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
→Shaw Academy and others: back of just a little from identifying which specific work was paid. this article still has issues regardless. sent off-wiki evidence to Smartse.
Line 672: Line 672:
::{{u|Brianhe}} and {{u|DissidentAggressor}} please refrain from commenting here while Wintertanager and I talk. Please. I'll have something to say to each of you in bit, but please hold back. Thanks in advance.
::{{u|Brianhe}} and {{u|DissidentAggressor}} please refrain from commenting here while Wintertanager and I talk. Please. I'll have something to say to each of you in bit, but please hold back. Thanks in advance.
:: Wintertanager, thanks for disclosing that. Step by step here. Would you please disclose the nature of your COI? Please do keep in mind that the Terms of Use require that if you are being paid, that you disclose your " employer, client and affiliation". Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:: Wintertanager, thanks for disclosing that. Step by step here. Would you please disclose the nature of your COI? Please do keep in mind that the Terms of Use require that if you are being paid, that you disclose your " employer, client and affiliation". Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
:::[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] I currently edit on behalf of Lazada Group. I am self-employed. [[User:Wintertanager|Wintertanager]] ([[User talk:Wintertanager|talk]]) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


== Heim theory ==
== Heim theory ==

Revision as of 16:01, 15 August 2015

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    User talk:Beran-jale
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Connections Academy
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:LPL Financial
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas


    MiamiDolphins3

    I guess I'm coming out of hibernation (my wikibreak) early. The case involving this editor was archived a little more than a month ago, after another editor was blocked, and MiamiDolphins3 gave a commitment to clean up some non-NPOV and/or primary sources in Touch Surgery, Ryze Trampoline Parks, Jenner & Block, and Mile2. This was never done. Plus he's back to work on Jack McCauley this month; it was not listed on the noticeboard previously. — Brianhe (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for following up on this, Brianhe. Follow up is so, so important here, so really - thanks! MiamiDolphins3 you did promise to de-PROMO the articles that were raised here before, and I for one was grateful for that. Would you please tell us what has gone with that? If you changed your mind, please let us know and we will pull those out of the archive and clean them up. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amalto and others

    socking?
    coordinated editing
    added to case August 2015

    Obvious COI for commercial articles. The second named editor has systematically !voted keep on several articles identified for blatant COI, and has an editing history nearly 100% matching COI-identified articles. Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC) @JamesBWatson: added to list Jenzabar which you had protected in June, 2013, to prevent spam re-creation. @SmartSE: It appears possible there's a connection to the Aviation geek sockfarm via involvement in BLOC Hotels: as you pointed out at the AfD it was created by the sock TimeQueen32. — Brianhe (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just added three four new articles, two I just missed; Tulika Mehrotra was expanded from a crummy stub by Cosmopolite1. Flexenclosure was created by Ianphillipson and the logo uploaded by Cosmopolite1, who also appears to be active on ru.wikipedia where he created the corresponding article with a similarly-named account. Brianhe (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pleased to see a full list of my articles, but I'm very surprised to see an accusation of this kind.
    I'm not coordinated with anybody and I don't have any WP:SOCK. All of my articles were written with WP:NPOV in mind. I don't have any "close connection" to any of my articles' subjects. Most of the information comes from secondary reliable sources. --Cosmopolite1 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Arr4, Renzoy16 and Cosmopolite1 have all been employed as paid editors in the past. However, I don't believe that they have been engaged in paid editing in recent months, so this is a somewhat older issue. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Expanding the case since the Cosmoplite1 SPI is falling through and it has been suggested to continue here. It appears to me that this account, Commonplace Book (blocked), The Librarian at Terminus, and at least one IP are connected. Evidence exists in edit history of Beverage Partners Worldwide, Daniel Chavez Moran, Melanie Iglesias where the various editors appear at intervals of hours to max. 17 days. The strongest case is at Lisa Daily, a celeb bio complete with professional headshot uploaded by The Librarian:

    • The Librarian at Terminus creates article, 19 April 2013
    • The Librarian at Terminus finally edits article, 19 April 2013
    • 174.45.140.146 fixes TLAT's typo, 20 April 2013 (+1 day)
    • Cosmoplite1 is the very next editor to begin editing, 22 April 2013 (+2 days)

    @Bilby: for your attention: you blocked Commonplace Book. Brianhe (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added one more article, Jenzabar. Compare this addition of corp history by Cosmoplite1 [1] to this earlier addition by the now blocked sockpuppet(eer) Amburak: [2]. Per consensus at deletion discussion, the article was trimmed to a redirect. Cosmoplite1 re-created the article from the redirect [3], over protection by JamesBWatson. The article is now again under protection, with admin's comment "Article has been repeatedly restored, at least sometimes by a an editor evading blocks by using successive sockpuppets." Brianhe (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe my final comment for today: Logical Cowboy is on Wikibreak right now, but left this comment indicating he found off-wiki evidence of paid editing by one of the editors I added to the case today. Brianhe (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrewjohn39/Articles_for_deletion/Planview

    Per discussion at AfD:

    User:LaMona FYI, I don't know User:BiH and the reason I am commenting on the articles created by him is because I read long discussions on his talk page where he also mentioned pages created by him and that are now nominated for deletion because of notability issue. I am only putting evedences of notability and I feel that whoever nominated these articles had not reviewed the references himself and it was a biased decision to nominate them for deletion. Andrewjohn39 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that there is no such discussion on his/her talk page -- and that was easy to check. And how one ended up on such a talk page would need explaining. So I'm still dubious. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help if you have a doubt but be assured that I don't know him...I accidentally landed on his page while reviewing a page created by him and then I went through all the discussions. Apart from this, I am only presenting the fact and doing nothing else..if you don't agree, present counter argument rather than blaming!! someone nominated pages for deletion because he thought that subjects are not notable..I am just trying to prove that nominations were wrong!! Andrewjohn39 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't posted here before, so apologies if this is wrong place/wrong data. LaMona (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @LaMona: The post seems fine to me. As they were also being discussed in the post above, I've made this a subsection of that discussion- hope that's okay. And yes, it seems dodgy to me that an inactive editor has been voting keep at lots of AfDs of articles created by BiH, who recently declared themself to be a paid editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Andrewjohn39 added a CEO's portrait to an article created by undisclosed paid editor User:BiH here. Brianhe (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other very suspect crossovers between Andrewjohn39 and BiH e.g. here where AJ added an awards section to Panaya that BiH had rewritten only 3 hours earlier. Similarly, they overlapped at Lumenis. Also as I noted here there was also suspicious, overlap between User:Arr4 and AJ. Looking back I've found more problems as their very first edit was this (admins only) creation of Healthcare Success Strategies Inc which was 100% promotional and obviously not written by a completely new user. Overall, I think this makes it clear that they are an undisclosed paid editor who is acting deceptively even when asked and as such unless an explanation is forthcoming, I don't see much other option but to block them indefinitely. SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support blocking, of course. Brianhe (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocket Internet

    editors
    inlink study (6 August 2015)
    subsidiaries, investments, etc.

    The Nigerian dot-com startup scene is a fascinating subject documented at Yabacon Valley. Unfortunately, billion-dollar IPOs plus shady business practices equals lots of COI articles on Wikipedia. I've listed here Rocket Internet and several of its creations. The list of SPA editors probably is quite extensive, I've just tapped a few here. @Garchy: you nominated the executive articles for speedy deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaymu may have been compromised by undisclosed, conflicted editors. @DGG: you nominated the article for deletion. — Brianhe (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem, as usual with such articles, was whether the references were truly substantial, independent, and reliable. For many articles, fair people can think either way. In past years, I would usually give articles the benefit of the doubt. Now, for articles on companies, especially new companies, I increasingly think the opposite. For this particular article, I continue to consider the references (except possibly PCWorld) either general with merely a mention of the company or essentially press releases, & many of them from unreliable sources. But a really good press agent can get reliable sources to write respectable articles, and once there is a buzz in even the unreliable press, reliable sources tend to cover it. Our rules are inevitably helpless against such methods, because we must reflect the Real World, which is full of promotion and unreliability. (Incidentally, I just removed a list of the miscellaneous products they sell, which I considered a promotional product catalog.) If someone wants to renominate it, I'll comment.
    More generally, perhaps every author of an article on a company should be required to certify in a positive way they have no financial connection. This might have more deterrent value than merely a rule against it. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just placed a tag for merging Kaymu Bangladesh to Kaymu. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple SPAs are arguing against the merge proposal, including this IP who appears to be speaking as two people, either accidentally or on purpose. — Brianhe (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a new editor and another article in the Rocket Internet group. Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a bunch of articles based on inlink study to Rocket Internet. It's fairly clear there's been a program to write up many if not all of their companies. Added ‎Wintertanager in connection with inlink analysis: his edits appear in the last 30 days on Lazada Group‎, Lazada Philippines‎, Online Revolution‎, Lazada Indonesia‎, Askhanuman‎, and E-commerce in Southeast Asia. this linkspam is a typical addition. Not to mention creation of Lazada Group‎, a Rocket investment, with squidgy History-Management team-Funding sections. He has denied being a paid editor. — Brianhe (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Linkspam??? This is crazy. After I created the article for Lazada Group, I did a WP search for the term "Lazada" and added the WP links where there were none. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do????????? If not, what should I have done? Please let me know. You're making it seem like I have some kind of connection to these pages, when, very simply, the above pages were where 'Lazada' was listed!!! As for the sections in the article you mentioned, if there is an issue with Management team, just remove that section! I kind of agree, probably isn't relevant. Funding IMO is another matter because all of the notable news - article after article - is about their funding. Seems highly relevant and not 'squidgy' at all. But if you want to remove that because it violates some WP rule (not sure which one!), then go for it. I'm so over it. Don't lump me in with a bunch of low quality pages or people I've never heard of - I stand by the one I just made and spent a lot of time on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wintertanager (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been on Wikipedia long enough, and certainly have worked enough corp articles, to know about WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Your overuse of punctuation is not persuasive. If you're lumped in with crummy contribs to crummy articles, that's your own problem. In more fancified language, your edits are indistinguishable from those of a hired gun, and the onus for explaining it is on you now. Brianhe (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I in violation of WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? I placed one link to the official website! Someone else went in and added other external links to the page I created, if that's what you're referring to. If not, please let me know which point I am in violation of for the two tangible WP rules you site above because I honestly don't understand. I also disagree that my edits are 'indistinguishable from those of a hired gun'; can you be more specific? The page I created is neutral, encyclopedic and well sourced. Wintertanager (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you added the links to the sub's, or someone-not-you in Bangkok has ESP and added them an hour after you created the article. Occam's razor. Logically, there is a third possibility, that you colluded with corporate interests in Bangkok, but I ruled that out AGF. Brianhe (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically I looked up this IP before coming here and can assure you I live very far from Thailand! I don't think someone watching any of the pages you list above would need ESP, but rather a simple email notification when Lazada WP links were added to those pages by me. That is a much better use of Occam's Razor and a more plausible explanation for a few dumb links added to the page by an anonymous user (you are right, I do know that one should only add one link to an official site - exactly what I did!). It is absolutely unfair that you are holding me responsible for another user's edits 4000 miles away that have not a thing to do with me. Wintertanager (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wintertanager, I've thought about what you said and think things have become a bit too confrontational here. I'm willing to stipulate that the IP was a party not connected to you, but that still leaves a lot to be explained. Your statement that you have a diverse editing history really doesn't wash; uploading a dozen or so California bird pictures just doesn't compare to the years of editing that I've already talked about at the other case. If you just come out and say you realize that you had some connection to one or more of these topics, it's OK, this isn't a trial. There are non-onerous disclosure rules to follow, and others who have come to COIN have done it and continued to participate at Wikipedia. I don't think scrutiny on your edits will necessarily increase beyond what it would have been once this case was opened. So the ball's in your court if you want to say anything. — Brianhe (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a rather large sockfarm has been operating on Foodpanda / hellofood. Master might be User:Mushroom9. Also Carmudi SPAs. One of the more insidious aspects of this case, but what makes it an interesting test case, is the billions of Western dollars (Euros actually) behind the European-based, highly tech savvy corp interests, paired with many willing, and I'm sure disposable to their masters, developing nation editors; this is Rocket Internet's explicit business development model, replacing the word "editors" with "consumers". Question for COIN team. What do we do now? Obviously I've poured some time into this, as it is one of the more egregious cases of probable corporate-sponsored abuse of Wikipedia. Do we have a WP:COVERT case here, and if so what happens as a result? There's one outstanding SPI (here) but experience tells me the accounts are unlikely to be connected. Blocking accounts on a reactive basis is likely to be a whack-a-mole exercise, but maybe it's a worthwhile gesture. I'll be disappointed if this doesn't move forward, because it seems to be a model case of what we're trying to stop at this noticeboard. We really need to figure out a plan. — Brianhe (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brianhe: We do what we always do when big, powerful groups manipulate Wikipedia for nefarious purposes. We make as much noise as possible, go public, contact the media, and drag their name so far through the mud that it counteracts years of promotional wrongdoing. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Smileverse

    existing articles, created by user
    prob COI edits by user (not complete)
    deleted articles, created by user
    Added August, 2015

    Does this really need a comment? Brianhe (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no idea at all about the COI issue, but there was a spam issue where the user was adding their website links to multiple articles and the case of a username that was essentially their website's domain. I had blocked as a spamusername, but the user provided assurances that they would not do that again and was unblocked. That can be seen here. I bring this up only because of the relationship between those links, spamname and COI. —SpacemanSpiff 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't be the first editor whose veneer of patrolling or other activity masks essentially COI contribs and WP:NOTHERE purpose. I developed the list above just by filtering their contribs by page creations and looking at the deletion warnings on his talkpage. Brianhe (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The contributions are there in the userpage history too, in addition to the early contribution history.—SpacemanSpiff 18:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Old dog, same old tricks in 2015:
    Wow. See same user at #Comm100 case on this page. — Brianhe (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just ran across this editor's obvious profile at a pay-per-service site. Clearly this is paid, but will give him an opportunity to meet WP:TOU. Kuru (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, there is some relevant discussion related to Smileverse that took place on Daylenca's talk page last night that might be helpful. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all! My name is Daylen. This user is on Fiverr which is a violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:PAY. Below I have some information that I copied from my talk page:
    Hi! I was exploring Fiverr regarding some design services and stumbled on this, (a Fiverr account offering Wikipedia article writing services, I can't link the page because Wikipedia won't let me; here is a screenshot of the URL, http://screencast.com/t/Mmw5XZiRfB). Isn't this in violation of the Wikipedia terms? While looking through the page to attempt to find their Wikipedia user name I stumbled upon this http://screencast.com/t/7As0jec01nX (two of his latest works, Tuft & Needle and Lancaster Insurance Services). I found that Dewimani was the only editor on the Lancaster Insurance Services article so I suspect that they are the seller. Also, on their talk page, Inks.LWC noticed that the user stated "I am aware of the Wikipedia notability guidelines & have contributed many with other name.", that leads me to believe that they have multiple accounts which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. As such, I believe that an administrator should look into blocking this users IP address. Can someone please help me submit a claim because I have no idea how.
    Daylen (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have evidence that they're improperly using multiple accounts then you should file an WP:SPI. It should be noted there are a few cases when multiple accounts can be used. In terms of paid writing, it's covered under our policy at WP:PAY. It's strongly discouraged, but until the issue is addressed further through complete prohibition, then they may have edited within the limits. Was anything you noticed expressly promotional? Mkdwtalk 03:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess, after looking at a comparison of the three accounts and the screenshot that Daylen provided (which shows that Lancaster Insurance and Tuft & Needle are connected), it looks like it might be three people all working for the same "company". Unfortunately, I don't really have time to be of much more help right now, as I'm taking the bar exam in 4 days and only came here now because I was pinged; however, if the issue is not yet resolved by July 30, feel free to give me a reminder on my talk page, and I can look into it some more. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually just realized something... I noticed in the Fiverr ad that it states, "If you want us to write for News about you. Contact us". Smileverse, one of the editors to Tuft & Needle (but not Lancaster Insurance Services) is the editor-in-chief of Bangalorean.net (he posted his personal website information to his user page, so there are no outing issues with what I'm saying). In the past, Smileverse has created articles about subjects that he has written about on Bangalorean.net and used his articles as sources. I informed him that doing this was a conflict of interest. A lot of the articles he was linking to from Bangalorean.net were very promotional in there tone, and with that line about "write for News about you", I have a suspicion that he may be getting paid to write stories on Bangalorean.net so that he can use them as "news sources" to make articles here. I had had a suspicion that he might be a paid editor, just based on the articles he had written before and how promotional in nature they were, but now with this Fiverr post that shows that Dewimani, Smileverse, and Baligema might all be connected, that raises more suspicions. Just looking at the editor interactions, it is not apparent that Dewimani is connected, but quite a few articles that have been created by Smileverse and Dewimani have been deleted, so some common pages between them would no longer show up. I know that at one point, they both created an article on a businessman, William Benson (Smileverse created William Benson (businessman), and Dewimani created William benson(businessman)). So there seems to be some connection between the three, and there are certainly some conflict of interest problems, but the exact connection isn't 100% clear. As I said before, I don't really have the time right now to devote to this (I've already spent more time on it than I should have), but if it isn't resolved by next Thursday, I'll come back to this. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Daylen (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    From the evidence above, as well as their earlier foray as a link spammer it is abundantly clear that this user is not here to write neutral content. I'm therefore going to block them indefinitely, but should note that I would be very hesitant to unblock them even if they disclose their COI as WP:NOTPROMO is the reason for the block. I will have a look through some deleted contributions as well to see if there is a chance of sockpuppetry. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: Can I suggest that you start with AlphaPoint as it has a finite set of pretty clearly connected SPA editors? — Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smileverse there were several other suspect editors not included here. I also uncovered links to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TejaswaChaudhary/Archive. I had a look at those accounts at Alphapoint, but they looked to be more like employees of the company editing Smileverse's version rather than socks. SmartSE (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and if this is at all typical of their writing style, there is a whole lot of content that needs cleaning up. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Artesianvc; did not get resolved in the Smileverse SPI. Note, he has not edited since I asked about his paid editing 10 days ago. Have requested block as corpname. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Refspam from bangalorean.net

    I'm seeing fallout from the bangalorean.net SEO (at least that's what I think it is) e.g. at James Presley and affecting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saurav Dutt. Any suggestions on how to handle it? - Brianhe (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brianhe: check Special:LinkSearch e.g. [5]. There aren't too many links but that may lead to some new articles. It should probably be blacklisted as well. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted blacklist request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bangalorean.net if anybody wants to chime in. Brianhe (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Paymentguru

    editors

    Suite of SPAs for this financial company and its CEO. I've opened a SPI against three four enrolled users plus four IPs. Brianhe (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Details copied over from the SPI which just closed as "stale" or whatever. Three SPAs all writing about the same company and its CEO, and one whose username is really, really similar to the CEO's. Paymentguru started editing here a few days after the master stopped [6] (May 18). IP submitted AfC for article which had been created and worked exclusively by Paymentguru. One of the ed's knows unpublished details of the CEO's family. IPs trace back to company's US headquarters, Miami, or to Moscow, its international HQ. Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential COI re: Alex Brown

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    C.Fred found no actionable COI

    Perhaps I am mistaken, and if that is the case, I apologize (consider this more free advertising), but I thought it was unacceptable to advertise or link to your own "paid and pay-for work" on your user page, and/or also to edit articles on WP that references your paid work. For some examples, see the following:

    Then there are the WP (controversial?) articles Alexbrn edits and is quoted as follows: Information_Technology_Task_Force which includes a link to Office_Open_XML and then a link to Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML, the latter of which includes the following text in a rather controversial article which also includes a link to his personal blog: On March 31, 2010, Dr Alex Brown, who had been the Convener of the February 2008 Ballot Resolution Meeting, posted an entry on his personal blog[125] in which he complained of Microsoft's lack of progress in adapting current and future versions of Microsoft Office to produce files in the Strict (as opposed to the Transitional) ISO 29500 format:

    On this count Microsoft seems set for failure. In its pre-release form Office 2010 supports not the approved Strict variant of OOXML, but the very format the global community rejected in September 2007, and subsequently marked as not for use in new documents — the Transitional variant. Microsoft are behaving as if the JTC 1 standardisation process never happened...

    He also removes content he disagrees with but that may be ok since he is an expert in the field: [9].

    He does have a COI declaration on his user page:

    And there is also his "About Me":

    All totaled, it looks like a cozy little promotional site for Alex Brown and his company, Griffin Brown UK. The big question is whether or not the WP suite of Standardization of Office Open XML articles improve the encyclopedia or serve to benefit Alex Brown? If this is acceptable on WP, I'm sure other editors will want to take advantage of it as well. I am also of the understanding that @Risker: works on COI issues, particularly paid COI & advocacy issues, so if she has already investigated this issue and cleared it, then we can put it to rest ASAP. Atsme📞📧 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have an obvious conflict of interest in regard to the company I work for (which I declare). But since (so far as I know) Wikipedia has never mentioned that company or its work, that is moot.
    I have a potential conflict of interest with Standards I am involved with (not a financial COI), but generally don't edit those since I declared my potential COIs years ago.
    So what is the problem exactly? This looks to me a little like WP:POINTiness because of disagreements in other places. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you didn't notice the links I included. I also don't understand why more admins are not looking at this with sincere concern. The horribly unjust COI that was initiated against me as a volunteer got far more attention. What message are we sending to editors? Your user page links to sites where you sell your products and/or get paid for views. See WP:NOPAY and WP:FCOI. Your book on OCLC & XML Author(s): Alex Brown (Alex Brown is a Technical Director, Griffin Brown Digital Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, UK.) and also here where it costs $28.00/day access [10].
    Paid advocacy – being paid to promote external interests on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. It is the type of paid editing of most concern to the Wikipedia community, because edits by paid advocates invariably reflect the interests of the paying client or employer. Advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and paid advocacy, including advertising, promotion, public relations and marketing, is an especially egregious form. Sue Gardner, then executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."
    Also see: If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles. You may suggest changes on the talk page of affected articles, where you should disclose your COI. You can use the {{request edit}} template to suggest changes. You edited several of those articles and you have off-Wiki links to sites where you get paid so that actually makes it a paid advocacy. Atsme📞📧 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So where's the COI? It's difficult to disclose who your employer is without identifying that employer: there's no advertising or promotion going on. I list the real world articles I have written, but I have no financial interest in those (the publishers do maybe). The Gardner quotation seems good, but if you are alleging I am a "paid advocate" you need to produce some diffs of advocacy and say where the pay is coming from. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's starting to look a bit heated here and hard to get a sense of what really is the problem. I'll ask Atsme to leave out material from user pages and off-wiki sources and list only edits made by Alexbrn to Wikipedia articles, and then state very briefly why she thinks each is a COI problem. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Where do you detect "heat"? Surely not from me because I'm cool as a cucumber. [pause while I finish my cucumber salad]. :-) Off-wiki links that promote/advocate one's line of work or place of business carries, well...let's just say, "the lurking suspicion of a COI taint", especially when they link to pay-per-view sites which automatically indicates somebody is getting paid or a business/advocacy is being promoted. It is no different from being paid to promote external interests and is a form of advertising, promotion and marketing (of one's own for-profit company, or as a volunteer Board member of a nonprofit where there is fiduciary responsibility.) I've already provided the links above and was hoping the COIN "team" was going to initiate as thorough an investigation as they have done so many others in the recent past, including my own. Adequate evidence was already provided above but I'll provide yet another off-wiki link to demonstrate the advocacy/promotion controversy - SC 34 meetings, Copenhagen: Within SC 34 there has been discussion about whether Microsoft’s extensions should be taken into the Standard. The consensus has been not to: the market doesn’t care so we will not care on their behalf – the world will get the Standard it deserves. Does this matter? I think it does … but that will have to be the subject of a separate post …. Advocacy? Let's ask Billy Gates what he thinks about it. Read more: http://www.adjb.net/post/copenhagen2.aspx#continue#ixzz3hJFkBH00 It couldn't be more clear after you visit his user page and start clicking on the links. An investigation of his user contributions will also reveal everything COIN needs to know but if the user page alone doesn't create the evidence needed to substantiate paid advocacy, (via business ownership), not to mention the suite of linked articles, and warrant further investigation, then I think we may be opening a large can of worms and setting a new standard regarding financial COI. Atsme📞📧 20:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is very lenient when it comes to what a person can post on his/her own user page, especially when it comes to disclosing conflicts of interest. I personally will ignore any link to the user page, but perhaps somebody else can figure out the point of those links. Links to off-Wiki sources are also somewhat problematic. Wikipedia does not regulate what it's editors can say outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps there are some cases like applying for a paid editing job that might be of interest here, but in general the main complaint here has to be about COI editing to articles. Perhaps that other stuff can help support an accusation of COI editing, but I would have to see an edit to an article for me to recommend any action on this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Where is the COI editing? He has dislosed potential COI and states he has done no paid advocacy. Where are the supposed problem edits? As far as I can tell from what is presented here the editor has been aboveboard and forthright. evidence please? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent evidence of problematic edits, this should be closed and the OP should apologize. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any problems either. SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight so there is no confusion. Smartse you said you don't see any problems concerning Alexbrn with regards to a potential COI or FCOI based on the following information I provided:
    1. Information_Technology_Task_Force, (ITTF) an article which Alexbrn created (with no COI disclosure on TP) and he also leads with the most number of edits [11];
    2. ITTF includes in the body of the article a link to Office_Open_XML, an article which Alexbrn was 3rd in number of edits [12], states on the article TP header that The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute, (again no COI disclosure on TP),
    3. ITTF also includes in the body of the article a link to Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML, the latter of which Alex led in number of edits, [13], and didn't include a COI notice until after he finished editing the article, [14];
    4. Even though 1 - 3 above clearly promote his line of work/business advocacy for standardization, you say there is no problem with FCOI and nothing needs to be done, correct?
    5. You are also saying it's ok for editors to advocate, solicit, promote and market one's products/services from their user pages using links to off-wiki sites, correct?
    6. You are saying editors can create and edit controversial topics regardless of having a COI, correct? See #2 & #3 above.
    Hmmm...perhaps you can explain the purpose of COIN? Also, what about all the editors who were past targets of COI investigations and brought here to enforce restrictions on their editing ability for far less than what Alexbrn has done - don't they deserve the same consideration? I'm actually ok with whatever you decide as long as it works the same for ALL editors, not just a select few. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you expand on what you mean by 'advocacy for standardization'? What exactly are you suggesting that Alexbrn was advocating on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of COIN

    Just as a bit of background here, this all comes after Atsme lodged a case request at Arbcom entitled "Abuse of COIN". Atsme was objecting to her own case here at COIN, which investigated her placement of links to her company into article space, and self-citation, among other things, and which closed with a finding of a COI. Atsme's Arbcom request was declined with a suggestion it be taken to AN/I (which, strangely, it never was).
    As is evident from her mentions of her own case above, this appears to be a WP:POINTed attempt at tit-for-tat with one of her perceived opponents. I am open to any question the COIN folk want to ask me, but I fear this is yet another waste of the community's time. Alexbrn (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think its tit for tat but not pointy behavior. I think there is a failure on the part of Atsme to understand the difference between your COI in relation to Open XML and her COI in relation to that ocean conservation group. For a novice at ethics it would not be a far out mistake. If this COI (it's really very minor. Wouldn't really even consider it a coi personally) wasn't managed as it is, considering recent history, this might be somewhat reasonable. You might consider that. None the less, considering the overall history, I don't think that you would be wrong if you chose to consider ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no tit for tat. I don't play the same games children play. To begin, Alex was not even involved in my COINoscopy so why was that even mentioned? Do you have a guilty conscience about something? These are two entirely different incidents, so stop trying to make this about me. I simply want the courtesy of having my questions answered because those answers will apply to all editors others across the board. FYI - I didn't pursue an ANI in my case because (1) I chose a 3rd party mediator, Tryptofish, who did an excellent job of listening, and (2) I have no animosity toward anyone and I don't hold grudges. Life is too damn short to waste it on such silly things. I've done nothing wrong by bringing Alex's COI here, and questioning why certain restrictions apply to some but not to all is, quite frankly, a darn good question. Others should be asking the same thing. Read my comments above and stop jumping to conclusions. As for my COI case, I didn't/don't have links to my commercial website on my user page. I disclosed my COI before I edited - it was on the TP of the articles, and the editors who collaborated with me knew ahead of time. They also knew about my retirement. They now know about my emeritus status. The fish I wrote about thanked me for the disclosure. Whoop-te-do. However, if COIN says it's ok to do things the way Alex has done them, then I may just consider changing my user page to take advantage of it as Alex has done. Atsme📞📧 21:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm commenting here only because Atsme pinged me. Thank you for saying that I was helpful. I appreciate that, and I'm glad that I was. I don't know what the issues are here, because I really do not want to be involved, but I can say that I have edited with Alexbrn in the past, and found him to be a good editor. A lot of my advice to Atsme was to let things be and move on, so maybe raising a new issue of COI really isn't that useful. Anyway, I don't want to participate in this discussion any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme is playing games. Games like putting well...let's just say, "the lurking suspicion of a COI taint" above - quoting my own words[15] back at me, which of course I recognise but nobody else will. That looks like a grudge to me. Anyway, let's be clear Atsme: you are saying the putting the words "I work here" on my user page, linked to my employer's web site, is in violation of Wikipedia's COI guideline? You do appreciate, I take it, that this is a teensy bit different from your case where you edit-warred links to your company, and put multiple citations of your own non-RS work, into article space? Alexbrn (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This new section is a diversionary tactic which actually appears to be gaming the system so let's get back on track to Alex Brown's editing. I will not partake in diversionary tactics. I've asked straight-forward questions that deserve simple straight-forward answers. My 4 yr. old COI declaration and the links that were removed are of no consequence here. What is of most importance now are links to your work and personal blog in the article Standardization of Office Open XML which also includes a direct quote from you in an advocacy position in an article where you are listed in the top 3 editors. My COI was about endangered fish species so you're right in that they are not at all similar to what you've done with the suite of articles and promotion of your POV. I'm sure there are quite a few politicians who would like the same opportunity. From the article: On March 31, 2010, Dr Alex Brown, who had been the Convener of the February 2008 Ballot Resolution Meeting, posted an entry on his personal blog[125] in which he complained of Microsoft's lack of progress in adapting current and future versions of Microsoft Office to produce files in the Strict (as opposed to the Transitional) ISO 29500 format) In addition to linking to your personal blog (which I'm not sure is even permitted on WP) it is followed by a quote by you, Alex Brown, advocating your position. Atsme📞📧 13:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's you who first raised your own case in your complaint, and you need to be prepared to have your own behaviour looked at when you post to a noticeboard. You have been asked by others to provide diffs and explanations here and you have not done so. Instead the goal posts shift again so that "what is of importance" is apparently now a citation of my blog in the Standardization of Office Open XML article. However, I have neither added nor removed that - or anything written by me, so this is completely irrelevant to this noticeboard. Alexbrn (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Perhaps Atsme should ask the person who actually added the material concerning Dr Brown whether the edit [16] was done in contravention of Wikipedia COI policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex, I raised the case in a much different context. What you are doing now constitutes an unwarranted PA regarding a resolved issue, apparently to divert attention away from your own advocacy editing. The links above and in the original filing provide the evidence. Atsme📞📧 14:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You have provided no evidence that Alexbrn edited the Standardization of Office Open XML article in contravention of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. This looks to be resolved as not COI editing. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless Atsme can actually provide evidence that Alexbrn has violated policy, this should be closed as no action. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't the editors who are defending Alex explain why they think the evidence I provided is not adequate? The defense is not substantive. And while you're at it, explain why others have to request permission here at COIN to edit articles involving their COI while Alex can edit articles involving his COI without requesting permission. Atsme📞📧 04:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already told you elsewhere[17], "I used to be a sinner" (though, even looking back, I don't believe even my edits in areas of potential COI are controversial). I haven't edited on conflicted topics for years. Other editors are asking you for evidence in the form of diffs of edits and "brief" descriptions of why those edits are bad. The more you prolong this without providing such evidence (and I don't think you can) the more this just looks like a vexatious posting trying to redress the balance for you yourself having being caught-out here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get caught, I got an apology. You're the one who didn't declare until after the fact, and you're the one who continued to edit those same 3 articles while ignoring your FCOI so I hardly consider that managing your COI. There are too many edits to list diffs individually because they comprise most of the article x 3 articles, one of which you created, so I used wikiinks for them in addition to diffs. The closing admin can decide if something needs to be done about your FCOI. Seriously, a controversial article that includes a paragraph about you with a link to your personal blog, and a quote by you? Jiminy Cricket. And that doesn't include the links to your pay-per-view commercial products on your user page. If COIN finds what you've done to be acceptable then other editors should be able to do the same, don't you think? Atsme📞📧 06:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not a single diff. From the above I don't think you understand what a COI (let alone a FCOI) is, since nothing you mention is problematic in that context. I don't link to any of "my" (or my company's) products, so what you say is false. Anyway I think it should be obvious to the closer what's going on here, not least from your edit summary[18]. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial post is full of diffs and links - scroll up, up, up. I've certainly learned the benefits of COIN from some of the best teachers on WP - I get it now - so rather than belabor this discussion thinking my questions will be answered, I will simply follow your lead because no response indicates a green light to me. A very valuable lesson, indeed. Oh, and Alex - you need to update the external links on the 3 articles I mentioned. They now lead to nowhere. I will be happy to help you add new links if you think your involvement would create a COI. Atsme📞📧 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so there is no misunderstanding or confusion then, can you please post again a diff of where where Alexbrn makes an edit in violation of WP:COI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HEAR - the diffs are in my original post - scroll up, up, up. Alex also added: [19]. At the time of his edits, he sat on the UK government's Open Standards Board. He also edited the following articles directly, Standardization of Office Open XML (see info above about controversial topic I posted above with a paragraph about him and a quote by him), [20], [21], [22]. He also directly edited Office_Open_XML, [23], [24]. As for the promotional links on his user page, see WP:UP#PROMO. I'm of the mind that if admins and the COIN community don't see a COI issue or have any concern over his promotional off-wiki links on his user page, and/or don't have an issue with the information he added or excluded from the highly controversial article, Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML per the diffs I provided, and they also don't consider inline links in that same controversial article regarding his advocacy to be a problem, including an inline link to his personal blog in the body of the article, then that's wonderful. WP is fortunate to have such experts freely volunteering their time and energy. What I don't think is proper are double standards so if one editor is cleared then all should be cleared and vice versa. I would also like for the questions I asked to be answered for the record. Atsme📞📧 22:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under the misapprehension that editing a subject you know something about - or indeed are paid to know something about - constitutes a conflict of interest. It doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This report raises an enormous WP:CIR question because it contains nothing other than bluster and ignorant posturing. No evidence of a conflict with WP:COI is presented above. Editors are welcome to post links about their work and achievements on a user page—nothing presented above shows a problem. People are welcome to edit articles on topics they understand—nothing approaching a COI edit has been presented. When pressed for details, Atsme quotes text from an article but fails to acknowledge that the text was added in April 2010 by Chilly Penguin. The only COI shown here is in "The horribly unjust COI that was initiated against me as a volunteer got far more attention". Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think your comments raise an enormous WP:CIR question. I have asked for an admin to please respond to my questions and you keep trying to make this case about me. My case is closed so please drop the stick and allow the process to work. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to expect direct answers to my questions. Atsme📞📧 20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This administrator does not think there is any actionable conflict of interest; the diffs you cite are, at newest, two years old. The articles have had plenty of time to be cleaned up by neutral parties, and there is no recent COI behaviour that needs addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    More spoofing/impersonation

    Just to be absolutely clear, in case there was any doubt, this is not me. Someone has been, maybe still is, impersonating me and offering to create articles for payment. As mentioned the last time I reported this, I have an email response from one impostor, maybe the same person, promising they would not do it again. Happy to forward it as necessary. I don't want to out myself so I have not replied to the Facebook post.--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone can post there, they should point them here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    <Venting> I am extremely pissed off about this. I have an unblemished Wikipedia history and now I am getting shat upon on Facebook and cannot even respond...time for a bike ride and a beer.--ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)</venting>[reply]
    I know. They've used other userpages as well. I wish the Foundation would step in but they don't seem very interested. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is bad. Maybe you could add a notice to your userpage stating that you are being impersonated? I'd of thought that should put a stop to it fairly quickly. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that this is also an attempt at impersonation ... claims to have 5 years on Wikipedia and over 50,000 edits, and offers to "add links to most pages of your choice for a low flat fee, along with a 3 month guarantee", and "creating new pages and getting them to stick, including difficult ones about 'unnotable' [sic] businesses". However, does not name his supposed Wikipedia account. Brianhe (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor does not accept paid editing work. If somebody claims that he/she is me and is soliciting paid editing work, then they are impersonating me, and likely scamming you. Feel free to contact the proper authorities.

    I'll suggest something like the notice here for your user page. We should also post something similar about scammers at AfC and other places where it might come up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why anyone would be foolish enough to claim that he is a particular editor if he is not, as it is easy enough to disprove. You just ask the person, ok if you are that editor, post a confirmation or something on Wikipedia. Impersonation is a form of identity theft, can be a criminal act. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Facebook post has been edited and acknowledges that there was an impersonation of Ukexpat. Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it could be much worse than impersonation or fraud, it could be racketeering as in RICO, which is extremely serious. The scam, as I understand it, works as follows:
    • An article on a small or medium size company is subject to attacks by the racketeers, based on WP:COI, the terms of use, or other rules. It's easy enough to find these here, as we all well know.
    • The company is then contacted anonymously and told "we can fix this problem for you and you can get your free advertising back to normal" for only $xxxx.
    • If there is no response, somebody identifying themselves as "an administrator" contacts them, assuring them that the problem can be taken care of. Explicitly or implicitly part of the message is "don't contact me publicly on Wikipedia." Yes, that makes the company something of an accomplice if they respond to the e-mail. But it's really only the smallest of steps. wink-wink. Making the victim into an accomplice is a key step in many scams.
    • When the company finds out that nobody can guarantee on article on Wikipedia, they have nobody to complain to because of that small step ("just ignoring the rules a tiny bit; beside the rules can be pretty unclear at times")

    BLP disclaimer - No, I have no proof that this is exactly what is going on. But off Wikipedia this is the oldest scam in the book. Throw a few rocks thru a store's windows, have them contacted by a "concerned member of the community," send in the protection boys soon after. That is racketeering in its classic form. If more than 1 person is involved in more than 1 incident it is RICO. Seriously bad stuff for everybody involved. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the support folks. I have added a message box to my user and user talk pages. Others have commented about the impersonation in the Facebook thread, and it has been acknowledged. I have cooled down a bit, regular service is now resumed.--ukexpat (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do keep us informed, even if there is the smallest similar problem. I'm sure that we all can help, even if it is just to keep a look out for similar problems elsewhere. Your messages will also help others who find themselves in a similar situation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lia Chang

    users

    These accounts raison d'etre is the promotion of Lia Chang through photo credits [25], refspam [26] and an article [27].

    Photos [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44].

    Refspam [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66].

    Blatant promotion and linkspamming. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not all the refspam. We will need to do an external links search for liachang.wordpress.com to finish this. Brianhe (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --damiens.rf 15:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this case is over. The headshots added to performing-arts bios screams PR firm at play. I'm going to investigate a bit, but will have to start a wikibreak soon. — Brianhe (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    n.b. 63.138.145.226 is one of the above editors logged out; it belongs to "Eidesis Management", 500 Fifth Ave, NYC. Would this be talent management? — Brianhe (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoa! What is going on here? As far as I can tell, Lia Chang is a legitimate journalist. I have seen her reporting on theatre items in the past where the reporting was clearly legitimate, and I was drawn here by the abrupt deletion of those refs. Is everyone sure you are doing the right thing here? The references listed under "refspam" above look legitimate to me, at least at first glance. Would someone please explain what the evidence is here? What is this list of stuff above? Would someone please explain it in words? Be careful that we are not attacking Asian bios in a systemically biased way. Also, I have noticed User:Damiens.rf making serious mistakes in the past and wonder if this is also some kind of mistake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC):Ssilvers[reply]

    This is the noticeboard for bringing issues with conflict of interest editing to the community. What triggers a listing here is editing that is promotional. Reviewing the above, it appears that Duffbeerforme noticed a pattern of promotional editing around Lia Chang that affected the article on her, and several others in which references to Chang were inserted. Edits like these violate the WP:PROMO policy and often produce content that violates NPOV (UNDUE weight on "good" things, removal of negative information, puffery/promotional language... that sort of thing) and such content is also often unsourced or poorly sourced too, violating VERIFY and RS or MEDRS. This sort of thing generally happens for two reasons - the subject of the article themselves, or someone who is an employee or contractor (a freelancer hired at elance or the like) come to Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting someone or something, or a "fan" is doing it. Either way, we end up with policy-violating content and the integrity of WP is harmed. Sometimes mistakes are made in the course of this work - I haven't seen all the work done on this case. I started working on the Lia Chang article itself, which does appear to have been the subject of promotional editing - have a look at it and you will find a significant amount of promotional, unsourced, or badly-sourced content. Does that explain what is going on? Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if these two proponents are wrong, or on some kind of anti-Asian editing spree? Someone should look carefully at what Duffbeerforme and Damiens.rf are doing to be sure, especially because of WP:BLP. For example, in recent days, I have noticed at least two instances of Damiens.rf deleting information that is properly sources and obviously not promotional, since I had inserted the refs over a period of years and have no connection whatsoever with Lia Chang. Just some information in an article is unreferenced does not automatically mean that it should simply be deleted. Perhaps a simple google search can find Reliable sources for that information. In the case of Lia Chang, I see her photos appearing in legitimate sources, like Playbill (see, for example this), and I believe that her theatrical reviews at this site are legitimate per WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for continuing to talk, btw. I have seen you wrote twice now, about anti-asian bias. I don't know where that is coming from and to be frank I am not going to touch that, except to say that if you have such concerns, this is not the place to bring them. And I encourage you not to repeat statements like that except directly with the users about whom you have those concerns, on their user Talk pages, or at an appropriate forum like ANI. Again, this is not the forum for that.
    About specific bits of content - people have various views on deleting unsourced content per WP:VERIFY and keeping it per WP:PRESERVE and debates like that have raged since the early days of WP; ditto what constitutes a reliable source. I would encourage you to address any specific edits made to specific articles at the relevant article Talk page. This board is for addressing large scale patterns of COI editing. If you look at the contributions of Asia Lauren (easy to do via the link above), you will see that every edit was to the Lia Chang article, or adding references to Lia in other articles. This account is a WP:SPA and their edits are violating WP:PROMO, which is policy. Please take some time and look at other cases posted here, and in the archives. You will see that regardless of anyone's race, ethnic origin, or gender, even whether they are for-profit or non-profit, or with industry or suing industry - many many people do the exact same behavior as Asia Lauren - a SPA is a SPA.
    You are right that when we go to clean up WP in the wake of editors who have abused WP for promotional purposes, we have to be careful. And sometimes people trim too far, too fast. That happens. And then folks like you come back around and clean up after that. This is all normal WP ebb and flow. yes? Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Jytdog. Someone is adding free images to Wikipedia. Why is that a problem? Who cares if the subjects asked (or even paid) someone to add free photos to their WP articles? It seems to me, from a quick glance, that the massive deletions going on here, in response to some possibly good-faith encyclopedia building (albeit by some editors who may or may not have a COI in some cases) are alarming. I notice that Damiens.rf is massively deleting references from numerous articles in Wikipedia. I don't have time to follow him around and, as you say, ebb his flow. So, if I hope this is *not* "normal"! Also, why is it not proper to investigate, when numerous WP:BLP articles seem to be under attack, whether there is an agenda at work? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify that I am not the boss of this place or anyplace and I am not an admin. I just work at COIN a lot. My advice to you, to not go around WP accusing people of racism, is just general advice - but you will of course do as you will. You are writing a very serious thing, when you write that and especially when you say you have seen it before you mentioned it here; it is not something I take lightly or would write lightly myself. If you think someone is editing in a racist manner you should address that with them and if that doesn't resolve it bring it to ANI.
    I asked you to look at the Lia Chang article to tell me if you find it promotional and badly sourced, and your didn't respond.
    With regard to larger issues of conflict of interest - if you are unaware of how COI editing generally damages Wikipedia by making articles biased, I don't know what to say, other than that I encourage you to read our WP:COI guideline and maybe have a look at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and then perhaps review the 3 or 4 debates over banning paid editing that raged within Wikipedia over the Wiki-PR and Banc de Binary scandals, and review other COI cases on this board, and maybe spend some time looking at the flow of websites getting spammed into WP at the spam blacklist. There are boatloads of people who abuse WP all the time to try to sell stuff or promote somebody or some idea, and don't care if our content ends up warped. It is a problem.
    Based on my quick glance and some initial clean up work I did, the activity around these articles seems to be made of the same cloth - which has nothing to do with race but with garden-variety promotionalism. But I will look over what has been going on in the rest of these cases - as I wrote above, I've only started looking at the Lia Chang article itself and the overall contribs of Asia Lauren. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [left] I'm not accusing anyone of anything beyond massive deletions without discussion. All of the targets in this massive deletion problem seem to be about Asian or Asian-American persons or topics, so I look forward to your further investigation. Yes, of course I think the Lia Chang article is insufficiently referenced, although some of the references already cited cover some of the facts that are not yet footnoted. I know a lot about COI editing. I have battled it numerous times over the past 9 years and 100K+ edits here. But I have not battled it by doing a search and massively deleting *references* that have been contributed to the encyclopedia, and other information without any attempt to determine whether it is useful or not. I have no problem with banning paid editing and asking PR firms to, instead, suggest changes and refs on the relevant Talk pages. But from what I have seen here, it looks to me like some editors are adding (mostly? partly?) legitimate information to articles in the arts area that in fact need that information, even though those editors did not add sufficient references in some cases. Moreover, Damiens.rf is deleting *references* in the mistaken belief that *all* articles on Wordpress are illegitimate; but WP:RS explains when certain blogs are permissible. So I look forward to your response to the massive deletion that is going on, and I hope you will restore the material that has been deleted by Damiens.rf (and others?) when you determine if it is helpful and appropriate. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[[reply]

    User:Ssilvers. The Asianess or otherwise of the subjects articles is irrelevant. Your raising it in the way you did is inflammatory and insulting. Your continuing attacks on Damiens.rf are unbecoming. Let's put that aside for now and look at other things.
    "As far as I can tell, Lia Chang is a legitimate journalist." Lets look at her linkedin page. [67]. "Lia Chang. Filmmaker at Bev's Girl Films. New York, New York. Public Relations and Communications." PR. Not according to her a "legitimate journalist", a PR agent.
    "Someone should look carefully at what Duffbeerforme and Damiens.rf are doing to be sure, especially because of WP:BLP." I welcome anyone to look at what I'm doing here with respect to WP:BLP. Removing questionable sources from BLPs is not bad. If mistakes are made, it can be fixed. Err on the right side. This source is worse than questionable.
    "The references listed under "refspam" above look legitimate to me, at least at first glance." Try a second glance. First link goes to [68]. This is a reproduction of a press release from Columbia University School [69]. Contrary to the claim on Lia Changs blog that "All text, graphics, articles & photographs: © 2000-2014 Lia Chang Multimedia." this text is © 2015 Columbia University School of the Arts. Clearly not an independent reliable source. Second link goes to [70]. This is a reproduction of a press release from [71]. Contrary to the claim on Lia Changs blog that "All text, graphics, articles & photographs: © 2000-2014 Lia Chang Multimedia." this text is © 2015 Ford Foundation. Some Rights Reserved. Clearly not an independent reliable source. This sort of reproduction goes on. Not legitimate reporting. PR.
    Next time you accuse someone of racism, get your facts right first.
    This is not a case of multiple people thinking Lia Chang's personal blog is a good source and adding it to articles. This is one single editor (Asia Lauren) adding that one bad source to many different Wikipedia articles. Clearly refspamming. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be that Asia Lauren added links from this blog to many articles, and should have disclosed her(?) COI before doing so, but links from this excellent and professional blog by this professional journalist have been used in some Wikipedia articles for years and should not have been removed, except on a case-by-case basis. I point out that the AfD against the Lia Chang article has failed. But links to the blog were *mass deleted*, whether they were added by Asia Lauren, or whether they had been added by others. Links to the excellent articles in "Back Stage Pass by Lia Chang" would be useful in many articles about theatre, culture, fashion and American issues. I ask that you rerview all the deletions that were made without thought and reinstate the references where helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As requested I've considered reviewing all the deletions that were made without thought but then stopped as there weren't any. Let's look at this so called "excellent and professional blog by this professional journalist". Starting on the article you seem most keen on protecting, Francis Jue. The refspam from this blog that you keep reintroducing is here (date in url is 2014/05/20). The press release about the awards mentioned there can be found on the Boston Theater Critics Association website here (dated May 19, 2014). Baring a few superficial changes it's the same. Reposting a press release on your personal blog is not professional journalism. The blog says "All text, graphics, articles & photographs: © 2000-2014 Lia Chang Multimedia." Is it really? Another one (where you've reintroduced peacocking), André De Shields. Compare blog post (2015/06/29) with this (2015/02/09). "In 2007, a group of expert dancers was tasked with getting professional basketball’s first ever senior citizen dance team performance-ready. The venue? Center court. The genre? Hip-hop. Over the coming months, bonds would be formed, generation gaps would be crossed, and, eventually, some pretty hot moves would be busted. GOTTA DANCE, tells the remarkable true story of these wildly diverse seniors with a common goal, the young coaches who help them achieve it, and the unlikely art form that brings them all together." "In 2007, a group of expert dancers was tasked with getting professional basketball's first ever senior citizen dance team performance-ready. The venue? Center court. The genre? Hip-hop. Over the coming months, bonds would be formed, generation gaps would be crossed, and, eventually, some pretty hot moves would be busted. Gotta Dance tells the remarkable true story of these wildly diverse seniors with a common goal, the young coaches who help them achieve it, and the unlikely art form that brings them all together." Again the blog says "All text, graphics, articles & photographs: © 2000-2015 Lia Chang Multimedia." Is it? Another article (where you reintroduced refspam that was removed by Damiens.rf (who you continue to attack)). Compare this with this. Should we use a blog or BroadwayWorld.com? Greg Watanabe. This and this. Blog or BroadwayWorld.com? Is this professional journalism or a press release/routine announcement? Add these to the other problematic sources I pointed out above (which you appear to have ignored).
    "whether they were added by Asia Lauren, or whether they had been added by others". Where any added by anyone else?
    Let's look at an example of how these refs are being used. this ref on James Hong introduced here. The text it follows is "A prolific acting veteran, Hong's career spans more than 61 years and includes more than 350 roles in film, television, and video games." From the source is "I’m entitled to brag a little, this the 61st year I’ve been in show business." At least it sort of verifies part of it. No number of productions, no mention of video games. Why of all the available sources did Asian Lauren pick this one? Same source was spammed into Jeff Imada here. That film credit already was sourced to a book published by a credible publisher. What's the need for a second reference to a personal blog? To spam the blog? What was the point of you reintroducing this redundent source? Also spammed into Al Leong. With many pieces about Big Trouble in Little China published by reputable publishers why did Asian Lauren pick this one? To spam the blog? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Duffbeer, you have made your case. The reason I first became alarmed about these deletions was because of a ridiculous deletion made to The King and I (a Featured Article) by User:Damiens. Then I saw his/her mass deletion of references to Lia Chang's blogs, which startled me and led me here. I have noticed theatre reviews by Lia Chang for some years, and at least some that I read were very well written and, in many cases, covered items about Asian American actors that are not reviewed elsewhere. Then I saw that, simultaneously, an AfD had been initiated against the Lia Chang article. When I looked at the Lia Chang article, it was obvious to me that (although the article had obviously been written by a PR person) Chang is a notable person *at least* by virtue of her photographs published in numerous reliable sources and widely exhibited, as well as her Library of Congress portfolio. So, it looked very, very fishy that someone was simultaneously trying to delete her article and *automatically* delete all the refs to her blog and, it seemed, to cleanse Wikipedia of all reference to Lia Chang. Thanks for explaining what is going on. I agree that the copyright misuse on Chang's blog is problematic, but it is unfortunately something that journalists routinely do. I still think that there are probably numerous articles on the blog (theatre reviews, for example), that are good refs, but I think you have made your case that if those refs were added by User:Asia Lauren, then they can be deleted. All of what Damiens has done, however, should be carefully considered and much of it undone, such as this. Also, can you explain what the problem is, if any, with the photographs that you reference at the top of this section? Is it just to delete Chang's photo credit in the captions? If so, I have no objection to that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay sane conversation. So glad that is happening. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the pics, What should be done. As has been done, remove the credits from the captions. Keep an eye out for more spamming. That's it. No further comment on you and Damien for now. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Declared COI, Edit Assistance

    I have a COI that precludes me from making this addition, and would like to request an uninvolved editor consider adding to the list of Notable People for Shenandoah, Pennsylvania the following:

    Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, even though I occasionally like pierogies and even have a liking for Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania (enough so that I can spell it), I don't think Ted Twardzik, Sr., or Mrs. T's Pierogies is notable enough for an article, or even for Mr. T to be added to the list of notable people in Shenandoah. The only refs I've seen are to the company website and to a promo piece in the Pottsville Republican-Herald Maybe it's the Pottstown paper (a larger city nearby), but I've never heard of it and have no reason to believe that it's a reliable source, except perhaps for straight news stories in Schuylkill County. I'm a bit mixed on whether the Great Pierogi Race should have an article, except for the firing and hiring of the outspoken pierogy, there's nothing even remotely notable about a normal ballpark promotion. I tend to think not. Smallbones(smalltalk)
    Ok, it's the Republican & Herald, but they appear to have dropped the "&" online. They even won a Pulitzer Prize 36 years ago, but the article you linked to still looks like a blatant home-town promo piece. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to split hairs, but, I think, technically it's called a feature story. Anyway, here's, additionally, a 1996 article from the Morning Call [73], a 1990 article from the Los Angeles Times [74], a 1994 article from the Philadelphia Inquirer [75], a 1998 article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [76], a 2001 article from Inc. Magazine [77], a 2014 article from the website of the Pennsylvania State University [78], an article from the website of the University of Notre Dame [79], and text from the website of the Shenandoah Chamber of Commerce [80]. I can provide additional sources, but this (one national newspaper, two regional newspapers, two local newspapers, one national magazine, two AAU-member university websites, and a trade association's website), objectively, would meet GNG criteria (significant coverage spanning a period of time in RS that are independent of the subject) required under our WP:USCITIES guideline for notable people inclusion. LavaBaron (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, LavaBaron, for declaring your conflict of interest and for refraining from making the edit yourself (all too rare, unfortunately!). The best place to make your (apparently reasonable) suggestion is the talk page of the article, Talk:Shenandoah, Pennsylvania. You can start your post with {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) to attract the attention of other editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've updated Mrs. T's Pierogies with some of the references mentioned above, did some copy editing, and removed the notability and advert templates. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers, I normally would broach a COI edit request on the Talk page, however, intentionally bypassed it since it hasn't been visited in five years and this seemed to me (apparently erroneously) like a clerical edit, rather than one that would necessitate the level of scrutiny it apparently requires. I do have to admit I greet with some bemused irony that the leading name currently on the Shenandoah, Pennsylvania Notable People list whose sanctity my fellow editor is admirably and very passionately arguing to protect from the intrusion of vested interests is Joseph Awad, the president of the Public Relations Society of America ... anyway, thanks for your consideration and kind regards - LavaBaron (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar City

    The article reads like an ad, and one can see why after looking at those edits. The COI editing was years ago. There's nobody worth blocking, but some hype has to come out, and there's a lack of criticism in the article. Anyway, please take a look and clean up. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me that I'd seen an ad to place an article on Wikipedia about an Ohio solar company, lately. It was written in a way to make it hard to determine the name of the company. Brianhe (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Bashinelli

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Agtx reported he resolved issue with user

    This user has only made promotional edits on Chris Bashinelli. I've warned the user twice on their talk page about conflicts, but the user is not responding. Extremely basic off-wiki research has lead me to believe that the user has a conflict with this subject (admins, email if you want details). agtx 21:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved with user. agtx 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Stefan Ginchev

    Creation of autobiography, persistent removal of maintenance templates. WP:OWNERSHIP. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article creator/subject has now blanked it, and added a speedy deletion template - the wrong one, but I don't think that matters since the intent is clear. I suspect it will be deleted shortly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has changed names, re-created the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jane Wesman Public Relations and others

    Looks like some questionable stuff, including a bit on the founder of a PR firm, was created by one editor. Needs a look-see. I found some significant problems with Agostino von Hassell too, which looked a whole lot like a vanity bio, including a probably false portrayal of the subject as a U.S. Marine. Brianhe (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Second editor for Agostino von Hassell and his father [81] suggests connection. Brianhe (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: you seem to have some more knowledge of this situation. Brianhe (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had dealings with the Belesis and John Thomas Financial articles, yes. Both have been very promotional/whitewashed and included wild claims that could only be substantiated to poor sources. I know nothing of the others that you list, nor can I recall whether any of those accounts were involved. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. The "art editor" created Thomas Belesis and has an interest in SEO [82] and online reputation management [83]. Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed much of the peacocking. John Nagle (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agostino von Hassell has a problem. The article is carefully written to give the impression that he has a military background. His illustrious military ancestors are mentioned, there's a picture of him in uniform, and a long list of his military publications. But there's no mention of him having actually been in the military. Ripoff Report (not a reliable source) says he wasn't.[84] The picture of him in military uniform can be seen at higher resolution, but there's no insignia of rank. That's what civilian contractors and journalists wear in war zones. John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the consumer reports this afternoon. Retitled the image in the AvH article, and was considering cropping it because the military-style clothing (note complete lack of insignia) is misleading. And saw this a few minutes ago: von Hassell was a John Thomas Financial spokesperson. Brianhe (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, joy. Keep at it. I removed the "early life and education" section, which was all about his illustrious and notable ancestors, but had nothing about him. Clearly there's a pattern of promotional editing here. John Nagle (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added SimpleStitch, a familiar name here at COIN. Active at First Manhattan Co. in the last 24 hours. Brianhe (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SimpleStitch looks to me to be doing PR for these firms, which would be a problem if declared and a violation of ToS if not. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He says he is not, but is not able to say it here for whatever reason, although I have told and reminded him to do so. Looks non-responsive to me. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DJ Kamal Mustafa

    User "Dj1kamal" seems to be the subject of the article and he has edited the article in a promotional way for some time now. He removes every tag placed on the article. "GoingBatty" placed an Orphan tag, he removed it. "Tll85" placed a speed deletion tag on the account of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", he removed it without contesting. A COI tag was also placed, he still removed it.Tll85 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At AFD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pegasystems

    This article about a software company needs a look by a disinterested editor. Has had a history with a declared COI editor, an accidentally? disclosed one, what looks like one or more PR agents, and many SPAs. Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritchie Yorke

    In January 2015 I noticed a three-year-old message on the article talk page that the article was largely a copy of the biography at Ritchie Yorke's own website. I removed most of the unsourced material and a tone that was excessively flattering. Since then Douglasgh (and two IP users) has restored much of the material, admittedly in a tidier form. Much of the citations are obscure and old publications, including magazines and newspapers, which suggests they are from the personal clippings of Yorke himself. Yorke lives in Brisbane; both of the two IP addresses that have restored material and sources are also from Brisbane, so I assume it is either Yorke himself writing it or someone close to him. Previous contributions were by Irywarana and a couple by Ritchiy, so we know Yorke is not averse to writing about himself. I have added to the talk page of Douglasgh a tag warning of a potential COI; he has ignored it and the edits just keep on coming. In short, it has every appearance of being an autobiography by the subject of the article, something to preserve his own legend. BlackCab (TALK) 06:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Douglasgh has responded at his talk page: "Hey BlackCab. I do have a conflict of interest in an academic capacity. I am a conducting higher degree research in Brisbane, and as part of my project I will be looking at Yorke's involvement in music industry. Consequently I have done a literature review on him, from which my changes of the article were constructed upon. By its nature the literature review requires a neutral point of view. consequently, I prominently used relevant electronic sources, mostly through ProQuest or the university database. Admitably, these sources may not be easily access as they are on an online database that requires payment - but there are case where I would considered the references citable (and accessible) and the publication reputable. I realise now that I was mistaken in directly editing the article but am now familiar with the process. I will propose changes on the article's talk page from now own and have the sources verified."[85]
    I am puzzled by the admission of a COI by an editor who purports not to be Yorke. For someone researching for a "higher degree" the author seems a bit on the illiterate side. However if he/she pulls back and requests edits on the article talk page -- rather than adding their own rather grandiose claims -- I'll be content. BlackCab (TALK) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional editing of drug articles

    These articles have been compromised at various points by overtly promotional editing (e.g. text removed here [86]), addition of inappropriate primary sourced (e.g. [87]) and COI issues. If there's anyone here who has subject matter expertise, I'd be grateful for a look-over. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubba_the_Love_Sponge_Show

    User BRNCopyright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of "The Bubba the Love Sponge Show" (Bubba Radio Network or BRN) has recently been editing pages related to "The Bubba the Love Sponge Show" and the hosts personal page "Bubba the love sponge clem". These edits are obvious conflict of interest and makes the page look like an advertisement. User has been warned on their talk page and they continue to edit the articles. Tparadiofan (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Tparadiofan: I would like proof that I work for the show? Can't back that claim up can you sir? As well as the stuff I remove that you post, that are just plain rumor. No Facts, no proof, no links to sources, just plain hearsay in an effort to defame, mislead others out of hate. What I am contributing is factual information gathered from various websites on the internet. Some may come from a Bubba related site, I would say the total amounts to about 15-20%. The rest is coming from other sites, and I do source them as needed. I took on this project after years of letting people like radiofan have free reign on the pages like its a bathroom stall full of sharpies. I will not undo everyone's work, just stuff not useful or vandalism which is all that's been contributed so far. I left about 75% of the original page/info intact and built upon it. To be completely honest with you I am new to Wikipedia, and I am forming the page in the same manner as the Howard Stern Shows page is. So when you tell me I cant have a cast list, I say BS, look at that one. Ive created a solid timeline, an up to date syndication list, added station logos for a little pop. This is not about advertising, its about making the page look interesting, like someone cares, more then they have in the past however many years about the subject. I link to people I mention as much as possible, why? Because from other pages I have read, that's how Wikipedia works, when you mention Tucker Carlson, you link to him, for those unfamiliar. Again this doesn't seem like advertising to me, its seems like good practice. If you would like to pay the costs, I will gladly take a polygraph that I have never received any form of payment from Bubba or any BRN staff or any related businesses. Just knowledgeable about the subject, and will not let you spread your groups hate of the show to all corners of the internet. Vandalize and I will correct it, plain and simple either with this account, or another. The vandalism will stop. BRNCopyright (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we certainly don't need both of those articles. Suggest merging them to start. John Nagle (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thibaud Elziere

    The usual internet entrepreneurs bio. Created and maintained by these two SPAs. Not sure the founder is notable, but am getting review fatigue, so somebody else should make that call. Brianhe (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion of Startup studio removed as very first edit by new editor.[88]. Possible SPA problem. Merge now proposed. John Nagle (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wintertanager

    This is in addition to the separate #Rocket Internet stuff listed above (diff). The articles listed here are a reverse chronological record of virtually his entire editing history, which is obviously centered on publicity-seeking entities.

    Attention is called to extensive editing history on former Ogilvy and Mather (PR) exec M. T. Carney and talent agent Michael Ovitz. The editor has been advised explicitly about our COI policy on 10 February [93] by DissidentAggressor, and reminded/asked with this comment on 8 May and this comment on 9 May, then asked explicitly again by me 6 August [94]. The reply to the last is here. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MT Carney is notable for several reasons: 1. (female) former President of Marketing for Disney; 2. founder of largest nail salon chain in U.K. and 3. founder of Naked Communications, an innovator on many levels. The 'extensive editing' was over semantics with her name (changed from MT to M.T.), no more or less 'extensive' than the other editors who participated! Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Rosenberg#wintertanager - discussion about Wintertanager's desire to wikiwash well-sourced negative info out of article about girlfriend of Google Executive Executive Sergey Brin, former girlfriend of Hugo Barra (mentioned above). COI discussed there too.
    I'd advocate a topic ban on companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The pattern is more than clear and fairly wide ranging. The Dissident Aggressor 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find any non-contentious edits by this editor at all? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiwash???? You cannot blanketly call BLP absolutley valid objections 'Wikiwash' - the page you refer to was removed entirely by other editors. Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I address the "Rocket Internet" COI above - literally I created a page for Lazada Group and, when finished, did a WP search for the page name 'Lazada', and linked those previously unlinked terms. Isn't that exactly what one is supposed to do when one creates a new page? But no, somehow I have now 'edited' all of these related pages - how was I supposed to know that they were part of some larger investigation into Rocket Internet. I have nothing to do with that and encourage you to pursue it further. Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are my contributions suddenly contentious? To date I had thought they were valuable and good and relevant to a user interested in them; apparently not. And 'this editor' is me. I am a pretty reasonable guy, try communicating with me rather than condeming me. Yes I tend to write about tech related subjects now (not sure how those qualify as 'attention-seeking' - would love to know that criteria) - I believe I do so according to WP's rules, better so than the vast majority of editors out there. As for other contributions, there was a time when I was into photography and contributed photographs to WP of native birds, plants and insects including the black necked stilt, black phoebe, salt marsh fleabane, green lynx spider, bush goldenrod, bush sunflower, fiery skipper, etc. Lovely photos, however I stopped when the stilt accused me of a COI with the spider. Wintertanager (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To say your edits are suddenly contentious is a farce. Your edits are so contentious that the only way you escaped being blocked in May was to agree to voluntary sanctions. There are more discussions of this editor using Wikipedia for PR purposes in that thread.
    Beyond that thread, there is some pretty hard evidence of your COI presented in this discussion. The Dissident Aggressor 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely true (voluntary sanctions ruling), and I felt badly about how I initially reacted to those edits, especially when other editors agreed that I had removed a tag when I shouldn't have. I absolutely respected that voluntary sanction and privately apologized to you as well. I meant what I said then - I learned a lot about what you objected to in my entries and have since respected every edit you made. Wintertanager (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by that discussion. Wintertanager (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have undone the refactoring/splitting of both my and Brianhe's comments above the best I can. The Dissident Aggressor 00:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the evidence and pattern of edits is clear and agree it is problematic. I propose a topic ban on this editor for companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The Dissident Aggressor 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously, I agree with the proposed topic ban. Question, would this extend to de-prodding such articles or contributing to AfDs, including those concerning the articles created by same editor? — Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is a topic ban. No edits on the topic - no deprod, no afd. The Dissident Aggressor 17:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contributed many quality articles on notable subjects that previously either lacked an entry altogether or were very poorly constructed, heavily biased and not compliant with WP's rules. I'm quite proud of those; they took me a lot of time and effort to do well. I am interested in tech and business, think I have every right to be and shouldn't have to justify at all any more than I have already. I think it is incredibly unfair to ban someone so harshly - Wikipedia has always had fair and reasonable policies to users and this is absolutely the opposite. I would like to continue contributing on the very issues I know about that could benefit the larger community. The only thing you have really accused me of is on writing in too narrow a niche. Sorry! How long does such a ban last? Permanently? What aside from a list of pages I have worked on is your criteria for a ban? Is there any recourse for me to follow if I feel this is unjust? (which I do). It has been a frustrating experience to say the least; I don't believe you should have the right or power to make a decision like this. Why not instead let me know where I need to correct something I have contributed, and I will! I think one of the things you have in me is a willingness to understand what you have objected to in my contributions and a sincere desire to fix those things if they exist. Those editors who have reviewed my contributions have largely been very favorable, and when they haven't I have joined with them in improving the quality of the content and addressing whatever legitimate issue arrises. But honestly, it doesn't really seem to matter at all how I defend myself; you're minds are made up and I am utterly helpless to do a thing about it. Wintertanager (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recourse is this discussion - it's a noticeboard. We work by consensus. So far nobody has come to your defense. The opportunity is now if any third parties (with a history of constructive contributions) who want to speak up for Wintertanager and say that the the fact that s/he appears to be promoting a series of mostly connected tech executives, producers and directives in violation of NPOV has another plausible explanation. Wintertanager's actions speak for themselves at this point.
    As for clarification of the scope of the proposed ban, it is self-evident and no clarification is needed : You would be prohibited from editing articles about companies and executives (including producers and directors).
    Such a ban, if enacted, would be indefinite. The Dissident Aggressor 03:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dissident Aggressor, what is behind your extreme interest in going after me specifically? Shouldn't you recuse yourself based on YOUR history? You are hardly impartial. On page after page, why is it that you are always the one adding tags, leaving comments on my personal page, etc.? Why, for instance did you just add a COI tag and 'Advert' tag on the Lazada Group page (which you made virtually no revisions to, because there are no issues to revise), when none of the other flagged pages for Rocket Internet, all of which are low quality, poorly sourced, transparently promotional,etc. ( i.e. pages with actual issues) contain any such tags? WP:HARASS - "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." You have certainly accomplished that. (Wintertanager) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think you can deflect this onto DissidentA. Let's forget about him, let's talk about your editing -- content not person, remember? There's now many kB of text in this case, contributed by several editors, and it won't go away that easily. You call the investigation "unfair", decry the "right or power" of anybody to conduct it, and appeal to stuff like "harassment" and your own supposed feelings of injustice. Do you have anything but hand-waving to say to the specific issues raised here? Are you really going to hold up Jeremy Frommer to the light of scrutiny and say it's not a resume but a neutral, well-written article? Don't insult our intelligence by implying you can spin a roulette wheel of all the unwritten-about people in the world and all it comes up with is "serial entrepreneurs" and hedge fund managers. Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not deflecting anything, though I do believe he should recuse himself. I didn't contribute Jeremy Frommer, I made a few edits on it many years ago. What 'serial entrepreneurs' are you referring to; every page I've created has easily met notability. Please, please talk about my editing. I would love that. That's all I've been talking about. I maintain, again, that my editing adheres to all of WP's principles: neutral, encyclopedic, well-written, notable and well sourced. Have I become better at it over the years? Yes, so has everyone here. The latest page I've contributed, Lazada Group is all those things. However now it has tags added that I believe are unwarranted and should be removed. I'm not going to touch them obviously, but someone should. The topic - the content - is absolutely notable and Wikipedia would be improved with an enclyclopedic entry about it, which did not exist before I created the page. That page should be neutral and encyclopedic, I believe that very passionately, as - I assume - do you. But what I notice is a lot of tags and no effort to actually improve the page. So yes, let's talk about content - I invite you: edit the page, improve the page, fix whatever it is you deem broken. I encourage you to. I, like you, want pages that resonate with people genuinely interested in these topics. Nothing more and nothing less. Wintertanager (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey all, I have been away for a while. I reviewed a bunch of this, and from what I can see, no one has asked the direct questions to Wintertanager, nor has he/she directly answered, so please allow me to do that.... Wintertanager:
    a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
    b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
    Please do answer simply and directly. A "yes" on either question would mean you have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently. (to disclose the COI, and to work with a form of peer review) But please do let us know. (if the answer to either is "yes", please do be honest about it - you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent; if the answer is no, then say "no" - I will have some suggestions on how to possibly move forward in that case) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes Jytdog, I have a COI. I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Wintertanager (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe and DissidentAggressor please refrain from commenting here while Wintertanager and I talk. Please. I'll have something to say to each of you in bit, but please hold back. Thanks in advance.
    Wintertanager, thanks for disclosing that. Step by step here. Would you please disclose the nature of your COI? Please do keep in mind that the Terms of Use require that if you are being paid, that you disclose your " employer, client and affiliation". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog I currently edit on behalf of Lazada Group. I am self-employed. Wintertanager (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heim theory

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Content dispute, inappropriate for COI noticeboard

    I've noticed that the theory explained in this article has a wrong date, namely 1957 instead of 1977. I've changed this, but user XXanthippe just removed my edit under the vague explanation that it is "no improvement". So, I added my edits back, with at least three sources proving that this theory was indeed developed in 1977, but he just removed those again, this time without any explanation at all, but only a vague line that says: "Please rewrite this section so that it makes sense". Could other users please check my original additions and judge for themselves? Kjell Knudde (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, not a COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GeWorko

    Three inter-related articles, GeWorko, Personal Composite Instrument, and IFC Markets are pretty clearly the work of a small number of COI editors. Account User:Sergey_Kamenshchikov is the same name as the Chief Financial Officer of IFC Markets. Interview with Sergey Komenshikov. That account created the GeWorko page, which is the name of an IFC product, and Personal Composite Instruments, another IFC "method". The GeWorko page was originally created (twice) by User:Sergey_Kamenshchikov as GeWorko Method, and speedy deleted (as per Komenshikov's talk page: [95]). Another account that has edited these same pages is User:Lananovotna. LaMona (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles were all sent to AfD, and I closed them as Delete. I also blocked the user as an advertising only account. I'd recommend speedy G11 for articles of this nature. It's the appropriate disposition, and sends a clear message. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, User:DGG. I don't have admin for delete (and would rather not) so I'll continue to bring things like this here, unless that is inappropriate. LaMona (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot delete them as speedy, but you can nominate them as speedy. I think any admin will then delete them. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Каменщиков Сергей IS "Kamenshchikov Sergey" in Cyrillic alphabet. Since you blocked just Sergey Kamenshchikov, you might want to know they are ~posing as the same person, and may in fact be operated by the same person. Brianhe (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks. Done. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ministry of Finance (Indonesia)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    No COI apparent in this case

    The user does not have any reliable sources. Fruit Nd Nut (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There doesn't appear to be any conflict of interest that I can see- @Xbypass: is the only contributor to the article. I see it's unreferenced like you suggested, but this board is for pages/users with a conflict of interest, see WP:COI for details on what a conflict of interest is. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jerry Speziale

    I'm unsure whether to post this here or at BLPN, but since I'm pretty convinced there is a COI involved I'm putting it here.

    I need help with this article, it was recently re-worked by @Drmies: and myself from this utterly-over-the-top piece of puffery to something more NPOV and reliably sourced. Unfortunately, the IPs and SPAs above seem very determined to return the article to something resembling its former state: removing well-sourced info that reflects negatively on Speziale, adding unsourced content to make him look good (some of which directly contradicts what reliable sources say), adding copyright violations, altering direct quotes from sources, etc. It's a mess: I've been doing my best to keep the page in order and accurate, but the volume and frequency of edits makes this a lot of work, and I am uncomfortable continually reverting them/don't want to be "owning" the page. Please help me watch this page and keep it in order.

    As far as a possible COI: the edits are clearly promotional in nature, and the IPs trace either to Paterson, NJ (where Speziale is a police official) or Wayne, NJ (a suburb of Paterson). One IP location search I did even identified the 108. IP as belonging to "Patterson PD."

    I've made every effort to engage these editors, but they've been unresponsive except for a legal threat made today by City Government. Given the legal threat, it would be good for someone else to look the article over for BLP violations as well. I don't think there are any, but this guy has had a lot of controversies over the course of his career, and there has been a lot of back-and-forth editing over the past few days. It may be worth noting that there have been a couple other IPs and SPAs who've shown up to add negative information about Speziale, and that he is very much "in the news" (with some potentially unflattering stories) in NY and NJ lately. Some content had to be rev-del'd a couple weeks ago. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fyddlestix, thank you for filing this. I agree completely, and I just reverted another dozen such promotional edits. Given my involvement with the article I should probably not act as an admin, and one would not want to semi-protect an article like this, but we may have no choice. Well, blocking the IPs. Maybe. But this has gone on long enough, and even in its more slimmed-down version, the article is still way too long/detailed. 15:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other news, I just deleted User:City Government/sandbox for being a legal threat (signaled by ToonLucas22)--it is so obvious that any admin could have made that call. That user should probably be blocked for it, and for a username violation, but I'll leave that to the next admin. And perhaps an SPI should be filed as well. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 90% certain that all three users are the same person, actually - if you look at the page history, it's pretty clear that both IPs have briefly logged in as City Government to upload/add a (copyrighted) image on separate occasions, before logging back out to continue editing as an IP - all in consecutive edits within a few minutes. I warned City Government about editing while logged out yesterday, and was going to file an SPI if it continued. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I soft-blocked the account on the basis of WP:ISU only, he is free to create a new one if he wishes. Looking at the diffs, what he seems to want is to add some balancing material to the controversies he's been involved in, which is fine except that he also added an OR narrative to it rather than just say what the sources say. That's what stopped me from pulling the trigger on a full NLT block, since he did not amend or remove any of the existing material. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IPs are back at it, see recent edits and this post at BLPN. Honestly think this article needs protection at this point, the issue goes all the way back to its creation. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See this SPI from 2011 too. This is a long term project for someone. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. At the very least, this may push the IP's to use the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why the extreme zeal in this case. The article isn't getting particularly high pageviews -- up to only ~300 per day, lately. Brianhe (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to now be using Festa Legal (talk · contribs). Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Festa Legal was blocked for a username violation, but Factser (talk · contribs) has since appeared, and 24.189.63.20 (talk · contribs) is right back at it now that their block has expired. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have requested semi-protection, hopefully the admins over there will see the need for it. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Borealis Fat Bikes

    Two accounts recently active on Fatbike, most likely same editor. Not listing editors at this time; could somebody else provide second opinion? This and this are typical introductions to fatbike and now he's gone and created Borealis Fat Bikes. Brianhe (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Look here at who owns the image and who uploaded it. Editor called "Borealisbike" did a bunch of work on the fatbike article. So, yes they should be approached. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: thanks, added the two editors to this case; one is already blocked as corpname. DGG has speedied the new article. Brianhe (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may have a problem with Earthlake: see this edit made today. — Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wakanow

    An editor who has disclosed that he is an employee of Wakanow is constructing an article about the company in his sandbox. Another editor who has not answered the question about his status has helped. Wakanow has been speedied twice as promotion. Bringing it up here for second opinions on what should be done at this point with the sandbox draft. Brianhe (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a submit banner to the sandbox and left a message in the user's talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Null

    (non-admin closure) community found that COI is unlikely; advocacy is an issue. MBT blocked per WP:NOTHERE via separate ANI thread; see comment by blocker here. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • All articles created here - several are redirects per SEO practices

    Mr Bill Truth has been writing promotionally about Gary Null and his films, film festivals that show his films, as well as anti-GMO topics and PSCI/altmed generally. After seeing this thread at the FRINGE noticeboard, i approached MBT on his Talk page here, asking about any connection with external interests relevant to his editing, which did not go well. I have had content disputes with MBT so this is not surprising. It may be that there is no COI and MBT is using Wikipedia for advocacy; COI is a subset of advocacy. I will not comment here further and will leave this for the community to discuss. I have notified MBT of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't got time to refer to this in full as I have other things on the go. But in due course I would like to show you that I believe Jytdog is not being forthright. If this is being used to slander me or get me kicked off then this is wrong and highly immoral. Of course I totally dispute all what has been said! Yes I have been motivated to make a balance in Wikipedia as something was pointed out to me recently. This has alerted me to something that is taking place. All articles that are notable belong here. Sadly if some parties don't like them being here because they represent something they're opposed to, then that is unfortunate but no grounds for censorship. I'm here to do my bit for Wikipedia and get articles that deserve to be here created and improved. Please take note of what I have put here as I do intend to revisit this soon. Please whoever oversees this, keep an open mind, be honest which I know you'll be and we'll see how this act done here will evolve. We might be able to use this process here to turn up some other info that may be of interest so those who have an interest. More on that later. Many thanks in advance Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing anything that immediately sets off COI alarms, but I agree that the advocacy of the edits is problematic. This isn't really the place to deal with that though. SmartSE (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It entirely depends on whether the conduct become disruptive. As of now, it's just problematic but there isn't too much disruption going on (the AFDs not withstanding). I agree that there's little to do now. The solution may be to list the articles for AFD and assuming there aren't terrible conduct at the AFDs, then make a request that the editors articles be dumped to draftspace first and possible topic bans, etc. so it's basically a wait and see if it gets worse approach. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment following my last - I do intend to address each of the things that Jytdog has put in here starting with - "Gary Nulll, his films, and articles into which references to films have been added"
      I will attend to them, but not just yet as I have other things to do. I will, say I have only made 5 film articles for Gary Null films. I think I mentioned previously that prior to my making the first one, Null's films amounted to Nill. He has made 50 films and for an encyclopedia to have nil seems strange. Anyway if you look at my history you'll see that I have created 3 articles about African American people / acts that were in the Music business plus I have spent time editing about 3 others which from memory include Angela Bofill which goes back to Nov / Dec 2014. I have also done a bit of editing on OC Smith, The Commodores etc. I'm not promoting Black Music either. I do like it though and I'm very familiar with it as I am with health related things. I like to edit on things I am familiar with. I have also done some editing on Pacific Island food as I have read books by Thor Heyerdal and others and I am fascinated with food from different countries. I'm not promoting that either. Yes I have put a lot of effort into Seeds of Death as it was incorrectly deleted and 75% of those who took part in the discussion were surprised it was nominated. >> Incorrect nomination, Deletion review. So 5 Gary Null films out of 50 is a good enough representation and I left it at that.
      BTW: I don't like being accused of something I haven't done. I don't think anyone does. However, I have got a thick skin though. Sometimes dealing with profanity is an issue for me and I have had it directed here at me in Wikipedia. Oh, one last thing I will say. The natural / alternative health scene is grossly under represented here. In comparison to other things it has hardly enough articles IMO. I am listening to the talk outside as well as inside internet places and there is a growing belief that something is not right. I am listening to what is being said. What I am about is balance and fair representation in relation to notability and being verifiable. Imagine a film encyclopaedia that had 50,000 entries but only 20 of them were relating to Westerns. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are advocating for quackery. Stop doing that. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lorenzo Sassoli de Bianchi Utenti

    Bio for president of an Italian health food company and an associated org "to represent the interests of Italian advertisers". Looks kind of like a for-pay job. Brianhe (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    user talk:Michaelbenis has an answer which is difficult for me to parse, but does state that paid editing has happened. Brianhe (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping Identity

    Something smells fishy here. "Persona" username for starters. This edit introduced Ping Identity, marked "making more neutral", and editor is developing Ping Identity userspace draft. Finally, articles edited with the involvement of another paid editor (not named at this time) make me nervous. — Brianhe (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to impeach myself here and say I honestly can't tell whether this is a good edit, or not. They may have just gotten accidentally mixed up with the paid editor who's not listed, so I'm more than willing to be trouted if I jumped the gun on this. Apologies in advance to Justapersona if this turns out to be the case. Brianhe (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added the second editor of concern, BeenAroundAWhile, a self-disclosed paid editor, who worked on SCIM about one day after Justapersona. Brianhe (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what "Ping identity" is, my being a bear of very ancient brain. Can you explain here what is going on with said identity and why it is important? It sounds suspiciously like NSA surveillance, and I yearn to be reassured that it is not. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. First, sorry I made a cut/paste error, it was this edit that introduced Ping Identity to the article, and the immediately following edit was "making more neutral". It appears to be an "Identity and Access Management software corporation", according to the draft about the company: User:Justapersona/Ping_Identity. In summary: Justapersona added the Ping Identity corp. to the SCIM article; and is creating a draft for Ping Identity in his userspace. As with many COI cases, there's no clear-cut problem, but it is problematic to this reviewer because 1) the user has chosen an odd name for himself 2) the article is full of typical COI stuff like corporate execs by name for no particular reason, and an "awards and recognition" section and 3) for some reason, Internet software companies just seem to have a lot of COI going on about them. By the way, since you are a paid editor, every article you touch now will have increased scrutiny, that's just a fact, compounded by the disclosure irregularities that were documented earlier this week. — Brianhe (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BeenAroundAWhile irregularities

    creations - not disclosed as paid (or disclosure not currently visible)
    creations - disclosed as paid only in edit summary (first edit on article)
    creations - properly disclosed on article's talkpage
    others edited with irregularities
    accounts

    I've noticed some disturbing irregularities in BeenAroundAWhile's paid editing disclosures. He appears to have begun paid editing in December, 2014, but not all of the articles that look really paid-ish have disclosures. The case of his most recent creation, Sadkhin Complex, is especially perturbing, where he created a disclosure on his userpage, but then deleted the disclosure a little more than a week later. We also have a username change in this case, which isn't wrong but fits a pattern that's been seen at the noticeboard before. Listed above are his creations since December, 2014 and their status near as I can tell.

    There's some other funny stuff that's not totally ready for a write-up yet, but Lisa Gale Garrigues, Intervals (software) and Tejon Mountain Village caught my eye. Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup. Quercus77 was a SPA who edited Lisa Gale Garrigues. The connection is not obvious in the article history, but BAAW's final edit in the cycle that created the article (after which he didn't re-visit it for over four months) was followed less than three hours later by this edit cycle of the same material in Quercus77's sandbox. Too close to be coincidental. Then there's an IP who both edits the Garrigues article on Quercus77's heels, and edits BAAW's sandbox in 2014. — Brianhe (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further followup. Jennifer E. Flanagan was edited by BAAW and SPA KT44 within 2 minutes of one another. Looks like collaboration on a CEO biography. — Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, getting started on this.
    • 7dayshop.com - flagged as ad, but notable enough to keep. Just needs some toning down.
    • Revel Body - marginally notable, but probably fails WP:CORP. Proposed deletion.
    • Slice, Inc. - notable company with good press coverage, terrible ad-like article. Removed heavy PR type content.
    • Facial water - began as an ad, but all product references were removed and it's now a critical comment on a form of expensive water.
    John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Further followup. Link insertion to Fletchers Solicitors has occurred both with and without disclosure of paid editing (yes it is now a redlink, it has been deleted four times). This looks like wikiwashing at Ripoff Report. Apparent collaboration with SPA Ron Jay at Ronald Rand including removing COI tag. The article's creator signed the talkpage as "Rita Fredricks Saltzman Vice-Chair of SPI", who is a professional PR person. — Brianhe (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To sort out the above, I did paid work on the 7dayshop.com, Revel Body, Slice Inc., Sadkhin Complex and Facial Water articles. I believe I made the disclosures required at the time concerning my paid work, although I might have missed some where the editing was minor. I have not been paid for work on any of the other articles mentioned above (and have forgotten some of them because the editing was so minor). I must stress that I did the editing – even the paid stuff – in WP:good faith, believing that all of the entries indeed fulfilled Wikipedia policies regarding WP:Notability, but of course it's a cooperative venture, so I stand ready to see my stuff heavily edited or redacted (even improved), as we all do, and I have learned from the experience. I also stress that some folks simply don't know how to write and submit Wikipedia articles, so they stand ready to ask others to do so for them, and to offer payment in return. This is legal in our society, and it is called free enterprise. I have also helped other people with articles on a volunteer basis, from the goodness of my rather large heart, and I have no intention of declaring "nonpaid editing" in connection with any of my charity. I will continue to do my part to help these people out to the benefit of both them and our encyclopedia. It is very frustrating to have to defend myself from incendiary postings such as the above, based partly upon my perfectly legal and (to some) even praiseworthy work and partly upon some rather nebulous stitching-up of cobwebs. It smacks of WP:Harrassment, the reading of which I commend to all concerned. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lilanelson14

    WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:COI issues, with this unusual threat last year [96]. Most of the edits have otherwise been innocuous, but unsourced and often unencyclopedic--too many 'love of his life' and 'three beautiful daughters' mentions. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    C (programming language)

    An IP editor located in Zurich, Switzerland is persistently adding content advocating a piece of software produced by a company also based in Zurich. - Richfife (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible COI on Chris Janson

    Thesongfan (talk · contribs) may have some possible COI going on at Chris Janson, as this editor is scrubbing any mention of the fact that Janson was originally signed to another label, and removing other sourced content in favor of stuffing the article with name-drops of artists to whom Janson is only passingly connected at best. (Compare the diffs here). Could I please get some eyes on the article? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudip Bose

    I'm recusing myself from editing this due to potential personal COI, but do feel comfortable pointing out potential issues in the article for others to consider.

    • Article was constructed by a SPA and has had little input from regulars.
    • The infobox education field is unusually populated.
    • Repeatedly refers to subject with honorific against WP:HONORIFIC guideline.
    • Military medals are self-cited (sudipbose.com)
    • Circular references against WP:CIRCULAR guideline.

    Cheers Brianhe (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The subject is notable, but the promotion was excessive. I trimmed some of that, and put "citation needed" on a few claims. John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaw Academy and others

    Noticed an editor had created an article on a filmmaker which also has an abandoned, but fairly complete, version in another user's sandbox (a three-edit SPA). This isn't wrong per se, but is troubling as it is something seen before with suspected cases of failed article-for-hire contracts. this conversation with Y shows that he'd had trouble starting out, but this and his next attempt were remarkably complete drafts of high-tech entities. This edit on 1 August 2014 by a user with a name indicating a connection says "my acceptation" in the edit summary, a strange thing to say. Finally I'd like to hear from BeenAroundAWhile what his connection to the subject is. Brianhe (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So I'm spot-checking the user's first edits preceding the creation of .app (gTLD), of which there were exactly ten made within ten minutes. At least this one is completely bogus, introduces a falsehood into the article, clearly made just to run up the edit counter. Probably this also. Brianhe (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit that I had a COI when I wrote my sandbox article. I was working for Carroll at the time. But I also was committed to sticking very closely to Wikipedia guidelines for neutrality and using reliable sources. I abandoned the article after I stopped working for Carroll. I have no connection to any of the other users. To my eye, the published entry for Carroll reads very, very differently from what I created. I do not think it was based on my work. I also think that Carroll's contributions to Digital Post Production Workflow are significant and recognized in Hollywood, if largely undocumented in public sources, which is why I was willing to write the article in the first place. Edit: To be clear, I was not hired to write the article. I wrote it while employed by Carroll.Mashimaro3277 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mashimaro3277, if you wrote it while an employee as part of your duties, it would have come within the policy requiring disclosure, except that this policy was not yet in force at the time. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but it was never published (as far as I am aware), so I figured it was fine. Like I said, I abandoned the article over a year ago. I do not think the current article is based on mine, regardless of the source. Mashimaro3277 (talk) 0:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Smartse:, @DGG: I have located compelling evidence off-wiki that the Carroll bio or something very similar at near the same time was a work for hire for which BeenAroundAWhile received completion feedback on March 24. At this point, given the cloud over his disclosure discussed in the other case here, I suggest you should consider admin actions. I will email my evidence to oversight as advised in previous cases of this nature. Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Where were you advised to mail to oversight? it doesn't seem within the remit of s oversighter. I'd suggest arbcom, and when we get it, we'll figure out to to handle it. (unless they already advised you and I missed it) We need to develop a formal procedure for dealing with this sort of thing. The question it poses is whether to run a spi, under the assumption they will have written more such articles, but I'm not sure it falls within present Checkuser policy, which needs clarification and perhaps even extension to deal with this sort of situation. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not oversight, my mistake -- functionaries was who I was told to use before. That's sort of equivalent to arbcom if I understand correctly? This is where I was told to use the functionaries email list, when I see you have confirmed, I will press send. — Brianhe (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: If it is really clearcut and therefore a sign of BAAW gaming the system then I'll act on it. Can you email it to me? SmartSE (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    List of current and former McKinsey & Company consultants

    A while back I asked whether the community was comfortable with me directly editing this article with a conflict of interest. Because it's a List page that only needed copious amounts of tedious labor to find sources and verify alumni, it seemed like the opportunity for bias was not significant and editors agreed. The article at the time was almost completely original research.

    Since then, I've added 244 citations and verified the latest job titles of hundreds of alumni listed on the page. I just thought I would post here again saying "I'm done" in case anyone wants to verify that I did not incorporate any COI edits and to request that editors verify the tags saying the article is unsourced can be taken down now that they have been adequately addressed.

    Thanks in advance! CorporateM (Talk) 20:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it's a nice list, but does it have a place in Wikipedia? Probably not. How about converting it to a category, adding that as an attribute of notable people with histories at McKinsey? John Nagle (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can have both.Lists and categories are complementary--the list indicates the position, which is helpful information for navigational purposes. Of the 20% or so on the list without articles, at least half are obviously qualified as the CEOs of major companies, and a reasonable case could be made for most of the others. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in complete agreement with DGG on this. I have disagreed with CorporateM on another article in recent weeks. This is useful, encyclopedic content. The red links provide useful leads for expanding the encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khocon

    Have blocked this user for a few months due to ongoing copy and paste issues. Their material is also very promotional. And they appear to be a paid editor. Help with clean up / review appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User has disclosed or at least partly their paid editing. With the issue of long term copyright issues I am hesitant to unblock and allow them to return to editing as I assume problems will recur. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The disclosed list is incomplete. I can understand that there may be valid reasons for not fully disclosing past jobs, but it is a bit of a problem when someone is requesting that we trust that they will abide by policy in the future, when at the same time they appear to be misleading us when they incorrectly claim to have fully disclosed past work. - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EBY3221 revisited

    In light of this post an AN which links this user to a group of SEO companies, the long list of AFCs that EBY3221 (talk · contribs) accepted and which were listed in this previous thread most likely need looking at more closely as none of them recieved much attention last time round. SmartSE (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=676228707"