Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiran chandani (talk | contribs) at 17:21, 10 September 2015 (→Possible music spammers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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


    Wintertanager

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

    Attention is called to extensive editing history on former Ogilvy and Mather (PR) exec M. T. Carney and talent agent Michael Ovitz. The editor has been advised explicitly about our COI policy on 10 February [5] by DissidentAggressor, and reminded/asked with this comment on 8 May and this comment on 9 May, then asked explicitly again by me 6 August [6]. The reply to the last is here. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Yes Jytdog, I have a COI. I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Wintertanager (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe and DissidentAggressor please refrain from commenting here while Wintertanager and I talk. Please. I'll have something to say to each of you in bit, but please hold back. Thanks in advance.
    Wintertanager, thanks for disclosing that. Step by step here. Would you please disclose the nature of your COI? Please do keep in mind that the Terms of Use require that if you are being paid, that you disclose your " employer, client and affiliation". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog I currently edit on behalf of Lazada Group. I am self-employed. Wintertanager (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering, about your current client. So here's the situation as I see it, Wintertanager. I am going to be frank and clear here, as I was frank and clear when I simply asked you the questions. I apologize in advance, as this is kind of long.
    On the one hand, it is baffling to me that nobody has simply asked you the questions, directly and clearly, in all this time. I think you've been ... not well served by the community, in that regard. On the other hand, p You have been directly asked in the past, and [here said no]. People have brought up the issue with you, with notices and statements, that you simply skipped around instead of answering directly. (They give you those notices and make those claims, looking for a direct response. It is a little passive-aggressive-y to me to give a notice and not ask a question, but that is beside the point) More importantly, you have been made aware of the Terms of Use that kicked in last summer, and you have not fulfilled the positive obligation it put on you, to disclose your paid editing. And even here, you frankly lied when you wrote "I, like you, want pages that resonate with people genuinely interested in these topics. Nothing more and nothing less." There is definitely a something "more", in that you want to please your client so you can get paid; and you want these edits to stick, so you can show them to future clients to get more work. So you have dug yourself a big hole, and taken up a bunch of the time of DA and BrianHe, and the community - all of whom are volunteers and could have been building content.
    That is all behind-the-scenes stuff.
    Probably the more important issue, is that you have added just a ton of bad content to WP, and this harms the encyclopedia. Many people have told you this, many times, and instead of taking that on board, you have protested that you think your editing is OK, and/or asked people to identify specific issues that need fixing. But here is the thing that you haven't been understanding (and that our WP:COI guideline talks about. If you haven't read that with a goal of learning, I urge you to do so) When you edit with a COI, it is almost impossible to edit neutrally. You come to the topic with a bias - you see the topic with a bias. And that comes through in your editing. You can't see it, but others, who are not conflicted, can. And they have. Biased editing hurts Wikipedia; readers come across that, and they lose trust in us. When they lose trust, WP becomes less valuable to the world. And to your clients. And to you, as a paid editor. And by taking up the community's time to deal with it (not only by fixing the content, but by dealing with you behind the scenes) good content that could have been created, hasn't been. When you do bad things, more bad things ripple out from it. The opposite is also true.
    So you are really at a fork in the road here. So is the community.
    As for the community - You have done enough damage, that the community could decide to indefinitely block you now, or place a topic ban on you. Or not.
    As for you... you could start taking the high road, carefully and with full transparency, or not. If you choose the high road, that would mean:
    * fully disclosing all your past and current paid editing (employer, client and affiliation) and promising to do that going forward (and doing it), Ideally you would make all those disclosures in one central place, like your User page, in addition to disclosing on the article talk page (ideally with the {{connected contributor}} template in the header, which endures when Talk pages are archived)
    * putting new articles you create through WP:AFC with a COI disclosure, instead of creating articles directly (this provides peer review, to address bias before the whole articles go live)
    * instead of directly editing existing articles, using the "edit request" function to propose content changes on the Talk page (this also provides peer review, to address bias before edits go live
    Those two things - disclosure and peer review - are how Wikipedia works with editors who have a COI to manage their COI. As I wrote above, people who have a COI are part of the community, but we ask them to do some things differently. I recognize that going through peer review is not as efficient as editing directly, but Wikipedia doesn't place a high value on efficiency - there are no deadlines here, as we say. On your side, doing those different things is what allows trust within the community; the distrust your behavior so far has engendered is what happens when people don't work with the community to manage their COI. It is not pretty to see that distrust, and it must have been very unpleasant for you to live with it, and having that distrust rolling around the community harms the community. It doesn't have to be that way. If you choose this road, you will find (eventually) that things will go more smoothly for you, when you are transparent. Not as efficient, but more smooth.
    That is all the "high road" path. You could choose to half-disclose, or continue with other not-fully-transparent behaviors, but by now I don't think the community would have much tolerance for that. It would probably lead to more misery and drama and ultimately, probably, to an indefinite ban for you.
    OK, that was long, but that is how I see things. So you have some agency here - what path do you choose? (Please know that if you choose the high path now, you are going to have to endure and accept some mistrust and close monitoring. It takes time to build trust) Thanks for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (amended per markup Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Actually, W was asked, via a template that was called brashly direct by another editor, and W replied in the negative here. Brianhe (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I missed that. I am sorry for missing it and the the judgements I made based on that miss. Struck and added above. You actually did that very clearly, and in my view, well. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, Wintertanager, the ball is in your court here. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in taking the high road, that is why I have made this admission. I am happy to comply with the suggestions you make; indeed it will alleviate anxiety and allow me - abiding by the path you have suggested I pursue - to submit entries and edits, albeit inefficiently. In terms of your other points, I understand your perspective regarding one's personal blind spots to unbiased editing and will adhere to what you suggest above to alleviate those concerns. When it comes to content I don't think I very much disagree I have "added just a ton of bad content to WP". I stand by Lazada Group as a notable, neutral, encyclopedic, well-written, and well sourced and - if that is not so - I encourage someone to identify tangible issues with content for the sake of the community and the quality of the encyclopedia. If the page does not adhere to WP's principles, I urge and encourage steps taken to fix that page, and yet those content-related steps never seem to transpire. Wintertanager (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for reading that slog and replying and for agreeing to follow the COI guideline and Terms of Use going forward. As I wrote above, from what I can see, the community is pretty close to indeffing you. They may still do. I recommend you post a full disclosure of your paid editing on your userpage sooner rather than later.

    With regard to the Lazada article... Part of the picture you may not be seeing yet, is that none of us who work at COIN love going around behind paid editors and cleaning up after them. We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent. I will take up some of my weekend to clean up the article and you will get a sense of what a NPOV view of them actually looks like.

    But really, your nod toward understanding what COI says about inherent bias is, to be frank, arrogant baloney. The Lazada article is promotional. I see DissidentAggressor has been over it once and tagged some things - what he doesn't seem to have done is go read about Lazada so he could bring sources to tell the story, warts and all. (the article depicts one glorious rise with no hitches, which seems pretty fake - no company is without failures along the way.) And there is not a word about profits (the reason why a company exists), which if they are anything like Amazon in that regard, they have none of. And... a quick google search for "Lazada profit" brings up the story pretty quickly. Nothing about that in the article. What advocates don't add to articles is often more telling than what they do. I came across an article about a guy who made all his money running porn websites (not Jimbo); the article didn't mention where he got his money. Paid editor wrote that.

    Anyway, if you have questions about best practices for following the the COI guideline, feel free to ping me. And again, the community may still indef you. I wouldn't oppose it, based on all of your behavior to date. There is a strong tendency in WP to mercy in order to retain editors, but paid editors strain that. That is all I have to say. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay fair enough Jytdog, I appreciate your candor and I think inclusion of the profitability story makes a lot of sense. I agree with your statement that 'We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent'. That's what I want as well. I encourage you to add the 'whole story' if it is notable and sourced. I believe that for anyone interested in tech in Asia, growth of e-commerce in emerging markets, etc. Lazada Group is highly relevant - much like Alibaba and other companies - it needs a WP article and I'm proud of the fact I helped contribute to it, provided that contribution was neutral and encyclopedic. If it isn't, all I can say is I genuinely wanted it to be and hope my entry facilitates the evolution of the page (unlike most of the pages flagged here). I do feel like you are warning me: 'you want to see what a NPOV is really like? Wait until I get through with it!' How is that any different than the 'bias' you claim I have? Add warts, but not for the sake of proving to me what a page looks like with warts; add them for the sake of providing a qualitative, well-rounded page for an interested audience. Honestly, here is what I don't understand: you claimed that I "would be amazed at how much better things go" if I came forward and admitted a COI. Well I did come forward and I am not amazed at all! It appears there is no difference between having done so and not having done so. I would warn anyone being told that there is a 'positive alternative' to coming forward as a viable participant in the community, subject to certain rules, etc. - when - from what I can see - there is no such thing. Lastly, I have added my COI to my user page (or, am doing second after I hit save here) to comply with your request. I do hope there is some solution here; I don't want to stop contributing to WP and I do believe I have value to add in my contributions. It has been stressful to have such antagonism towards me and I would like to resolve that antagonism. If there is indeed a path to redemption in your and other's eyes, I am likely more willing to take it than you would imagine me to be. Wintertanager (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the issue WT - What I was looking for was you stepping all the way through. You gave a partial disclosure (only who is currently paying you) and a bunch of attitude. All the way through would have been something like: "I have lied a lot and I am sorry to everybody for causing all this drama. With regard to the editing I've done, I've done the best I can to make the articles neutral, and I hear you, that the articles need work. I will get right on with making the disclosure of all my paid editing, and hope we can work together in a better way going forward. I know it will take time for you to trust me." Simple. As for your accusation that I am going to spin the article negatively - all I have to say to that, is meh. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and appreciate your perspective Jytdog, although what you call attitude is my honest point of view. I have a COI on some but not all of past pages I have worked on. I would risk personal liability to disclose more than that. Therefore I've pledged on my user page that I follow your COI criteria for all edits/pages moving forward. I apologize for lying; it was a position that made me very uncomfortable and ultimately led to me coming forward. Wintertanager (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say that you "risk personal liability" are you saying that you signed conflidentiality agreements that prevent you from disclosing that you edited for pay? Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I said no such thing, but the former is possible. And now, I see through my coming forward that pages I've contributed to are suddenly subject to more tags, chainsaws, etc. - no focus on content, just a lot of tags. I see there is a much greater price to coming forward than you portrayed; there is no benefit at all, rather punishment. "Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently" and "you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent" are false. Wintertanager (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote that you "risk personal liability" if you disclose past paid editing; the only situation I can imagine where you would have that, is if you made a contractual agreement to not disclose the relationship. I know that you didn't say that you had signed any such thing; I was just trying to understand what personal liability you might face. In any case, I told you that you would face more scrutiny. The benefit of coming forward is that you have a chance of actually building trust and establishing a presence here as a paid editor who honors WP's policies and guidelines. There are a few who do that. Like I said, you either come all the way through to transparency and work on building up trust from the very deep hole you are in now, or you probably get indeffed. The high road is not easy, but because you are in a deep hole, it was really your only way forward. I say "was" because it appears that you are not actually taking the high road. That is your choice. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the conversation with Jytdog has wound down. Recommend a topic ban proposed above by DissidentAggressor for unwillingness to comply with TOS by disclosing "employer, client and affiliation", specifically past clients. — Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am now in favor of the community taking action here. I think the topic ban is poorly defined, though. Instead, I propose an indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE - in this case, violation of the ToU and violating WP:NOTADVOCATE with all the WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems that come with that. In my view, any admin could do this without polling the community, but that would come down to what the admin is comfortable with. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    * Support community ban. The Dissident Aggressor 16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smartse:@Doc James:Have today's events convinced us this type of ... contributor ... is not needed here? Can we at least get a block while other, stricter options are discussed? — Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Frequently, articles worked by a paid editor will be visited after they are blocked by a meat- or sockpuppet. You can watch everything WT ever edited at this page: User:Brianhe/COIbox16. The "related changes" feature is very handy for this. I see a bunch of IP ed's and redlink ed's active, which is of concern. Especially active on Xiaomi in August. — Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with MetLife?

    Hi everyone, I'm looking for help in reviewing some proposed changes that I have for the MetLife article on behalf of the company. I've suggested creating a new Operations section on the article's talk page to help improve the organization of the article. In each of my posts, I've been careful to identify myself as having a financial COI, as I am currently a paid consultant working for MetLife, on behalf of their PR agency, Burson-Marsteller. For this reason, I have not and will not edit the article myself, and am looking instead for editors to look over my proposed changes. Although I've reached out at a few relevant WikiProjects (the business-related ones tend to be very quiet…), only a small part of the request has been reviewed and completed to date, by an editor who said that they just completed what they had time for. I'm hoping someone on this noticeboard might have some time to review what I've suggested, and—most importantly—will be able to make sure it's appropriate from a neutrality perspective. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the de-mutualization and who profited from it should be covered in greater detail. So should the "too big to fail" lawsuit and decision. So should the 2012 failure of the Fed's stress test. Most of the "products" section reads like an ad and needs to be compressed. Lots of work to do there. John Nagle (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi John Nagle, thanks for your reply here and for the edits and notes so far over at MetLife. I've replied in more detail there, but just wanted to follow up here so that you knew I'd seen this note. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and edit-a-thons

    I've been recruited to serve as the technical adviser for a planned edit-a-thon (EAT) sponsored by a local art museum. The salient points are these:

    • I've never before had a relationship with the museum. (They found my name on our local meetup page.) I am and will be serving as an uncompensated volunteer. I have made it clear to the museum that in terms of my loyalties I consider myself to be a Wikipedian first and a volunteer for the EAT second and that in the event of any conflict I will always put the interests of the encyclopedia ahead of the interests and desires of the museum.
    • The individuals with whom I am working to plan the EAT are museum employees.
    • I consider part of my job to be to not only to help with the technical aspects of writing articles such as syntax, sourcing, article style and order, the use of tables, images, infoboxes, and the like, but also to be to monitor compliance with Wikipedia policy such as copyright and, most importantly for this discussion, NPOV and to do what I can to prevent violations. The employee organizers happily accept my participation with that understanding.
    • Some and perhaps all participants other than the employee organizers and me will likely be regular non-employee volunteers at the museum. Of that group all or most serve in an ongoing role as volunteer-only docents.
    • Though many of the article topics to be written or improved will be almost entirely independent of the museum (e.g. artists represented in the museum's collection), the museum has a particular desire to see its own article — which is now only slightly more than a stub — improved as part of the EAT. The employed organizers understand and have agreed with me that they or other employees cannot be the ones who will work on the museum article.

    That brings me to my question: Can participants who are regular volunteers at the museum, but not employees, edit the museum's article under my guidance without infringing upon the COI policy? If we get participants who are not regular volunteers I intend to try to get them to agree to work on the museum's article rather than the regular volunteers, but I'd like to know in advance if it's likely that someone will raise an objection if that does not prove to be the case and only regular volunteers are available to work on that article. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "The museum has a particular desire to see its own article — which is now only slightly more than a stub — improved as part of the EAT." Bad idea. Recruiting editors for promotional purposes is frowned upon. Please read WP:MEAT. Best to leave the article alone. However, uploading pictures of art for which the museum can release rights to Wikimedia Commons is permitted, and indeed, approved of. John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that, but I'm afraid that reply is simply incorrect and confuses meatpuppetry with COI. The first sentence of the header box of MEAT is, "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." and the first sentence of the text is "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute." (Emphasis added in both.) Meatpuppetry, like sockpuppetry, is about bringing shills into a discussion in order to bolster your position, not about asking non-employee editors to help to improve your article. I recognize that there may be an issue here (or I would not have asked), but meatpuppetry's not it. The use of non-NPOV promotional language or material could also eventually be an issue, but it's an issue about how it's done, not if it's done. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of room to move. Mostly COI is a guideline, with the policy aspect coming from the Terms of Use. This wouldn't fringe on the Terms of Use, so that part is fine. There would be a risk of a COI, in the sense that if you are a regular volunteer at an institution, and you then wrote about them in an article, you would be more inclined to write positively as (to an extent) there is potential that you would have an interest in displaying the institution in the best possible light. However, that is considerably less than the COI that an employee would have, and would, I expect, be manageable if working alongside a neutral and experienced editor such as yourself.
    To put it another away - it isn't ideal, as the ideal is that all articles are written by neutral, knowledgeable and largely disinterested editors. This isn't exactly a common state, though. Accordingly, my view would be a situation where people who are not employees, and do not have a financial stake in the institution, are upfront about their relationship, work with a neutral and skilled editor, and are not writing about a controversial issue, is not a particularly bad situation and may well result in an overall net benefit for the project. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that analysis. That's how I figured it as well, but wanted a second opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Leading Physicians of the World"

    Just received an invite from this group. And with flattery being a common form of scamming I decided to look into it. Found this [7][8][9] which sort of confirmed my suspicions.

    I imagine that all pages that include this vanity press are paid for. For example:

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple more suspect sites
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. They have the same address [10] and [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion of Thomas_A._Narsete. Can't find anything that looks like a substantial reliable source. The other two are probably notable enough, but the articles need some toning down of PR language. John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who is likely paid removed it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "prod" removed by SPA who created article. Sent to AfD. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David Sherer has a PR firm.[12] Notability there is marginal, too. John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Whittington

    The subject is clearly notable, but the biography has for years been most carefully maintained by this account, who also adds many external links to related articles, including Mr. Whittington's musical performances and Mr. Whittington's writings, often self-published, which are used as sources as well [13]; [14]; [15]. In short, there appears to be a lot of self-referencing going on. Thoughts by editors with knowledge in this field will be appreciated. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some "citation needed" and "verify" tags. There's uncited material which reads like personal reminiscence. John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The concerns are more far-ranging, though. The account adds original research to multiple articles, or cites online essays by Mr. Whittington and adds them as external links. Looking into this requires some time and effort, and I had hoped to receive some feedback re: the appropriateness of this edit history. But if there's little or no oversight to such involvement, I'll start adding links to my online publications, and use myself as a source. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brickell Flatiron

    editor

    User: Grump International has edited entries for Ugo Colombo, a major real estate developer based in Miami; for Vanessa Grout, the president of Ugo Colombo's company; Brickell Flatiron, a Miami building owned by Ugo Colombo (Grump's contribution to that article was described on User talk:Grump International by User: B137 as violating WP:NPOV and borderline spam, likely to be removed); as well as for Zaha Hadid, an architect with many major projects in Miami, who is associated with Ugo Colombo for high-end Miami real estate projects (e.g. both were "winners" in a 2012 proposal for the Miami Beach Convention Center[1]); and 520 West 28th, a New York condominium designed by Zaha Hadid. User: Grump International was given special permission, via e-mail, by 3GATTI, a firm owned Italian architect Francesco Gatti, to upload a photo to accompany the article Grump wrote about Gatti. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg

    References

    1. ^ Bernstein, Fred (27 September 2012). "Corruption Inquiries Curb Miami Projects". Architectual Record. Retrieved 26 August 2015.

    Promotional tone inserted by Grump International in these articles includes:

    • 520 West 28th: Hadid has stated of the design that, “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.”
    • Brickell Flatiron: Artist Julian Schnabel is in charge of the interior design of the public spaces in the building, showcasing design, art and furniture reflected in the artist's color palette. In June 2015, the Miami Herald wrote on the building's progress, reporting that, "the 64-story glass skyscraper called Brickell Flatiron, is in a more advanced stage of planning, with about 40 percent of units under contract and construction scheduled to start by year’s end. Brickell Flatiron will have 35,000 square feet of ground-floor restaurant and retail space, 548 condos with wide, curving terraces, and a top floor devoted to amenities including a gym, pool and spa."
    • Francesco Gatti: Its ceiling was described by Interior Design as, “Layers of white fiberglass sheets descend from overhead to form cozy little spaces connected by a meandering path. Along the route, customers encounter the clothing and accessories, snuck into various folds.” and "He is an advocate of artists working in developing countries in order to be a part of their cultural development." cited to the article subject's website.

    I have notified User: Grump International on their Talk page of WP:COI policies and asked that they disclose their COI and refrain from direct edits. He deleted my request and wrote an attack on me, so I have moved the discussion here.

    I originally looked at the User: Grump International account because I did not think his/her nomination of the article Ronen Shilo for deletion should count toward consensus because he/she seemed to have an undisclosed bias in that matter of articles related to Shilo.

    I have a disclosed WP:COI as I have a paid consulting relationship with Conduit, where Shilo is CEO. Please see Talk:Conduit (company) for specifics about Conduit or USER: BC1278 for a general description of my paid COI. I go to great effort to work within all Wikipedia policies and beyond, as I disclose my real name and affiliations. I never make direct edits where I have a COI, working only on Talk pages.

    An undisclosed COI with regard to Colombo, Hadid, Gatti et al. is very relevant to the proposed Ronen Shilo deletion because it demonstrates User: Grump International has a history of not disclosing bias.

    I'm sorry that this seems as if I'm hounding User: Grump International, but the article about Shilo and his company and Internet platform, Conduit (publisher network and platform), has been repeatedly attacked over five years and resulted in the article being placed in protected status because of recurrent attempts to source controversial allegations with online discussion forums and other unreliable sources.

    In discussing User: Grump International nomination for deletion, Wikipedia admin user:Graeme Bartlett said that "the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo

    These multiple challenges and changes to the Conduit-related articles were almost the only things User: Grump International had done unrelated to real estate, at the time (aside from undoing a revision on Arthur Ashe.)

    I'd therefore request that an admin also do a WP:CheckUser on this account.

    The attacks on Conduit (publisher network and platform) continued after the article came off protected status, so on my Sandbox I proposed an update. User:Graeme Bartlett split the article into two, creating a new entry just about the company at Conduit (company). The new article is almost entirely taken from the old article, with unreliable sources like online forums removed, but significant criticism of the company left in tact.

    User: Grump International then simultaneously proposed deletion of Shilo, and placed warning flags on Conduit (company) and Perion Network stating they read like news releases.

    I repeatedly tried to engage User: Grump International for specifics into where he saw WP: NPOV issues on Conduit (company) and encouraged him to fix them or ask me to fix them, but he refused. I informed him that the article, while newly named and updated, was the work of more than a dozen editors over five years, including two Wikipedia admins. The admins had to work very hard to remove repeated attacks, so there's reason to be concerned this is happening again.

    Some individuals really disliked the company's software and tried to use Wikipedia to express their personal opinions. Unfortunately, eventually the article became unprotected and many the attacks based on online forums and unreliable sources were placed back in. For details on unreliable sourcing, please see Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material)

    The closest thing I could get to an explanation from User: Grump International about all his/her actions was on the Shilo deletion nomination page: "I just don't see how Wikipedia needs this suite of articles on a fairly narrow subject. Ronen Shilo, Perion Network, Conduit (publisher network and platform), the now deleted Como page, Conduit (company)--just feels like spam to me." The details probably aren't relevant here, but Conduit was the largest Internet company in Israel with more users (260 million) than Twitter until a couple of years ago, and Perion is a NASDAQ public company. Their WP:NOTABILITY is clear.

    As the admin user:Graeme Bartlett has noted, User: Grump International shows sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and skill in Wikimarkup. Yet only had a handful of edits prior to the Conduit issues. Since I brought undisclosed bias to Grump's attention, the editor became more active in other subjects, to buff up the account.

    I'm seeing this matter through because my responding to unjustified attacks from a an undisclosed COI editor is enormously time consuming. I tried my very best to directly engage with User: Grump International about his COI and the nature of his issues with the Conduit-related articles, but I've been met with hostility and no specifics.

    So I'd request that User: Grump International and related accounts be dealt as per policy as an undisclosed COI and an undisclosed alternate account. BC1278 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

    References

    @Graeme Bartlett: You were mentioned above but userlinks were busted. I see no serious problems with article Brickell Flatiron at this time; "showcasing design, art and furniture reflected in the artist's color palette" is a little flowery but probably OK for a description of interior decoration. Haven't examined any others. Brianhe (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Grump International" would appear to violate our username policy, though I'm guessing it may be nothing more than a humorous username.
    So the coi is assumed based upon the edits? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a paid COI editor who discloses and follows Wikipedia policy as best I can. I see a cluster of articles all about the same real estate businesses and related-business projects, plus a special permission from one of the companies to use a photo, and I know it's an undisclosed COI, even if the edits themselves aren't NPOV violations. But I've only been at this a couple of years so I don't know your standard of proof here on this board. I am trying to raise the standards for COI editing - I won't work with someone who isn't clearly notable, understands I will only write with NPOV as best I can, and is on board with my full disclosure of conflict. I think a WP:CheckUser should probably settle the matter as this is pretty clearly an alternate account for User:Grump International's COI activities.BC1278 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    @BC1278: Please prefix usernames with "user:" or you just get a redlink to a nonexistent article. Alternate accounts aren't prohibited in all cases, but they are prohibited for evading scrutiny. In this case, if the conflicted editing pattern is as clear as you say it is, I'm not sure you could say that (hypothetical) multiple accounts are even evasive. It'll take an admin to make that determination. Just a final thing, I'm no fan of COI editing, but I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Brianhe (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: I'm requesting that at the least, this account User:Grump International be declared a COI with regard to these articles; as such, that User:Grump International be required to disclose COI on his user page and on all his activities related to these entities (prior and going forward); and that if this as an alternate account, after being check by WP:Checkuser that it be terminated because setting up an undisclosed alternate account just for COI editing is as serious a violation of WP:COI as there is. The main account should also be put on notice of some sort - and I'd be willing to go through other edits looking for undisclosed COI if I had the user name and IP address of the main account. Usually I just roll my eyes and leave obvious undisclosed COI editing alone, since there's so much of it, but this editor is using an undisclosed COI account for unjustified attacks he/she won't engage in conversation about and undisclosed biases in consensus decisions.BC1278 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    I proposed deletion of Brickell Flatiron and 520 West 28th. The first is a proposed building; construction hasn't even started. WP:CRYSTAL applies there. The second is supposedly under construction, and is only an 11-story condo in NYC, which isn't notable for NYC. This is blatant promotion of condos under construction and for sale. Wikipedia is not a place to sell condos. John Nagle (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nagle, did you note that the Flatiron is the proposed construction of a new tallest building in Miami, and has RS coverage? Maybe we should continue on its talkpage.Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant policy is WP:GEOFEAT: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." That's a reasonably high bar. WP:CRYSTAL says "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." This building would be notable when built, but it's not clear if it's notable prior to construction. I'd suggest holding off until construction is underway. Groundbreaking is supposed to be in October; Wikipedia can wait, even if the COI editor would prefer getting that sales info out to the public early. (The project construction is financed by prepaid deposits from condo buyers, hence the rush to get it into Wikipedia.) John Nagle (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me, didn't know that you couldn't create articles on buildings under construction (I've seen a bunch on here that someone should go through and delete alongside this one). Again, no COI here, and I do not care in any way if you delete even all my contributions. I just think it is odd that someone is using this to bully me, in order to further their own financial gain. Do not care either way. Grump International (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Grump International did not just edit the article about the building. The user edited articles about the developer of the building Ugo Colombo and a heavily promotional piece about Vanessa Grout, the president of his company. This same pattern is evident in the article 520 West 28th written Grump International, a blatantly promotional article about a small proposed New York condominium (which has now been nominated for deletion by another editor) and Zaha Hadid, its developer. We know Grump International had contact with Francesco Gatti because his company wrote to Wikipedia to give permission to use a copyrighted photo uploaded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg Grump International also patrolled the article about Intern architect, suggesting professional involvement in this field (and making a 2,000 word deletion as promotional on only the fifth article Grump International ever touched with this account, using Tag:section blanking, advanced Wikipedia mark up language.) Grump International must have alternate account(s) where they picked up this knowledge; their behavior on Conduit-related articles suggests Grump International is a sock puppet as well as a COI account. Since the Conduit and Shilo have consumed enormous amounts of admin time in the past, as protected or semi-protected, as they've come under attack, I'd rather deal with the likely sock puppet Grump International and uncover his/her alternate account(s) now than have to address more attacks for years. The original Conduit article is again filled with attacks, sourced to online discussion boards and the like (it was much worse before a small clean up by user:Graeme Bartlett) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conduit_%28publisher_network_and_platform%29&diff=676917339&oldid=665067930
    Again, I'd suggest a WP:Checkuser

    Comment' - The username was intended to be humorous, so no I am not affiliated with company called "Grump International". I live in Miami and love architecture, and threw up some edits regarding it. I notice that BC1278 has specifically left out the other edits I have made, but whatever. Feel free to take them all down if their of issue as I have no real affection for them. I do think it is a little weird that BC1278 is using this page to bully me so that he can continue to make promotional edits on behalf of his clients without them being labelled a such, but hey, that's above my pay grade. He claims that no one is forming consensus on his edits, but perhaps that's because they are blatantly promotional and spammy. Maybe WP:HOUND would apply here with trying to persecute me for not agreeing with him about the neutrality of what he wants for his clients, but again, I don't care enough to make a fuss. Grump International (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I have no conflict of interest on Wikipedia, just to be clear here. Just a rapidly fading interest in Wikipedia's look at east coast buildings. And apparently now a confusion about why adding what's in a building is antithetical to the page about a building. Feel free to remove if so. Grump International (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grump International: I'd like to ask you the specific questions about COI and sock puppetry so we get that on the record:
    a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
    b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
    c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?
    d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?
    d) If you don't have alternate accounts, given our small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International?
    Please answer directly, by number. I suggest you fess up if you have a COI and alternate account(s) because other editors on this board are far more skilled than me in tracking COI and have access to WP:Checkuser to track sock puppet account. They're more likely to be forgiving and let you keep your accounts if you admit any wrongdoing now.
    As to Grump International's defense that they've done other edits not related to real estate, these came after Wikipedia admin user:Graeme Bartlett noted about Grump International that "the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo Prior to that, everything Grump International edited was related to real estate, with the exception of one reversion for Arthur Ashe, the rewrite of one short sentence on Porosity and the challenges related to Conduit.
    And as to what Grump International said about me, I never make direct edits on Wikipedia where I have a COI (unless an independent editor first reviews proposed changes and specifically asks on the article Talk page that I make a change as a matter of convenience for them) and I always disclose I have a COI. Everything I've done for a client has been vetted by volunteer editors. (When Grump International identified that they saw a problem with an article where I had a COI, I asked Grump International multiple times to fix any issues, or to work with me to review problems section by section. But Grump International refused, preferring to leave a warning label on the article than to improve it.) Sometimes it takes several weeks for a volunteer to get to a proposed change to an article, but that's the proper procedure. I only take on a client where the subject is clearly WP:NOTABLE. I turn down perhaps half of those who ask for my help. I'm not going to write about small proposed condominium buildings or local real estate agents, as Grump International has. Nor am I going to contribute to a puff piece like Ugo Colombo, as Grump International has, and omit that he was accused by the police of paying a bribe to win the bid to build the Miami Convention Center.[1] I carefully go over WP:COI policy with my clients so they'll know what to expect. I'm not going to omit or challenge content about them that's negative if there's a RS. If they don't like that, then I tell them I shouldn't work with me. This is a small part of what I do in my business life (and I disclose my real name and credentials at User: BC1278), so I have no trouble telling clients I won't do what they ask if it's against Wikipedia policy. I have my personal, real-life reputation at stake, plus lots of other Wikipedia articles to think about. I'm not not going to jeopardize all the other work I've done just for one client asking for a violation of policy. My paid Wikipedia COI consulting came about only because I work in an industry, tech, where many people have no idea how to handle Wikipedia. When there's been any question about NPOV content, a volunteer editor either takes care of it themselves or asks me to propose alternate language on a sandbox or Talk page. I'm not perfect but I've improved. I've certainly had editors remove language I've proposed where they see NPOV issues. If I disagree with edits, I will ask other editors to get involved so they reach consensus. And when I see an article like Conduit (publisher network and platform), which Grump International contributed to recently, filled with biased content sourced to online discussion forums or no sources at all, I'm appalled and I'm pleased to try to work with other editors to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. You can look at my proposed edits at Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material Here, even though the problems are severe and obvious, I'm going to have to wait for a volunteer editor to look at this since I have a COI. This is how it's supposed to work.BC1278 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Bernstein, Fred (27 September 2012). "Corruption Inquiries Curb Miami Projects". Architectual Record. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
    Also, just to state real estate connection, "Grump International" is a play on Trump International, another condo/developer duo such as the ones Grump International writes about. Because Grump International probably intended this account to be single purpose on this subject.BC1278 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    @Nagle:@Brianhe:@Ronz: May I have some advice? Perhaps I mislabeled this thread. I'd like the account of User:Grump International to be looked into because he's using it as an obvious undisclosed COI and alternate account to avoid detection. I'd like an admin to determine whether my complaint is justified and determine a course of action. Do I need to start a new thread with the user's name instead of the name of a questionable article the editor contributed to? I think I've said everything I need to say about this editor's activities for admins to make a judgment, but I can start a new thread if need be. User: Grump International has also not yet answered the detailed questions I asked that spell out the specifics of COI and improper use of alternate accounts. Ultimately, uprooting this one account won't be enough because the editor is obviously using a sock, so someone with authority needs to WP:Checkuser to be more effective. It's not just the run of the mill undisclosed promotional COI editing which is troubling - it's the use of a sock to attack: edit and tag and challenge and try to delete articles where they have a negative bias and possible undisclosed COI. Thanks.BC1278 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about the thread title, as I myself have flip flopped between using the name of an article and the name of an editor. Sometimes it's hard to tell which to use when there's a group of editors (or socks, especially) and a group of interrelated articles. I think the thing with checkuser is touchy; if you don't know already, its use is exceedingly sparing and usually starts with some fairly compelling evidence. You might go ahead and open a sockpuppet investigation if you think you have enough to go forward with. I'll tell you right now, I've been knocked back on my heels there many, many times, but maybe it's worth it in the long run to start a "paper trail" on some of these actors. Probably the best you can hope for is to expose the articles to the light of inspection here, and usually appropriate action follows, either cleanup, or outright deletion via the usual processes, if warranted. If you hang out here some more you'll see how this works; it probably took me several months to really understand what to expect. Bottom line, instant satisfaction should not be your expectation. — Brianhe (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: Thanks. The undisclosed COI is self-evident to me, so I came here first. For sock puppet accounts, I know enough to spot one but not enough to present more than a common sense case (very sophisticated use of mark up and Wikipedia policy citations after only a handful of edits). It would seem to me rather common sense to check if a suspect user account is sharing the same IP address with another user account making edits to the same articles, but perhaps there's privacy policy at play here I'm not aware of. I'll go check out that board.BC1278 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    unproductive feuding

    @Nagle:@Brianhe:@Ronz:User: Grump International is continuing to use this account to challenge other articles, and weigh in with this account toward consensus on proposed deletions without disclosing they use the account for COI editing. WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo. User: Grump International is denying on their deletion nomination that they have used this account for COI editing, despite User:Nagle's finding that their contributions were "blatant promotion" (and another editor's conclusion a contribution was "borderline spam" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grump_International&diff=677850261&oldid=677824535

    The continued use of this novice account to make sophisticated challenges on articles, without disclosing COI, warrants quicker action than usual because otherwise their opinion will be used to create consensus decisions, despite the clear history of undisclosed biased editing. Again, I'd request User: Grump International be required to disclose this account is used for COI editing and if they refuse, that the account be suspended, and a WP:CheckUser be implemented to determine the extent of the conflict and sock puppet editing. BC1278 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

    What are you talking about? You are attacking me on various pages, insisting I am a "sock" with no evidence whatsoever, and trying to convince people I have some sort of conflict of interest just because I voted to delete an article related to your client, and felt another article read like a news release. Instead of fixing the news release problem, you continue to attack me, letter-bombing every page you can find. Please read WP:HOUND and try to work with others in a civilized manner rather than aggressively trying to bury people who don't agree with the opinion you have been paid to spread about your client. I am constantly surprised by the level of aggressiveness you are using, instead of any attempt to resolve your issues on the talk pages of these articles. You can't bully your way through Wikipedia, and you can't just repeat your accusations until they become true. I have no conflict of interest, you do. While you may not be able to imagine editing Wikipedia without being paid, people like myself do so all the time. Please stop bullying others. Grump International (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grump International: Reporting your undisclosed COI has already resulted in one of the promotional, spammy articles you created for a condo in development about to get removed 520 West 28th, without dispute from you, so the merits of this COI complaint are clear. As admins continue to look into the matter, I trust they'll deal with your articles and account(s) more fully in time. Reporting your undisclosed COI activities, here and elsewhere you're trying to position this account as unbiased, is not hounding. You're posting promotional and near spam material -- nobody who has looked at your specific content so far disagrees or defended your contributions. You're attacking me because there's no good defense for the promotional nature of this account, so you're deflecting. In any case, the attack on me is false -- I repeatedly offered to go through the Conduit (company) article with you section by section, or to address any specifics you raised, (this was before I did research and discovered your account was COI) and you declined. So via WP:RfC I've been seeking other editors to work with me or look at the article for NPOV and I hope, remove your wholly inappropriate tag (intended to discredit a valid article worked on by dozens of people for years) after they do. Talk:Conduit (company) You may not know this, since you ignore the policy but COI editors can't make direct edits, so proposing to work with people on Talk is all I'm able to do. As for the other article you've attacked, because of your deletion proposal, I've written an entire new draft for consideration, with new sourcing and more material. User:BC1278/sandbox I always try to improve articles but I do so within the rules.
    You seem not to grasp that you personally can have a very serious COI even if you're not being directly paid. So I'll ask you the specific questions needed to evaluate your COI and sock once more, so it's on the record. Please answer each.
    a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
    b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
    c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?
    d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?
    e) If you don't have alternate accounts, given our small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International? BC1278 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    For the last time, I have no conflict on interest on Wikipedia. And a sock? A sock of who exactly? Not everyone that gets in your way is a sock, and I myself definitely am evidence of that. Answering your Questions? a) no, b) no, c) no, d) no, e) Wikipedia is not rocket science and I've been here over a year. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of computer coding should find Wikipedia fairly rudimentary. Ronen Shilo is not independently notable from Conduit, and his article should be deleted. If you don't agree, fine. Stop bullying people whose opinions are different from what you are being paid by Conduit to say. Again, please stop bullying people who disagree with you. Just because you disclosed your COI doesn't mean you WP:OWN anything. Grump International (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nagle: User: Grump International removed your proposed deletion tag on 520 West 28th, added material about the history of that address in New York, and left in all the promotional material about the proposed condominium. I think it's not going to be enough to deal with the specific articles of this editor. The COI account itself will need to be dealt with.BC1278 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
    OK, this is getting out of hand. Passing the buck. See WP:AN/I#Feuding between two COI editors. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SEO firm, August 2015 advert

    No known NEW articles to link to yet. However, a new SEO firm ad "We are an SEO firm looking for someone who can publish Wikipedia entries" has been responded to by operator of Sclarke1129, MayFlowers2014, TejaswaChaudhary, LogAntiLog aka OWAIS NAEEM, Worthywords, the former Hilumeoka2000, and others with claimed and documented history of completed Wikipedia SEO/corpspam jobs. Note that OWAIS NAEEM invokes David Carter (entrepreneur) via his Elance historyportfolio, this article is ripe with more suspicious editors, some of whom have had inconclusive SPIs. Also note that many of these accounts are blocked, so obviously the operators are using, or are prepared to use, sockpuppets to complete the work. — Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The David Carter article contains the memorable line "He often referenced his mother as his inspiration in various interviews" And see the two articles on his firms linked to in that article. A7 + G11, in my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Perion Network

    This Perion Network thing smells like paid editing, complete with a press release for one of the citations, and a fawning section on corporate philanthropy. A discussion between DGG and Nmwalsh, where DGG expressed concern about lack of complete disclosure, petered out earlier in August. I think he needs the standard message re TOS client/article disclosure requirements. — Brianhe (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a declared paid editor. Check my User page. This page has already been rewritten with new citations. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article still contains promotional language: e.g. "Smilebox is an application that lets users easily create slideshows and other digital photo album" It lists too many executives--it's usual to list only the ceo for companies this size.; it still contains titles-- we don't use "Mr." . It's wordy: "In August 2011, Perion made its first acquisition and acquired the Redmond-based Smilebox for $32 million. " should be "In August 2011, Perion acquired the Redmond-based Smilebox for $32 million. "; "they changed their name to Perion, the Hebrew word for productivity, to reflect the new company’s strategy." should be "The firm changed its name to Perion, the Hebrew word for productivity." It has jargon: "came on board" . It uses undue emphasis: we do not normally use italics for product names. It makes unsupported assertions: Ref. 14 does not reference the sentence its attached to. The philanthropy section is still trivial, especially the second sentence.
    None of this is blatantly promotional, and I wouldn't consider it G11. But it indicates the difficulties paid editors inherently have in creating articles here--even good and honest ones still automatically think in terms of press releases. One of my working rules of thumb is that anything that would make a good press release will not make a good encycopedia article.
    And of course there are probably a few hundred thousand similar articles, thousands among them much worse than this. It will be a long time util we remove or rewrite them, but at least we should not be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nmwalsh: thank you for reminding us of your for-pay status, but I already knew that. Per TOS, please tell us where is the disclosure that this article was done for pay, and who was the client. Are there others that have not been disclosed, among the 35 Wikipedia specific or "private jobs" listed under your name on Elance in 2015? — Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advice. I am now marking all my paid edits with "Paid edit" I wasn't sure how to do it before. I will continue to improve this article. Nmwalsh (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As this came up in a recent ANI discussion, please read through WP:PCD for exactly what you need to disclose. The larger ANI discussion may also be helpful with regards to the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      When you work on an article, for which you have a close connection (paid financial connection or otherwise), there is this template you can stick on the article's talkpage: {{Connected contributor}} which for instance would look like {{Connected contributor|Nmwalsh|Perion Network|declared=yes|otherlinks=Paid editing: <ins>NameOfSpecificEmployer is my organization, and NameOfSpecificClient which is an</ins> entity connected with the topic of this article, have compensated me financially for my edits.}} or something like that, placed into Talk:Perion_Network. Also nice to have 'paid edit' in the summary, but the talkpage-thing is a nice one-liner that covers times when you might forget. Of course, make sure you have just the one username, and don't edit without logging in, so that the talkpage notice stays connected to the edits you make under your User:Nmwalsh online-persona. Hope this helps, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that template covers everything that needs to be disclosed per the ToU. From WP:PCD, paid editors need to disclose their employer, their client and affiliation. So something like "Editor Foo, employed by PR agency Bar, hired by company Baz to edit this article" is what's needed someplace. That can be on the editors user page, the article talk page or the edit summary for each edit. In an ideal world, all three would happen. Full disclosure of all articles on the user's page, full disclosure on each article talk page for that article and an edit summary that mentions it's a paid edit. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks, did not know that. Have inserted the appropriate factoids. Agree that doing all three is best (suspenders and belt), since if you forget to do one, you are still mostly covered by the other two. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI - just started this discussion on ANI on the comments I made. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic Coast Media Group

    First of all, this is a recreated article that was deleted as promo/spam in 2011: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Coast Media Group. You think this is a "lifestyle" magazine company like OCEAN Style, right? Wrong. It's a skin cream company with some connection to Christie Brinkley. Article created by throwaway SPA (Anrd8) and looks well referenced at first glance, until you notice half the cites are to the company itself, and the other half are questionable sources like theiemommy.com or passing mentions in legit media. My notes tell me that the other editor (Bhupesh4381) created a link to this article on April 18, which appears to have been deleted now; maybe an admin can confirm. However, this looks very much like insertion of a SEO link in another article, and this is just old-fashioned linkspam. It appears that he created another advert, Keranique around September, 2014. Atlantic Coast Media Group owns the brand Keranique. Hey look, Keranique was also a recreation of a deleted spamicle created by another SPA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keranique. Brianhe (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not surprisingly, the ACMG article does not mention this 2013 class-action consumer fraud settlement. Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed much promotional material, added info on lawsuit. John Nagle (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    request for eyeballs on Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits queue

    I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you or others decide to build a business editing Wikipedia on the backs of the volunteer community, that is not the volunteer community's problem. We do not exist so that you and others can make money. If you or others get impatient and decide to edit directly, you will lose editing privileges. It is a dicey proposition to build a business model that exploits a public good and relies on exploiting volunteers to actually execute, but that is what you and others chose. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the reminder Jytdog; but as you know, paid editing is not the only kind of COI, most of the people I help are BLPs trying to edit their own woefully-outdated articles. And I've seen you personally working the queue, as well, so thanks for that. But I'm posting the note here, so that other people can also volunteer to work the queue, if they so wish. I'm not under any COI, so I'm free to edit directly in mainspace, but I'm trying to train the people that are under COI how to do things properly (aka without needing my help personally every single time). My training-sessions are not working, because the queue is clogged, and has been all month. Do you recommend I just send editors with COI over to the folks on IRC, or to WP:TEAHOUSE, rather than using {{edit_request}} any further, since that seems not to be as speedy as it once was? Or is the current stalled queue just an anomaly, and I should continue recommending Template:edit_request for people that have COI? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    if your primary concern is helping subjects of BLP articles, perhaps BLPN would be better. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks, will try there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BREAKING CHANGE: update being made to Template:Connected contributor

    Hey all,

    Just dropping a note that there is consensus to merge Template:Connected contributor and Template:Connected contributor multi at a recent AfD, which is currently being worked through by a bot to make this happen. While this is going on, you may notice a few strange things happening with the template, as the legacy code I've introduced is still far from perfect.

    Once this change is complete, unfortunately, some of the code has been changed. A single-user example will then use {{Connected contributor| User1 = Username | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = |U1-banned =}} (for full details, see the template). It will no longer support the old format using unnamed parameters.

    Thanks for reading, and I hope this will mean this is better overall, Mdann52 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should split connected contributor from notable Wikipedian. It would be insulting to Brian Josephson, say, to assert that he is a COI editor. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T14810

    I have done a search here

    But for some strange reason it does not pull up this one [16]

    Wondering if people know why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried to edit the page, it saved but it still doesn't show up. Likely a glitch in the externa links things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching for https://www.trustedtherapies.com at Special:LinkSearch finds it. Don't know if that is expected behavior, although mw:Help:Linksearch does say that "When no scheme is specified, http:// is used". Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And searching for https://*.trustedtherapies.com finds further links from Management of Crohn's disease, Adalimumab, and Inflammatory bowel disease. Abecedare (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts doing the adding

    No other edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I lodged a Phabricator ticket on this no less than 7.5 years ago. Sigh. In the meantime, [17] does the job better. MER-C 08:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:MER-C Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Add User:Guantcalve to the list of spammers. MER-C 12:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    InnoSpark

    Background: Korean game developer InnoSpark and a title Dragon Friends they've recently raised Series B funding for. Many of the sources are in Korean. However, just looking at it, it's a little iffy. Especially combined with the history of the first attempt at the article, whose creator did this one thing and disappeared. Dragon Friends doesn't make a great claim of notability. The developer corp has also been added to what appears to be the title publisher/distributor, Nexon, whose history has a string of suspect and/or blocked editors (OnceaMetro and a SimpleStitch sock, among others).

    Just wanted to bring this up here for evaluation, without naming all the editors at this time. - Brianhe (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning

    Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex and content added by User:Manabeast333. Lots of promotional content with poor refs added such as here [18] Just cleaned up our featured article on keratoconus that contained a lot of promotional material. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Boxer Wachler

    Help with Brian Boxer Wachler appreciated.

    I have restored it to the prior slightly less spammy version here [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit by Jen [20]
    Followed by this edit by Batt [21]
    With issues discussed here [22]
    Should we block these two account for undisclosed paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checkuser comment: These two accounts are either socks or meatpuppets. Both are editing from the same IP that confirms a very clear conflict of interest, and are indistinguishable from the technical perspective. Risker (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Risker blocked them both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant history of sockpuppeting on that article, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive; i listed all the connected contributors at Talk:Brian Boxer Wachler Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and it is one thing to spam on the article about the person but to spread the spam into medical articles. Grr. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A good case-in-point when people ask us basically to embrace the suck and stop working so hard to combat undisclosed paid/COI editing. I want to make it as painful as possible for people who perpetrate and perpetuate this pernicious practice. IMHO this comment is directed against some of the regulars here who are doing so. — Brianhe (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. PR firms have the rest of the Internet to advertise on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    editor

    User:Kcroes wrote an article about Noel A. Alpins than wrote

    Here he links to his own blog [24]. Appears he is a paid PR professional and is editing in an undisclosed manner. Have blocked the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Jim Nyamu and Corneal topography to case. Seems interested in antidespressant medication too. — Brianhe (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a COI declaration on User:Csinacola's page. I have no idea if this is sufficient, being new in this area. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Deevincentday

    editors

    The first three articles listed could probably be PRODed or maybe even speedied. Andrew Bromberg may be notable (AfD = no consensus), but article needs drastic cleanup. Based on self-certified relation to Phil Vincent we should look extra hard at that article. Brianhe (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added sockish IP user. This CfD debate shows they are speaking in one voice, but over at PCTI Solutions, one created the article and the other argues not to delete it. At the very least we have an editor who doesn't mind editing logged out, and doesn't understand the COI inherent to writing about close relatives [27][28] and employers, and participating in AfDs on same. With this in mind, now we have to look at this other SPA ITJW for irregularities, too. Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wittenstein and Fitbone

    This IP traces to ISP in Germany, where Witttenstein, the company makes the Fitbone device, is located. All their edits are promotional for Fitbone, and they are edit warring and being nonresponsive on their talk page. Please block as a disruptive editor that is very likely a company rep. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is a confirmed proxy [29]. If you report it at WP:OP, it will quickly be blocked. – Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    done, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    blocked for a week by MaterialScientist for general disruption I believe. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if it causes problems again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I think the problem was not advertisement I think the problem was just me. I want to give other interested users the chance to inform of an other lengthening system. And I just copy sentences from their website and I didn't know that this is advertisement or a conflict. Would it be possible that I can try it again without making advertisement for a company just for people who want to know more about other things? It is the first time that I want to write something on wiki and I didn't realize that it is advertisement. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.2.224 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jennifer co

    Fairly obvious undisclosed paid advocacy, especially with edits like this: [30][31][32][33][34][35]. I've nominated Saundz for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaundzMER-C 12:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aedas

    articles closely related to Aedas
    one- or two-day editors
    other single-purpose editors
    other involved editors

    I think there's a pattern here that indicates long-term paid editing somewhere between possible and likely. There are a ton of hit-and-run editors around Aedas, an architecture (maybe property development too) firm but there are also cross-links to editors involved in past paid editing cases.

    Notably, Commonplace Book, a sock of The Librarian at Terminus, has edited several of these articles and The Librarian at Terminus has as well. An IP 174.45.140.146 showed up in an earlier COIN case titled Amalto and others also involving these two accounts plus Andrewjohn39, who ended up getting blocked for undisclosed paid editing.

    Deevincentday created Aedas in 2008 and made contributions to it through 2011, and has a declared COI as an employee or former employee. Another account described by Deevincentday as an individual personally connected to him/herself !voted keep at the Aedas AfD.

    Throwaway accounts used to create corporate articles are starting to look like a red flag for COI, maybe we should think about automated tools to discover this. This set might make a good test case.

    — Brianhe (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Orangemoody long-term abuse case and COI cases

    You could call this a large sockpuppet investigation

    Heads-up to regulars and others. An expansive long-term abuse case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody is in progress. It involves shakedowns to create paid articles, if I undertand the summary correctly. There are >350 accounts listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts, and some of them are familiar to me from discussions here, Arr4 for instance. This should be interesting. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to be a little more specific - the articles created by these socks are, in almost every case, started by someone else at AFC or as a userspace draft, but they have been declined. The socks then pick them up, make a few tweaks and improve a couple of references, and then contact the original author/article subject and offer to get the article into the encyclopedia for $$$. They then use their cavalcade of socks to keep it there - at least for a while. Then they go back to the original person and say "well, we want $$ per month to continue protecting your article from vandalism and deletion." In at least one case we know of, they did indeed arrange for deletion. Remember, we've just scratched the surface of what this group is up to: as soon as we could say "yes, has the right technical data and has these xxx edits that meet the pattern" we moved on. If we checked that account in mid-July, they've had 7 more weeks of activity to be reviewed, and that isn't saying we'd reviewed every edit at the time we did the initial checks. Risker (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: You might want to take a look at Total Posterior Arthroplasty created by one of the eds above who it looks like you've already interacted with at Facet joint arthrosis. — Brianhe (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted Total Posterior Arthroplasty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse:@Doc James:@Risker: Question for the admins. Are these guys blocked or banned? Can we revert on sight? I'm asking because right now I don't know what the {{Connected contributor}} U1-banned field should be set to? - Brianhe (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand the process, checkusers can block (and even make almost irreversible "checkuser" blocks), but only the community or the Arbitration Committee can ban. It may well be appropriate for experienced editors to initiate a ban discussion as a new subsection of the AN report. I'm pretty sure any functionary involved in the investigation will concur! Risker (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Arr4 was one of the more prolific editors I know of in the blocked group, I listed his creations here. There are 43 articles listed, some of which are innocuous, with little apparent commercial gain, e.g. 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis; and some of which are probably dirty, e.g. Searchmetrics, already tagged by the vigilant Smartse. I'll try to separate the list into groups of probably-harmless and other. Arr4 seemed to have an interest in many local Bangladeshi topics, but even then, approaching it with a jaundiced eye of "could this have been done for pay" results in a frequent reply "yes". - Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've sorted these into four groups in order of severity: probably innocuous, possibly innocuous, possibly UPE, and probable UPE, with items of potential impact to Wikipedia's medical integrity at the top of the list in bold. The last group includes (attention @Doc James:):
    — Brianhe (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Like many paid editors they also liked to copy and paste.
    LAL test was copied from [40] and [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog was onto this guy as far back as February; see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Premia Spine Limited and many others. Although we can be happy to have finally shut down this account, we should take a hard look at why there were so many signs and signals of trouble that were not heeded for so long. Look at the inlinks to his username: he was across all kinds of noticeboards, suspicious debates, individual editors' watchlists, etc. for months. Hell, we knew months ago that his username change was an evasion of deserved consequences, and it was granted anyway; that's on WP bureaucracy as much as it is on him. This case in general, and this editor's part in it specifically, should be a lesson in systematic shortcomings, blind spots and IMHO self-delusion. This is in some respects, I think, the outcome of willful ignorance of the economic realities of the pressures on the global south to seek the crumbs of the economic/technological infrastructure of the global north, of which Wikipedia is decidedly a part. It doesn't absolve the actors on either side of responsibility for what they have done and continue to do, but as I've said before, we have to make a choice now about how we react to it and preserve this project. Is it going to be a cathedral of knowledge or a graffiti wall? — Brianhe (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup I warned him for copy and pasting in Feb 2015. And than for paid editing right after.[42]
    We need the core community to take a hard line on paid editing. If direct paid promotional editing was not allowed I would have blocked them at that point. If paid editing of the type on Elance was not allowed Elance per emails from their legal team would remove all Wikipedia related jobs.
    We may just AGF until it is a graffiti wall. I do not know. I have posted ideas here. But for anything to fly one needs support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Doc's three COI comments in February at User talk:Arr4/Archive 4#Paid editor went completely ignored and he was, incredibly, allowed to proceed. Let's get on with the policy manual with escalating deprivation of privileges for crap like this, already. I posted these thoughts here back in June, I thinkon July 25 [43], and was rebuffed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes agree we need to block the WP:DUCK cases of undisclosed paid promotional editors. Even once they have left their accounts dead for a bit they should be blocked as they might come back to them latter.
    I am sure many simple keep a spread sheet of accounts and passwords.
    We also simply need to delete content by paid editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, as you know I have been staunchly against paid editing for years, and I of course agree that the time has come to draw the line. Zero tolerance for paid editing of any kind has got to be the watchword. As far as getting the community behind it, we need a place to gather, discuss, and educate. Perhaps WikiProject:No Paid Editing would be that place? I am afraid that well-meaning but uninformed editors will hinder this long-overdue mandate, and some kind of central page for this effort is key. I fear we are running out of time. Jusdafax 08:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all, just as an FYI I'm working on a deep dive of Arr4's contributions and going through them with a fine-toothed comb. More to come on this in a few days/weeks. Keilana (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've proposed speedy deletion on a few but already getting pushback on at least one, Morel IL Limited, that looked obvious to me. Advice wanted: Unilever Bangladesh Limited: speedy, prod or other? — Brianhe (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I found Facet joint arthrosis earlier in a sweep of that editor's work. It appears as though they actually added content that was valuable to the site (a shock, I know), so I have listed that under the accounts but am wary to tag it at this time since it looks like it might actually be worth keeping on here. Of course, @Doc James: and Keilana might be able to take a deeper look into it, so I am going to defer to them on this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes we edited it aggressively afterwards. It should be okay. This user User:Doc Hossain is also part of the group. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry guys, deleting as per Risker saying - 'In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted.' - there's nothing to stop you guys recreating an article about a notable subject though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that Orangemoody redirects to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Orangemoody and there are no links for further information. Started an article draft Draft:Orangemoody Wikipedia editing ring to discuss the case as a regular Wikipedia article. — Brianhe (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe another User:Knightj0905

    User:Doc Hossain was very much involved with promoting radiofrequency ablation per [44] as well as total posterior arthroplasty per [45]

    Aug 30th User:Knightj0905, a brand new account, made the following edit.

    Extended content

    Although surgical resection remains the standard treatment for primary malignant bone tumors such as osteosarcoma, CT-guided percutaneous ablation methods have been shown to be effective for treatment of benign bone tumors, most notably osteoid osteoma, and for palliation of metastases involving bone. Image guided radiofrequency ablation is now the standard treatment of osteoid osteoma, as the procedure is less invasive and has been shown to have higher rates of technical success, decreased morbidity and lower cost than surgery.[1] External-beam radiation is the current standard of care for patients with localized bone pain due to metastatic disease. However, while the majority of patients receiving radiation therapy experience an initial reduction in pain, 20-30% of patients do not experience pain relief and nearly 50% of patients will have recurrent pain following treatment.[2] Because this treatment method for focal bone pain due to metastatic disease results in only temporary pain relief for many patients, focal image-guided ablation methods, including radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, cementoplasty and high-intensity focused ultrasound have been explored as potential treatments for these patients.[3]

    References

    1. ^ Laus, M.; Albisinni, U.; Alfonso, C.; Zappoli, F. A. (2007-09-14). "Osteoid osteoma of the cervical spine: surgical treatment or percutaneous radiofrequency coagulation?". European Spine Journal. 16 (12): 2078–2082. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0478-8. ISSN 0940-6719. PMC 2140137. PMID 17874147.
    2. ^ Gaze, Mark N.; Kelly, Charles G.; Kerr, Gillian R.; Cull, Ann; Cowie, Valerie J.; Gregor, Anna; Howard, Grahame C.W.; Rodger, Alan (1997-01-01). "Pain relief and quality of life following radiotherapy for bone metastases: a randomised trial of two fractionation schedules". Radiotherapy and Oncology. 45 (2). doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(97)00101-1.
    3. ^ Rosenthal, Daniel; Callstrom, Matthew R. (2012-03-01). "Critical Review and State of the Art in Interventional Oncology: Benign and Metastatic Disease Involving Bone". Radiology. 262 (3): 765–780. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101384. ISSN 0033-8419.

    Refs

    1. First one a primary source [46]
    2. Second one also a primary source [47]
    3. Third one is a review [48]

    However here is the kicker. The first two sources do not support the text in question.

    The text is actually from "Image-guided radiofrequency ablation is now the standard treatment for osteoid osteoma, as the procedure can be performed with higher rates of technical success, decreased morbidity, and lower cost than those obtained with open surgery"[49]

    The next paragraph is from "External beam radiation therapy is the current standard of care for cancer patients who present with localized bone pain. This treatment results in a reduction in pain for the majority of these patients; however, 20–30% of patients treated with this modality do not experience pain relief, and few options exist for these patients"[50]

    So what we have is close paraphrasing and than referencing the wrong source likely to hide it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BankBazaar

    Reopening (WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#BankBazaar). Activity on BankBazaar has renewed, now adding another SPA. I asked before that Nash2925 be blocked for falsehoods in COI inquiry, and renew that request. Brianhe (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lighting companies and awards

    editor(s)

    This editor looked suspicious to me before; see BeenAroundAWhile irregularities COIN case, opened 13 August. It ended with no apparent action other than two AfDs. But looking at it since yesterday it looks super suspicious with many of the hallmarks of an Orangemoody thing.

    BAAW had several of SLPalmer55's articles AfD'd on 24 April:

    There's a userspace draft, created 24 April 2015, abandoned 1 June 2015. Looks like the carrot/stick hallmark of Orangemoody.

    Also, SLPalmer55 never answered my question about his paid status. — Brianhe (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what Brianhe's point is. Can somebody enlighten me? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is questionable here. The "recognized awards" aren't hard to win. "In 2009, as the number of commercial LED lighting products on the market increased, the number of NGL entries nearly doubled – to 126, coming from 60 different lighting companies. Of these entries, 43 were chosen as “recognized” winners and four of were chosen as “best in class.”" [51]. I'd suggest propose deletion for all of them. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideas for dealing with promotional paid editing

    I have started a discussion here to get feedback from the community on some ideas I have plus to hear of other ideas they may have for dealing with the issue of promotional paid editing.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These look concerning

    Roth Staffing Companies

    The article is about an Orange County, California staffing company. It was created by one of the Orangemoody accounts. The only other edits have been minor spell fixes, tagging, etc. I PRODed it expecting someone might assert notability. I didn't expect the objector to be a Bangladesh IP [57]. What now? Treat this like any other contested PROD and dance the dance, or is there a way to look at suspicious anons in this case (and others like it)? Brianhe (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Very similar IP to 42.0.7.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who blanked sandboxes of User:NadimRony. (I've just deleted them so you won't see the edits). Might be an idea to get a rangeblock. I'll delete the article since there seems to be a strong consensus to take care of them this way. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory

    Hi everyone! I've been working on updating the article on the NPPTL but since it is a subsidiary agency of NIOSH, I obviously have been unable to edit it beyond a couple of brief copyedits. I would very much appreciate it if someone could take a look at my sandbox and make sure I haven't crossed any lines in expanding this article and that everything has remained NPOV and if so, merge the new version. Thanks, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH): This isn't really the right place to ask for article content changes. Try the article talkpage instead (talk:National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory), or talkpage of a related project. It looks like the article was started 3 years ago by someone who probably was at NIOSH, which is a no-no, but that's water under the bridge now. Brianhe (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: I asked here because no one watches the article (looking at it as an admin it says there's only 3) and shouting into that particular void seemed like a waste of time. I figured here would be the best place to find someone who'd be willing to take a look...not sure where else I'd try. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh. There are very few active talk pages and even fewer active WikiProjects. Why wikilawyer? It probably took longer to type that than it would have to read her sandbox page. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH), I don't see anything wrong with your proposed rewrite, so I'm going to go ahead and make the merge. Good work. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks much, Ed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Emily, the 'correct' place to ask for this kind of thing is to put something onto the relevant article-talkpage, and then ALSO (to avoid screaming into the void) stick the Template:edit_request magic send-out-the-bat-signal-thing into that selfsame talkpage section. Here the the instructions on how to use it, Template:Request_edit/Instructions#For_submitters, and at the bottom of that same helpdocs-page, you can see the current queue, which has been stalled most of August. Point being, if you make the edit_request on the talkpage, and nobody answers your bat-signal within a day or two, then I recommend asking for uninvolved eyeballs to help glance over your changes via WP:TEAHOUSE or via #wikipedian-en-help connect, which both generally give instant-gratification-to-reasonable-requests, in my experience. Of course, like the edit-request queue, those places are staffed by volunteers as well, so if nobody answers your edit-request and nobody answers you at the teahouse and IRC is also silent, just wait awhile and then try your request again later. IRC in particular is heavily tilted towards the workday-and-early-evening-hours-of-North-America, for instance. If all else, fails, just ping a random editor you know (but who is neutrally-disinterested in NPPTL-or-whatever-the-subject-matter-is). Rinse lather repeat.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking Elance

    It is fairly easy to find concerns on Elance

    • [58] Link to freelancers
    • [59] Link to jobs

    Here we have someone who is buying an article on Anthony LaPine. They have already bought an article on HipLink and this sock created it User:Juliecameo3 who is already blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we start an Elance watchlist somewhere? I've got a bunch of links in my sandbox that I'd love to share. — Brianhe (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes good idea. And not just Elance but for all paid sites like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why re-invent the wheel? Suggest just having WMF contact eLance, and request that they send us (aka send the WMF sysadmins who can strip it of persoally-identifiable-info and just post article-titles onwiki) some kind of a machine-readable feed of job-postings, categorized as "will make edits to wikipedia" (WikiPR original biz-model), and a separate feed of job-postings categorized as "will train your employees to make edits to wikipedia themselves" (WikiPR current biz-model). Also of course, if eLance gets any job-postings like "wanted: people from countries with extreme poverty willing to act as meatpuppets on wikipedia for pay" then it would be nice of them to let us know. I have a hunch that some of the orangemoody "socks" were actually firmly in that lattermost category. I expect eLance already has a categorization-system in place, so this should be an easy hack for them, to put together some kind of RSS-feed. They may already *have* an RSS feed of new job-postings that meet specific criteria, in fact... has anybody checked if there is an email-me-when-something-in-this-category-is-posted type feature provided by eLance? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it would be a good test of how cooperative they really are. By the way some of the postings are really egregious, I've noted one recently above at § SEO firm, August 2015 advert. Some others I've noted but not yet posted are here. — Brianhe (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think Elance is willing to hand over data to us. They are willing to do simple things like ban all jobs that include Wikipedia editing. But they are not willing to do complicated things (provide us with an RSS feed of all jobs related to Wikipedia editing)
    And yes lots of the OR jobs were in that lattermost category. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a question of whether they are WILLING, they are already giving us the list of categorized jobs, https://www.elance.com/r/jobs/q-Wikipedia , that you linked to. The question is whether we can programmatically pull that listing, in a machine-readable form (RSS or equivalent), and dump it into some database on the backend, which then de-dupes the material, and pushes the relevant info to an automagically-generated mainspace page. Doing a bit of digging, I believe the answer is yes: https://www.elance.com/q/api2 , which says "The Elance Developer API Version 2 exposes ... simple, Web-based interface that can be called from any application platform ... obtain profile data for providers, search our database of available jobs, and obtain listings of groups ... " In order for us to make use of their extant API calls, we need to 1) find a programmer willing to write the server-side PHP code, 2) get permission from the sysadmins or WMF to host that new code on wikipedia servers, and 3) have the programmer sign up for an eLance API-key and password and write the necessary PHP. This isn't a month of dev-work, it's more like a week or less. The main advantage to setting up our own backend-script-that-grabs-and-de-dupes-eLance-jobs-listings-programmatically, is that we can keep a history of all such jobs indefinitely for Brianhe's machine-learning tools to train against, and furthermore, we can have a centralized location for not just eLance stuff, but also other potential sources (beyond eLance). ROI is somewhat dependent on how many 'other' sources of wikipedia-paid-editing-jobs there are. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Upwork and fiverr would probably be good places to look next. I suspect quickly diminishing returns will be achieved, as they seem to cross-post quite a bit. _ Brianhe (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There's a fairly comprehensive list of WP editor marketplaces over at WikiProject Integrity. — Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Everett Stern

    I caught wind of this from having watchlisted the Talk page of Ladysif, who brought the situation to light. Every single major contributor to the article is an Everett Stern SPA. And on Twitter, Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article, on August 30 (cached here). See further important insight by Ladysif on her Talk page and on Talk:Everett Stern. This is a critical situation because Stern is running for Senator, and this is, in essence, an election promotion article. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit adding in his "political positions" is particularly suspicious, considering. Ladysif (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Toned down the article a bit. Removed family background and semi-promotional links. Seems notable; plenty of press coverage, including full articles from Reuters and Rolling Stone. Someone already took out the "political positions" section, which was a bit much. Please keep watching to prevent the promotional material from creeping back in. John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the cleanup Nagle, but I added a COI tag to the article due to near-certainty that the article has been subject of undisclosed paid editing by at least one editor, this ed's additions have not been erased (yet). See § Gshm50 below. — Brianhe (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See also [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Stern&diff=680121161&oldid=680104538%7Cthese recent edits]] from an IP tracing to West Chester, PA - attempted to blank the talk page and then accused me of libel. Possibly Stern or someone closely related to him as his location on his Twitter bio is also West Chester.Ladysif (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article - He was thanking them for making the events in the article possible not the words. Read the post again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stern states "Thank you to all my friends and family who made all this possible." Not the wikipedia article contents possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia Article Editor Ladysif states the following about Everett Stern "He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam." A great number of Americans disagree and this statement is libel, false, damaging, and malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please follow talk page formatting. If you have something constructive to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise please refrain from attacking me for bringing this issue up WP:NPA. You continue to accuse me of having a "political agenda," and having spammed the Everett Stern page "for months." My first edit was on July 28th, on the same day I posted it on the WP:TAFI board, where it was voted down based on WP:N. Ladysif (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement. Around the same time of this demand Ladysif placed the article for deletion. We do not know if Ladysif was part of the demand nor are we making the allegation. It is most likely coincidence and a timing issue. When we saw this COI post we automatically assumed it was the fraudulent party especially when we saw Ladysif. Again, Ladysif probably has nothing to do with it, but after reviewing Ladysif talk page we became very concerned. The staff does not know how to use Wikipedia or make edits appropriately and for that we apologize. As you can all imagine, Mr. Stern was extremely upset and concerned with the posts. We are not interested in legal action nor do we have anything personal against Ladysif. We just want to get this resolved. Please understand that we do not know the process or what is happening right now. On a personal note, Mr. Stern did not thank his friends and family for creating the wikipedia page. His statement is being taken out of context. He was thanking his friends and family because the wikipedia page represents the suffering and pain that he had to go through and what he resulted in accomplishing. The wikipedia page is very important not because of the campaign or the company. The page is important because it makes the sacrifice that he made worth while. We ask that the editors really read his story and what he has gone through. Please tell us what we can do to help your investigation. All of the statements are correct and sourced and the page is accurate. We have nothing to hide. Please understand by posting a COI it seriously undermines the article even though the information contained is true. Again, we are not familiar with this process but the entire staff of Tactical Rabbit and the Senate campaign are here to help alleviate any and all concerns. We understand that the editors are conducting their due diligence to make Wikipedia a better educational environment. Please advise us on how we can contribute. Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, Everett Stern and the Tactical Rabbit team sincerely apologize to Ladysif. We did not mean to personally attack you. The concern was that you were part of the extortion attempt. It has become apparent that you are simply trying to do the right thing. Please understand if the extortion piece was not a factor we would not have reacted in this fashion. Please accept Mr. Stern's apology. We seriously doubt you are involved in any kind of scheme against Mr. Stern. We just wanted to make you aware the reason why this escalated so fast. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please actually read WP:Conflict. An individual's "company" or any other person with an external relationship to the person upon whom the article is written should not be writing, editing, or contributing to the majority of the article. That is why it was brought to this noticeboard. Some editors clearly have connections to the subject, and given that he is involved with an impending political campaign, the article should not be exhibiting puffery WP:PUFF or any other qualities that make it read like a blatant advertisement. See: WP:Neutral Ladysif (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to the IP and to the Everett Stern "team": Wikipedia is not a personal website. Do not use Wikipedia to make whatever Stern "went through" "worthwhile". Do that on your own time, and your own dime, on your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is to be edited by neutral editors, in a neutral way, with neutral noteworthy facts cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I want the Wikipedia article to be upgraded in class, 100 percent neutral, and in full Wikipedia compliance. I appreciate the Wikipedia process to ensure all articles are created on a sound foundation of integrity. I am more than happy to help in the process and I encourage official editors to reach out to me directly with questions.nEverettstern (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AArrow Advertising

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Editor blocked, article deleted

    It's probably safe to say that nearly every major contributor to the article has been associated with the company. A very long press release. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Fredric Alan Maxwell

    When I discovered this article it looked like this. I edited to remove a list of articles in external links that the subject of the article had written. I also removed the "Spooked" article, also written by the subject, that was being used as a reference for a Secret Service investigation episode. I reworded the content on this event following the lead of a WSJ article I found here that uses language like "he believes" and "he says", and says that the Secret Service and Microsoft declined to comment. The subject is adamant (see Talk:Fredric Alan Maxwell) that his own NY Times article can be used as a source for this event. Legal threats were made, then redacted, but since that is the tone of the discussion I am bringing the matter to COIN to get more eyes on it. Pinging @Tokyogirl79: who has also had contact with this user. Vrac (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know how to state this any clearer. The New York Times fully vetted the story. I gave them my Secret Service file. They are a real publication will real editors that faces real libel action everyday. The New York Times is one of the most trusted media sources in the world. Mr. Vrac keeps claiming that this is not a valid source. As the Washington Post reported, I even got a humorous handwritten fan letter from then-Senator Hillary Clinton about the investigation and the piece. The WJS article he cites isn't freely publicly available. You must pay to get it. What does it say? I've never read it, it never showed up on a google alert. He removed the citation/references of at least six publications directly related to the sentences it referenced, including my congressional testimony that Harper's republished. Is not congressional testimony a valid source in wikiworld? It is common in real publishing in the real non-academic world to cite your source in the prose, not footnotes. Vrac has no evidence -- none -- to put a cloud on on my reputation. Zippo. SO it's okay on WIKI to cast aspersions on my character w/o proof? That's just jim-dandy? Kosher? Removing what parts of my professional life he just doesn't like? THat's just fine? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.125.91 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the relevant text from the Wall Street Journal article:

    Now, in a bizarre turn of events, Mr. Maxwell believes Microsoft is fighting back. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service, which Mr. Maxwell says has been gathering information about him since shortly after he got his book contract. He is suing to get what he says is an "inch-thick file" about him detailing the Secret Service's belief that he made a threatening comment about President Bush in October 2000. Mr. Maxwell says he didn't do it, and wonders if Microsoft passed the tip along to the Secret Service. "My editor thinks it's a coincidence," Mr. Maxwell says. "I'm not so sure." Microsoft and a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington declined to comment.

    Wall Street Journal

    Vrac (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that in this instance I really don't think that Fred or his friend can neutrally edit the article since their COI is so strong. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but by large both Fred and Blevenberg are keen on keeping their specific version of the article, which has some issues. This edit shows that they're very keen to state things as facts rather than claims, which poses a BLP issue since he seems to be the only person definitively stating this as a fact. He cites the NYT article, but the thing about that is that it's written by Maxwell. It's not the same thing as an article that was written by a non-involved journalist because the liability there is different. Maxwell can claim whatever he wants as fact, but a journalist writing about his claims would have to label them as claims. Did the things he's claimed to have happened happen? Maybe, maybe not - but until they're confirmed, they cannot be labeled as fact in his article. I honestly don't think that either person can neutrally edit this article because both seem to be very keen on getting their specific version of events. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure that it'll go anywhere since again, I think that they're gung ho on getting that one specific version that suits their needs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors, editing an article about yourself or your friends is generally a no-no on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SELFPROMOTE. Comment on the talk page, instead. Right now, the article is basically a stub. Notability is marginal enough that it might not pass WP:AUTHOR, interpreted strictly. Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the second editor to question the article's notability; I AFD'd it to see what the community has to say. Vrac (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Checked out his bio of Steve Ballmer on Amazon. Amazon sales rank: #1,721,799. Currently being remaindered for $1.68. [60]. Reviews are very negative, except for a 5-star review by the author himself. Not a "major work". Voted to delete. John Nagle (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gshm50

    Editor 99% likely advertises on Elance, close name overlap and real-world job history aligns. Also, same headshot on WP userpage. Recent bid on Wikipedia writing job was linked by Doc James from earlier COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility could use some cleanup, but it dates from 2011 and doesn't seem to promote anything commercial. The hype level at Everett Stern has been reduced by two editors. Anything else need attention? John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things we need to do. He needs to be approached/advised of COI in general and TOE specifically; I see no paid editor declaration. This is a step in the wrong direction towards transparency: he deleted "freelance writer and editor" from WP profile at about the same time as taking the Elance WP writing job. And watch for creation of Anthony LaPine, the job Doc James linked to. I've scanned the Elance history and nothing jumped out, but many are private and could have been WP-related. — Brianhe (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    General Electric articles being written by PR department

    I received this notice from an editor purporting to be with the PR department at General Electric corporation telling me that they've been writing their own Wikipedia pages (in response to my speed nom of the Oil & Gas article). There don't appear to be connected contributor tags on any of these articles, and they seem fairly problematic at (very) cursory glance. But it's too big of package for me to unwrap so if someone wants to look at them, there you go. (I'm sure this is just something that requires gentle editor education; if they were going rogue I doubt I'd have received the Talk page notice.) I'm also pinging Acroterion. LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gentle education is indeed called for. Alas, I'm leaving for the airport in ten minutes, so I'll make an attempt at GE (ha!) once I get where I'm going. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a "happy talk" case. The companies are notable, and the material from the PR source is mostly factual, but it's all happy talk. No mention of litigation, failures, business problems, etc. Search business sources for more info. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • GE Oil & Gas - redirects to GE.
    • GE Aviation - kind of promotional, but not finding much bad stuff about GE jet engines.
    • GE Healthcare - hype level seems high; reads too much like an ad. There's a product liability lawsuit settled a few years ago that might be mentioned, but not finding much big bad stuff that was left out. Needs cleanup, though.
    • GE, which has also been edited by the COI editor, seems to be OK. That's an old article. It's become more negative on the company in the last year, as issues about GE Capital have surfaced. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    also add GE Oil and Gas to the list. I stub'd it, but someone else should take a look if it's notable enough for standalone, or better as redirect to General Electric. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The City Reliquary

    The article for The City Reliquary has been tagged COI. Could a few editors please look at it to determine if this tag is warranted? The article is composed from a neutral perspective and contains nothing but factual information about the museum. Scelentano81 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion. It's a storefront in Brooklyn. Take a look in Google StreetView.[61] The New York Times did write it up, but as a joke about hoarding. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prod removed by an experienced uninvolved editor. It's marginally notable, but probably would not pass a strict reading of WP:ORG or WP:GEO. Suggest cleanup, rather than deletion; it's a tiny nonprofit, not a paid editing problem. John Nagle (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauren Scott and biopropane

    LaurenAlexS (talk · contribs) appears to be the subject of the biography Lauren Scott. This editor is the major contributor to the article. Lauren Scott is the founder of a company that produces biopropane (a connection that LaurenAlexS removed in this edit). LaurenAlexS is the creator and sole contributor to the article biopropane. I placed COI notices on the two articles, but LaurenAlexS removed them both claiming with the edit summaries "the article is well referenced and has a neutral point of view" and "the article has a neutral point of view". I believe it is completely inappropriate for the editor with the conflict of interest to be the one who determines that the article is sufficiently neutral. I am also concerned about the possibility that a product is being promoted at biopropane where the editor has a substantial financial stake. Personally, I think biopropane should be merged into propane (biopropane is exactly the same thing as propane, but just has this marketing name because of how it is produced), but LaurenAlexS removed my merge suggestion without comment or discussion. Can editors here that are more familiar with handling COI issues please have a look? Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow - six years of editing and not a single edit doesn't appear to be self promotion. I'll take a look at the articles and if they persist take necessary action. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biopropane" is already covered, briefly, at Propane#Biopropane. There's also Biogas. So I proposed deletion. John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User's July edits at Liquefied petroleum gas should also be looked at, given the commercial COI. — Brianhe (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    LaurenAlexS identified self as the article subject Lauren Scott here ("my campaign"); there is a major commercial COI in editing all the gas related stuff, and political/personal COI otherwise. — Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments requested from people dealing with Elancers in Wikipedia

    We're discussing the format in which paid editors should disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and it would be useful to have input from folks here who are dealing with this on the ground. Please see here Specific question is whether freelancers should disclose the name of the broker under Affiliation or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw that convo which seems to have become a wall of text. Think I'll comment with a counterproposal that doesn't invite so much wikilawyering. I'm making this reply here to see what other board regulars think of "meta" process issues like this. Is there a sense with anyone else that roposals get picked apart before they really have a chance to be developed? Personally I'm sensing an air of defeatism leading to inertia, or maybe it's the culture scaring away people who would be able to engage with fuller particiption under other circumstances. Views/comments? — Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible music spammers

    articles

    The contributors to the deleted Starkillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seem to have a remarkable history of edits to articles with no non-trivial edits by established Wikipedian editors, e.g. Francesco Rossi (DJ and producer) ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am a nasty suspicious bastard, and I smell spam. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the registered accounts used the pronoun "we" to describe the effort to establish the article about Rossi: "We will be adding more content" and "We changed his name".[62] It looks like a PR agency is responsible. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some connected editors and articles. The creator of Nadia Ali (formerly in Starkillers) has been stewarding it for a while but AGF, it looks like fandom, not COI. Nick Terranova is Starkillers and Brawla Records, according to industry sources. Searching for his name popped up another industry spammer, Segmusic/Aswadband who needs to be blocked as a promo/corpname SEG Music [63]. Another contrib to Rossi article, THIRTY5 Group, Budapest. There are some Budapest IPs in various histories as well. — Brianhe (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Brianhe Hello, I am not affiliated with the original editor of the article whatsoever. I spoke to the admin who deleted the page he asked me to bring the matter up on DRV. I posted on DRV because I believe the participants of the deletion discussion for Starkillers page may not have conducted sufficient research and so I have provided all sources you may need to prove notability. Also whoever edited the Starkillers page may not have followed the guidelines of Wikipedia properly, but that does not make me a spammer. I would appreciate it if I am not called a spammer when I am only providing information that the participants at deletion discussion missed. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=680402331"