Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,140: Line 1,140:
:[[WP:CONSENSUS|Consensus]] is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. We strive for accuracy and balance in articles, particularly [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], and there are proper ways to deal with [[WP:AUTOPROB|problems in an article about you]]. But you will discover that charging in with guns blazing, accusing others of editing in bad faith, and threatening legal action will quickly backfire. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 21:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[WP:CONSENSUS|Consensus]] is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. We strive for accuracy and balance in articles, particularly [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], and there are proper ways to deal with [[WP:AUTOPROB|problems in an article about you]]. But you will discover that charging in with guns blazing, accusing others of editing in bad faith, and threatening legal action will quickly backfire. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 21:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


I do not know Steven Kunes, nor do I work for him. I was contacted by him regarding the issue with his page and I took a look at it for him. I received no money nor do I intend to. I saw that his article was full of negative information about him so I edited the intro to remove the second sentence which states: He has been convicted of felony commercial burglary and grand theft by false pretenses. I did not think that was a fair way to begin his article, so I replaced that with mention that he had been an executive story editor for South Park, Cheers, and Family Ties. My edits were promptly removed by SarekOfVulcan under the idea that I was whitewashing Kunes' article. Stephen Kunes' page is very damaging, so I contacted SarekOfVulcan and I did tell him that I would contact Wikipedia legal because I'm new to Wikipedia and obviously don't know what the correct course of action is other than to ask someone with authority to help stop the slandering. [[User:George David NH|George David NH]] ([[User talk:George David NH|talk]]) 23:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I do not know Steven Kunes, nor do I work for him. I was contacted by him regarding the issue with his page and I took a look at it for him. I received no money nor do I intend to. I saw that his article was full of negative information about him so I edited the intro to remove the second sentence which states: He has been convicted of felony commercial burglary and grand theft by false pretenses. I did not think that was a fair way to begin his article, so I replaced that with mention that he had been an executive story editor for South Park, Cheers, and Family Ties. My edits were promptly removed by SarekOfVulcan under the idea that I was whitewashing Kunes' article. Stephen Kunes' page is very damaging, so I contacted SarekOfVulcan and I did tell him that I would contact Wikipedia legal because I don't know what the correct course of action is other than to ask someone with authority to help stop the slandering. [[User:George David NH|George David NH]] ([[User talk:George David NH|talk]]) 23:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:13, 3 August 2018

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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

    Another round of ACPERM evaders

    I've cast the net somewhat wider this round as the previous heuristic was getting less effective, so expect a few more false positives. Still, there's plenty of spam to go around and quite a bit has been nominated for deletion. MER-C 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot

    And sure enough, there was another large bunch of socks.

    Sigh. MER-C 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C holy smokes, thanks for doing this research. I'm a little distracted by other projects now but if a nomination like that for PCO Imaging comes up again, would you ping me? I would have def voted "delete" on that but didn't see it in time. Obviously cutting the legs (paychecks) out from under the paid editing advocacy editors is important. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And today we have a new user TheRainMandem whose first meaningful edit is to deprod Fiona Scott Lazareff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that two, with another spam page under construction. I prefer not to follow up spam SPIs quickly for BEANS reasons, so I'll keep this in mind next time I run the detection program. I suggest taking the article to AFD. MER-C 18:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've listed it at AfD. I also PRODed Boulevard (lifestyle magazine) yesterday as it has same creator and one of the socks linked to it from this one as his first edit, today I see a new IP editor has done some work on it but not as yet dePRODed Lyndaship (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some historical stuff. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From the latest SPI. MER-C 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A week's worth of articles just clearing the ACPERM bar

    I think there are a few socks in this dump. Note that there is another new heuristic for catching accounts that clearly aren't the first ones operated by the relevant editors. MER-C 16:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here we go again

    Might as well post these while I'm here. MER-C 14:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump to keep out of the archive for another couple of weeks. MER-C 20:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cap2201's paid contributions

    Cap2201 (talk) recently disclosed that they have editing for pay on behalf of various unnamed clients via Upwork. They made their disclosure [1] after Jake Brockman (talk) notified [2] them that their edits seemed to be a possible conflict of interest. Since this first disclosure (noting that by this point Cap2201 had been editing for over a year), Cap2201 disclosed they were paid to create Draft:Anthony Esposito (musician). However, they did not reply to Jake Brockman's ask for them to disclose any other articles they created for pay; I seconded this question, and then later started a new thread [3] asking the same thing. None of these questions have received a response, and Cap2201 has ceased editing.

    In light of this, some sort of action should be taken. The best evidence for another article created by Cap2201 for pay is Joanne Wilson, which contains promotional language and an image that (per its WM commons page [4]) was given to Cap2201 by Joanne Wilson's husband, Fred Wilson, indicating a clear COI. Other articles created by Cap2201 could also be forms of effectivly placed native advertising.

    My solution would be to tag all of Cap2201's work with UDP tags and quarantine them in the draftspace until they respond. Would anyone be opposed to this (some article subjects seem notable), or offer an alternative?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done all articles now moved to the draftspace, categories removed, and UDP tags added. I will leave an additional note on Cap2201's talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sincerest apologies for the long delay. The only pages that I received payment to create were for Srikant Chellappa and Joanne Wilson. I'm happy to update the pages with all the necessary disclosures and information. The rest of my contributions were either page creations or page edits for artists and works that I personally admire. I'm very sorry for all the confusion and uncertainty. Please accept my apologies again! Cap2201 (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Cap2201 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC) cap2201[reply]

    Marc Randazza

    Notability of an attorney's claim of retention requested to be made in their WP article

    Just placing this notice to attract other editors to weigh in on a COI edit request. The full discussion is at the talk page here. Thank you !  spintendo  12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Languages used on the Internet

    I am an expert on the referenced subject since many years (producing indicators and discussing biases) and I am logically involved in some of the references existing in the article prior to my contribution. Few months ago, I made a contribution, without hiding my identity (my Id is my name), trying to clarify a subject poorly treated in Wikipedia for years (two commercial linked sources are shown without any advice on biases and the historical controversy about the place of English in the Web is not covered, all that making this article misleading).

    I edit my contribution with an extremely prudent attention in terms of neutrality and avoiding auto-promotion As a matter of fact I just added a pedagogic introduction removing the confusion between the 2 main indicators, presenting/comparing in a flat manner the main results of the existing 3 indicators (the third and new one being from my own researches, which was one year old and has not been mentioned so far) to warn about discrepancies and let the rest (the data from the other sources) as it was, avoiding to present my figures as a mark of respect for the existing sources. The important aspect of biases was mentioned with a clear reference to the source. Note that for the past years there were only 2 sources on the subject and this new third one covers both indicators and discuss extensively all the biases (including its own).

    Recently I discovered the contribution was entirely scratched away. I am not an experimented wikipedian and i am trying to found my way in the rule, procedures an usages around. I entered in the corresponding talk page I read I was accused of having a "blatant conflict of interest" (which is the subject which deserve discussion here) and that I "should not assert in the article that my organisation's methodology is superior" which is absolutely false and really defaming. The referenced talk includes many value judgments which professionally are weak to say the least, but this is it out of scope here. I followed the opened thread and after explaining that the rules does not prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject and asking this editor to document the unethical claims, i concentrated on content which is what really matters to me.

    In the following discussions (Talk:Languages used on the Internet#Lead is awful) I never managed to have this editor focusing back on content neither documenting the claim of conflict of interest beyond the fact that i am one of the researcher on that field. I tried very hard to keep my patience and avoid a revert war, but it was useless, this editor never accepted to discuss the content and kept accusing me of conflict of interest with no solid ground as a way to escape any discussion on content.

    I requested a mediation and it was rejected due to the disrespectful manner to (not) agree from this editor.

    I am now convinced that the only way out of this situation is to have a neutral party investigate if I there is really a conflict of interest on my contribution to this article (or if I had made controversial edits) or, in the opposite, if I am correct to see this a perfect example of an editor using COI allegations as a "trump card" to avoid discussing the article content. If I am correct, I expect this will permit to have this editor to comply to the following rules :

    - refrain from further accusing me of having a conflict of interest

    - focus on content

    - stop playing gatekeeper of this article and stop blocking badly needed improvements (note that this article is classified high importance within the scope of WikiProject Internet.

    Danielpimienta (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not currently have time to be involved in lengthy Wikipedia disputes. At the Talk page, the editor cited the COI page, "Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits", but the editor's changes to the article were neither discussed before they were made nor are they uncontroversial. The edits were nearly a year ago and I don't want to confuse the issue with vague memories of specific content that would only overshadow the inherent conflict of interest here. The claim of 'defamation' is quite odd, since it would ordinarily be expected that a professional who views other sources as "biased" would inherently view their own methodology as superior; it therefore seems that accusation has been inserted to elicit sympathy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to open a thread here but now see that it's already done. I just posted a standard COI notice on the user's page. I see that there were previous attempts at creation of an article that appears related (the reason for deletion was copyvio so that doesn't assess its reliability as a source or its notability). —PaleoNeonate – 17:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Selected diffs pointed out by Jeffro at the article's talk page: [5], [6]. Article that was deleted: MAAYA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The first diff seems to give a lot of weight to this organization's results. It seems to also be used to contest the results of other bodies. It does not seem to be a random source from the internet however, here's an entry for them at the ITU website: [7] and a paper hosted at the Unesco website: [8]. What is clear is that this material was added by someone related to the project. What is unclear is if the source can be used in that article. If so, other editors with an interest in the article should deal with its representation in the article, with FUNREDES/MAAYA personel limiting themselves to suggestions at the article's talk page, or to minor updates that are unlikely to be contested. Should I open a thread at WP:RSN to assess this, or is this discouraged while a COIN discussion is active? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As I am the "subject" of the request of the inquiry on COI I will from now let the discussion develops without interfering. When it reaches the conclusion step I may feel the need to express my views. I remain available to answer any question which could arise meanwhile. Danielpimienta (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeping the pressure up

    Again, the net is cast somewhat wider to haul in more spam. I don't think there are as many false positives as last time. MER-C 20:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yawn

    As these lists are getting long, feel free to remove false positives. MER-C 15:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on this

    Patrick J. O'Rahilly, edited by a former co worker of his. See his AFD JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor in question has promised to remain neutral and follow policy. Speedy close please. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Tarquin

    Postings by User talk:Jungleboy65 on his Talkpage and on that of another editor, lead me to think he has a clear, but undeclared connection with Brian Tarquin, and with the many pages associated with Mr Tarquin and his music. Many of the articles are unsourced, e.g. Soft Touch (album), and he is the main contributor to all of them. The full list can be found here, Brian Tarquin discography. I have raised the issue on his Talkpage, but he hasn't replied. I shall also let him know I've posted here. I'd be grateful if somebody could have a look. At the very least, I think a COI declaration is required. KJP1 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I've had a go at initial editing the article - some of the worst WP:PUFFERY I've seen including lists of people he went to school with and which museums he visited as a child. Definitely needs further investigation into other articles if they are anything like this. Melcous (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Melcous - Many thanks for having a look. I do think there may be quite a serious COI issue here but we'll see what the reviewers say. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left a note and the COI guidelines on the user's talk page. Assuming good faith, they may not have been aware of these, but it does seem clear from comments about another article that it is the subject themselves. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to nag, but the editor's still not responding. Would it be possible for someone to have a look at it. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look and the article is pretty horrible a mass of self promotion and very poorly sourced. The claims about being a multi emmy winner are dubious as he was one of the composers on soap that won a couple of daytime emmy awards for music but he was only one of a list of about ten people. Also there are some dubious credits notably for films as they do not say exactly what he did and when you check out the cast and crew list on IMDb he is not listed. I would be tempted to WP:STUBIFY and ensure that any edit he wishes to do goes through an edit request. I doubt very much that he meets WP:NMUSIC. He has been editing about himself for over 10 years now and has passed under the radar until now. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Domdeparis Many thanks for having a look and for the suggestion. Given there's no inline sourcing, I might take a very vigorous scythe. I think that may prompt a response. That kind of sickening undeclared self-promotion really is the pits. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maxime Bernier

    It looks like two editors, possibly the same person, with links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier's office in Ottawa may be editing the article on him. Please see User: Ottawa11 and User:63.92.233.153. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry, I am confused and concern by talk befuddled statement. I don't get what the user intentions with his/her request, people make edits on articles all the time. Also, the user never asked me what his/her issues are or why he accuses me of having links to Canadian Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier, which I can tell you is false. I have dealt by a similar accusation by a sockpuppet already.

    If you want to check if talk, which I am not the same person, is part of Berniers' office, I suggest anyone to see if @gcaEdits[9] found that the edits came from Bernier's office

    Ottawa11 (talk) 3:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    Your editing is overwhelming on Maxime Bernier and his main issue of Supply management (Canada) and seems to be always intended to promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him. Since you admit being in Ottawa I think it's prudent to check the IPs you've used to see if any of them are linked to Parliament. 162.222.159.228 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I do not get why this has to be a conflict of interest. I never push Bernier on Supply management (Canada) that was talk and he/she has been overwhelming on the issue of Supply management (Canada). In addition, do you have proof that "I promote Bernier and his views and mitigate or soften criticism of him", because if he responded to an issue, should it not be on Wikipedia? As I stated I have no ties, Also, if you want to check the IPs, request a check user not add to the conflict of interest board. Ottawa11 (talk) 14:31 July 2018 (UTC)

    Also,talk has is "postpone publication of the book indefinitely" and "He later told the Toronto Star in an email that he defended his comments and that "the book will be published one day and you have to be patient” softing criticsm.

    Ottawa11 (talk) 14:47 July 2018 (UTC)

    Jeremy Griffith/World Transformation Movment

    I need help from a more experienced editor to fix this:

    So Jeremy Griffith and his "World Transformation Movment" have been mentioned with regards to new sockpuppets of ErnestCarrot, who seems to have been hired by him.

    The whole article is extremely WP:NPOV, and is laudatory in tone, so I added the template. I described the article's issues and my reasoning here, so please check it out. - Av = λv (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ma Long

    Ma Long (Architect) was created by a account with the username Ma Long. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Speedy deleted as a WP:CSD#G11. – Joe (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Colonel Jon Ullman

    I stumbled upon a draft of an article about Colonel Jon Ullmann being created by a user who also has that name. Obvious COI JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please link to the articles you're talking about. I can't find any drafts under that name. – Joe (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume JC7V7DC5768 is referring to User:Colonel Jon Ullmann/sandbox. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't be filing any more reports here unless all other avenues are exhausted. Yeah it's his sandbox, but sometimes WP:IAR is needed. COI is a serious problem here and the sooner we weed it out the better it wil be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please properly indent when replying to other editors, as it makes the conversation easier to follow. I've tagged the page as CSD under the grounds that it's an autobiography. StrikerforceTalk 16:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now  Done resolved, as the page in question has been deleted under CSD guidelines. StrikerforceTalk 17:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bamullen

    editor

    This person's edits are blatantly commercial and focused on one field, which is very typical of conflicted editors. They ignored my initial inquiry, and in response to the ramped up request for mandatory paid disclosure, they said they are not paid and are trying to learn, and in response to my request for a more credible answer, they wrote that they have no COI and are just trying to learn.

    I do not find this person's responses credible. We cannot manage COI when someone will not disclose and from this person's editing it is obvious they have something to disclose. Their initial userpage said Bamullen is a Wikipedia user with educational and professional backgrounds in healthcare, life science research, and scientific marketing and communications and they have subsequently changed that. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    They have blanked jytdog's notification of this discussion but decided not to participate for some reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    L3 warned, pending which the trigger ought be pulled. ∯WBGconverse 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Modani Furniture

    Can I get some additional eyes on Modani Furniture. I came across the article a couple years ago. It was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor via two of his/her socks. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it didn't qualify for CSD. There were no other substantial edits by other users when I tagged it for PROD, but it was removed by an IP with no explanation. I figured an AfD would be uncontroversial, but it attracted only one keep vote and closed as no consensus. Now it is a user with the name of the company stuffing it with promotional material. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bitcoin - part 5(?)

    Audacity has been editing Bitcoin, where he has an obvious COI. I strongly suspect that he is also an undisclosed paid editor. Bitcoin is operating under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies including 1RR. A typical edit of Audacity on Bitcoin is to remove any edits I make that are placed near the top of the article and to move them (bury them) lower in the article, e.g. the following 2 reversions in 34 minutes [10] [11]

    Audacity claims that the 1st diff is not a revert because he only moved my text, rather than deleted it. This contradicts WP:Edit warring which defines a revert as “An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.”

    I’ve asked Audacity 3 times to declare his obvious COI and he just stonewalls, 1st saying only “ I don't edit to promote my own financial interests “ rather than addressing the situation he’s found or put himself in (as COIs are defined). His only other response was a veiled link to WP:HOUND (part of WP:Harassment).

    Audacity has been an administrator since May 2007. He does have a odd history however, with his edits dropping by 90% in September 2007 and then dropping further until there were almost none (with some exceptions) until April 2018 when he started becoming very active again. As far as I know, being an admin does not grant him any exceptions to the rules, but we all know that there are some protections that admins have, mostly justified, against folks who have an axe to grind because of their exercise of admin powers. If anybody has suggestions on how to deal with an admin in this case, please let us all know. To Audacity - do you claim any special exceptions or the use of any special procedures because of your admin status?

    I am demanding that @Audacity:

    1. read WP:COI and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure
    2. give a straight answer on this page about his COI - that is about the situation he is in, not about his intentions, and about his paid editing status
    3. link to his user page showing the required declarations near the top of the page.

    Folks probably want to know “where is the evidence?” Since Audacity has linked to WP:Harassment, and since there is some personal info in the evidence, I want to be especially careful here about following all the rules regarding WP:Outing. There it says I may e-mail a minimum number of admins to provide the evidence. Is 3 or 4 OK? I’ll send a fairly short e-mail to any admin who asks via e-mail, as long as they commonly edit this page and the number doesn’t get too large.

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd email an arbitrator. MER-C 07:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll wait awhile for Audacity's response here. In the meantime any arb can request that I send them an email. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In similar circumstances, I've used the email list mentioned at WP:FUNC but without further response. A trusted admin has been more fruitful, for me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Smallbones, your e-mail has been forwarded to the main arbcom-l mailing list. Alex Shih (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih and Audacity: Just to be clear, I'd still like Audacity to make a full COI and Paid-editing disclosure rather than wait for ArbCom action. This is based on WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." "Promptly" is the key word here, and I believe that COI and PAID editing declarations would likely resolve the entire issue without any delay. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Travelling, just saw this. Can somebody send me a copy of "the evidence"? Cheers, Λυδαcιτγ 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Audacity: It's a shame you have forced me to go to an Arb to get a straight answer about your COI and paid-editing status. I have no idea how long ArbCom will take to decide this matter, except to say that they often are fairly slow. The best way, and the fastest, would be for you simply to make a COI disclosure about bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and to make the required paid editing disclosure (for all your paid editing). Repeating myself from above (bolding added) from WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct ... and to justify them when needed." The paid editing disclosure is required by the Terms of Use and WP:PAID. Paid editors are prohibited from editing without this disclosure. ArbCom will almost certainly ask for these disclosures before doing anything else on the case.
    @Alex Shih: - you may send a copy of my email to Audacity, except, in no case should you reveal my email address to him. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coast Digital

    accounts
    pages
    Was a client per this along with CAFOD, Wiltshire Farm Foods, Essex County Council.
    see for example this version of Waterscape (now a diambig page, content was merged to parent). Was spammed into a bunch of pages.
    note, the person added blatant advertising copy with spam "ref" like this. I've searched for the link and deleted them.
    Page has a history of paid editing - see also User talk:Anastasiageva, as well as this and User:Becsmorice/sandbox
    have not cleaned current page...needs looking at. See also User:Rathfelder/Audley Retirement

    Black hat paid editing. Have added to PAIDLIST. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also SPI here Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They apparently started in 2010, yikes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Valleyhollandman

    User appears to have long-time undisclosed WP:COI relating to The Raw Story, Alternet and its co-owners Michael Rogers (publisher) and John K. Byrne. FlamesElite (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Taylor Swift

    This account appears to solely exist to promote Taylor Swift and her commercial empire. FlamesElite (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe fan cruft, but I don't really see conflict of interest. Alex Shih (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Streaming television articles

    We seem to have a group of IPs editing only articles related to streaming television for an extended amount of time. Due to the number, I don't think this is a personal interest.

    Articles such as, but not limited to:

    IPs identified so far include:

    At least some of these IPs are registered to Citigroup. What should be done about this? Natureium (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally noticed this after someone came to #wikipedia-en-help asking for advice for a "client." Looking closer, I noticed a number of IP's that have similar editing patterns and most seem to be from the same place. Not too sure what we can do about this, but they need to disclose their COI's, either through autoconfirmed page protection or some other method...TJH2018talk 19:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason why it should necessarily be COI, rather than a fan interest in someone working there Thery're just lists. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy

    This is more academic self-promotion. I think there is more but I don't have time to dig the rest up now. Am filing at SPI as well.Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog these are articles on a variety of topics that just so happen to be areas related to UNC SOP. According to you, any mention of the program at all is academic self-promotion. This seems over zealous regarding the definition of COI. SithLordSparklePants (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no more to say to you at this point in time. The pages above are abuse of Wikipedia for promotion. We have a bunch of clean up. The Acetalated dextran page is a blatant advertisement for work by Ainslie and Bachelder., even citing a patent application by them. This is not what editing privileges are for and this is not the first time WP has been abused in precisely this way. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of apparent SELFCITE refspam like this as well. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or they are the main contributors to the field. A patent is patents can be used as citations, and even have a template in wiki. This argument is not well substantiated. SithLordSparklePants (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Patents are the paradimatic example of self-published sources and are not used in Wikipedia by policy. They are a telltale sign of conflicted, promotional editing. Yet another patent application was cited here. Pure abuse of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So by Jytdog's definition no references to patents or scientific peer reviewed publications can be included in scientific wiki articles because they are considered promotional editing. I just want to be clear where it is 'promotional editing' over proper citations. The COI is being handled, I am uncertain why other standing pages are being brought into this SithLordSparklePants (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not what I am saying. Nope. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jytdog and SithLordSparklePants. My articles Kristy Ainslie,Pharmacoengineering,Host-directed therapeutics and Acetalated dextran are all cited in the bounds of wiki and went under review once posted. I have knowledge in these areas I posted and therefore posted them. I see most of them have now been flagged for increased referencing or even removed in the case of Pharmacoengineering, so now I have more work to do apparently. Just FYI Jytdog, PE and DD are not the same thing, so the redirect should be removed. As I stated before to Jytdog, there is no conflict here, I am not an agent of UNC, I am just trying to expand what is out there in these areas. Thanks for rewarding my hard work with this BS, I am sure that is not in the spirit of Wiki.Spartan1977 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Medicalchain

    Of concern as an article basically created by two editors in a few days, and at the nexus of two frequent COI targets: cryptocurrency and new medical tech. I'm concerned firstly about sourcing: it's largely self-sourced or sourced to low-quality cryptocurrency online media/blogs like Coincentral, CoinJournal, ICObench, cryptocoinmastery.com and CryptoSlate. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources are rank and for the most part are whitepapers and press releases. Its for the bin. scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Which users are you talking about? Rathfelder is pretty active, did you try talking to them? Natureium (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Natureium. Yip left his a delete rationale. scope_creep (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified of WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 08:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gharee

    This is obvious covert advertising, so I've indeffed this account. MER-C 12:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoshree felt the need to remove the covert advertising tag on Rick Charls (diver). MER-C 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yoshree blocked as a sockpuppet. MER-C 06:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:都是迷情

    Also created a number of pages (Snow Ma, Alen Xu, David Xing, Henry Pang) deleted at AFD or G11 citing promotional/resume concerns. I've blocked this user indefinitely. MER-C 12:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RJ Neuwirth prodded. Anyone who can evaluate Chinese sources? ∯WBGconverse 10:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Winged Blades of Godric: Well I could, but I cannot seem to find them at Rostam J. Neuwirth. Alex Shih (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alex Shih:- :) Obviously not at Rostam but at the other articles. ∯WBGconverse 04:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noona Noona

    Another covert advertiser. Diffs like [12][13] are condemning. Indeffed. MER-C 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FFHypeTEAM sockring

    Just getting this started. At SPI, Voceditenore described the Ghanaian paid editing/PR company FFHypeTEAM which was founded in 2015.... Its founder and CEO is the multiply deleted and now salted Kwao Lezzes-Tyt. They specialize in hyping Ghanaian pop musicians, DJs, music companies, record labels, radio and internet "personalities" etc. However, they have also created articles on Ghanaian football players. One of their members even advertises his services on the internet in that respect and provides two examples of his footballer creations on Wikipedia: Kwame Kizito and the now deleted Mintah Jordan. I will return and fill in some of the known accounts and articles. They ought to be added to WP:PAIDLIST as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted a bunch of stuff from the SPI archive under G5. MER-C 18:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, I've started making a list as well, in preparation for an LTA page, but it will probably be mid-September before I'm done as I'm going to away for all of August. In the meantime, I would suggest you start by methodically going through Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr and using this tool to check for all the articles they've created. The tool will tell you which ones remain, which ones have been deleted, and which ones have been deleted and later recreated. Deleted ones should be put on watch for recreation. It's pretty laborious because: (a) There are 140 accounts in that category plus another 23 blocked as socks but not checkuser-ed. (b) Many articles are recreated either in article space or as drafts under several different versions of the names by other socks and can be hard to track down. This sockfarm is relentless. (c) Since this mess started back in early 2016, there are many obvious socks who escaped detection, e.g. this one and/or are now stale., e.g this one. Note also that while the vast majority of articles are on Ghanaians, they have occasionally branched out to people from Nigeria and Liberia in their favoured occupations. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fetching the list of live page creations is rather easy. MER-C 18:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C, what tool did you use? It looks very useful, although manual checking of the results may still be needed. The tool doesn't show pages that have been moved to draft space w/out a redirect. For example, Emmanuel Lion Udemezue, Prince Kofi Amoabeng. and DJ Blue listed above are now Draft:Emmanuel Lion Udemezue, Draft:Prince Kofi Amoabeng, and Draft:DJ Blue. Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The pages were in mainspace when I made that list, they've since been draftified. As for the tool: none. I maintain my own bot framework, and queries like this can be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis using, say, the Python interpreter or (in my case) JShell. MER-C 10:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MER-C any chance you could email your JShell script to me? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tabuhart

    Looks like Kenya/Uganda iteration of the above UPE. All articles listed above were created by him/them.

    I'm asking Tabuhart to explain why Draft:Brian Ahumuza, which he created in 2018, looks so much like User:Fonderstone/sandbox, created in 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Tabuhart is about to be indeffed for socking with the other accounts here. The IPs are only suspected obviously, since the checkuser does not comment on them. I'm not sure whether they are part of this group or not. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More articles they are involved in. I saw the username Ugandanm (talk · contribs · count) come up a lot in these. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt if this group is related to FFHypeTeam. Perhaps give them their own section here? Voceditenore (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been indeffed and I put this in a separate section on the page. Now would it be appropriate for g5/g11 ToU deletions on stuff like Morning @ NTV with few or no other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    MBK Rental Living

    Promotional article was created in ways that indicate COI and collaboration between the two editors.

    • Promotional tone and non-notable subject.
    • RenterGuru made the article as a draft and it was rejected by @Dan arndt: as promotional ("Declining submission: adv - Submission reads like an advertisement").
    • Despite this rejection, RaddatzD comes along and promotes the draft to the main space. How likely is it that an independent editor would be aware of the draft's existence?
    • RenterGuru has uploaded all the images for the article as "own work" which suggests an insider with access to the images.
    • RaddatzD has added an extra image to the article which was uploaded by RenterGuru and strongly suggests collaboration (diff). How likely is it that an independent editor would be aware that RenterGuru had uploaded that file?
    • Both editors have provided edit summaries claiming that they have been assigned this article as a part of an MBA ((1), (2)). I didn't know that you could do an MBA in Spamming but I guess we learn something new every day. They don't say what the institution is, which is a pity as they need to be told to stop issuing such assignments, assuming that this really is the case.--DanielRigal (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Daniel, I see your comments. Not sure why you are harassing me. Not sure what I did to you. To answer some of your questions, this is a group project assigned for an Executive MBA class at UCLA Summer Session II. Both my partner, RenterGuru and I RaddatzD, are working on this project. I have had an account setup for the past 10 years plus. In addition, I have donated to wikipedia with money and contributions. My partner said she didn't have an account so she had to set one up. This article is similar to other apartment projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_Residential Not sure who you are to say if it is notable or not. Do you follow the rental industry? Are you an expert in the industry? I am not an expert, but my professor is and he assigned the companies to us. My partner took the picture of the two buildings. Not sure what is promotional about the article. We are not posting phone numbers or come rent with us. We have followed similar apartment builders wikipedia articles. I think the founders of wikipedia would want more articles, not less and not sure who you are to be the judge. On your page, it says you are a deletionist and This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans. Not sure what that all means but it doesn't sound good and it sounds like you are out to harass other people who are trying to add something legitimate and contribute to the community. I would appreciate it if you stop sending me side emails and deleting our project. Why are you marking the article for deletion? Can you tell me what makes it look like an advertisement? When I look at an article for Facebook, or Amazon, or Google, they look more like an advertisement. I have followed the guidelines of wikipedia and made it similar to any other company page of its size. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaddatzD (talk • contribs) 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @RaddatzD: I have a few questions and comments. To begin, assuming that editors are acting in good faith is a key principal of Wikipedia, and while I can understand it is difficult to face an accusation lodged by another editor, this principle should be kept in mind. Also, though you and User:RenterGuru are students you still must comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guide (WP:COI) as you are in some way deriving off-wiki benefits from an article you are creating. You may also want to disclose what educational program you are participating in, as it could provide context for other editors. As for more advice, appealing to the authority (in this case your professor) of an off-wiki actor is not likely to ingratiate yourself with other editors, nor is labeling DanielRigal's post as harassment. For future reference, you may want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG, though you are not quite to that level yet.
    My somewhat silk-gloved approach is done, now for the tough questions. To begin, @RaddatzD: you stated that RenterGuru (pinging @RenterGuru:) took the pictures on the MBK Rental Living article, but I have found the image online from sites that predate RenterGuru's commons uploads (images on the commons are [14] and [15]), and note that neither commons upload included camera details, which is an abnormality for images that were taken with a Sony A58, as RenterGuru stated. This implies a copyright violation. Considering this, I think the other participants at COIN would like some further clarification and answers to the questions DanielRigal posted above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SamHolt6, as I understand COI, if there is a genuine class assignment, the benefit that a student gets from taking the course does not constitute a conflict of interest in the sense WP uses it. That's because the interest of the student is only in writing an acceptable WP article so they can pass the course, which is not only compatible with the interest of the encyclopedia, but supports it. (If a student makes use of a class assignment to promote his business, that's a conflict of interest) DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DGG about student editing -- in my view the external relationship each student has with the class and their desire to get a good grade (the benefit) as well as instructors' external relationships with "their" students, unambiguously creates a conflict of interest. The external interests are clear. Like any GLAM editor has with their host institution. I wish the community were comfortable stating that as part of the guideline in a way similar to how we describe GLAM, and in the ED materials, but people have had major cows when I have said that before. Our project is worse off, for the lack of clarity about this.
    Like GLAM there is a major risk that individual projects will crash and burn if the conflicted individual doesn't self-manage well. Unlike GLAM, student projects do often crash and burn; many students come here just to get their assignment done, and at the last minute. I can't tell you how many times students have written to me "Get out of my way; this is due and I need my grade". Pure unmanaged, un-self-aware COI. Far too often I have had instructors tell me "Let my student's work be" and even revert me in true MEAT fashion, aligned to the external interest.
    Academics have their own set of external interests - their own legitimate business namely - education, increasing the status of the institution, and getting research grants (as has been recognized in Madey v Duke) and WP been abused many times by academics - professors self-promoting, BOOSTER edits by alum as well as university employees, and students and instructors in classes.
    There are of course many academics who self-manage COI well and aim at the mission, in all those areas (academics who avoid writing about themselves and SELFCITE rarely and appropriately; people who work in universities and alum who avoid boosting their institution, and classes that improve WP without disruption)
    And then there are people who say they are student editors... Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your understanding of WP:COI This noticeboard is intended to deal not with all problematic editing, with COI involving specific articles , by people having a COI with the specific topic. There are indeed problems with some class edits; there are even some problems that rather frequently occur with class edits (such as the impossibility of revising articles that are almost always submitted right at the deadline, and where the editor is unlikely to ever return.) There have been true COI problems with class edits where the class has been deliberately assigned topics representing a particular political POV. There are COI problems when students or enthusiastic alumni write about their university, but that's not paid COI--it's the same as when I write about a city I love, like NYC. There can be true financial COI in the direct sense when a department's press agent writes about its faculty. There can be problems with autobiography. There can be problems with a student writing about his advisor. (I wrote about my doctoral advisor, by the way, but I waited till the wikiproject listed him as a wanted article, and I declared it) There are potential problems where a class may be working on organizations or people in a field where notability is very dubious, but this is not really COI in the usual sense. The desire of a student to pass a course by fulfilling an assignment is not a COI with respect to the topic. It may cause problems for WP by encouraging hasty work, or encouraging sloppy use of references or even plagiarism in ways not unusual with course work in general. But it would not cause a POV about the subject itself. The student, even once committed to a specific topic, has no reason to adopt a positive POV, as would an editor writing for pay who must satisfy the subject. N All he need do is create an article that will stay in WP long enough for the course. .  ::Sometimes the article may look promotional , but there can be promotional writing without a COI: peoplewrite about certain topics in a promotional manner because most of the material they see about topics like companies or products or charities or entertainers is promotional  ; They even write in a promotional manner because they think that's what is wanted at WP, because of the amount of promotional writing that still permeates the encyclopedia . We need to remove such writing as we would any bad writing, but that's not the same as assigning an improper motive to the editor.
    We have enough problems dealing with COI not to fit everything wrong with WP into it. There are other places for other problems. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not about "trying to fit things in" but rather naming things that do fit in. For students the grade is pay. Its as much "pay" as money, and the behavior can be as nakedly driven by that as any paid editor is by money. Students should get the same classification and orientation as GLAM editors. I don't see that happening any time soon. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have nominated the article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBK Rental Living), mostly for failing to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributions history of User:RaddatzD is... interesting. There appears to be a history of creating articles on non-notable topics. It is also interesting that someone who asserts that they are student in a well-regarded and selective MBA program would display the temperament and writing skills evidenced by this remark. Comparing their contributions and writing style, it's also possible that a CU of User:RaddatzD and User:RenterGuru could prove interesting. The world is such an interesting place. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    what is even more interesting is that the "roommate" mentioned earlier is just what someone with a little knowledge here would say to defend against the usual sockpuppet accusation based on what they think to be checkuser data DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

    The company has over a billion dollars in revenue. Just take the number of units produced in California times $800k each. That seems pretty significant. Seems like there is this push for less content on Wikipedia. Seems like there would be a want for more information, not less. The information is factual. We give up. It's 4 on 2 now. 4 super users against 2 new ones. Way to treat new comers. And I think you mentioned ip addresses. We are roomates, so I would think we would have the same ip address. There's no conspiracy here. Just a stupid homework assignment we were given. We've already printed it out and submitted it. You can delete the article and our accounts for that matter. My roomate says he will never donate money to wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenterGuru (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @RenterGuru: a question about that assignment. Did you professor instruct you to edit/create a Wikipedia article, or was it a suggestion?--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to say some things to RaddatzD and RenterGuru here. First up, I am assuming good faith on your part. I am assuming that what you say is true. Secondly, I understand why you would feel angry, and even abused, by your unexpected treatment here. If a prof assigns you a task then you have a right to assume that it will be some legitimate educational activity, not using you as unpaid copywriters for who knows what reason. You have a right to be feeling trapped between an assignment that you can not complete and an organisation that is not here to facilitate your assignment. I understand why you felt harassed even though what I am doing here is nothing remotely like harassment. Your current problem is that you are pushing back in the wrong direction. The assignment, as you have characterised it, is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia and your college should know this. Something is clearly very wrong with your professor's understanding of Wikipedia and this is something we can help with. Please help us to help you by answering the questions above about the assignment. At the very least we can give you a list of policies that you can take back to the college to back you up when you say "This assignment is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia and it is not our fault that we could not complete it." I am also concerned that, if this pattern continues, then other students will suffer the same problems in the future due to the same professor. Please help us to shut this down and draw a line under it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is good. It is a billion dollar company. It seems you guys are more interested in getting deletion badges and points from wikipedia than actually contributing to the community. I believe our instructor was trying to do a good thing and help improve wikipedia by adding relevant articles that can help other real estate students in the future. As we stated, please go ahead and delete the article. Make future students lives more difficult. We are unwatching this page so we don't get any more emails regarding this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaddatzD (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ankitkmwt

    As explained by Nanophosis previously and warned by Lemongirl942 multiple times to manage conflict of interest on his talk page, Ankitkmwt constantly violating WP:COIEDIT and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote their films, directors and actors so I believe it's time to issue a block. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Hicks Jr.

    This user only seems to add links to promote Allgame, Allmusic, and All Media Network (the parent company). Nearly every single one of this user's edits are an addition to a review of a video game linking to Allgame. They've added allgame reviews to hundreds of game articles, and several allmusic scores to music album articles. This user could be an SPA for the promotion of Allgame via astroturfing.

    Several times the user also links to Gamespot reviews as well. Example. However, in another edit, the publisher of Allgame is listed as Gamespot. Example.

    This user has taken a break since March, and has only made two edits. In both cases, the edits were to re-insert Allgame reviews after they had been removed by other users. Here and Here.

    In June 2014, User_talk:Bill_Hicks_Jr.#All_games, @NathanWubs: notified this user that they are planning to remove several Allgame review scores. I agree with NathanWubs issues with Allgame.

    Allgame has since folded, and the site is now available only through archives. This user seems to have no issue finding and adding these reviews even though the site is dead. I would personally have difficulty finding a specific Allgame archived review without first having the old url. I find archive.org hard to search for old sites unless you have the url. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing about subjects censored by a repressive regime while under control of said regime

    To avoid possible WP:OUTing and since I'm not even sure COI is the appropriate venue, I would appreciate if someone versed in COI policy would address this as a hypothetical COI policy question. Suppose one lives in country A. The regime in country A, per multiple RSes, represses any speech favorable (or even neutral) to an opposition group. The country also closely monitors electronic communication and the internet. Furthermore, expressing such favorable/neutral speech towards the opposition group may lead to incarceration and torture, and in some cases death. Does an editor in such a situation have a COI in relation to edits on the opposition group's article in Wikipedia?Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    With just those facts, it is not possible to answer. But the person is probably at least very passionate about the opposition group if they are willing to take all that risk, and it is likely that they would have a difficult time editing neutrally about it. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't assume that the editor's problems are solved by the pseudonymity provided by Wikipedia. Things that might give him/her away would be an accidental slipping into IP editing, choice of topics (e.g. writing an article on a small village or a bio of a local politician), quality of English writing. I'd think a better 1st approach would be working as a source for an international journalist. Maybe posting video on another platform with a CC-0 or other CC license. I'd guess that half of the folks who would want to use some sort of COI/NPOV exemption would really turn me off, and half I might find to be "real heros" . And of course, I'd likely be wrong at least half the time. So there is nothing easy in answering this question, but I'd guess most editors would favor not making any exemptions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the main point. Is it that the editor is bound to use his edits against the opposition group? Or in favor of it? Does the editor have an actual COI with the opposition group beyond this inherent influence of the political situation in his country? I think that treating this scenario as a COI is bound to create more problems than it solves. Should we chase Chinese editors that edit China-related topics? And Iranian? Turkish? Israeli? Venezuelan? Ukranian? Spanish? --MarioGom (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the hypothetical question the editor in question is taking a position in-line with the regime of country A - a position he would not be sanctioned for in country A. As for the pseudo-anonymous nature of Wikipedia..... Not in all countries. The question in mind, in terms of COI (which is why I am asking!), is whether the user has a COI in relation to possible sanctions from the regime of country A - the topic in question being one for which showing support will definitely lead to severe sanctions if known to authorities of A. As MarioGom points out there is indeed a slippery slope that is possible here, which is why I want to keep this as a hypothetical - though I would think the most extreme example (this one is a tad less severe) would be a North Korean user, from within North Korea (not many of them, if at all, the country has an extremely limited internet presence - nearly all or all regime controlled), editing about Kim Jong-un, dissidents to the regime, or topics such as Hamhung concentration camp.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ROTH Capital Partners

    articles
    editors

    I would like to draw attention to the fact that User:Cypresscross is using a new protection on the ROTH Capital Partners article as a means to turn it into an attack page without being reined in by consensus or even scrutiny by other editors. It is evident from his edit history that Cypresscross is acting on behalf of specific companies/agendas (see extensive, promotional/disparaging edits on: Emmanuel Lemelson, Lemelson Capital Management, Dan David (money manager), The China Hustle and ROTH Capital Partners, among others, all of whom are involved in a web of ties and rivalries) and should not be editing these topics, if at all.

    This issue has been brought up in the past in a sockpuppet investigation.

    At the very least, the article/s should be reviewed by other unbiased editors and some semblance of NPOV should be restored, and Cypresscross be prevented from editing on topics for which he has a COI.76.76.46.49 (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is not an "attack page," all of the edits are from reliable sources, including Barron's, WSJ, Reuters, LA Times, etc., all support the content which is written to follow WP guidelines including NPOV. The edits have already been reviewed and expanded on by other established editors. Explanations have been provided on the Talk Page. These edits are not "on behalf" of any company or agenda as suggested above.
    A series of disruptive edits were made by IPs in a short period of time. The accounts were tagged with disruptive edit notices, and edits were made to the talk page, encouraging consensus - all invitations were ignored and the disruptive edits and vandalism continued (always from diff. IPs). A request for SPI (here) and increased protection on the page (here) was then requested (and granted). Cypresscross (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cypresscross’s COI is clear in the behavioral evidence brought forth in the investigation last year and has only become more apparent since. The ROTH Capital Partners page was expanded from a short stub to a fully-fledged attack page in a matter of days by Cypresscross alone. He has also continued to push promotional edits on the Emmanuel Lemelson page (a public supporter of ROTH’s whistleblower Dan David), and has clashed with editors there repeatedly (see Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson).
    Contrary to the above claim, no other editors have been active on the ROTH page whatsoever, and the content has certainly not been reviewed by other established editors.
    The IP accounts mentioned were tagged by Cypresscross himself, not an arbitrator, and he too initiated the SPI which was dismissed immediately. There was no vandalism, and the “edit warring” and copyright issues were both committed by Cypresscross himself, which can be seen in the edit history as well as his Talk page in a comment from an editor called Diannaa.154.85.111.76 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP would you please a) clarify if you are one person using all these IP addresses (or if you working with other people who are using them); and b) explain your relationship with Roth? This question is about you; please don't discuss other editors in your reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. A) I confirm that this thread and a number of recent edits on the ROTH Capital Partners page were made by me. B) I do not work at ROTH, but do have a COI and was hoping to strengthen the article in light of recent page activity. After being rebuffed multiple times, I raised my concerns on several forums. Now that they are being addressed, I have no intention of working on the page again. Thanks for your time and interest.76.76.41.219 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the straightforward answer on A). I am looking for clarity on B. Would you please explain the connection with Roth? (Are you a contractor paid by them, a family member of the owner, etc. The nature of the connection is relevant and if you are being paid you must disclose that. Thx) Also, are you the same person (or working for the same outfit) as Muffin7Maniac? Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am a contractor paid by ROTH. I don't use accounts and am not affiliated with User:Muffin7Maniac. I realize this will color the way you approach this issue, but I hope that you and the other editors here will still work for the restoration of neutrality on the Roth article.76.76.38.108 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering forthrightly again. COI can only be managed if it is disclosed, and I appreciate you stating this. Better late than never. Would you please disclose if you are a freelancer, or working for an agency? If the latter, you must disclose it.
    Just to go over the ground rules -- because you are not using a named account, please disclose every time you post that you are being paid by Roth (and if it is agency that too; if a freelancer, just say that). Also paid editors should not edit articles directly, but should post suggestions on the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a freelancer. I very much appreciate this discussion and your willingness to hear me out. I made a number of edits on the page itself, and asked for help on the Talk page as well. In the future, I will disclose my position in the edit summary(?) of each post.52.129.123.116 (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying. I am very uncomfortable with you editing for pay from an IP. The way Wikipedia works is that while editors are free to not provide their real world identities and privacy is protected via the OUTING policy, we look for people who want to stick around to create accounts, so that there can be a community -- so that people can become familiar with each other can still be accountable to one another, as individuals. (What the community provides and values is really pseudonymity, not anonymity). This is why we have the SOCK policy - individuals are individuals. Individuals cannot get to know you if you are IP-hopping, and we cannot hold you accountable for what you do over time. There are paid editors here whom I trust, for example. Nobody here will ever be able to trust you, should you turn out to be trustworthy, if you are IP-hopping. So I encourage you to create an account.
    That said, since you have no stable identity here, yes, please disclose in the edit note that you are editing for pay, and who your client is. Additionally, as I noted above we ask paid editors not to edit directly, but instead to put edits through prior review, with disclosure, as follows:
    a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
    b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
    (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and
    (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.
    OK? Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that perspective. The climate for paid editing is quite poor, as you know, and I've always preferred that each edit/statement be judged on its own merit. The accountability/community aspect has always been an issue with that approach, perhaps I do lose more than I gain. I will follow the guidelines you laid out above, though I don't create new pages anyway. Do you have any pages edited by paid editors that you trust/paid accounts for me to look at as examples? Thanks. I hope we meet again on other projects.76.76.32.59 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Cypresscross, I reviewed your talk page and contribs and I don't see where you have been asked and have answered. Would you please disclose any relationships you have in the real world with subjects about which you have edited? This question is about you; please don't discuss other editors in your reply. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No relationships. I started to dig deeper into the subject after the large number of edits by different IPs and found abundant reliable resources that supported the original edits and that helped to expand the article (which had a stub tag inviting expansion of the article). The subject has received extensive mainstream media coverage, with extremely consistent reporting on the key points in the article. I invited feedback and suggestions on the talk page. Working on one article has led to other related articles. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cypresscross. Thanks very much for answering. You came into WP at the same time as sockfarm focused on the Lemelsons, and of your 719 edits,
    • 74 ROTH Capital Partners
    • 7 Talk:ROTH Capital Partners
    • 67 Martin Shkreli
    • 17 Talk:Martin Shkreli
    • 59 Dan David (money manager)
    • 42 Emmanuel Lemelson
    • 21 Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson
    • 26 Charles Murphy (hedge fund manager)
    ---
    313 edits right there. This all has a kind of strange moralistic Lemelson-like focus on religion and finance. And pretty judgemental about the "bad boys". The Roth page is pretty much only about the negative highlights.
    I found the inclusion of your account in the MiamiDolphins3 SPI case entirely reasonble, I share the clerk's surprise that your account was technically unrelated, and I share the IP's dismay at the lack of NPOV in the Roth page.
    Please do explain what is driving this pattern of editing. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your edits really are restricted to a narrow set of topics ( Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)strike stray left in drafting remark Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Hi Jytdog In the list above I noticed that you left out Malala Yousafzai (which is one of the top articles I have worked on), and failed to mention that most of what I added to the Shkreli and Murphy pages is actually positive (even though you appear to be referring to them as "bad boys"). I also disagree that there is "strange moralistic" focus here and I'm not sure what "Lemelson-like" is - if the edits were "moralistic" than the sources they are based on were also "moralistic" and perhaps also "Lemelson-like". I also do not agree that any of the edits have been "judgmental," or are necessarily "negative". Everything on the Roth page is taken from reliable secondary sources, and follows WP guidlines. I have requested and appreciated the edits to the page by other established editors. If any reliable sources can be found with new information on the company, I would be happy to see it added. Cypresscross (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to expand on your "surprise," and what that's supposed to mean? I read the link you provided above, what I see is a user who requested the SPI essentially making completely unfounded suggestions, which are fully disproved by the actual investigation - i.e. MiamiDolphins3 was focused on a whole other set of topics (namely politics). I have no relationship with MiamiDolphins3 and had never heard of the account before it was brought to my attention. I also don't see the harmony in timelines you are referring to (a year apart), or how that is in anyway related to this discussion. I disagree that the Roth edits did not have NPOV - I do however think that the page can be improved, and have invited feedback to that end, including from the IPs. Cypresscross (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Pattern of editing"? As I mentioned above, working on one page has led to another, which seems pretty normal, and has been my experience the whole time on WP. I did not plan initially on spending much time on the Roth page, my plan was to clean up clearly promotional text by what appeared to be COI editors. This resulted in more clear COI editing and sock IPs (which have now been proven out per above), I ended up digging deeper because of the disruptive editing, a simple review of the timeline of events shows that to be the case. Isn't just about everyone on WP typically working on a narrow set of topics that they find interesting (e.g. you state on your page that you are primarily interested in religion)? Cypresscross (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cypresscross In these diffs you interpersed your comments within mine and corrected the spelling in one of my comments. Please do not interfere with other people comments - don't add yours in the midst of theirs, and don't change them. In this diff I am moving your comments out of the midst of mine, as well as writing this reply. I am also striking a stray remark I left during drafting.
    Thank you however for taking the time to reply.
    That said, I do not find your responses credible and will not be responding further. I am turning instead to enforcement. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I violated some policy on "interpersed" comments (to use your word), it was done because I didn't know such a policy existed. I wrote it that way to make the responses easier to read in relation to the questions. Also, when I went back to correct my own spelling errors it looks like I accidentally corrected one small one of yours as well (editing in code, you can get lost - just as you left a "stray remark" in your edit - which I noticed but didn't think it was important enough to correct you.). I also do not find your responses credible, and neither does (User:Smartse, per the comments below), your comments have become increasingly presumptive and a violation of WP policy on AGF. Cypresscross (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just don't intersperse comments or change other people's comments in the future. See WP:TPG and WP:THREAD. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: It seems to me like a completely baseless accusation against User:Cypresscross. I don't see the relevance of asking them to make a disclosure here. If you hadn't asked, I was going to close the discussion. SmartSE (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Thanks. In fact I had already made a disclosure further up in my comments, but was happy to make the disclosure again per my response just above. Again thanks and I invite any and all feedback on the page. Cypresscross (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Smartse I looked at the SPI and I have looked at Cypresscross' edits, and based on that, I asked. Have you looked at them? Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: Yes I'd looked through quite a few edits and while I can't say that there are zero problems, I don't see anything to indicate that they have a COI in relation to any of the articles they've edited. Articles like [16] [17] would certainly be extremely unusual for COI editors to create. SmartSE (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The socks for Lemelson added added this

    In an October 26, 2015 Wall Street Journal documentary about Lemelson, he advocated a philosophy of investment based on Christian ethics, saying: "If we take scripture as a guide, particularly Matthew 25:14-30, we hear the parable of the talents, and in that parable it’s very clear The Lord blesses exceedingly those who take the talents they're given and multiply them, and for those who would not, even what they have will be taken away, so I think it comes down to our view of how we see capital, how we see our talents, if we see them as something that is our own, the result of our own distinct sacrifices and work, we’ll have a very different approach to how we handle it then if we see it as something that we’ve been entrusted with, that we’re meant to be stewards over. God gives us talents so we can use them, and the purpose of those talents is to Glorify The Lord.”[1]

    References

    1. ^ "The priest who moonlights as a hedge-fund manager," Wall Street Journal video, October 26, 2015, Retrieved November 12, 2015.
    Those kinds of edits you diffed, are a near-perfect reflection of the sockfarm's perspectives, who came here to advocate for this semi-moralistic view of markets and investors -- for Lemelson and his views.
    Cypresscross has also edited about Trump and his religious views, tied to Lemelson -- see this diff series for example. Well, see for example this and this and well this by one of the socks.
    The DUCK is clear to see as is the external interest. There should have been an admin review of behavioral evidence before that SPI was closed. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Thanks again for your input. Using loaded words like "moralistic" is itself a failure of NPOV and GFE, and many of the comments above by Jytdog are simply inaccurate. For example many of the edits I made to the Nordlich page defended the subject and added balance, contrary to the suggestion by Jytdog above, the edits are not "a reflection of the stock farms perspective" (whatever that perspective may be). Jytdog made a similar suggestion above about Shkreli etc., but was way off mark on the nature of the edits). Undoubtedly ten of millions of people (perhaps more?) share the same NPOV expressed by the mainstream sources I have cited in my edits. Even though Jytdog says he has handed this over to "enforcement" he goes on to attach a label ("Duck") to it anyway that confirms his presumptive conclusion and which, in my opinion, is a further violation of WP policies. To suggest that the edits to various parts of one of the most highly read and edited pages on WP (Trump), which includes edits on various topics and correcting details of citations, is somehow proof of some theory about COI, misses the mark. Importantly, even though many editors have now looked at the Roth page, only minor changes have been made to my edits (with about 90-95% remaining), a testimony to the fact the edits follow WP guidelines (and that the article was improved by them). In fact the real issue here is that the WP community itself can detect and correct failures in NPOV or COI, but that has simply not been the case with my edits, with the vast majority left unchallenged. For example, it might seem like the edits to Roth are slanted to the negative, but the truth is, there are no reliable sources I could find that described the company's notability for anything other than what was added (even though I invited comments and feedback, esp. about new sources on the talk page and here as well - even the IPs could not find or suggest other reliable sources (although they did provide the LA times source) - the fact is the Roth page is now simply an accurate reflection of the company's notability, in accordance with WP guidelines. Of the ~750 edits I have made over almost 3 years, very few have ever been reverted or undone, including edits to the highly scrutinized Trump page (and the ones that were, I usually agreed with after seeing the improvement). I also wish to state unequivocally (again) that 1) I only edit topics I am interested in 2) seek to write in an encyclopedic way and from a NPOV using only reliable secondary sources 3) do not have COI and 4) I am not and have never received pay as an editor. Cypresscross (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Stemcor

    Good afternoon,

    I'm trying to see if I can find someone to help with editing the Stemcor page. I have posted a couple of times on the talk page but no changes have been made so far. Please could you help me with this? As I work for the company I am aware of the conflicts of interest rules I can't edit the article myself so any help would be greatly appreciated. The articles containing the up to date information on the company are here:

    Many thanks,

    Annabel

    @Annabeldemorgan: Thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest and not editing the article directly. It is fairly unlikely that someone will spend the time updating the article given only those references. If there is relevant information in them, then you can make suggestions on the talk page of content to include based off the references i.e. "x happened" supported by "reference y". Once you add {{request edit}} to the page, a volunteer will be alerted and come and make to review whether or not the content you'd like to add is verifiable and not promotional. If they find it suitable then they will add it to the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I just visited the page and talk page. I agree with Smartsee - it's not clear what you want us to do. I suppose I can dig up a few numbers to change and replace them. I suppose what you really want is to go through the material on the bankruptcy (US usage) and remove the outdated stuff and replace it with new or forward looking material in the articles. That's a bit tough at times, and you wouldn't believe how many companies would like to get rid of material on their bankruptcies! So please let us know what you think are the outdated points and what you think is the material that should replace it. Don't be surprised if our editors don't fully agree, of course.
    A couple of small things you can help with. Reuters gives your major shareholder only as "Apollo". Is that Apollo Global Management? Also some wry wit wrote (approx.) that the "headquarters appears to be in Jersey", which appears to be documented on the company's webpage. It's amazing these days how many "headquarters" a company can have, e.g. a West Virginia Pharma can have its main factories in WV, its operational HQ in Pennsylvania, registered in Delaware, and its tax home in Luxembourg. (thanx to CorpM for the example) Could you let us know which HQ the company actually uses and point us to a reasonable reference? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Johnsaavn

    Admitted covert advertiser IRL, but denies doing so on Wikipedia [18][19][20]. Blocked a few days ago, but forgot to list here. MER-C 18:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also significant editing on:

    Lyndaship (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandbox above is bio under development for David Carey, connected to Hearst and a "customer experience management solutions company". ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    TMG PR

    TMG PR blocked for username violation but worth keeping an eye on the drafts in case a new account reappears. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockring discovered by checkuser, have added to WP:PAIDLIST. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TMG PR ☆ Bri (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mather Group

    This freelance offers Wikipeida paid editing services. Some of his accounts are already blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jgreene1333/Archive. According to his page the following articles were created by him:

    --MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like most of the articles created by User:Jgreene1333 have already been deleted. The remaining three (Jen Sinkler, Carter Cruise, and Nigel Roberts) have been fixed by other editors. So unless there's reason to think he's resumed paid editing with new socks, I don't think there's anything to do here. – Joe (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. There is also Bill Goodwyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was created by Dancing52734. I'm mostly sure it is a sockpuppet of Jgreene1333 (although the account was too old for the SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Frogg92477/Archive#25_July_2018). If it were confirmed, it would be a reason for speedy deletion because it was created while evading a block. But since it isn't, I'm not sure how to proceed. --MarioGom (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Go Fish Digital and Attentiv

    As part of the Go Fish Digital SPI I found out that Dmrwikiprof and KomodoD are sockpuppets of a Go Fish Digital employee. These were used to create and edit Attentiv, a project by Go Fish Digital founders. I sent initial proof about this to functionaries-en@, although this was not used in the SPI (yet?). If that evidence is not enough, please, notify me. I compiled additional evidence since I sent my notes to functionaries-en@. I'm not posting such evidence here since it involves the real name of the owner of the account. The only part of the evidence that does not involve real names is that BurritoSlayer, another GFD sockpuppet, was used to de-PROD the article. --MarioGom (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    One sockpuppet speaks to another: "Thank you for finding that logo and getting permissions. Your diligence is much appreciated!" I'm throwing up now. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Abobersky

    No COIN matter presented ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    My name is Andrea Bobersky, and I am an unpaid volunteer for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I intend to use this account to provide neutral and reliably sourced improvements to the original article. I have read and understand Wikipedia's guidelines for potential conflict of interest and will adhere to those guidelines, as well as disclose my potential for conflict of interest whenever a contribution is proposed. As a user of Wikipedia with a potential conflict of interest, I will not act as a reviewer, nor edit an article directly. I promise to respect other editors and articles, and always remain neutral. Abobersky (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing; No actionable matter has been presented. This noticeboard 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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trivenishankar

    Anasuya Shankar's pen name is "Triveni", raising the question of whether the editor has a COI with respect to this article. I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Assistance needed for Anasuya Shankar article whether this editor had a COI but did not get an answer.

    This editor now seems to be using a new account. I don't know why. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The page User:Trivenishankar is a slightly modified version of Anasuya Shankar, in other words a WP:FAKEARTICLE. I think an admin could/should handle that. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated the user page as WP:U5 and left {{uw-agf-sock}} warnings on both accounts. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Faradorian

    In another SPI, checkuser stated "User:Faradorian, which seems Unrelated to the above accounts, also looks like it may be a paid editing account". I'm not going to do a deep-dive at this time, but thought maybe they would like to say something about it here. I suspect it was their editing in the removable media space that was of concern, in fact one edit described a particular company as a "leading provider". ☆ Bri (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I addressed this elsewhere. CRU is a "leading" provider, but without a citation I have removed the offending word.Faradorian (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing at Steven Kunes

    Steven Kunes has been the subject of edits from quite a few editors with a possible conflict of interest. For the past few days two ips (100.34.149.66, 71.224.64.55) have been editing the article, adding information that could possibly be used promote the article subject's books, while also removing information about the subject's multiple criminal convictions from the article lead. Both of the ips are geo-locatable to Bucks County, Pennsylvania, the hometown of the article subject. Today It was brought to the attention of a number of editors that an individual claiming to be Kunes posted this ad on Upwork (which is now restricted) [21] to edit his article so that his books and writing credits were added. This was done about 8 hours ago, and the text of the ad was preserved at Talk:Steven_Kunes#threatened_vandalism. It reads;

    I am an author,, screenwriter and playwright. I have a Wikipedia page under my name: Steven Kunes. Although I've been successful as a writer over the past 35 years, I went off the deep end and got myself arrested for cashing bad checks when I got divorced and was down and out. Because of my writing notoriety my legal troubles made all the papers and, of course, Wikipedia. There are a few editors that keep deleting my writing credits and they only leave up references to articles about my arrest. It's very unfair and very embarrassing. Life is a mixed bag of good and bad, and I want my writing credits to appear on my Wikipedia along with my legal troubles. Over the last few days I edited my page and added my writing credits -- and the editors keep taking them down. Finally, an editor blocked my page from being edited for an entire year, unless it's by an authorized Wikipedia editor. I want YOU to look at the last dozen or so entries on my Wikipedia page and restore my scriptwriting credits as well as the two books I recently published. So you really don't have to create anything, per se, just look over the deletions and restore them. It is absolutely NOT FAIR that the editors keep altering my page to feature only negative content. If you're a seasoned Wikipedia editor, you know they do this and you'll be able to quickly see what I'm talking about. My only other option is to contact the legal department at Wikimedia, I suppose. Thank you!!!

    It is interesting to note that User:George David NH (talk) arrived at the article today after the ad was placed and more or less repeated [22] [23] the parts of the edits the ips made earlier. This is suspect, to be sure, especially given that George David NH rarely edits outside of the draftspace. They also repeated a tentative legal threat (to involve Wikimedia legal) that Kunes possibly made in the Upwork ad (an ip made it here as well [24]) at User_talk:SarekOfVulcan#Steven_Kunes. Requesting that some of the veterans here keep an eye on the article (and Talk:Steven Kunes), and to @George David NH: directly I would like to ask; Do you edit in any way that may clash with WP:COI and WP:PAID?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There's also some definite signs of WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour on the part of the subject and his representatives. As a general statement to whomever of them see this, no single editor has any right of ownership or editorial control over an article. If you are the subject of an article, then it's not your article - it's an article about you (note the distinction).
    Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. We strive for accuracy and balance in articles, particularly biographies of living persons, and there are proper ways to deal with problems in an article about you. But you will discover that charging in with guns blazing, accusing others of editing in bad faith, and threatening legal action will quickly backfire. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know Steven Kunes, nor do I work for him. I was contacted by him regarding the issue with his page and I took a look at it for him. I received no money nor do I intend to. I saw that his article was full of negative information about him so I edited the intro to remove the second sentence which states: He has been convicted of felony commercial burglary and grand theft by false pretenses. I did not think that was a fair way to begin his article, so I replaced that with mention that he had been an executive story editor for South Park, Cheers, and Family Ties. My edits were promptly removed by SarekOfVulcan under the idea that I was whitewashing Kunes' article. Stephen Kunes' page is very damaging, so I contacted SarekOfVulcan and I did tell him that I would contact Wikipedia legal because I don't know what the correct course of action is other than to ask someone with authority to help stop the slandering. George David NH (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=853324671"