Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 156) (bot |
|||
Line 616: | Line 616: | ||
:::The link I gave is SP''A'', not SP''I''. How is it that out of thousands of active editors, you happened to notice this one? That is just as suspicious as the weak evidence you have presented. As I mentioned, it's very possible for someone to have developed an interest in a topic and to edit in that topic. We need evidence of an actual problem (defined as edits which persistently violate one of the core policies, e.g. as shown at [[WP:5P]]). Are you suggesting that, for example, ''[[In a Different Key]]'' should be deleted? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
:::The link I gave is SP''A'', not SP''I''. How is it that out of thousands of active editors, you happened to notice this one? That is just as suspicious as the weak evidence you have presented. As I mentioned, it's very possible for someone to have developed an interest in a topic and to edit in that topic. We need evidence of an actual problem (defined as edits which persistently violate one of the core policies, e.g. as shown at [[WP:5P]]). Are you suggesting that, for example, ''[[In a Different Key]]'' should be deleted? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: No, not that one. It passes the notability guidelines. Shestack may as well. I'm not looking for deletions. That's for AfD. As far as SPA goes, I suggest you go [[2001:8003:5022:5E01:0:0:0:0/64|here]] and look at the first edit. Likewise my previous range [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:58A3:6C01:0:0:0:0/64|here]] which shows a lot more different edits. The issue here is the creation of articles on the one side and trying to delete articles on the other. As stated he has already admitted to a COI with the NCSA (see the link I already gave) and with Jonathan Mitchell (see the talk page). As I also said, the additional evidence would out the user and I'm not doing that. It concerns Clements in particular. (And now I'm back on the IPV6 again!) [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343|2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343|talk]]) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
:::: No, not that one. It passes the notability guidelines. Shestack may as well. I'm not looking for deletions. That's for AfD. As far as SPA goes, I suggest you go [[2001:8003:5022:5E01:0:0:0:0/64|here]] and look at the first edit. Likewise my previous range [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:58A3:6C01:0:0:0:0/64|here]] which shows a lot more different edits. The issue here is the creation of articles on the one side and trying to delete articles on the other. As stated he has already admitted to a COI with the NCSA (see the link I already gave) and with Jonathan Mitchell (see the talk page). As I also said, the additional evidence would out the user and I'm not doing that. It concerns Clements in particular. (And now I'm back on the IPV6 again!) [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343|2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343|talk]]) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
'''Update''': Ylevental has outed his own name on his user page and his Twitter account. Further, he has used the edit warring rule to avoid scrutiny getting the McKean and Shestack articles protected. Shestack is a friend of Escher, who Ylevental has confessed to having a COI with, which started when they met at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see [https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/iacc-meetings/2013/full-committee-meeting/july9/ here for proof of Escher's attendance] and the attendance of Shestack's wife Portia Iverson. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B|2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B|talk]]) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== XMOS == |
== XMOS == |
Revision as of 06:28, 17 March 2020
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
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:
|
MNB9911 sockfarm and Pro Creative Writers
- Ibrahim S. Quraishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- AshleyBell208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ps12kor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Added another account, not (yet) roped in to the sockfarm, who helped on a businessperson draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have some information that may be of use to the wider Pro Creative Writers situation but I wish to disclose it discreetly. Whom would you recommend I contact @Bri? Thepenguin9 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Thepenguin9: See confidential procedures in the box at too of the page. Thanks ☆ Bri (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Edith Covensky
- Edith Covensky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Edith M. Covensky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Editor also removed a COI notice on the page today. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- They came back after the block and promptly edited the article adding a statement of authenticity for what it's worth. Still no reply to COI notice. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Now blocked 24 hours due to their removal of the COI template from the article. This user has never replied to any messages. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Sam Ayoub
- Sam Ayoub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kirsh80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation
North East Delhi riots
Boomerang: The OP has been topic banned from Indian subjects. Bishonen | tålk 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:
Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Update: @Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The fact that an editor prefers only one source like NDTV in this case blacking out others is a conflict of interest which is Res ipsa loquitur or apparent itself. It implies that the editor is promoting the source not the information and that is not just conflict of interest but may actually be commercial expoitation. It may be noted that NDTV has lowest readership in TV viewership in India. Check here : https://www.barcindia.co.in/statistic.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
|
- Danielle Pletka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Aleaiactm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor User:Aleaiactm was created in January 2020 and has exclusively edited the Danielle Pletka page. The edits bear all the hallmarks of a COI account: removal of reliably sourced controversial information about the subject, addition of enormous amounts of trivial self-sourced text about the subject, addition of puffery, and changes to the kind of information that only someone with an affiliation to the subject would know (or be likely to care enough about to create a Wikipedia account and make changes). The editor is now edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- In any of the edits I have made where have I deleted reliably sourced information? You also continue to not understand what self-sourced means - it makes absolute sense to quote a writer's work when the wikipedia page is that of a writer. The works, to which I have all provided citations for, are from mass market papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Philly Inquirer. I also did not engage in an edit war. That was something you initiated when you did a wholesale revision of the edits I worked hard on - which is against the guidelines of Wikipedia - rather than open a talk page to specifically discuss where you have issues with what I wrote. Something I am still waiting on after asking for it. Aleaiactm (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- You removed text and sources about her climate change denial commentary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I edited the text, I did not remove any of the sources - here is what I wrote - you can see all of the sources I left: "Pletka was involved in a controversy after an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press in November 2018. During a panel discussion on climate change she said, "I don't think we can have any doubts that there is climate change; whether it's anthropogenic I don't know." [1] NBC was criticized following her appearance by Esquire and other outlets.[2] [3] [4]"
- If that was your issue, you could have just reverted that part and we could have had a discussion about it instead of undoing all of my hard work. I made that change for two reasons 1) Climate change is not a core part of her research, although this issue did certainly make news and 2)While certainly not in step with the scientific consensus of climate change, if you watch the interview, her view isn't a wholesale rejection of climate change as was claimed before. I thought the fairest point of view as an editor was to note that it was controversial, mention some of her actual speech, and then note and link those who criticized her for it. Again, this is a discussion we could have had if you just pulled out that part. Aleaiactm (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- You removed text and sources about her climate change denial commentary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
- ^ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a25304542/meet-the-press-climate-change-chuck-todd-danielle-pletka/
- ^ https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/climate_change_report_trump.php
- ^ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/28/danielle-pletka/recent-cold-spells-irrelevant-climate-change-big-p/
Aleaiactm, you have made 18 edits up to this moment, all concerned with the article Danielle Pletka. It's quite interesting to see you explain the principles of Wikipedia to an experienced editor like Snooganssnoogans (27,279 edits), who you believe (or say you believe) to be confused about them.[1] Moving to aggression, as you also do here, does not help your case or make your denials more credible. I have blocked you for obvious COI editing. Please note that you can appeal this block by following the instructions I have left on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
Peter Golding
- Peter Golding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- ElricFullMetal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User with very little edit history adding poorly sourced, previously deleted information to the page. GDX420 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether the reported editor has a conflict of interest. However, the reporting editor has a history of making unsubstantiated allegations of paid editing, and has previously been blocked for those allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be a valid report of COI. The user EricFullMetal made two edits in total to the page, both sourced. I'm not seeing a problem. As mentioned by Robert Mclenon above, EricFullMetal was previously blocked by @Cullen328: for making
unsubstantedunsubstantiated claims against other users.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)- I assume that User:ThatMontrealIP actually means that User:GDX420 was blocked for unsubstantiated claims. Is that a typo? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- thanks, fixed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- I assume that User:ThatMontrealIP actually means that User:GDX420 was blocked for unsubstantiated claims. Is that a typo? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be a valid report of COI. The user EricFullMetal made two edits in total to the page, both sourced. I'm not seeing a problem. As mentioned by Robert Mclenon above, EricFullMetal was previously blocked by @Cullen328: for making
Verge3D
- Verge3D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Blend4Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alexkowel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SantaWinsAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alexkowel (and SanraWinsAgain) are two single purpose accounts who's activity is 100% related to citing and/or promoting soft8soft and their products, mostly Verge3D. Alexkowel states that he is not paid to do any activity on Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe, though I won't go into details. Alexkowel has now twice removed COI/paid cleanup tags from Verge3D. Can I have some more eyes on this? Alex already doesn't like me much, maybe some guidance from someone fresh to the situation will help. MrOllie (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the sourcing here seems to be press releases republished in low-quality industry pubs. I removed three or four that were actually written by one of the founders. I am wondering if this is actually an AfD candidate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I believe we have a WP:HARASS situation here which requires attention from mods. It's almost a year MrOllie has been following all my activity on Wikipedia, posting questionable "warnings" on my personal page and edited articles, as well as constantly removing all my contributions. I don't know who this person is but it's highly possible he has something personal against me and my work. I said it multiple times and I want to say it again. I'm not being paid for doing any activity on Wikipedia! This is not the part of my job, nor I receive any other financial incentives for writing about Verge3D. Yes, I'm one of the in Verge3D team but I'm just a coder doing writing on Wikipedia in my free time and completely on my own. Another thing I'd want to to pay attention to is MrOllie behavior in regards to other users. His personal page is filled up with tons of complaints from users who suffered from his radical and indiscriminate approach to editing articles. Hi (or she) is inflicting much more harm than doing good for Wikipedia. I believe this is against all ideas and beliefs which Wikipedia stands for from the ground up. Sorry for my emotional speech but I'm just tired of my efforts being constantly lost. Alexkowel (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you're an employee of Soft8Soft, who develop Verge3D, then even if you're not directly being paid to edit the article, you certainly can be seen as standing to gain from it, and this is a very clear case of a conflict of interest. If you have an issue with MrOllie's conduct, this would be something to raise independently, but the fact you only edit Verge3D-related articles wouldn't help your case, MrOllie is simply the editor that has noticed this behaviour. If you must continue to edit Verge3D-related articles, it would be a good idea to follow the instructions at WP:PAID and disclose your affiliation on your user page. Ironically, someone has mentioned AFD above, which might mean your editing is doing more harm than good - people might well find this conversation when they search for your product! KaisaL (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how my contribution can be considered as paid or compensated either directly or indirectly, please read the terms of WP:PAID carefully. I edit Wikipedia at my spare time and have no direct or indirect instructions from my employer to do so. Of course I really enjoy the work I'm doing and want to spread the word about it. If it's required to disclose such affiliation please feel free to direct me to the corresponding guide explaining how to do so. Alexkowel (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. KaisaL (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done! Please update info on the corresponding page (Verge3D). BTW can you please also update version info. It's now 3.0 released March 4. Thank you! Alexkowel (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. KaisaL (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see how my contribution can be considered as paid or compensated either directly or indirectly, please read the terms of WP:PAID carefully. I edit Wikipedia at my spare time and have no direct or indirect instructions from my employer to do so. Of course I really enjoy the work I'm doing and want to spread the word about it. If it's required to disclose such affiliation please feel free to direct me to the corresponding guide explaining how to do so. Alexkowel (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you're an employee of Soft8Soft, who develop Verge3D, then even if you're not directly being paid to edit the article, you certainly can be seen as standing to gain from it, and this is a very clear case of a conflict of interest. If you have an issue with MrOllie's conduct, this would be something to raise independently, but the fact you only edit Verge3D-related articles wouldn't help your case, MrOllie is simply the editor that has noticed this behaviour. If you must continue to edit Verge3D-related articles, it would be a good idea to follow the instructions at WP:PAID and disclose your affiliation on your user page. Ironically, someone has mentioned AFD above, which might mean your editing is doing more harm than good - people might well find this conversation when they search for your product! KaisaL (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Uttam Neupane
- Uttam Neupane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dinesh Raut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Petter noca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Petter noca is, by my observations, an undisclosed Paid/COI editor based on the following facts:
- This edit to Dinesh Raut supplies unsourced intricate personal details.
- All but the lead image on Uttam Neupane are their "own work".
- Every single edit accessible from their contributions history that is not on either of the mentioned articles is still about one of those two people (Neupane and Raut are frequent collaborators).
I left a note at the user's talk page about COI editing on 6 January, but they did not respond and instead reverted me at Dinesh Raut on 15 January and the 16th... which is what brings me here before I can mount a cleanup at those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- Update: Editor has acknowledged COI with this edit. So, I request that a patrolling admin warn them formally, or place a UPE/COI or WP:CIR block. If not, I think there's now enough to take the matter to ANI if they resume edit-warring. So, this thread may now be closed. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Lionbridge
- Lionbridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- several other articles (see details below)
- NYCLion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User NYCLion is a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest, promoting the company Lionbridge not only in the company main article but also in multiple other articles. Literally every substantial edit (in Women and video games, Omnichannel, Languages of India, Telephone interpreting, Game testing, Video game localization and Legal translation) from this user adds content that is either directly promoting Lionbridge or is based on a PR publication authored by various Lionbridge employees. Counting 7 articles and the main article this is clearly a systematic campaign to place as many PR sources and other promotional content about Lionbridge as possible into Wikipedia articles.
All of these edits should be reverted, but I have already been accused of trolling after removing phrases like "The company also orchestrates a network of one million passionate experts across more than 5000 cities, partnering with brands to create culturally rich experiences." from Lionbridge's main article. I'd appreciate an uninvolved editor looking into the case - two COI warnings on the user talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- GermanJoe, concur - SPA, probable COI/paid. The sources on the Lionbridge article look pretty bad as well, but I don't have the time right now to evaluate whether to apply a chainsaw to the article to cut out the fluff and promo or just outright send it to AfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I trimmed quite a bit of garbage from Lionbridge, including a staggering ten uses of Businesswire/PRNewswire as a source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The promotional content in the main article and the ref spam have been cleaned up. Thank you all for the feedback and help adressing this issue. GermanJoe (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I trimmed quite a bit of garbage from Lionbridge, including a staggering ten uses of Businesswire/PRNewswire as a source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The editor restored the reverted edits. I don't want to edit war with them, so I will just leave a note here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Has started reinstating the same edits - Arjayay (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have reverted the recent promotional edits and sent the editor another request to join this discussion here before making any similar edits. GermanJoe (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
UNESCO content
Presumably as a result of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we have editors who work for UNESCO adding content from UNESCO reports (published under an open licence) to Wikipedia, including by creating new articles such as Large-scale learning assessments. I wanted to check, should these editors be making declarations of paid editing? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Cordless Larry:, I've added a reply to your message at User talk:Besalgado. To avoid confusion in future I've added a reminder to disclose paid editing on Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, John Cummings. Is there a way you can contact all editors who are already involved, to make them aware of the need to disclose? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Cordless Larry yes I have a list, I will ask them. One thing that would be really helpful to make sure this is done in a good way would be to provide a best practice example which was easy for people to use and copy. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, John Cummings. Is there a way you can contact all editors who are already involved, to make them aware of the need to disclose? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts
- Moody Pedestrian Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Frances Appleton Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Christina and John Markey Memorial Pedestrian Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Phyllis J. Tilley Memorial Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not quite sure whether this belongs at COIN or SPI or here, but tl;dr: An American architecture firm has been engaging in promotional editing and probably undisclosed paid editing for the last 13 years under multiple accounts.
Miguel Rosales is an American bridge architect and principal of the firm Rosales + Partners. He probably meets the GNG, but his presence on Wikipedia is far greater than you would expect. His involvement (largely as conceptual architect or lighting designer) is always prominently listed on projects primarily designed by others, rather minor pedestrian bridges that he worked on (ex 1, 2, 3, 4) have extensive articles, and awards for this works are prominently listed.
Almost all of this has been done by eight accounts:
- AlisonGK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 2007 and August 2012
- Akotin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2007; only 2 edits so possible false positive
- Wsvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2011 to January 2015
- Rosalespartners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active February 2012, quickly blocked as a promotional/group username
- Nionoodle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active January 2015 to January 2017
- Barbaragomperts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active July 2018 to October 2019
- Bridge4us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active February 2020
- Mwkas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active February 2020 to present
It's obvious that these are either sockpuppets or (more likely) meatpuppets. editor interaction utility should make it clear just how much these accounts overlap. None of the accounts have made any significant edits not related to projects Rosales has been involved in; most also demonstrate immediate proficiency in referencing and infobox creation that is atypical for new users. On two occasions (Wsvan/Nionoodle and Bridge4us/Mwkas), one account has become active within 48 hours of another account making its last edit.
Based on the promotional editing pattern, I believe this is undisclosed paid editing either by Rosales employees or a hired PR firm. The accounts have edited almost entirely Monday-Friday between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC - typical working hours in Boston where the firm is based - whereas most editors tend to be active evenings and weekends. Of the several accounts also active at Commons, Wsvan and Mwkas have used OTRS to provide permission for images owned by the firm. (Mwkas also oddly avoids denying a COI.)
I would appreciate help removing promotional content from affected articles, and for the recently active accounts to be blocked. Given the scale and duration of the promotional editing, is there anything more that should be done to prevent it from continuing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- This most assuredly belongs at COIN. I'd just close and move, but my phone is about to die. John from Idegon (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Moved from WP:ANI § Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I happen to have crossed paths with a couple of these accounts over the years, and, now that it's pointed out, they have indeed always been adding claims of awards and superlatives to structures with which Rosales was involved. (One of them also added lots of non-free suspiciously professional images to one of these articles, only to have them delinked from Commons.) If this is the community consensus about these accounts, then I'll go through and clean out the promotional bits from the articles I've seen them editing, and I'm happy to help with others if someone provides a list. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Over the years, I have edited a number of articles related to bridges and other infrastructure in the Boston area and elsewhere, and I have also worked on the Miguel Rosales article itself. I have repeatedly noticed and tried to tone down promotional editing in a number of related articles, and have myself given warnings about COI to some of the accounts mentioned here. I give credit to User:Pi for discovering and documenting a repeated and systematic pattern of promotional and COI edits spanning multiple accounts over a decade. I agree that there appears to be a persistent attempt to "game the system" by using multiple accounts, and that multiple warnings about COI over the years have been essentially ignored.
- I also agree that the architect in question is notable and deserves a Wikipedia article. I admire his work, but the promotional tone in many of the articles related to his designs leaves a vaguely bad taste with the reader. The repeated introduction of blatant and more subtle promotionalism is contrary to NPOV, and a misuse of Wikipedia. The only reason I have not complained on this Notice Board or elsewhere is that I am unfamiliar with the tools for efficiently gathering evidence, or the detailed procedures for presenting it to admins.
- I support User:Pi and his presentation of evidence here, and hope that appropriate action can be proposed and taken. Reify-tech (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear all, I wasn't aware that I was making such a mistake. Now, I started to read policies that Pi wrote about. How can I fix it all my updates? What are the possible solutions? Should I do cleanup myself? What means cleanup in reality - update all pages? Thank you for your help.Mwkas (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- My own view (whether it's supported by policy or not) is that editors associated with the firm should no longer be contributing to any articles remotely related to the subject - including fixing up the dubious contributions. The test should be whether the contributions help the encyclopedia. In this case, it appears that the firm has benefited more than the encyclopepedia. Wikipedia is not free advertising, nor is it a vehicle which one uses to boost one's apparent reverence. There are many instances where organisations have been quite embarrassed when it's revealed publicly they have been editing their own articles. --Merbabu (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. What are the next steps? Could you help me and send me a procedure?Mwkas (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'll just add here that I've dealt with this PR team on Interstate 235 (Iowa) over the years. The M.O. lines up with the original concern here. –Fredddie™ 03:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mwkas: If you are employed by or work on behalf of Rosales + Partners, you must disclose this before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Use the {{paid}} template on your user page (User:Mwkas) to state this information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also, if you are in any way connected to the accounts listed above, please disclose your relationship. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note that Mwkas recently removed a COI template at one of these articles. @Nat:: You were the OTRS reviewer for this file uploaded by Mwkas, so pinging you in case you have input here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: Nothing to add. From an OTRS standpoint, the permission statement for the image was in order, and the EXIF matches the information I gathered from the OTRS email. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 04:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note that Mwkas recently removed a COI template at one of these articles. @Nat:: You were the OTRS reviewer for this file uploaded by Mwkas, so pinging you in case you have input here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also, if you are in any way connected to the accounts listed above, please disclose your relationship. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mwkas: If you are employed by or work on behalf of Rosales + Partners, you must disclose this before making any further edits to Wikipedia. Use the {{paid}} template on your user page (User:Mwkas) to state this information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am a volunteer editor. Nobody is paying for my updates. Wikipedia is only for volunteers. I am very sad, because I was not aware that adding award, I will be destroyed someone’s profile. AWARD- someone was working very hard to get an award and it is proofed. I asked you few times how I can do it correct, but you are not answering my questions, but instead you are writing that I support Rosales+. I am a big fun of all bridge architects. By the way, my working hours are not 9-21 I am from different country.Mwkas (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mwkas: Really? Your edits are very similar to the other editors listed above. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mwkas:, could you please explain if you have used multiple accounts to edit the page over the past several years?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I created my account at the beginning of 2020 – I think February. I started to do first steps learning Wikipedia. The idea was to update profiles of architects in the US and from Europe. It was complex to do something, but when we started COI discussion, I started to study all documents. For example, the most important is not to publish changes, but use talk page first – that was the mistake. I don’t know other editors or edits. My first name was Bridge4us, but soon I get message from Fredddie™ (02/07/2020): “If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)”, so after that I created Mwkas. I don’t use Bridge4us anymore. Also sockpuppets and meatpuppets was new for me. Know I know what it means.Mwkas (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Theyachtbreak
- Advance provisioning allowance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Theyachtbreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Theyachtbreak appears to have contributed material associated with this business in good faith to Advance provisioning allowance The Yacht Break and have chosen a username, based on that business. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I caused any problems. I was purely trying to improve on what was there. The information on the original APA page was flagged as not having enough sources. It was also thin on the ground in terms of content. There is APA that HAS to be given in advance, for crewed yacht charters, and advisory APA that is given as a suggestion for other yacht charters as part of assisting with budgeting costs.
- It appears that my account has now been deleted. I did nothing in bad faith--Theyachtbreak (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Theyachtbreak: Accounts are not deleted, yours included. Your edits were reverted, however.
- As mentioned on your talk page, your username is a problem, so please follow the link to the place where you can have it changed.
- Even if you meant well, citing the website of the company you work for is not a good idea unless you also disclose your affiliation with the company, per the conflict of interest and paid contribution disclosure policies.
- Please also note that Wikipedia has certain standards for what can be used as a source: it must be reliable (established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight) and independent (unaffiliated with the subject of the article and no vested interest in the subject). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Drm310:When I looked into changing names it said the easiest thing to do is make a new one if you have not edited much, so I did. I hope this is better. I have looked at other sources to cite such as [2] I may go back to it once I have fully understood all the complications and how to disclose COI. Thanks for taking the time to talk me through it thoughCaroline-TYB (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Caroline-TYB: That's fine. Just please make sure not to use the Theyachtbreak account anymore - using more than one account simultaneously is frowned upon.
- I'll leave a message on your talk page with some other helpful links. Looks like you're on the right path now... good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Drm310:When I looked into changing names it said the easiest thing to do is make a new one if you have not edited much, so I did. I hope this is better. I have looked at other sources to cite such as [2] I may go back to it once I have fully understood all the complications and how to disclose COI. Thanks for taking the time to talk me through it thoughCaroline-TYB (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Taseer Badar and Marketing agency
- Taseer Badar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Versacreative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi! I would like to point out an editor most likely working for a marketing agency (already tagged per WP:UAA) edited a client's page, including removing a COI tag. There appear to be other potentially problematic IP edits but those could be unrelated. They're relatively old edits, but it looks like another instance of UPE worthy of note. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- We have a policy on WP:Outing. You cannot connect editors to real life occupations, identities, addresses and so on unless the editor has already divulged this. Have they done so? Just asking, as I have not checked their history to see if they have. You also need to notify the editor so that they can participate in this discussion. I'll do that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I didn't out anyone. I merely mentioned a marketing company that obviously engaged in UPE. No personal details for any individual editor were revealed, just a company name that's readily available to anyone. I think in this day and age, after all that's happened on Wikipedia, it is in the encyclopedia's best interest to note such instances and keep an eye out for future reference. As far as I could tell from the user's edits, no disclosures were ever made. And their username was in clear violation of username policy too. Given their last edits were made over a year ago, I didn't think notifying them would make a difference, but you're right I should've done it anyway. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- We have a policy on WP:Outing. You cannot connect editors to real life occupations, identities, addresses and so on unless the editor has already divulged this. Have they done so? Just asking, as I have not checked their history to see if they have. You also need to notify the editor so that they can participate in this discussion. I'll do that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The Eye Wales
- The Eye Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Martin Clintergate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 80.189.151.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edits by User:Martin Clintergate to the new article The Eye Wales and Nation.Cymru seem to entirely depend on citations from a fringe blog. It's the first I've ever heard of the website and the articles do not have any notability or credibility. It does have however a very promotional tone for the creator of the website, Phil Parry.
Very recently, some uncanny edits have popped up from User:80.189.151.94 which lead me to question if this is a sockpuppet for Clintergate or another connected figure with The Eye Wales. It particularly likes [making edits to citations from Phil Parry], who is the operator of The Eye Wales.
The user seems to be making [a number of deletions] to Nation.Cymru which is coincidentally a larger news website and politically opposing website to The Eye Wales. The article makes a number of [assertions] to the website's quality and reputation (not based on third party sources but often its own) and seems to generally be a highly promotional, non notable page created by user(s) with a conflict of interest. Llemiles (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m not an administrator, but User talk: Martin Clintergate is not a sockpuppet. They are not involved or indeed have ever met anyone from either Nation Cymru or The Eye Wales according to the sockpuppet investigation. I filed a sockpuppet report to be sure this person is an sockpuppet. Don’t falsely accuse innocent people who are good contributors to Wikipedia.JaneciaTaylor (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I would add that I submitted the query in good faith due to edits which raised genuine COI concerns for me, and I would not target 'good contributors'. In this instance both are new users with few or no previous edits. I would also raise that it is Martin who has accused myself of having a 'political axe to grind'. I'm not satisfied that any of my points regarding the UK daylight hour edits of his were addressed, despite the fact he claims to live in Thailand. Nor were the similarities between his and the IP user's edits addressed. Just trying to objectively judge the facts as best I can here. Llemiles (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Stony Rapids
- Stony Rapids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- StonyRapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A lot of edits coming from a new username with the same name as the title. Could be benign but wanted to bring up for attention regardless Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Lightwater Valley
- Lightwater Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 79.65.177.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
An anonymous IP address has recently started adding potentially promotional material that I had deleted back to the article without posting to the Talk Page. The user appears to only be editing this particular page and does not have a Talk Page of their own. I was not able to post a Conflict of interest notice due to this lack, however, I did provide an internal link to this noticeboard in the article Talk Page, while asking the user to cease and desist. Aleah H. (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing stopping you from posting on their talk page, the fact that it has not been posted on yet does not prevent you from doing so. Beach drifter (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The Lauter
- Rolf Lauter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The Lauter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- The Lauter Legacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PhilCult84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- R. Lauter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Robert Mazarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Friederike Mueller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Zissuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lucian J. King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While checking a range for an unrelated case, I came across multiple accounts editing the same articles. Meatpuppetry is possible but all accounts are using the same model device with many on the same IPs at the same time on different occasions on three different mobile ISPs. They do not look like institutional devices since they are mobile. Best case, we have some COI editors possibly with UPE promoting a museum and Rolf Lauter. Worst case, we have some socking going on. I did not file an SPI case but putting this here for more investigation. I recommend reading the userpage for The Lauter first and then looking at the other userpages. Beans. Several of the accounts are inserting references to Rolf Lauter works.
See Commons pages User:R. Lauter and User talk:R. Lauter to see that account's activity there.
Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see this. Notice Mazarin account made this edit.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum; this noticeboard section is about the accounts and articles listed above. A long wall of unrelated discussion and accusations has been collapsed for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Hello Berean Hunter, When looking through your presentation, I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer [[5]] who advertises extensively for his artists and is leading campaigns against certain people from the culture in Frankfurt and Germany for his own interests and personal reasons. This approach contradicts the values that Wikipedia has set up and is more than questionable. The disrespectful treatment and rejection of historical facts, which in no way have anything to do with the advertising or promotion of an old art historian who has been retired for years, unfortunately shows that some WP authors try to interfere with the privacy of various scientists and their valuable research under constructed circumstances and destroy their historically helpful work for Wikipedia. Another sad chapter in Wikipedia history, as described in the 2015 newspaper article. [[6]] History and science are above the personal interests of people and must be protected, not undermined by personal interests. Greetings from Germany to America --PH_C 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch
English
Reference Artmax / Slutzky Gallery: Benutzer:Slutzky has been changed by Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233 References Artmax general contributions for the artists of his gallery in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax Reference Webpage Gallery Artists (selection): Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/ References for artists in Wikipedia (selection): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669 Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=45760515 Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history Thank you for your cooperation and greetings --PH_C 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch II
English III want to make the story as short as possible because I don't want to waste my time discussing while I can write on Wikipedia or on my own texts and books: 1 What does “While checking a range for an unrelated case” mean? Are there administrators in Wikipedia who systematically monitor IP addresses of authors? Where's the data protection and people's privacy? Do we already live in Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley‘s “Brave new World”? There have been many studies on this since 2007. (See 4) 2 Allegations of "socking" are absurd, as students and scientists insert historical content with verifiable sources into Wikipedia on many pages. There is no vandalism, threats, negative claims or other destructive acts. Unfortunately, these come from mentors and administrators. Does Wikipedia want to dictate to the authors which institutional or mobile devices they can work with? All people who use the IP addresses you have given and many more, for whatever reason you hide, pursue scientific goals, which should be clear to everyone when reviewing the text contributions and improvements. The many students and historians, some of whom you have made public, have no family or other relationships, nor is anyone funded by anyone else for their scientific research or work. What you call doctorate is scientific teamwork about historical personalities. And I don't think Wikipedia can tell an author how often he should work on one or more articles! None of the people who are working on the same or similar topics for Wikipedia, who I know or even watch, have never worked disrespectfully, but only constructively. 3 The monitoring and virtual linking of people, IP addresses and devices reminds me of surveillance systems from very dark times in Germany. We are very sensitive to this. And I cannot believe that administrators in the USA randomly check IP addresses of the majority of German scientists. The connections to the origin Artmax are blatant and are already being examined further. 4 Quote «Lack of discussion culture In the study The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a rapid decline in the number of active authors was found after a rapid growth in the number of authors in the English Wikipedia until 2007, particularly as a result of departures among new authors. On the one hand, the terribly complicated Wikipedia rules are one reason why familiarizations by new authors are often reverted due to violations of the rules. On the other hand, a slump in the "welcome culture" is responsible for this. [120] The number of active authors and new authors in the German-language Wikipedia has been falling steadily since 2007. [121] Since then, suggestions for improving the number of authors have been drawn up at the annual WikiCon conference - so far, however, without substantial success. » End of quote [[9]] And that is exactly the problem of you and other mentors and administrators in Wikipedia, which you did not recognize and understand. Administrators and mentors from Wikipedia have the task and the duty to accompany, support and advise authors and not to monitor, review, question, threaten them or delete their contributions out of their own interests. This applies to Artmax in Wikipedia D and to you as well. In the United States in particular, there have been many reports of data abuse, abuse of power, vandalism and hoaxes, anti-elitarism, distortions inherent in the system, and disrespectful treatment of scientific authors. Articles by authors with specialist knowledge are often processed by Wikipedia employees or long-time authors according to the principle of collectivist majority corrections and a "digital Maoism" to scientifically questionable articles. As in the case of Artmax, this can also have personal reasons that lead to a wealth of information about self-centered information. The causes mentioned lead to a reduction in participation, because honorable specialists and researchers are systematically combated and distributed by semi-scientific people. This is generally a problem of "primitivization and flattening" of historical truths and facts in society and in Wikipedia. 5 And what is completely absurd: What is the comment about the user Zissuu and her personal activities on a public discussion page? “Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. So, see this.” Do you want to out or strain someone anyway? I have no understanding for that. In my opinion, this is a case for data protection. Quote "Data protection The current Wikipedia privacy policy [163] was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and entered into force on June 6, 2014. Accordingly, data such as the correct name, address or date of birth do not have to be given in order to set up a standard account or to contribute content to the Wikimedia pages. Every author has the right to anonymity. [166] Users belonging to the Oversighter [167] user group can hide versions from a version history or the logbook in such a way that administrators can no longer see them if someone reveals a user's identity against their will. » End of quote [[10]] Many Wikipedians have warned me exactly about the virtual constructions that you have put forward and the edit that Artmax has started many times, but I thought that this could not be in a free and value-based encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is confirmed and it is less and less fun to volunteer for Wikipedia and with a valuable lifetime. --PH_C 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk |
- (ec – I see translation has already been provided, read my comments below in that light, tx)
- @PhilCult84:
- if it's "... unrelated ...", that means it has nothing to do with you. This is not about you checking whether Wikipedia editors followed policy regarding privacy & whatnot: once your situation is cleared (which it is not currently) your questions may be revisited, but looking at them now doesn't have much sense as long as you don't answer the simple question: do you have a conflict of interest or not (a simple "yes" or "no" suffices)
- English Wikipedia's rules regarding WP:SOCKING are pretty strict: some cases are allowed, others are not (see policy for details): of course, if no socking is involved, no need to check whether it's an "allowed" or "disallowed" case. So first, it needs to be established whether or not socking is going on. If that question is cleared (for which you can help by giving straightforward answers), the next step can be decided.
- Afaics the "Artmax" topic (and their edits on German Wikipedia) is a red herring in this discussion. I'd recommend you stop with "Artmax"-related aspersions, which don't help the quite simple topic here, and only reflect poorly on the one casting the aspersions.
- More red herring: whether, and why, Wikipedia has too many or too few editors isn't the topic here. Your comments read like an attempt to divert attention from the simple question you have been asked, i.e. whether or not you have a conflict of interest. Again, a simple "yes" or "no" suffices to answer the question.
- If you're not connected to either the Zissuu or the Otgo account (as in: not in any way connected, neither to the accounts themselves, nor the editor(s) behind them), it is not up to you reply in the name of either account, and that would make your reply above highly appropriate. The question whether you have a connection to either, can be answered by a simple "yes" or "no".
- Please reply in English.
- @Berean Hunter: the German editor's behaviour seems mostly "evasive" (trying to change subject – which would make a word-for-word translation of their wall of text a rather superfluous task) rather than "accusing" – there are some "aspersions" in #3 (...which are a kind of covert accusations), which they need to discontinue. The main issue thus far, imho, seems however their refusal to just answer the simple questions they have been asked, and instead presenting a gulf of conspiration theory. If that's the maximum clarity we can get from the editor (I hope not: it will become clear soon whether they grasp a next chance to put the record straight... or not), there should imho not be many qualms about an editor who'd need more work to get them cooperating than net result of decent mainspace content in English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not like it when a private person who is a regular member of Wikipedia is posted on a public discussion site. If an admin has a question, he can ask it by email. About the representations about Zissuu: On my page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Zissuu it is clearly written who we are, how we work and that we all do team research for historical facts about historical personalities and post them in Wikipedia. And this does not only concern an older, well-known cultural personality from Germany. I wonder: what do verifiable facts have to do with advertising? Ask for an explanation. And please, can you remove negative and oversubscribed representations from the discussion pages so that our scientists can continue to do their good work for Wikipedia? What should I understand by the sentence: "Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded"? Does anyone in Wikipedia really want to monitor the actions of committed members? Where's the data protection??? I really can't imagine. I ask that the discussion page, which in my view makes no sense, be deleted to prevent further harm from everyone.
- Thanks and greetings from Germany --Zissuu (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- You put this on your de.wiki userpage on March 10. So, the simple answer is yes, you have a conflict of interest because you are working for them. Since that is so, do you think that it was right of you to team up with PhilCult84 to mislead Artmax in this discussion? PhilCult84 has not stated his conflict of interest on his userpage on de.wiki...and I believe that was what Artmax was speaking about there also.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- You put this on your de.wiki userpage on March 10. So, the simple answer is yes, you have a conflict of interest because you are working for them. Since that is so, do you think that it was right of you to team up with PhilCult84 to mislead Artmax in this discussion? PhilCult84 has not stated his conflict of interest on his userpage on de.wiki...and I believe that was what Artmax was speaking about there also.
Multiple articles related to The Slants
- The Slants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The Stivs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Matal v. Tam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Simon Tam (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Populuxeent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User has long-term history of editing of pages about the band The Slants and related topics. The username suggests this is a corporate account operating on behalf of Populuxe Entertainment, the promotion company founded by The Slants member Simon Tam. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Chubbles, I had blocked the user after a report at WP:UAA, partially based on the apparent conflict of interest described in this section. The user is now appealing their block with what I personally find to be an acceptable, credible explanation. Would you mind having a look at their talk page and confirming that despite this initial report, it might well be fine to unblock them? Or - asked differently - am I overlooking reasons against an unblock? Thanks in advance ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have any specific evidence to contradict the user, so I suppose we should WP:AGF. It might be worth having a look at subsequent edits, just to be sure the user is familiar with PROMO and NPOV guidelines. Pretty cool rename - appears to be an allusion to the Monkey King. Chubbles (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Pro-fossil fuel edits ?
(Cross posted at WT:WikiProject Climate change. The journalist has been looking for clear examples for a couple of weeks.)
I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Clayoquot: it seems not. You asked on this page on 26 February, the question was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Pro-fossil_fuel_edits_? on 2 March and has still not received any answers. TSventon (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for finding that - I'd forgotten where I'd posted it! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Goodspeed (internet provider)
- Goodspeed (internet provider) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 1.39.250.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
As depicted here, they want assurances that their work won't be deleted, which I think brings the article's creator, Dgtrittenwein, into question. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- This looks like user Meeanaya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me so I have shared some details with MER-C. GSS 💬 17:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Olive Writing Hub
- Andre Fili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Artem Lobov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Freddy Deeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dentons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi, I found the above listed articles listed as personal work samples on Olive Writing Hub's website: https://www.olivewritinghub.com/wiki-writing/. I am not entirely sure which users were involved in paid editing, since there are quite a few for each one, so I am not tagging any users here. I leave that to more experienced editors. Additionally, I have placed UDP tags on the articles and the corresponding tag on their talk pages. FelixtheNomad (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- FelixtheNomad, thanks for bringing this up, I'll review. One thing to be aware of is that these sites often claim articles which they didn't actually write as their work, so these articles being listed there doesn't actually mean that they're UPE. creffett (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I see that Beeblebrox appears to have had the same idea about six months ago. I'm looking at the article histories and I don't see much in the way of overlap going on, plenty of IP edits and occasional promotion but no smoking-gun evidence for UPE. Will give the articles another check and then will probably remove the tags. creffett (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Olivewritinghub's website looks similar to (and uses the same insipid chatbox feature) as the Get Wikified series of sites. Like creffett noted above, some sites (including the Get Wikified group) claim articles they did not create, so we should be cautious about placing undue UDP tags. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- From what I recall they were one of the most incompetent UPE rings ever, couldn't even come up with halfway believable lies, so the articles probably aren't theirs either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I understand how they might have simply chosen some random articles as samples for their website. It seems like you all know how best to deal with issues likes this.. FelixtheNomad (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Olivewritinghub's website looks similar to (and uses the same insipid chatbox feature) as the Get Wikified series of sites. Like creffett noted above, some sites (including the Get Wikified group) claim articles they did not create, so we should be cautious about placing undue UDP tags. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I see that Beeblebrox appears to have had the same idea about six months ago. I'm looking at the article histories and I don't see much in the way of overlap going on, plenty of IP edits and occasional promotion but no smoking-gun evidence for UPE. Will give the articles another check and then will probably remove the tags. creffett (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Boomerang
- DoshNomad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I have blocked FelixtheNomad, now DoshNomad, for UPE:
- Creations
- Pearl of Peace EV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Recreation of UPE page; originally created by 2018Bekuarpeter (talk · contribs) over redirect by GlosyAbeki (talk · contribs)
- Nikolaus Kimla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- substantially edited by Thailaoo (talk · contribs)
- Japanelemu style username
- Pipeliner (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) orignally created as a redirect. Thailaoo is a fairly obvious sock of 2018Bekuarpeter
- Christina Daves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A. Lee Dellon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- substantial edits to Anuja Trehan Kapur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in turn was substantially edited by Japanelemu socks
- substantially edited by Thailaoo (talk · contribs)
- 2018Bekuarpeter was listed here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia Procreative Writers
- Nikolaus Kimla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Recreation of UPE page; originally created by 2018Bekuarpeter (talk · contribs) over redirect by GlosyAbeki (talk · contribs)
- Jim West (sculptor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of fellows of IEEE Magnetics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hardayal Singh Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michael J. Stolarczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rakesh Wahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kontoor Brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lauren Wesley Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Substantial edits
- Jamie_Waller_(entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- [11] - substantially edited by Japanelemu
- Vandalye (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- creation of article over redirect of blocked UPE account BatdaCat.M (talk · contribs)
- Linear Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Horizn Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David McCourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fahad Badar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Special:Undelete/MadeInAmerica.com
- originally created by Hamirapiratra (talk · contribs)
- Refspam
I'm going to block them all, but should they be deemed as Japanelemu socks for the purposes of G5? MER-C 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
AndreiBrette and Agentura.ru
- Andrei Soldatov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Irina Borogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The New Nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Agentura.Ru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- The Red Web (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AndreiBrette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 217.150.205.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 91.76.103.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 91.76.102.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This account has created the following pages:
- Andrei Soldatov. It was also edited by these IPs [13], [14] whose location coincides with location of the subject of the page.
- Irina Borogan
- New Nobility
- Agentura.ru (and another similarly located IP: [15])
- The Red Web.
All of that seem to be created by the same account/person who is probably the subject of the first page. Could someone please check these pages for consistency with WP:COI and other policies? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have added pagelinks and userlinks per the standard format here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thomas A. McKean and others
- Thomas A. McKean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jill Escher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alison Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- National Council on Severe Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ylevental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
For a long time, the user concerned has been creating - or trying to create (there are two drafts also in the user's creation list; Thomas Clements and Marty Murphy) - articles that promote individuals or organisations that seek to press Autism as a bad thing. The user already has a COI established with the similarly minded Jonathan Mitchell. On the user's main user page there is an admission of editing against WP:NPOV which he added he would cease doing. However the user has persisted and may in fact be acting on behalf of the people concerned - whether they know about it or not. This had led to a tendency to misread sources as reliable in terms of notability and so forth (for example using a Word Press blog on the Singer article). This needs to be curbed and as soon as possible. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:598E:D4ED:5EAB:D689 (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- IP, do you think this is a COI issue (editor is working on topics for which they are connected to the subject somehow) of a neutrality issue? The neutrality noticeboard might be the place for this note if it is the latter.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: It's both. I came here because of the established existing COI with Mitchell. He is definitely friends with Clements as well. His conduct re the other people is exactly the same and both Escher and Singer are responsible for the NCSA. He has already been reported to the NPOV noticeboard multiple times awhile back leading to his note on his user page. Clearly that hasn't worked. This represents a logical escalation of the issue. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- We have a confession by the user re the NCSA here in the edit summary. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: It's both. I came here because of the established existing COI with Mitchell. He is definitely friends with Clements as well. His conduct re the other people is exactly the same and both Escher and Singer are responsible for the NCSA. He has already been reported to the NPOV noticeboard multiple times awhile back leading to his note on his user page. Clearly that hasn't worked. This represents a logical escalation of the issue. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B9AD:D85B:7A81:6819 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Writing about a topic one is familiar with is not necessarily a problem. For example, if someone had coeliac disease, they may well join organizations linking similar people and could meet medical staff who work in the field. After a few years they might start writing articles about notable people with various views on the disease, people they could have met or at least seen talking as an audience member. We only slap COI tags on articles if there is a good reason to think their editing is a problem. If someone is writing articles about a wonderful product and how everyone should buy it, sure, hit it with any appropriate tags. But for something like the reported case (involving User:Ylevental) you need much more than the dubious evidence produced so far to show there is a problem. How about some diffs of edits showing a disregard for the core policies? While we're here, how is it that a shifting IP and an SPA has such an interest in the topic? Do you have a COI to declare? Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- No (shifting IP's is a pain and this time it jumped to IPV4) I don't have a COI because I live in a different country a long way away. The evidence lies in creation of articles. The ones I named, the two drafts - and many others of the same ilk like Jonathan Mitchell where a COI has already been admitted to. As stated above he confessed re the NCSA. He also tried to delete articles of those who come from the opposite side of the "debate". The others he created are - oh I just went to his contributions and he's created another one now. Jonathan_Shestack. The others are Bruce Hall, In a Different Key, David Miedzanik and Matthew Belmonte. The articles he tried to delete are Autism is a World, Julia Bascom Autistic Pride Day, John Elder Robison, Wrong Planet, Aspies for Freedom, Amy Sequenzia, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autism Network International, Jim Sinclair and Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Sequenzia was the only one that was actually deleted. It is impossible to go beyond this as evidence without outing the user, which is not allowed here. I don't know where you got the sock idea from. 101.186.156.45 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- That is true, but that was four years ago. People kept vandalizing what I was writing, so I got somewhat frustrated in response and pushed back too hard. Ylevental (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- The link I gave is SPA, not SPI. How is it that out of thousands of active editors, you happened to notice this one? That is just as suspicious as the weak evidence you have presented. As I mentioned, it's very possible for someone to have developed an interest in a topic and to edit in that topic. We need evidence of an actual problem (defined as edits which persistently violate one of the core policies, e.g. as shown at WP:5P). Are you suggesting that, for example, In a Different Key should be deleted? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, not that one. It passes the notability guidelines. Shestack may as well. I'm not looking for deletions. That's for AfD. As far as SPA goes, I suggest you go here and look at the first edit. Likewise my previous range [[16]] which shows a lot more different edits. The issue here is the creation of articles on the one side and trying to delete articles on the other. As stated he has already admitted to a COI with the NCSA (see the link I already gave) and with Jonathan Mitchell (see the talk page). As I also said, the additional evidence would out the user and I'm not doing that. It concerns Clements in particular. (And now I'm back on the IPV6 again!) 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D888:CA4C:6B7B:F343 (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- No (shifting IP's is a pain and this time it jumped to IPV4) I don't have a COI because I live in a different country a long way away. The evidence lies in creation of articles. The ones I named, the two drafts - and many others of the same ilk like Jonathan Mitchell where a COI has already been admitted to. As stated above he confessed re the NCSA. He also tried to delete articles of those who come from the opposite side of the "debate". The others he created are - oh I just went to his contributions and he's created another one now. Jonathan_Shestack. The others are Bruce Hall, In a Different Key, David Miedzanik and Matthew Belmonte. The articles he tried to delete are Autism is a World, Julia Bascom Autistic Pride Day, John Elder Robison, Wrong Planet, Aspies for Freedom, Amy Sequenzia, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Autism Network International, Jim Sinclair and Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Sequenzia was the only one that was actually deleted. It is impossible to go beyond this as evidence without outing the user, which is not allowed here. I don't know where you got the sock idea from. 101.186.156.45 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: Ylevental has outed his own name on his user page and his Twitter account. Further, he has used the edit warring rule to avoid scrutiny getting the McKean and Shestack articles protected. Shestack is a friend of Escher, who Ylevental has confessed to having a COI with, which started when they met at an IACC meeting in 2013 (see here for proof of Escher's attendance and the attendance of Shestack's wife Portia Iverson. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:A8AC:B59B:8B88:CB5B (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
XMOS
- XMOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- XCore Architecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- XCORE-200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Graphcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- XC (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- XSwitch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirects to XMOS)
- XCore XS1-L1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirected to XMOS)
- XCore XS1-G4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirected to XMOS)
- XCore XS1-AnA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirected to XMOS)
- XCore XS1-SU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirected to XMOS)
- XCORE-VOICE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirects to XMOS)
- XCore Open Source License (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirects to XMOS)
- Henk.muller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Huw.geddes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Articles created by people associated with the XMOS company. Henk.muller is the CTO of XMOS, per his talk page. I am not sure that these products are notable enough to each warrant their own article. Additionally, the articles read like a combination of marketing materials and in-depth technical manuals. drt1245 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Merge them all into one, delete the promotional cruft. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. For the record: I am editing these pages to provide a record of the technology in as far as it in the public interest. In the same way that I edit other pages on wikipedia. I happen to have more knowledge about those pages than about other pages. I am not being paid to write those pages (or any other pages on Wikipedia for that matter); it is something I do, often out of hours, because in my opinion these products are notable enough to warrant an existence on Wikipedia. I am aware that I am writing about products that are made by the company that I work for. I am trying to provide objective and verifiable facts rather than hype. Of course, one person's fact is another person's hyperbole, and I am delighted for those to be corrected. If there is a standard against which I can put "notability" I would happily oblige. (talk) 17:05, 15th March 2020 (UTC)
- Have you made your COI declaration yet? I haven't looked. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I see from your talk page that you have. I have left a note. thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please review the COI guidelines. In particular: "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors". Regarding notability, the guidelines are here. As an example, I looked into the XCore XS1-L1. All I found was one technical article, some press releases, and some passing references is discussions of the AmigaOne X1000. I do not believe this meets the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drt1245 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did review the conflict of interest guidelines in detail in the past, and had a discussion about them with a different person about them, where they were happy that I was complying. In particular, I am transparent, I am editing pages on physical products that I have knowledge about, and importantly, and have nothing to gain from these edits, I make them purely as a historical record of fact.
- Regarding notability: the criteria you suggest (discussions in public forums and newspapers) are appropriate for information on events or people, say WW II, or Henry VIII. XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk.muller (talk • contribs)
XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability?
No. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Have you made your COI declaration yet? I haven't looked. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also just added Graphcore and XC (programming language) to the list. -drt1245 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Per XMOS's company page, Graphcore was spun off from XMOS in 2016. -drt1245 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Re Graphcore - I created the original page, but have nothing to do and know nothing interesting about them since 2017.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henk.muller (talk • contribs)
The XCORE processor pages are ridiculous on many levels. I have redirected four of the five to XMOS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)