09:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Steuart Pittman paid editing

    Could an admin look at Draft:Steuart Pittman? I think it was deleted as copyvio then recreated and moved to mainspace. Bri.public (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It was. Even worse, the whole thing was a repeat performance: the first version had been created as a draft and then moved to mainspace without a proper AFC review, so I moved it back to draftspace and reviewed it to go over the reasons why it wasn't approvable in its original form (although I didn't notice the copyvio issue itself, there were still problems with the sourcing and with his basic notability claim not cleanly passing our inclusion criteria in the first place.) Then somebody else noticed the copyvio and deleted it afterward — but then the creator recreated it, used OTRS to cover off the copyright problem while still not actually addressing the basic notability issue at all, and then proceeded to ignore what I had already told them about "you don't get the privilege of moving the article into mainspace yourself without an AFC review" by doing exactly that again. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That editor I believe is in politician's employment and I have notified them of paid editing requirements. They partially self-outed as a county employee on the article's talkpage (now deleted) and are listed in this exec staff directory. We had an additional problem that they were personally attesting that the copyvio contributions made on taxpayer time were released by the county government. I'm not sure if that's allowed. Bri.public (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Batch ending 2 May

    Lots of spam for everyone. MER-C 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DWThoener

    Userpage deleted. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[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.

    User made promotional/BLP edits on their own User page, which I have nominated for Speedy Deletion. By the looks of it, this may be a promotional account. IanDBeacon (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2019 (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.

    NGS1888

    The user claims themself to be from the "marketing team at NGS". NGS is an abbreviation of the National Geographic Society, and 1888 is the year the society was founded. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks to me like someone attempting to disclose a COI and cooperate transparently with Wikipedia on improving their article. That said they should be informed that they should not make direct edits and rather discuss their edits on the talk page. El komodos drago (talk to me) 09:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There edits look to primarily be legitimate minor error corrections (spelling, capitalization, etc) that did in fact significantly improve the page, they should have been proposed on the talk page with a full disclosure of bias but tbh this is the least egregious example of editing by a marketing team I’ve ever seen. Personally I would be in favor of restoring their edits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Responsive computer-aided design

    All of this user's edits have centered around a single researcher, and have included references (including a PhD thesis) to that individual. The two articles created by this editor may be original research as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SJK_171 old

    Article has been and is being reworked to remove NPOV content and tone. If additional potential COI editing pops up, we can deal with it then. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[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.

    Autobiography/COI editing delayed discovery. Seeking input on how to approach this one. I've tagged the article as connnected contributor for now, but want to know the right way to go about it. I haven't named the editor yet since I don't know the generally accepted practice for handling matters of this natureGraywalls (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (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.

    VPN hype

    There's been a number of problematic VPN articles lately. The active AfD on PureVPN seems to be wobbling on whether what I'd consider rather routine reviews constitute good sources or not. If it survives it will definitely need cleanup. Maybe this is of concern for this noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Martin Eastwood

    Might need more eyes on this ... the creator seems to be intent on describing this person in ways consistent with WP:Identifying PR. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm. I tried going in and cleaning out some of the more egregiously poor material, and was almost instantly reverted by user:Anaxial, who has never edited the article before. More eyes needed indeed. 199.247.43.106 (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I was only reverting the claim that Eastwood was a "professional attention-seeker." This claim was unsourced, and, to my mind, a potential BLP issue. It is no longer there, and I do not have an issue with the latest edit that I have seen. Anaxial (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy that. El_C 06:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have taken you just as much time and just as many clicks to just remove that bit as to revert my whole edit and thus restore unsourced information. Either way, I accept that your intentions were good. 199.247.43.106 (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Utah English

    This brand-new article is almost entirely sourced with Brigham Young University papers added here by Wikipedia editors affiliated with Brigham Young University. In my personal opinion, Utah English may justify a section under Western American English but not its own entire article. Wolfdog (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that we've shown well enough that this topic deserves its own article. The existing section under Western American English is small and doesn't have enough of note about Utah English. It is true that it is still up for debate whether or not it is a full dialect, or just a unique part of Western American English, but that's also true for California English and Pacific Northwest English, and both of those have articles. Utah English has enough unique history and features behind it that it deserves its own article. If you noticed, in the heading and in the "Research" section, we explicitly said that Utah English may not be a full dialect, which I think solves your concern about whether or not Utah English justifies an article or just a section This article is also not "almost entirely sourced" with papers from here at BYU, several of them are from the American Speech academic journal and researchers at the University of Utah, but those that are written by people at BYU are credible academic sources, excluding the two news articles that we added and only cited once or twice. Part of the reason that we chose to write this article is because we're both students at BYU; I'm a linguistics major here, but I'm from California and my partner is from Maryland. Neither of us actually speak Utah English, but we're in a place where we observe it, and it was interesting to us, which is why we wrote about it, which I think can show that there isn't really a conflict of interest. The people interested in a topic and writing about it are going to be in a place where it is more prevalent, which is true for both of us. I would argue that this article should not have been deleted due to "lack of discussion" after 4 days, 2 of which were the weekend, and that the article does deserve its own page, which I think we have shown due to our sources, the history behind Utah English, and the precedent set on Wikipedia for articles about dialects or sub-dialects that may not be full dialects, but still have existing pages because there are enough differences and history that they deserve a page. Peterjwms (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response at Talk:Utah English. Wolfdog (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rad Hourani

    This article has existed for about ten years, initially in a poorly written and poorly sourced form that should never have survived basic new pages review. Several years later, however, the subject himself grabbed hold of the article and started trying to advertorialize the hell out of it, turning it very much more into an extension of his own self-published PR rather than a neutral or properly referenced encyclopedia article — and ever since then, the article's been subject to a constant tug of war between established Wikipedia editors trying to neutralize it and mostly anonymous IP numbers (but sometimes Floquirion, an SPA with no history of ever editing any other article but this) trying to readvertorialize it again. This has, most notably, included repeated attempts to add a dedicated "directory of quotations" section to highlight every Deep Thought by Jack Handy thing he ever said in an interview, which myself and other editors have continually reverted but which invariably comes back again in a new format weeks or months later. That's not the only kind of creeping advertorialism that's been happening here, but it is the most common recurring form.

    In all this time, however, even the most neutral version of the article has never actually been well-sourced — it cites one deadlinked blog, one Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and the absolute bare minimum (i.e. two pieces) of genuine reliable source coverage necessary to argue that the requirement for "multiple reliable sources" has been passed since two is technically multiple. (GNG, of course, is not actually as simple as "keep anything that meets or exceeds two footnotes", but takes into account additional factors like depth and range and context, and can be flunked by an article with 50 footnotes if they all fail one or more of those tests.)

    I'm reluctant to actually take it to AFD, however, as there are plausible notability claims being made in the article — they just aren't being sourced properly, and the article clearly needs to be reviewed and monitored for COI and neutrality issues. But after having been involved in this continual tug of war for almost 3.5 years, I'm tired of it and not dispassionate enough anymore to fix it myself. Is anybody else willing to take a stab at it, and/or take it to AFD if the COI issue is just too incurable? Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bearcat: OK I see you have protected it with "admin access required". I've never seen that, is it necessary? I see lots of sources in GNews, and was planning to remove all the unsourced material and return it to stub.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that temporarily just to put a lid on the immediate problem, because what happened is that when I reverted an IP's new attempt to recreate the Deep Thoughts directory yesterday, and applied temporary autoconfirmed protection to limit IP edits, Floquirion immediately logged into the named account to unrevert the quotefarm back into the article again. Floquirion hasn't edited Wikipedia a ton, but they have edited Wikipedia enough to edit through the autoconfirmed level of semi-protection — so the only ways to arrest the quotefarm, while I brought the issue here for review, were either temporary full protection or longer-term extended-confirmed protection (which may still be necessary, but isn't normally used as the first line of defense.) If you want to work on the article, I can drop the protection level — I've lowered it to extended-confirmed, so you should now be able to make changes. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made some cuts and added some sources. He is very notable. It took me minutes to find very high quality sources. He is also in the permanent collection of the Cooper Hewitt Design Museum in NYC. See article for source. (PS: Floquirion appears to be the article subject, based on claiming the self-portrait image that was in the article as "own work"). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs added and notified. They all seem to be coming from the same network. SPI? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Deborah Bright

    Class project, per comment on article talk page BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[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.

    Here we have five single-purpose accounts that have made large additions to Deborah Bright in the past six weeks. None of the accounts have made any other contribs. Might be a class project but there is nothing to be found to say so. It also makes no sense that five students would be editing one page and nothing else. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Good to know, this can therefore be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2019 (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.

    Rossy Evelin Lima

    This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

    GuestReady

    This article may benefit from a closer look from some of the editors here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The two primary editors of the article, Spacefrog and Spfr are CU confirmed as master and puppet, and have been blocked. Yunshui 雲水 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quarantined. Two older articles are listed above. MER-C 10:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Daugherty

    The volume of hyper-specific, unnecessary, and irrelevant information on this article is baffling. His list of students, in the 'Teaching: Oberlin, Michigan, residencies, and service' tab, includes a number of individuals who it appears are still in school, and that in conjunction with the detailed mass of personal information asks the question of whether or not he's editing his own article. 2600:1702:1DE0:8BA0:1C02:7D05:CCAE:20A1 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Specialist LLC

    I came across Wiki Specialist LLC, another paid spam outfit. Their website includes this gem:

    Q: Is Wiki Specialist LLC affected by Wikipedia’s policy on paid editing and other related bans?
    A: No company or individual can make any changes to its wiki page which leaves an open opportunity for the competitors to make wrong edits and add misinformation to defame the brand’s reputation. Wikipedia has banned many individuals and brands for disregarding this strict policy of the platform.
    Wikipedia clearly states that “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” Wiki Specialists LLC updates and edits the page content as the outsourcing company in order to avoid any rule violation.

    Helpfully, they have a list of articles on their website:

    At a quick glance several were written by the typical just-autoconfirmed sockfarm, but some weren't and seem to have been thrown in to look good. There are no paid editing disclosures on any of them. – Joe (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Roe, of late, multiple clients (especially academics) are forwarding mails from them to OTRS. Charges about 2000-2500 USD per article. ∯WBGconverse 07:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: I think this is a different group to the one targeting academics. There is one ticket about them that I just sent to OTRS. – Joe (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we have a US company openly flaunting our terms of use. Is there any chance the Foundation could be persuaded to take legal action against them? John from Idegon (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked socks:

    SPAs (all stale):

    MER-C 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote The H Collective (to complete a red link for The Parts You Lose), and I've never done any paid editing in 13+ years here. It's possible that IP editor 23.28.88.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) engaged in undisclosed paid editing with these edits, but these were not problematic. If this company has any negative press, I would include it. It is simply too new to be anything other than basic coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is one of the many, many sites linked to Get Wikified. They are de-facto banned and we should G5 anything we can link to them. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Smartse, I am saying that I wrote that one article from scratch. The IP editing that I linked above is the only other contribution made and amounts to minor content-shuffling. In the case of this particular topic, there is no content based on paid editing. Like Joe Roe said, "some weren't [paid editing] and seem to have been thrown in to look good". The article should be evaluated separately from paid-editing concerns. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Paid deterioration of neutrality is only getting worse it looks like. I was surprised how pervasive connected contributor editing has been for local outfits... and now this. Graywalls (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SJK 171 redux

    Article had been extensively edited by SPA and appeared here earlier. Article was reworked by several editors (including Graywalls and ThatMontrealIP) to remove WP:AB issues, but the user has returned to editing. The images in the article of the subject's artwork were submitted by that user as "own work," which implies either a COI problem or a licensing problem with the images. Have posted on user's talk page about COI, but gotten no response. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not being paid or compensated I am a fan correcting information and you guys keep erasing it even though I am adding credible information with cited sources..

    Can you please explain to me why I am not allowed to make changes with factual information? The image was uploaded as own work as an accident as I thought that was the correct way to upload a picture I took. I took the image of the work when it was hanging in a gallery. I am adding citations but they keep getting removed? I am a huge fan of street art and am giving credit to many historical names.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrare (talk • contribs)

    Because we have deep slepticism for an editor who only edits STK171 for over four years, and has also uploaded a portrait of STK171 tagged "own work". It's not super plausible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response on your talk page. Glad to know that you don't have a conflict of interest here. Unfortunately, that means that the photos of SJK 171's work that you added create a copyright problem, since you have the copyright to the photo, but not to the underlying work depicted in the photo, so they're going to have to be removed, since Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnnyrare:, do you care to explain why the first two paragraphs in the version before I came along is word-for-word copy from https://www.sjk171.net/about? and https://sjk171.weebly.com/about.html ? Graywalls (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @BubbaJoe123456:,ThatMontrealIP, did you realize the above when you started working on it? Graywalls (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @BubbaJoe123456 and Graywalls: the info above on images and underlying copyright of the artist is exactly correct. Thanks for explaining that BubbaJoe123456. It is strange how Johnnyrare has tagged a 1970s photo of STK171 as "own work". That's a long period of fandom (40 years+), and since it's a portrait taken from six feet away, it's a likely conflict. Not sure about the text copy issues as I am not following this one that closely. I did look at the article history and that is the only thing SPA acocunt Johnnyrare has been editing since 2015. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Etherweave

    Made another COI insertion as a minor edit after a prior COI/N discussion in Archive 142. diff Graywalls (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have found the party responsible for this and other edits, all of which are undisclosed paid edits. I'll email an admin with the evidence to prevent WP:OUTING. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence is strong. Account in question is blocked. Disclosure needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding other article links created/edited by this individual for further analysis. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible promotions in articles inside Template:Christianity in Kerala

    and many more.

    I was looking at this template and it seems to be filled with many non-notable churches and "christian retreats", I think most of those organizations are not eligible enough to have a wiki article, and some of them are written in a promotional tone. Thus they should be deleted. Can anyone confirm if I'm right. Daiyusha (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Catalent

    Won't be able to look at this today, but I noticed recent edits at Catalent that could use another look-over. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Smithfield Foods / WH Group

    Single purpose account editing the Smithfield Foods and related such as its parent company (WH Group), its investors CDH Investments, executives, other companies in the group, as well as pages related to the Clean Water Act, a law under which Smithfield Foods was fined $12.6 million for dumping waste into a river ([2]). The edits include removing previous COI templates ([3]). MarioGom (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I trimmed 80% of the material from Joseph W. Luter III, as it was just a big coatrack for Smithfield farms.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Covestor

    This article has been "updated", though this user is effectively messing it up, renaming the article in all instances except moving the page, and other messy things. It's clear from their edits here and to Interactive Brokers that they do not understand and do not want to learn how to properly edit. It's clear from their user talk page that they will not respect COI guidelines; they keep directly editing these articles and ignoring my responses. ɱ (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • MarkB101
    • Aggregation
    • Ernesttobilson
    • Rbudhani
    • Jomohrer
    • 2601:182:c103:344d:f581:191:bfac:cbcb
    • 38.122.253.2

    those all appear to be single purpose accounts/IPs. Graywalls (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Myrna Herzog

    users

    Promotional concerns with multiple edits at an article about herself and an article created about a teacher/colleague. See [4] for self-identification. I've already reported the account at the username board, since it refers to Ms. Herzog's ensemble. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems obvious to me, especially with this admission of sockpuppetry and this content: https://www.phoenixearlymusic.com/ Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Toddst1, though I don't see the block evasion that makes her a sock. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No block evasion is required to be socking. There was no block that I know of, just abusing multiple accounts. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm dense today. Which other accounts? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    She has posted an explanation of her actions at User talk:Myrna Herzog. I don't think there's anything malicious going on, just some unfortunate decisions from a confused newcomer. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HectorAsdaa

    This editors only edit appears to be attemping to recruit somebody for possible paid editing. That they're talking to a bot is a mute point... I'm just fresh back from an extended break so would appreciate if a more experienced coi-aware editor could investigate thanks. -- Longhair\talk 07:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks to me like they're talking to a declared paid editor who has appeared on this page at least once. That said, the new editor/PR guy obviously doesn't know much if anything about our rules. It hard to say he's acting in bad faith. Many somebody should just send him an e-mail saying something like "please don't pay for articles on Wikipedia!" Is there a designated person who likes to send out these types of emails? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW - do we have a list of declared paid editors anywhere? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yetispaghetti: COI(?) journal references

    Not certain what the correct handling is here (or even if it quite crosses the line into COI). Yetispaghetti had a user rename from Asqjournal (deemed promotional and shared for the journal Advertising & Society Quarterly). After the rename, they have added several references to that journal (ex: [5], [6], [7]). They've also added a draft article for that journal. They've said on their talk page that they aren't editing on behalf of their employer, but given the circumstances it looks COI/promotional to me, similar to (but not quite falling into) WP:SELFCITE or WP:REFSPAM. The user has not declared a COI. Is this okay or is it COI, and if it's COI, should the edits be reverted? creffett (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the draft you mentioned for Advertising_%26_Society_Quarterly. It's clearly promotional editing. Who knows if it is paid or not, but I would tend to think so as it is in the advertising field. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. My intention in citing and posting this entry is not self-promotional or advertising in nature. For the citations, I intended to include relevant scholarly citations to add to the statements that were made. For the journal entry, my intention is to create an entry like that seen for other academic journals, such as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_American_Studies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Modern_Periodical_Studies. I am not being paid by my employer or any other entity to post or cite. I am new to Wikipedia contributions, so I appreciate your patience, feedback, and advice. yetispaghetti (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not being paid by my employer or any other entity to post or cite." But are you writing about your employer or inserting links to your employer? COI is *not* about your intentions, it is about the appearance of a conflict. Please read WP:COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yetispaghetti:, just to confirm, is your employer a subject of any of the articles you are writing?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones:, thank you for providing that very helpful page about COI. I have a connection to some of the sources and information listed, so I removed a bulk of the text. I am going to remove all of the citations I have added to avoid all concerns of COI. Again, I was not trying to provide false or misleading information. I was trying to model what was done for comparable journals. I have a much clearer understanding of the COI rules that are in place. Thank you again for your patience as I learn Wikipedia from an editor's standpoint. (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones:, @ThatMontrealIP:, @Creffett: All citations have been removed. (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the honesty, that is all we are looking for. The way to go about improving articles you are connected to is to declare on your User page that you have such and such a connection. From there you can use the {{Request edit}} template, or in some cases where you are making very clearly neutral improvements, it may be OK for you to edit articles you are connected to. Useful edits are always desired, but as you can see we are wary of those with COI. Perhaps someone with more experience could advise yetispagetti on what kinds of edits are OK to article with potential COI? Also, welcome aboard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @ThatMontrealIP. Yetispaghetti (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional and copyvio team at Preetha Reddy

    The username Askapollo1 is an obvious match for Apollo Hospitals, username violation paid/role-account/shared-user. Askapollo1 added copyvio&promotional content to Preetha Reddy,[8]. Ngs071093 restored the copyvio&promotional content, greatly improved by the addition of refs (chuckle). [9] All edits by these accounts were all within 2 hours, strongly suggesting coordination. The article is and was tagged for copyvio revision deletion during most of these edits.

    Amargupta123 edited both articles precisely 24 hours earlier (presumably the same timezone and the same business schedule). I can't see the edits as they have already been revision deleted, but I presume the same content was added by all three accounts.

    In addition to any standard admin COI action here, I specifically suggest that Preetha Reddy be semi-protected for a while. None of the accounts involved are autoconfirmed. Semiprotect should be effective in preventing restoration of copyvio, and against additional meatpuppet or sockpuppet accounts. It should send an effective message. Alsee (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping for Drchriswilliams. I see you've warned all three accounts. I thought you'd want to know that the copyvio edits have continued. I reverted the latest vio and extended the revdelete request to cover it. Alsee (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas Cook Group

    This user appears to be a SPA with regards to Thomas Cook Group and its related companies and has refused to engage on any talk pages so far with regards to disclosure. shoy (reactions) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There are several things very clear here
    • We don't need a dozen articles on the Thomas Cook Group and associated articles.
    • Airline7375 has a strong conflict of interest and is likely a paid editor
    • They have been warned for various disruptions by several people.
    • They haven't responded to Shoy's question on whether they are a paid editor.
    • They should be blocked for UPE unless they respond here soon.
    So, @Airline7375:, what's the story? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting News Article – Paid government staffers edited the articles of four Pennsylvania politicians

    Just finished reading a very interesting article (linked above, with another, similar piece here [10]) (requires a subscription, or incognito browsing) in LancasterOnline (a publication operating as part of LNP (newspaper) that detailed a campaign of edits by various staffers associated with Pennsylvania politicians; the article is opinionated but very good. To my knowledge, no editors on any of the four effected articles have made an attempt to disclose their respective connections. From a brief look at the articles in questions, it seems that puffery, editorializing, and the copious use of primary sources seems to be the most pertinent issue. Needless to say, these issues should be addressed and the articles cleaned up.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    advisorshares

    On August 10, 2018‎ a user with name 50.249.10.69 deleted two pieces of information from the AdvisorShares page giving the explanation that "fund.com no longer has any equity interest in AdvisorShares and Chuck Roberston passed away". I undid these changes on August 21, 2018‎ and commented that "These changes are made without citing any secondary sources of information. Also if the information reflected in these changes is not public, it is possible that the editor is connected to the company and has a conflict of interest". UserNameUnderConstruction made a similar change on January 16, 2019‎, which also stated that Charles Robertson passed away. I couldn't find any publicly available information online to confirm this. UserNameUnderConstruction should cite where they found this information or disclose if they have inside knowledge of the company's affairs. Zwx24f7 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone raised a similar concern about the same account four years ago on the talk page: Talk:AdvisorShares#User_"UserNameUnderConstruction"_editing_the_AdvisorShares_page_needs_to_blocked creffett (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rupert Lee-Browne

    The article about Rupert Lee-Browne, investor in Caxton FX was created in Jan 2018 by the editor in question. The editor remains the main editor of that article. There have also been a number of creation of an article about Caxton FX over time, which were eventually deleted. The editor did not respond to COI notices, however eventually - after over one year of editing on those two topics - admitted to being a marketing agent who works for Caxton, when being put on the spot. (diff). Given the long running COI editing, I suggest deletion of the article currently in draft, salting and a ban on directly editing and creating articles on said topics. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello - first of all, I have been totally transparent in who I am and my relationship to Caxton. In addition, when discussing this with talk who was at first highly aggressive but then became more civil once I tried to have a two way dialogue with him -he made it clear that the Caxton page was too promotional which when discussing with him I was in agreement. regarding the Rupert Lee-Browne page, this was written long before me and deleted, i rewrote it and then reposted it to fit in with guidelines working with page editors to make it right. I am very happy to stop editing the page but given how important and influential Mr Lee-browne is to the UK fintech and financial services scene - as proven by this article and the regular mentions, invitations to events and references, i believe it would be naive to remove his page.

    In addition there needs to be a better way to make it clear that if you have a relationship with a brand/person/object you have to state it - by the way - having worked in the marketing industry for the last 20 years you should be aware that the creation of wiki pages is a standard service offering world over. I would be very happy to work with you to create clearer and more appropriate guidelines around this.

    Finally - perhaps you need to also have a think about how your page editors behave and represent Wikipedia.

    Jamesmaharrison (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Murder of Hae Min Lee

    Mainspace edits by User:Cynistrategus are all to this article and Thiruvendran Vignarajah. Vignarajah is the attorney who has defended the conviction discussed in the article. Edits routinely remove WP:RS that are inconvenient for the prosecution and insert references to non-RS. Editor insists he doesn't have a WP:COI.[11][12][13]Adoring nanny (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=896269592"