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 Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 19 October 2015 (→Cleveland Clinic: here there and everywhere). 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:Dan Abrams
    Talk:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Schillings
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    D0kkaebi

    Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

    (last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

    To sum it up:

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Signature copied here by Brianhe for clarity [reply]

    Discussion of problem by Azurfrog and Oliv0, 11 September 2015–13 September 2015
    • Reasons for this suspicion:
    • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

    I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
    However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
    I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amplification by Francis Le français, 14 September 2015
    Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
    Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
    1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
    2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything !
    3. [4] he protects bad sources
    4. [5] WP:OR
    5. [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. [10] removes a critical source
    8. [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

    --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    rebuttal by D0kkaebi, rebuttal to rebuttal by Francis Le français, 15 September 2015
    Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
    1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
    2. Same change, same revert.
    3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
    4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
    5. Same changes as above, no justification
    6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
    7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
    8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
    9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

    D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
    1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
    2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
    3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
    4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
    5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
    6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
    7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
    8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
    9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

    --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More information and request for action by Oliv0, 18 September 2015–9 October 2015 – part 1

     Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

    • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
    • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence for COI

    by Oliv0 – part 2

    Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI:

    • "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait;
    • The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00;
    • "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these;
    • Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP.

    Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence for bias

    by Oliv0 – part 3

    I can see nothing will happen here if I do not follow Huon's advice on my talk page, so it seems I am forced by COI/N rules to show the actual bias, though I am sorry to worsen tensions this way and I thought the evidence for COI would be enough as explained in WP:COIBIAS.

    • 21 February 2011: "patriotism", a positive word without a source
    • 6 March 2011: making "Popular Republican Union" a disambiguation page with Popular Republican Union (2007) instead of keeping the name for the "dominant party in Alsace during the Interwar era"
    • 9 March 2011: in the source added (now on archive.org) no mention of "the second highest honors"
    • 27 March 2011: "patriotism" again for PRU though not in the source given (at the time this text on archive.org), which is the PRU website
    • 9 March 2012: Asselineau in the ENA article among "famous alumni", all much more famous
    • 25 March 2012: hiding the poor result (17 signatures out of the 500 needed) behind the need for secondary sources, the source removed is a video of Asselineau himself giving this number in his official declaration, a correct source since he cannot be suspected of giving a worse result
    • 4 April 2012: same thing, now unsourced after he removed the source
    • 9 April 2012: PRU in list of French parties with political position "gaul[l]ism, euroscepticism", gaullism is a positive word without a source
    • 29 October 2013: Asselineau's thoughts on vocabulary in article Euroscepticism are hardly relevant
    • 2 November 2013: "Gaullism" added (would need an independent source) and at the same time removal of PRU website source about not claiming to be gaullist and still being most gaullist of all
    • 30 March 2014: removing as "vandalism" several good changes: the poor result of 17 signatures whose source he previously removed, the removal of "the second highest honors" not present in the source, the removal of "thoughtful" as a bad translation of the source sérieux ("serious" candidates, as opposed here to fantaisistes "fanciful, strange ones")
    • 2 October 2014: removing as "no connection with political platform" a passage with a source (Le Plus, collaborative but here edited by a journalist Louise Pothier) about Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/Front National, Bush and Marianne
    • 12 October 2014: undoing as "ultra bias" (and trying to control through "expose your changes one by one" on talk page) a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style
    • 20 February 2015: reintroducing "neither right nor left" without an independent source (only the party PRU says so) and membership figures quoted from the party (though maybe all parties do so) - many similar changes follow in an episodic edit war with IPs and then with User:Francis Le français
    • 8 July 2015: removing newspaper Sud-Ouest showing doubts about membership figures (which also says Asselineau is "anchored at the right of the right")
    • 24 July 2015: insisting with a ref ("the last sentence of the article") on "centrist", a bad translation of the source where Asselineau says (primary source, insufficient here) "we are beyond (transcendons) right and left"
    • 30 July 2015: "Gaullism" back, and moderating PRU's claim they are "the most visited French political party website" by "one of" not present in the source (le plus consulté) - many similar changes follow in an edit war with User:Francis Le français
    • 9 September 2015: undoing my changes, though I explained them and then checked about the COI with Lawren00 and warned about it on the talk page, which brought me to WP:AN/I for "personal attack" and "outing", and then here.

    Oliv0 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart

    Pardon me for folding the big discussion above, but this needs a restart. It seems reasonable for an uninvolved editor to ask D0kkaebi if he is a PRU party official, given that his former username on Wikipedia is the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing by giving the full name of the real-world person involved. The COIN process can go from there. – Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a new template, based on Jytdog's way of handling COI questions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Question (includes documentation). This has been posted to User talk:D0kkaebi which seems to be as much as needs to be done at the moment. He hasn't edited since a month ago. - Brianhe (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO we should let sleeping dogs lie... Vrac (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them never sleep. Oliv0 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, so could a francophone tell me, is this Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme an active group/force on the French Wikipedia? Maybe what we've seen here is essentially spillover from a wider issue. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen the (most recent) ANI thread? This battle has been going on for about 5 years and has spilled over into most of the wikiverse. There is a lot of history here. Vrac (talk)
    Also see my conclusion after your analysis there: "after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch", meaning that your suggestion to "bury the hatchet" (WP:DEADHORSE) cannot solve the problem.
    And to answer Brianhe's question: that "PRU wiki group" was only an ad-hoc group reporting on how Wikipedia is unfair and biased about Asselineau, I was hinting at their "national manager for Internet activism" (last sentence says Internet helps against Asselineau's "ban from the media", no details but WP is not the primary goal). Oliv0 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You (collectively, the frwiki editors) have been on this crusade for years (absurd, absurder, absurdest) so I'm not likely to dissuade you. I'll leave you with a sentence from the German AFD as food for thought: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber (translation: Instructive case of "Cross-Wiki Anti-Spam Spamming". Wiki witch-hunt fever.) Vrac (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something I mentioned above (beginning of the closed box "part 1"), the article about Asselineau once in 102 Wikipedias, now 20 after a cross-wiki action warned about the French AfD, which may have been spam against spam but was helpful to the 82 (!) WPs that deleted it. Anyway, anything else than the COI report is off topic here. Oliv0 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure it is off-topic. Perhaps the COIN case is just another angle to continue the same crusade. Vrac (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever reports it, it is useful to determine whether there is a COI because of WP:COI "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Oliv0 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kazakhstan

    Articles

    Users

    Consistently sanitised content, to the point that it is encyclopedically useless. The article Elections in Kazakhstan for example contains no mention of the fact that elections in the country are widely considered a "travesty", to quote The Guardian.

    The accounts named above are typically red-linked single-purpose accounts focusing exclusively on Kazakhstan articles.

    Previous concerns by Alex2006 and NeilN: Talk:Kazakhstan#Observation_on_content.

    Prior press reports detailing PR and Kazakh government involvement in Wikipedia:

    Given that the last one of these press articles reports that Johns Hopkins University took money from the Kazakh regime for academic reports, it is striking that Human rights in Kazakhstan quotes a laudatory Johns Hopkins report prominently in the lead.

    There is of course an abundance of sources critical of the Kazakh regime – just check mainstream newspapers' reports on human rights in Kazakhstan, or the Kazakhstan report of any reputable human rights org (example: "Kazakhstan heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In 2014, authorities closed newspapers, jailed or fined dozens of people after peaceful but unsanctioned protests, and fined or detained worshipers for practicing religion outside state controls. Government critics, including opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov, remained in detention after unfair trials ... Torture remains common in places of detention." – Human Rights Watch; not the impression you'd get from reading Wikipedia).

    It's just that they're either not reflected, or deleted, as in this case (the accurately cited source was page 55 of [19]), or drowned out by masses and masses of fluff to the point where any critical content is lost in a sea of boring bureaucratic details.

    The overall effect is that Wikipedia supports the Kazakh government agenda, to the extent that I've seen a Kazakh embassy tweet the Wikipedia article on Kazakhstan. [20] Andreas JN466 12:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I can only totally agree with Andreas. I have the Kazakhstan page on my watchlist, and can confirm that since many months an avalanche of "news" in soviet-bureaucratic style are reducing the information contained in this article to noise. These edits are performed by brand news "users" who after being warned plainly disappear, only to be substituted by new ones. Alex2006 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could these articles be semi-protected to make it more difficult for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Also, checkuser? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elections in Kazakhstan should be rewound to the 2013 revision [21]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another example from President of Kazakhstan:

    Kazakhstan's 5th presidential election was held on April 26, 2015.[6] Nursultan Nazarbayev was re-elected with 97,7% of the vote.[7] 858 observers from 19 countries were present at the polling stations during the election.[7] International and local observers have reported no significant violations.[7]
    International observers from 19 countries commended the organization and transparency of the elections held on April 26 2015.[8] Politicians, professors, analysts and journalists from the US, Great Britain, Croatia, Latvia, etc. praised the openness of the electoral process and the transparency of voting procedures at the polling stations.[8]

    This is cited to RT and the regime's own Astana Times. Here is what the BBC said: "The result, giving 74-year-old Mr Nazarbayev a fifth consecutive five-year term, had never been in doubt. [...] He ran virtually unopposed as his two opponents were both seen as pro-government." Here is what Aljazeera said: "The Central Asian country's marginalised opposition did not put forward any candidates for the election and Nazarbayev ran against two candidates widely seen as pro-government figures." None of that is in the article. Andreas JN466 06:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a section with international criticisms to the Elections in Kazakhstan article for balance, as this should not be whitewashed. Let's see how long it lasts. Valenciano (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone have access to relevant Central Asian studies journals? JSTOR has Central Asiatic Journal, and the defunct Central Asia Monitor and extant Central Asian Survey should be relevant here, and much more trustworthy than the easily influenced news media. Speakers of Russian may do well to use Gosudarstvo Kazakhstan (not sure of the original title), giving the earlier history of the state, while anyone here should be able to use most of the 1,309 works that appear in WorldCat under the subject heading Kazakhstan--Politics and government. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Nyttend. The Oxford Handbook of the International Relations of Asia (2014, Oxford University Press), p. 601, quotes Marie Helene Cote, "A Sobering Reality: Fundamental Freedoms in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan Twenty Years after the Soviet Collapse" for its assessment of the human rights situation in Kazakhstan ("Despite promises of gradual reform made by the authorities [...], the situation in Kazakhstan has deteriorated.") That's an Open Access document (pdf Google html cache) that would make a useful source for the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, as well as the Human rights in Kazakhstan article, all of which are currently woefully inadequate.
    Other openly available and fully up-to-date Kazakhstan country reports from organisations regularly cited in the academic literature include:
    I'd suggest these could be summarised in the "Human Rights" and "Rule of Law" sections of the Kazakhstan article, and be used as major sources for content in the Human rights in Kazakhstan article. The current status reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dennis Brown has indefinitely semi-protected Kazakhstan per this request at WP:AN. If you want the others semi-protected, leave a request at WP:RFPP, pointing to this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Andreas JN466 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Andreas, Human rights in Kazakhstan should probably be reverted to 14 March 2013 or thereabouts. I looked at a few with a view to adding semi-protection, but there haven't been enough recent edits to justify it, apart from the main article that Dennis protected. Sarah (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sarah. The pace of these contributions is slow, almost glacial; it's just a constant drip-drip. But over time, articles have been built that consist entirely of contributions by accounts named above, apart from a couple of gnoming and bot edits; see [22] for example. Semi-protection wouldn't help, as these accounts aren't in a hurry and achieving autoconfirmation is trivial. Andreas JN466 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravi Tripathi and others

    Sample articles

    Accounts involved


    I don't think there's any outing issues here as they edit under the names, have photographs on etc, and their PR agency references the Wikipedia work as well as patroller status on hi.wiki. This edit to an archived discussion is quite suspicious too. They've been quite persistent in creating articles and have tried multiple approaches. There's obviously some other accounts that have to be either duck or SPI blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 12:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Implausible denials part I
    Hi, @SpacemanSpiff:, It is quite hurtful. I am here denying your all the allegation. I'm not being paid by anyone. It's very hurtful, I'm emotionally attached to Wikipedia. As I'm contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I have contributed a lot not only English but in Hindi Wikipedia as well.

    I have my an other account with Username Jeeteshroxx, as it was created by me when I lost my password of this account. Later i recalled my password from a rough book where I had written passwords of my Gmail, Facebook etc accounts. This is not a new thing you are saying, on Hindi Wikipedia many people knows, as it was previously discussed on Hindi Wikipedia. And i had given same clarification about Jeeteshroxx. When i had recovered password of this account, later when i came to know about that people cannot operate two accounts as per Wikipedia policy, i stopped using Jeeteshroxx. As you can see i am not using that account since long.

    You have pointed that I have edited Ravi Tripathi page. For your kind information, I just want to clear it that I do not no personally know Ravi Tripathi. I edited Ravi Tripathi article just because he hails from district of my native place. No any external link, I have.

    You have given a link of under constructing Blog, alleging that I am linked with any PR firm. No, No, I'm not linked with any of PR firm. And not even interested in it.

    Which link you given that was a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. This company is being planned to be set up my village friend Rahul.

    And me and Rahul is not involved in any paid editing of Wikipedia article.

    Let me tell you about others. I created article Golden Book of World Records, when i had created series articles of world records like India Book of Records, and Asia Book of Records. behind creating these articles i had thought that, these are book of worlds records. it should have articles like Guinness Book and Limca book. So i just created.

    And about Suvigya Sharma, i came to know about this painter through a post shared by one of guy on Facebook. So i goggled about him with curiosity to know more about painter and i found enough media coverages about him, which passes notability guidelines. so created his page. When i was creating about his article i came to know that he received Bharat Gaurav Award, so i created an other article with name Bharat Gaurav Award, as i came to know about it that is one of the important international awards, given to Indians and Indian diaspora. no any personal connection with anyone neither Suvigya nor Bharat Gaurav Award. Your allegation sounds just a harassing to me.

    I edited Muzammil Ibrahim article by thinking to improve the article as it had some tags describing less references. Do not remember exactly, which tag was placed.

    About, Paul Myres, I read about him in News on 17 Sept. His story was quite inspiring. so goggled to know more about this man, and got enough media coverages about him. so created Wikipedia article about Paul Myers. And nothing.

    Well, I think, i should give bit introduction about myself. So that you can understand me in better way. I am pursuing Bachelor of Management studies in Marketing, I am poet by interest, writes in Hindi, i am art lover , I have bit knowledge about web designing, much attracted to know current affairs about politics, bureaucracy, business and arts.

    Here, I clearly denying your all the allegations. Personally, I do not believe in paid editing and conflict of interest. As it is not good for Wikipedia as it would defer the quality of article. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you then explain the PR agency that you run along with the other partner (I see that you have now made the site subscriber only): archived link.?—SpacemanSpiff 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    No, No it is a kind request please do not call it a PR agency. As i have clearly mentioned it that it is a Web designing & Software developing company, which is still not born. Rahul, who is my village friend Rahul, planning to open it but unfortunately he is not much concentrated over there as he is busy in his personal life, getting married in November. He has taken me in his company just because i have bit knowledge about web designing. There is only two people that is me and Rahul, no any partners. In my biography, whatever, he has updated is just to build my profile. As I'm marketing student of BMS. I have studies many subjects, including Public Relations in 5th semester. This is the reason why he has mention about PR. And about blog, I have said that it is in under construction, so no reason to make it live. And Again I'm clearly mentioning I have NO any affiliation with any PR related firm. Denying allegations. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you have to come clean on this. The cached copy clearly shows that you are in violation of the ToU and a testimonial from one of the article subjects. At this point, I don't see any recourse but to prevent you and your business partner from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 16:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And then you're claiming here that you've never interacted with Ravi Tripathi, but here you claim otherwise. —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brianhe/COIbox24 has the ContributionSurveyor analysis for Jeeteshvaishya. Article creations by Jeeteshvaishya or Jeeteshroxx, as reported among the ContributionSurveyor top 20 results, subtracting purely geographic entities, are:

    This list is completely consistent with publicity-seeking individuals and groups being written about by a PR agency. — Brianhe (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems to me quite a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid-editing, especially given the cached website for the PR agency, which was changed once this complaint was filed. I plan to indef. User:Jeeteshvaishya and his sock account for ToU violations and promotional editing but wanted to post here first to check if there are any precedents for/against such actions, and suggestions on how the articles should be best dealt. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The web page is unambiguous, that at least some of this is paid editing. We've sometimes given some degree of amnesty to previous undisclosed paid editor who have come clean, either of the own volition or after an accusation, but this is the opposite pole: not only undisclosed, but denied with an attempt to hide the evidence. I do not think we have a formal policy on blocking for TOU violations, but for ones of this nature I think we have so far had no hesitation in doing it. (In any case, promotional editing is a perfectly good block reason)
    As for the articles, we seem to not have a policy that articles written by undeclared paid editors (before they are blocked) will be deleted. Even after they are blocked, we do not have a policy to delete them unless the paid editor is the only significant contributor. The Orangemoody case was an exception, and in my opinion a bad precedent. Of the articles listed here, Munishwar Dutt Upadhyay, Satyaveer Munna, Ram Vilas Vedanti and Guru Nanak High School, Mahim are unquestionably notable by our usual rules. Uday Pratap Singh (Bhadri) and Prem Lal Joshi are most likely notable also. Some of the entertainers may be also, but I cannot judge in that field. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sudoku solver article, Rohan Rao, created by same user. I removed one ref that was a dead link and looked iffy as a source anyway. But some Indian press sources remain; he might actually be notable. — Brianhe (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Implausible denials part II
    @SpacemanSpiff: Your comment seems me quite ridiculous. I said no, means no. I do not know Ravi Tripathi personally and do not have any connection with. Why you guys do not understand that. I emailed him to just seek his permission for using his photo. And Nothing. If can see, when I had created Ravi Tripathi article, that time I picked some photos from Google and uploaded on Wiki Commons, as that time not had much knowledge about Wiki commons and copyright issue. Still I'm not familiar with Wiki Commons. I emailed him for seeking his permission just thinking that if I took permission then I can upload photos on Wiki Commons. But still I'm not able to give or prove that I took permission. Some photographs has been proposed for deletion now. Let me clear you again that I'm not linked with any Ravi Tripathi, I do not know whether my village friend has received any testimonial or not. Blog of Web designing and Software company was created by him only. As per my knowledge, he haven't received any testimonial, might be, he has made any false or fake testimonial. But if he had made any false statement on blog, I'm not going yo suffer it. And again saying and will say more 100 times, i'm not being compensated by anyone. Your are saying, business partner, It is ridiculous and rubbish. Company is still not born. How can you say that business partner. Haven't made any business. Nonsense. And yes, I will again say I haven't violated any rules of Wikipedia.

    Why you people do not understand, I'm a 20 years old guy, who is still studying, I'm student. And Mr you are saying you will prevent or stop me from editing Wikipedia. Oh please, do not say like that. Wikipedia is not yours. It is ours. It is our Wikipedia, I am contributing Wikipedia since I was just 15 years old. I'm proud Wikipedian.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. Abecedare and Brianhe, I haven't made it clear that it is not a PR agency, why you don't get it. It is web designing and software developing company, which had planned to set up, but still not born. Just stop calli g it PR agency. I gain say big No, I haven't involved in any activities, that violates Wikipedia policy.


    @Abecedare: @Brianhe:, Repeatedly I am saying i'm not involved in such activity. I'm not being paid by anyone. And i'm not interested in it too. I respect Wikipedia's each and every norms. Your allegations hurts.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @DGG: Sir, let me tell you, if had created article like Saurabh Dudeja, Rajesh Baniya, the reason behind creating these articles only that I thought these people people should have Wikipedia article. It doesn't mean that i'm involved in any paid editing.

    Just like i created Wikipedia articles Bajrang Bahadur Singh, because he was freedom fighter and served as LG of Himachal Pradesh, and hailed from my native district. Created article Ram Vilas Vedanti, who has been Member of Parliament of my native place. Created Munishwar Duty Upadhyay just because MP and freedom fighter from my native place. Created Guru Nanak High School, because I had completed schooling from here, I love my school. When I was creating article Rajesh Baniya, that time I came to know about that Rohan Rao was 1st in that Sudoku championship, so created article about him. I created article Satyaveer Munna, as he hails from near by my native place. I created Belha Devi Temple, because it is famous temple at my native place. I created some articles like Ali Quli Mirza, Sampat Devi Pal because I used to watch Bigg Boss, I came to know about him through Biggboss. I created articles of Rajyasabh MP Pramod Tiwari and MP Harvansh Singh, it doesn't mean that i am linked with these people, I created just because these people are from my native place. and contributed I contributed to articles like Matunga Road, Mahim, Kabootar Khana, Kadeshwari Devi Temple etc because i know this places, is it is located in Mumbai, my current location. Have contributed to literature related articles on Wikipedia, The only reason is i love poetry. These are reasons behind creating articles. That's all.

    Yet I have heard about harassment on Wikipedia, not I'm witnessing it. It is extremely sad. Please do not harass me unnecessary.

    If you think any article which is created by me, has less news references as per Wikipedia's policy, violates any rules, just nominate it for deletion. I will google and try to find out references, and would introduce to the article and try to improve the article, if that doesn't work, then you can delete it. --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading Jeeteshvaishya's denial above, I went back and re-examined the evidence, and while it is clear that the user has made regular (ie non-promotional edits) edits and that some of the articles he created were for subjects who would be notable, I am convinced by both the off-wiki evidence (the PR website that has now been pulled down + editor's facebook page) and on-wiki behavioral evidence that he is involved in promotional editing at the behest of/in collaboration with some of the subjects (I, of course, cannot be sure if money exchanged hands). And this goes back at least three years. Articles such as Suvigya Sharma and Ravi Tripathi, for which the PR agency claimed credit, show clear signs of this; not spelling the signs out per WP:BEANS. See also Bharat Gaurav Award, an article on a likely non-notable award created apparently to support the notability of Suvigya Sharma, and containing a highlighted pull-quote from a company press release.
    Jeeteshvaishya's flat denials, which are not credible, make it impossible to separate out the articles that would require the paid cotributions discosure from "regular" edits, and rule out the possibility that this was simply an issue of not being aware of the rules, which would have warranted us giving them the benefit of doubt and a chance to rectify through disclosure. I have therefore blocked the editor and his alternate account. I see that @SpacemanSpiff, DGG, and Brianhe: are already cataloging and reviewing the editor's contributions; I will try to chip in later this week. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abecedare:. While not socks Indianbloomer and Ratunj Tripathi are also obviously part of this operation, so you may want to treat them the same or at the least keep a watch. —SpacemanSpiff 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The accounts' participation at this AFD and Ratunj's editing of Raghuraj Pratap Singh clearly show (along with the off-wiki evidence) them acting in concert with the Jeeteshvaishya accounts and is further evidence of the team's promotional editing. However, given the meager contributions of the two accounts and the fact that they have been inactive for last few months, I am leaving them unblocked for now; won't hesitate to block if they are resurrected and start similar problematic editing. Btw, the Indianbloomer account suggests that we should keep our eyes open for sock accounts created by this PR firm.
    By the way, in reviewing the articles edited by Jeeteshvaishya, I noticed that the user often cited non-RS websites that contained articles written by other PR professionals or were warmed over press releases (eg [23],[24]). Don't know if this indicates that the Bloomocrats is part of a bigger enterprise, or just that the subject was hiring different PR firms to expand their web-presence. In any case, will need to keep this in mind when cleaning up after the editors. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing the articles created by the UPE. There are a whole lot of articles on politicians, too many for me to scrub. Here are some high (low) points in what's left.

    — Brianhe (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with the conclusions of Abecedare--not all of this is paid editing, but it is cooperative editing or editing using sockpuppets, involving some degree of COI. The topics are actually not all that implausible --being interested in Indian entertainment figures and politicians and some local places is a very possible combination. The articles are certainly written in a promotional style, with PR-type references and extravagent adjectives--but so are most of our articles by contributors from that area. And it's become clear to me that no Indian newspaper however respected is really free from including promotion--and I've been told they all expect payment from the cinema industry for articles on films. This obviously gives us certain difficulties in sourcing. For films and actors, I think I'd accept from India only objective sources showing box office standing and major awards; there are publications from outside the country dealing with Bollywood etc., some in a comparative context with other countries and they should be more reliable. I imagine its similar with musicians, though I don't know anything about that part. For politicians, we at least have the ability to determine if someone was in fact a member of the legislature or government minister (tho I've seen some positions where I don't think the title actually corresponds to the head of a major dept.) And we all know that most work from there needs rewriting into standard English. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also sourcing to bharatdiscovery.org which should be added on the revert list as it's partially a mirror of multiple language Wikipedias and unattributed user submitted translations. That has been consistently used as a source by this group. —SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeeteshvaishya opened. More diffs might be helpful. — Brianhe (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, admins, that was the fourth time India Book of Records has been deleted. Can we finally get it salted? — Brianhe (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Even the echo of the article's former existence is causing this problem. Brianhe (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiphop Tamizha is an impressively nightmarish WP:REFBOMB itself...look at some of those sources. Vrac (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I might write another essay on strategy for choosing where to expend one's anti COI energy, but bottom line, I'm not that interested in Indian media (books, movies, singers) as a rule just because of the Sisyphean scope of problems. The book-of-records thing is an exception because it establishes a toehold for an avalanche of other crap that depends on it as a reference. Also, non-NPOV info is almost expected in this area so the damage to Wikipedia as a reference is not so great (uh oh I'm starting my essay). Anyway, have at it if you like. — Brianhe (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on the assessment as Sisyphean, just thinking about what it would take to fix that article and all its probable tentacles makes me want to take a nap. Vrac (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Before I nominate it, is there any evidence that Bharat Gaurav Award isn't another one of the fake awards? It looks like Indian media carry these "XYZ Celeb Wins Award" stories kind of indiscriminately, so it's hard to tell. – Brianhe (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirmed sock Golu19. Active for just a few days. Page creations:

    He also edited Bandra, a Mumbai suburb. Jeeteshvaishya has consistently edited from, or is associated with, Mumbai IPs e.g. at Ravi Tripathi on 18 December 2012; Satyaveer Munna on 1 April 2015. Forensic note, Jeeteshvaishya edits are never associated with mobile edit tag or visual editor, but sometimes closely followed by an IP who is. This could be interpreted as interaction with a client. @SpacemanSpiff: this could explain the checkuser failure. Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, but it's also likely that he's just using two devices, doesn't log when he's on his tablet/mobile but does so when he's on the computer. I've closed the SPI as there's nothing further going to come of it at this point. Let's see when something else pops up. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Venafi

    Many SPAs, two cable ISP IPs that geolocate to Salt Lake City with zero or one other edits, and a corporate IP all tending an article about this company. PRODed Venafi. - Brianhe (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DePRODded, active editing today needs review. Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not affiliated with Venafi, but I worked with their product at the time that I created the article. I have actually had a change of career direction and do much less with cryptography than before. I haven't logged in to Wikipedia for quite some time because I've been more active on stack exchange. No offense, but I find that community more friendly to new contributors. LargeBlockCipher (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FlowerStorm48 sockfarm cleanup


    All this stuff was created and/or heavily edited by FlowerStorm48 and their confirmed sockpuppets. The articles need a look except for cases marked. From another case, I think this might be part of a bigger group of socks under the master CastleKing1440.

    Clearly this sockfarm needed to be cleaned up after, but we missed the opportunity since 28 May, when the socks were confirmed. This is bad for Wikipedia, as the undisclosed paid editor had a time window to get paid for their bad work, a time window which might have been closed. Maybe there needs to be a procedure to link sockfarms to new COIN cases?

    Additional forensic notes. The quantity of work here, and tone of editing seems consistent with a single editor who is proficient with English and has a good vocabulary. Monroe Hodder is a good example. Account usage generally followed an assembly-line procedure: account created, twiddled a few articles, then kept on ice a few weeks until needed for an article. Tradecraft was meticulous: after editing, accounts were generally thrown away. Only in one case did I note two socks editing the same article. Practices and topics match at least one known LTA operator. — Brianhe (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for bringing this up. I've started some clean up and added more articles created by related SPAs that I don't think had been noticed before. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on for years as evidenced by Special:Contributions/BubleLover55 who created Hamilton Jewelers in 2012 and fits the patterns of the other socks. I noticed that Food_Tank:_The_Food_Think_Tank was created by Neurosciency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who disappeared in 2013 after they were outed as an elancer. There are many other articles that weren't ever cleaned up including:
    That also lead me to Brandhorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who edited Fabrizio Boccardi recently and hasn't disclosed any COI. SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmartSE: Can you add Brandhorse to the open sockpuppet investigation WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MayFlowers2014#26 September 2015? Also noting Jimbo Wales commented on that Neurosciency paid neg-BLP piece. — Brianhe (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: All of those accounts are stale so there doesn't seem much point. SmartSE (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the book The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending is supposedly based on the life of Fabrizio Boccardi. The corresponding article was written by The Librarian at Terminus and his sock Commonplace Book. We have a new SPA Creoleo active there in the last ~72 hours. — Brianhe (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What is all this about? I'm new to the Wikipedia community, and you can call me or email me to verify my Identity. I do not know who any of these people are that you guys have tagged me with, nor am I associated with them and I would like to be removed from this thread. What do I need to do to make that happen? What is SPA? I chose to edit these article because i'm familiar with John Lands work. What is it exactly that I did wrong here?

    Creoleo (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Balkin

    I really have to try hard to hold my tongue on this article on a "international thought leader on banking ethics". So just the facts. SPA author. Single author. Complete article made in one edit. Large section titled "honors". You get the idea. Brianhe (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #639,327 in Books. But #73 in Books > Business & Money > Industries > Financial Services, which is respectable.
    Cleaned up most of the junk. Now we have to put stuff in. Trying to get a handle on who this person is. See [25]] for some insight. He's the son of David Balkin, a senior director of McKinsey & Company. He seems to have inherited money, but hasn't really done much on his own except write a book and give a TEDx talk. The "banking executive" job was at the Macquarie Family Office, which manages money for rich families. There's a claim that he worked for the Australian prime minister, but that's cited to his own article on LinkedIn. The Amazon reviews for the book show signs of similarity. He apparently talked about running for political office at one point, but that went nowhere. Someone else take a look at this. Does he meet the threshold for notability? His father is more notable than he is, and doesn't have an article. John Nagle (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a cite re Prime Minister - he worked on the prime minister's campaign, not for the Government. John Nagle (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I listed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Balkin DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FocusEconomics

    The listed users are single-purpose accounts whose only contributions involve promotional editing at FocusEconomics and adding external links to its website, focus-economics.com. They have added nearly 100 external links to the website across Wikipedia. I wonder if maybe the article FocusEconomics was created in the first place as the result of paid editing, too. Deli nk (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably. I have trimmed much of the content in the main article, but much of it is still based on its own website. - MrX 12:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion. I can't find any reliable-source references to them in Google. John Nagle (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the repeated external link additions appear to be spamming, I will simply revert them if there is no objection. Deli nk (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the links that were spammed to "External links" sections, but left the ones that are used as references. Deli nk (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Owen 'Alik Shahadah

    An editor with a strong POV is trying to pass Owen 'Alik Shahadah as a notable scholar and his websites as reliable. Spamming it across wikipages related with africa and slavery. He seems to be connected as he stated in the summary of this edit. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 189#arabslavetrade.com and Talk:Black people#Arabslavetrade.com. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other issues aside, I don't really see much evidence of a COI here. That edit summary certainly does not seem to suggest/admit a COI - am I missing something? Fyddlestix (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyddlestix He is trying to put Owen 'Alik Shahadah's opinion across wikipedia, againt consensus because his POV, and even acknowledging that his page is an advocacy page. He is strongly connected with the subject. e.g. links: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and more. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupert is in a funny situation since he is clearly the one with a COI he has systematically gone through EVERY PAGE that mentions an African multi-award winning edit and deleted them. It takes a strong passion and clearly motives to do that. Let me add you can see my contributions lastly, From his list do you realize a great deal of those articles like Cheikh Anta Diop I have never edited in my life and do not have an interest in.--Inayity (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He keeps using one stupid inconclusive poorly presented discussion about Arab Slave Trade where he himselfs ADMITS Alik Shahadah is a notable OPINION on Arab slave trade. YET, he is using it to say Every Single African holocaust page is unreliable (wholesale) even the ones written by Karenga and Hakim Adi, and Asante. Rupert does not know these topics to be so opinionated on what is "scholarly" and what is not--Inayity (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is so sad when you will quote every policy you think might work. "Strongly connected with the subject" but My entire edit history is open, the only strong connection I see is you having some sort of crusade against the man. I am not sure what that is, but such passion betrays an agenda. I am reading the stuff you are deleting on Slavery, how you tell us it is not notable.? B/c he is not teaching at a Uni or publishes in journals. At least it is a notable opinion. At least an EL, but you will have none of it. LOL. Yet I have a varied position which is treating each instances point by point (hence Black people deletion).--Inayity (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both Inayity and Rupert loup continued edit warring and broke 3RR in the process. I therefore found it necessary to block them temporarily, which is of course unfortunate for this discussion. Favonian (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This really needs to be taken to the RS noticeboard, not the COI one. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordless Larry This isn't about if Shahadah's content is RS, there was already a discussion about that, this about the COI of Inayity with Shahadah. And why he want him spammed across Wikipedia simply because match his POV, he remplace the sources of notable africans scholars to have him in different articles. He removed the adf tag of Shahadah's wikipage because he disagree with it. He is already blocked for warring so I won't going to discuss this more until he be unblocked. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanting to add material by an author to multiple articles isn't in itself evidence of a CoI though. I realise that there was a previous RS discussion, but Inayity has concerns about how the discussion was conducted. It's probably best to start a new one, get wide input, and establish once and for all whether Shahadah can be considered a reliable source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordless Larry This is where we are discussing the material now: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah Do you think that it should be open a discussion in other place?. About the COI, I won't going to discuss it further until he be unblocked. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I hadn't seen that. That seems as good a place as any to discuss the matter. Thanks, Rupert Loup. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Connectivity Index: Help Requested to Avoid COI Editing

    My name is Marshall Manson. I work for Ogilvy, a global advertising and PR firm, and I am a signatory to last year's statement from communications firms in which we commited, among other things, to refraining from making edits directly to Wikipedia on behalf of our clients. It was my hope that formalising such a commitment, we could occasionally turn to the community of editors for help by making requests for edits, especially when those requests were purely factual and non-controversial.

    I am writing here to make just such a request. We represent Huawei, which sponsors the annual Global Connectivity Index. This year's Index was release several months ago, and we have been requesting that the existing article be updated to reflect the latest results ever since.

    We have posted a request on the article's Talk page, and also on the Wikipedia China project page. Thus far, we have had no replies.

    As we are anxious to abide by our commitment, and avoid making edits ourselves, I thought I would post a request here as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. (And please also let me apologise in advance for any errors in syntax. I realise that I still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.)

    Tmmanson (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Stiouvv (talk · contribs), who created that article and never edited again, affiliated with you in any way? John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always reluctant to speak in absolutes, given that we are a global firm of more than 20,000 people, but to the best of my knowledge, he / she is not. Tmmanson (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research and others

    socks

    The IP is involved at S. P. Jain Institute of Management and Research and obviously being used by the editors when accidentally logged out, e.g. [68]. Same IP created promo and massive copyvio Draft:Slum Soccer for a nonprofit org. Anadichaturvedi and VismayH co-editing so fast that the timestamps have been the same [69]. It looks like paid editing.

    IP has been introducing crud to Delhi Technological University, oddly enough linked to One97 and Paytm and indirectly to Arr4 (see recent COIN case). I will request a checkuser for this aspect.

    Socking has been confirmed by other editors at this article. — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reopened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Spjimr – Brianhe (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I am VismayH, and I assure you I am no paid editor, the same goes for Anadi. We are B-school students, you can check our profile on facebook. "Vismay Harani" is my name, also you can check for "Anadi Chaturvedi". We were sitting across the table while editing, and we wanted to effect many changes, so it looked to you as if we were indulging in fast editing. You suggest a way out of this. Also, the information that has been put is factual and backed by newspaper articles and website links, SP Jain is indeed amongst the top-ten B-school in India. I suggest you check the validity of facts before casting us as paid editors. We are a novice bunch, and are learning our way through Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VismayH (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you doing this as part of an assistantship, scholarship, or class assignment? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    we ask this not because such projects are wrong, but so we can explain to your instructor how they should be done. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Allan Ross

    I'm concerned about this editor and what seems to be a manner of dictation on how the article about him should be edited. See the article talk page here and the editor talk page here for examples as to why what seems to be happening is problematic, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (being involved in some of the related discussions) I suppose I think things are turning for the better lately, so I'd let that process continue without worrying too much. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not required to accede to every request he makes, but his long history of being viciously attacked by Scientologists and other ne'er-do-wells does mean we're obliged to at least listen. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I understand that I cannot edit my bio and have only made suggestions regarding mistakes in fact, misleading edits, etc. The idea to cut the lead to only the first paragraph was actually first suggested by a Wikipedia editor and not me.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been working with him at the article and although it has been a bit bumpy at times I though we had a functional working relationship, now that I see him bringing up the lead again I must re-evaluate that.. He has pointed out issues and generally the article has improved. I would be happier if it did not take several tries for him to accept that a given change will not be made. In particular I briefly thought the lead could be cut, mentioned that, and now he will not drop it. I have explained to him several times why the information in the lead should be there and why I will not cut the lead nor will I support it being cut without significant discussion. JbhTalk 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Right now there is a factual error in the first sentence. Other portions of the lead are misleading and should be edited to reflect the facts. I thought it would be easier to cut the last two paragraphs of the lead as you previously suggested. If you want to keep them in fine, but they will need a tweek or two.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said here please bring up your concerns, with specific reliable sources, on the talk page of the article and I will work with you. Please present the issues one at a time and include sources that document the problem and your proposed edit. JbhTalk 19:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick, please remember that differences of emphasis are not factual errors, OK? It's definitely best to separate disputes over emphasis from matters of objective fact, and equally it's best to keep it brief: "Says X, but actually Y, based on source Z" will et actioned fairly quickly, and factual accuracy is of course the most pressing concern. Also, Jbhunley is doing a good job as far as I can see, so please be aware that if you fall out with him you may not find anyone who is happy to work with you. Not everyone wants to risk being attacked by the sort of nutters who go after you. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to beat up on Seattle topics, but Fosterwhite was warned about problems with an apparent role account username and COI, but has continued editing on the Foster/White Gallery and probably artists they represent as well.

    Tony Angell is quite problematic, with a prose section way out of proportion to the sources, entirely unreferenced sections, long lists of shows a la a CV, and overall PROMO tone. This is from the lede: "Angell brings a passion and ferocity to his love of nature that leaves audience members and readers alike inspired." Brianhe (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What I'd call it, is unambiguous advertising". That sample was representative of a full dozen paragraphs. I've listed it for speedy deletion as G11. He's clearly notable, but it would have to be started over. In my opinion, a great articles on contemporary creative artists are contaminated by clear promotionalism & written in a manner which copies a gallery brochure, but this is the most extreme example I've encountered. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Your speedy tag was removed in less than hour. It's unfortunate that we'll have to expend even more time and energy now on deletion&cleaning this up. It's also unfortunate that it was a drive-by un-tagging with a comment that the article "could" be improved, but without any effort to actually pick up a mop and get to work. — Brianhe (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: My view on the speedy deletion process in general is that it is much overused for articles that should involve discussion through another process, such as WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Speedy deletion, in my view, is a process for articles that have no chance of being improved (except through a rewrite). Tony Angell certainly had content that, while written in a promotional tone, still was informative to readers. Particularly for WP:G11, I believe the intent was to avoid pages such as "call our representatives here!" and make sure those could be removed quickly. The intent was not to take a somewhat promotional article and delete it with no discussion whatsoever, but just an administrator's decision.
    Regarding your comment about "It's also unfortunate that it was a drive-by un-tagging with a comment that the article "could" be improved, but without any effort to actually pick up a mop and get to work." By untagging the article, I wasn't saying "this shouldn't be deleted". I was saying "speedy deletion is not the appropriate process for this deletion". I wouldn't mind at all if the article went through a community-based discussion and the consensus was for the article to be deleted, which is why I didn't "pick up a mop and get to work." It just doesn't fit into the strict rules for speedy deletion, which are kept narrow to avoid Wikipedia being based only on administrator decisions rather than community consensus. Appable (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Foster/White Gallery has been a copyvio since the day it was created. I've blanked it and listed it at WP:CP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.76.148.38 / Lord and Taylor

    Many edits by two anons with very similar editing patterns on Lord and Taylor and their subsidiaries. Notice [70], with edit comment "(redundent Information - as per request of HBC)" indicating an undeclared COI. Specific edits of concern:

    • Big deletion of negative info.[71]
    • Deletion of closed stores and financial analyst comment on poor profitability.[72]

    John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a revival of WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 91#Saks Fifth Avenue marketing team, then? Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; I missed that. They've been warned before. Probably time for WP:AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Smartse: can we take care of this here? — Brianhe (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a note on WP:AN/I, asking for a block on the IP, mostly to get their attention. They've been deleting warning notices without responding to them. They already deleted the COI notice for this discussion. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They asked for help on my talk page, and I suggested registering for an account and declaring a COI. Instead, they tried deleting the AN/I report on AN/I itself. That got them hardblocked. Watch for re-appearance under another IP address. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope they email OTRS - they will get the same advice. They are going about this in a way pretty much guaranteed to get them maximum shit. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Thanks for checking back here. I added some more IPs from the case opened a couple of weeks ago, if they need to be blocked...? 72.69.40.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was active about a week ago. – Brianhe (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    74.76.148.38 (talk · contribs) is back now that their block has expired. They're editing the usual pages, but very cautiously. Do we have a template for "COI editor, please register an account and talk to us"? They're still not quite getting the message. I'll write something on the IP's talk page. John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's {{welcome-anon}} but it's not tailored for COI. – Brianhe (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ESCP Europe

    For some reason this bizschool is a perennial magnet for COI edits. It just had its lede rewritten by a brand-new SPA, and now says that it's "among the foremost French Grande écoles and the leading business schools of Europe and the world". The history section got punched up too with a bunch of unreferenced stuff. In fact this whole section has just one cited sentence at its beginning and one at its end. Brianhe (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done some cleanup and will keep an eye on it. The 'Programmes' section is completely promotional and should probably be removed. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP listed above is from the school itself, made this sort of promotional and unsourced addition to one of the program(me)s. – Brianhe (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    YourStory.com

    Userspace drafts
    NextBigWhat/pluggd.in userspace drafts
    #1 suspect articles
    editors
    editors - second group

    YourStory seems to be a PR publishing platform (thinly) masquerading as a legitimate news site. See details at WP:RSN#YourStory.com. There are approx. 200 India business articles using it as a source. The external links search feature can easily discover these and I've indexed many of theseall of them at User:Brianhe/COIbox26. The most pressing are the userspace drafts currently under development using these sources, listed above, with high likelihood to be undisclosed paid editing.

    Of note, this source seems to be favored by spammers and socks. For instance, Andrewjohn39 used it at both the KartRocket and POPxo AfDs; Avnish.vikas and Avinash187 used it for indianmoney.com (see User talk:Avinash187); an anon ed. used it for Naveen Tewari, a Paytm board member among other things (see User talk:Davewild, 21 August 2015). The RSN post linked above gives other examples, discovered by four other editors, of it being used to support probable COI articles. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to nuke the links, I can probably blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. I'm starting to add some suspicious articles to the list above. Actually they are all suspicious but I'm taking the ones with multiple citations as the top, with the model that each article was probably paid for and is the most conflicted. Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Three users relates to Rolocule games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), all seem likely to be spammers. 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    Added Krishsundaram SPA edit history includes editing at User:BrowserStack/sandbox and recently de-prodding BrowserStack. –Brianhe (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another questionable source is nextbigwhat.com. I noticed that ClearTax cited remarkably similar articles at NextBigWhat and YourStory published within a couple of days of each other. Similarities include this verbatim passage from an interview with the company founder:
    "We applied to Y Combinator via the standard application process. We filled out the YC application form online. At the time of application, we didn't submit the video (a video of the founders is required as part of the application) as we were in different cities running sales or meetings. We got a message from YC to upload a video to complete the application. We recorded that and later on, we were asked to show up for a ten-minute interview at YC. We flew to California for that and then got in."
    If this also turns out to be a shill source, we've got another big problem as ~100 articles are sourced to nextbigwhat.com (see external links search). Many, unsurprisingly, are in the same list given above, including Zomato, Housing.com, TaxiForSure, Bankbazaar. Edited to add Yes, it looks like it's fake also. Opened a new item at RSN including an investigation on their use of vast numbers of fake Twitter followers. Edited once moreThey used to be branded pluggd.in; there are around 50 more articles sourced to this. Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Maybe this is a good opportunity to reopen the discussion around notability & sourcing requirements for startups. Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another probable fake news site: medianama.com. ~300 articles sourcing from it (links). Linked articles again include Zomato, Housing.com, Bankbazaar. Brianhe (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggested guidelines on startups: -- material limited to information about motivation for starting an organization & funding prior to the first public offering is not reliable for probing notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Continuing discussion on User talk:DGG. - Brianhe (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly related: Annofbigbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noticed this and I think the blacklist of yourstory is very wrong. Yourstory.com is now one of most famous news websites in India and writes about VCs, emerging businesses and startups in India. It was recently funded by Ratan Tata, one of India's richest businessmen and chairman of $100B+ Tata Group, Vani Kola of Kalaari Capital, T.V. Mohandas Pai and Qualcomm Ventures. Read the news about it on India's all and major largest newspapers like The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, Financial Express, The Hindu. I am actually surprised that yourstory doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet on its own. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tinu, you're confusing notability and reliability here. Yourstory may very well be notable but the type of content the push out means that they aren't reliable -- "Yourstory primarily generates revenues from advertisements, events and from start-ups, who pay and get featured, said sources." Brian, Medianama is mostly a single person run blog but he's sort of notable as a tech/communication analyst. It's more of an attributed opinion site for most stuff. —SpacemanSpiff 12:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Appreciate your thoughts, SS. I am not saying the notability of the subject should be judged by (only) one article on yourstory. Having said that, from my experience and knowledge, yourstory is a very credible news portal in India and has very experienced writers/journalists working for them. Unlike mainstream media, this is primarily online based, with special focus on startups and tech space ( like TechCrunch ). Agree partially with your points on medianama, though. Attracting investment from one of India's richest men proves that it is not a fake news site as argued above. I don't think it is fair to conclude the viewpoint of The Hindu business journalist (Sources? who?) that YS is a "your pay, get featured" type of website. Not to forget that the mainstream media competes for space with these new age portals. It is true that these portals generates revenue from advertisements and events. Who doesn't? Even the largest newspaper, TimesofIndia for that matter any MSM works on advertisement model. Blacklisting yourstory.com is an extreme step, IMHO and request everyone to reconsider it -- Tinu Cherian - 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is exactly the reason why we use The Times of India based on context, there are obvious promo pieces that are definitely not used. The difference is that in ToI's case the news vs promo/paid features is tilted towards news, while in this case it's tilted towards paid features and user submitted content, just look at: yourstory dot com/frequently-asked-questions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • With all due respect, I still feel blacklisting the entire domain of yourstory on wikipedia is still wrong. By the same yardstick, sites like TechCrunch, mashable all must be blacklisted. I have been going through the news references and coverage on yourstory on mainstream media. YS itself deserves a standalone Wikipedia article, given the notability and popularity. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist can be lifted on a case by case basis but you will have to convince an admin of legitimate need. As for creating an article on YS, knock yourself out, but it really has nothing to do with the discussion of the blacklist. As Spiff pointed out, you're confusing notability and reliability: a thing can be notable enough to have an article, yet not reliable enough to be cited, or even so unreliable, biased, or uncontrolled as to be blacklisted as a source for other articles. Think of Facebook for instance. Brianhe (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree. I have to respectfully request you to not compare oranges and apples. Facebook is to be compared with Twitter. Yourstory has to be compared with TechCrunch. Blacklisting YS and not TC is purely systemic bias. To say that YS (in spite of the number of reliable source references to prove its own notability) is not enough world-view -- Tinu Cherian - 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Entirely incorrect analysis Tinu. TechCrunch has editorial control, Yourstory is well your story, period. Crying systemic bias in this case is clearly not right as it only serves to take attention away from real systemic bias problems. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Respect your POV, but i still strongly disagree -- Tinu Cherian - 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    GetSomeUtah

    GetSomeUtah editing the Elevations Residential Treatment Center page appears to have a financial conflict of interest. Is deleting historical contributions. Only listing information from company's own website. Also editing and vandalizing the Island View Residential Treatment Center page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.214.240 (talk) 9:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

    In addition, it appears that other editors wish to make the claim that Elevations is "Island View by another name." Maybe we need another heading for that in the Elevations article. We could certainly do that. I don't know if that's allowed. What I'm seeing is people holding on to poorly sourced items that are either tied to custody battles or ire against Bain Capital/Mitt Romney. Anyway, I had to laugh when I saw that I was accused of having a financial interest in Island View/Elevations, as I was the one who created the "Controversy" section in Elevations, something that someone with a financial stake would be actively working against.
    I don't believe I've actually added anything to either article that promotes either entity. It is true that I did draw, on one occasion, language from the Elevations website, but only to use it as a direct quote that replaced another editor's loaded language. I noted in my comments that this was in the interest of WP:NPOV and all are welcome to scrutinize my edit and see whether it's better than the biased version that I replaced.
    As Mr. Harvey noted (thank you!), I created the Elevations article at his suggestion. So far it doesn't have any meat on it, other than that which the critics of Island View have started to heap on it. So, ironically, in creating the Elevations article, it gives the haters two outlets for poorly sourced allegations. I'm happy to step away, but I don't see anyone else working to steer the articles in the direction of WP:NPOV. Thanks and regards. GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Policybazaar

    Frequent and persistent edits on this company from corp IP, as recently as 30 days ago. A remarkable, uninterrupted 4+ year record of SPA editors with one exception for POV cleanup in July of this year. I PRODded the article today. Article on CEO was already deleted for similar concerns. Brianhe (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Leila Deen

    The editing history of the article especially on the 6th. March 2009 [74], the very same day of the incident which gives the subject the claimed note and importance (by televised and photographed by the British Press throwing a cup of green custard onto a senior British Government minister; although quite possibly still falls under WP:1E), would suggest that the editor User:Fences and windows might be, or at least might have been once, a personal friend, or at least a social friend of the same British environmental activism cause, of the subject. If the user was either back then or is now a fellow activist or employee in either Greenpeace UK, Greenpeace USA or Plane Stupid, I think that he should have the honourable decency to declare it. The claimed note and importance for a separate biographical article are questionable, to say the very least. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseless speculation. First Urquhartnite lectures me for expanding an article in 2009 (which I disagree is about a person only known for one event, as the coverage of them extends beyond that event), then after I add more detail following his recent redirect he now accuses me of a COI based on *zero evidence*. I don't know the subject and have never had any association with the WDM, Plane Stupid, or Greenpeace. Fences&Windows 13:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion

    Page creator refers to himself as an example of a leading surgeon and uses a link to his work website --Iztwoz (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Biomeddir appears to be a sock as well. I've started an SPI and sent the article to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Abbasi1969 has identified himself as the coauthor, Hamid Abassi and Biomeddir as Chris Murphy. Now what? - Brianhe (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Penelope1114

    Something of a happy ending: the editor has started to use the talkpage to propose changes. Bishonen | talk 09:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Paid editor, has very correctly declared as much in relation to some articles, but not in relation to others. Previous username was Sixpoint Partners. Edits include substantial additions to Seth M. Siegel, who founded Sixpoint Partners and Vringo. Appears not to understand, or to wish to accept, that paid editors are discouraged from editing in article space – see Benjamin Genocchio (yes, him again!). Apart from the COI, there seem to be copyright problems too, at least at Heidi Messer and her brother Stephen; will look deeper tomorrow. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor's declaration on her talk page that "I have been hired to update the Benjamin Genocchio article. I adhere strictly to the guidelines that govern BLPs. I declare no CIO in creating this article." is clearly contradictory. As a paid editor, she has an obvious inherent COI, and her refusal to acknowledge that leads to doubts about her adherence to BLP policy as well. With paid editors, the question of whose requirements will be dominant, those of the client or those of Wikipedia, is a constant problem, and the statements of this editor do not resolve that dilemma. I second the suggestion that she be required not to edit these articles directly, and only make suggestions on the article's talk page. BMK (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Penelope1114 has been alerted to the discussion here, but hasn't responded. Instead she has filed an ANI complaint against Justlettersandnumbers with respect to the Benjamin Genocchio article,[75] and has also taken it to WP:BLPN. I'm going to assume good faith that she didn't realize it was a bad idea to spread the discussion over several noticeboards; I've dropped a note on her page to tell her it is, and urge her to respond here to the concerns raised here.
    I have taken a look at her additions to Benjamin Genocchio, and I find parts of them, certainly, improper for an encyclopedia. Here's one: In March of 2002 Genocchio was catapulted into the limelight when his review of the exhibition “The Italians: Three Centuries of Italian Art” received front-page placement garnering international attention." My italics. Typical promospeak. In a way I don't blame you, Penelope: we know it's genuinely difficult for people from the PR world to write in a non-PR style even when they try. But until you gain a grasp of that, you should only contribute to the bios you're paid to edit via requests on the article talkpages. (You have never edited an article talkpage.) I believe that offering changes on article talkpages and having them discussed by experienced editors (which is best practice anyway, and strongly recommended, see [76]) would help you to quickly learn more about contributing in the appropriate encyclopedic style. Please believe me, you will really serve your clients better in the long run by following Wikipedia's policies and best practices. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Bishonen Thank you for your feedback. I try my best to maintain an encyclopedic tone and have obviously missed the mark, certainly on the sentence you mention. As you say, it can be difficult to adhere to the NPOV but it is important. It would be my hope that my entire revision to Benjamin Genocchio would not be reverted for those sentences which need reworking. Every statement has been referenced with a verifiable citation. Any mention of Genocchio being 'one of the first' to do something in particular was only made with a reference to back that statement up. The reason Genocchio came to me for assistance is that his BLP was under attack and no Wikipedia editors were doing anything about it. My allegiance is to upholding the guidelines Wikipedia has in place. That is why since it was mandated in June 2014 I have declared my paid editing and it is why certain BLP subjects have come to me for help. Their desire is to have a more complete, factual article and that is what I provide for the betterment of that particular Wikipedia article. I do my best and trust that the Wikipedia community will improve upon what I have done. I work as an independent, small level Wikipedia editor. I edit throughout Wikipedia only some of the time for compensation. I strive to adhere to the appropriate styles and guidelines as I edit. Thanks to all for your discussion on this matter. Penelope1114 (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the hype has been removed, is the article subject even notable? His major books are all co-authored with his wife Melissa Chiu, who heads the Smithsonian Institution's Hirshhorn Museum. The article subject just runs a blog, "the global art market newswire", which tracks art prices. As an organization, that would probably fail WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    India International Friendship Society

    articles linking to it

    Another dubious award, Bharat Jyoti/"Glory of India", with a hefty entry fee. And a couple of GF editors holding back a tide of SPAs and anon editors. Further discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasoon Kumar (2013), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prem Raj Pushpakaran (2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India International Friendship Society (2nd nomination) (2012). — Brianhe (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately all the three sources for the awards being a scam are dead links. (Two of them are to newspaper articles from 2006.) If somebody can find a couple of accessible sources, I'll be all for deleting any bio where notability is based on this expensive award, as well as India International Friendship Society itself. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    One of them was archived [77]. The writer of the second, a government officer, says he located then visited the office: a 5 by 5 foot room in a shantytown. Here's the link [78]. I like this bit: "Your ‘achievements’ can range from sleeping 18 hours a day to singing serenades on a riverbank." I was able to revive the third link to a blog as well. An interesting tidbit: the articles referring to this group variously call them Delhi-based, London-based and U.S.-based. Their DNS registry details are hidden behind an Australian domain privacy provider. – Brianhe (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a good deal of interaction with this article, and !voted to keep it at its last AFD, because its awards are often mentioned in the Indian press. However, I have come to realize since then that the Indian press often publishes puff pieces about various people based largely on material that those subjects provide themselves, including the receipt of this organization's awards. The few newspaper articles that have tried to cover this organization in depth have come up with a lot of nothing. I suspect the proper treatment of this article would be a third AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Implausible non-paid-editing for Mr RD

    Mr RD has been an editor here since April 2013. In late 2014, he disclosed that he's a paid editor at least some of the time. There don't seem to be paid disclosures from him for any of the articles above, each of which was created by him. When I asked about one of them he said it was personal interest [79]. This seems implausible for the entire set. It's worth noting in this context that several of the articles created by this editor have significant known COI problems that have been discussed here before. – Brianhe (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have any WP:COI with Kunal Shah (entrepreneur) page. I came to know about the person over [80], a YouTube channel, for which I also created a Wikipedia page. I'm a regular viewer of their content and that's how I thought of creating a page for them and many of their performers like Jitendra Kumar, Biswapati Sarkar. Mr RD 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: However, I did contacted Kunal afterwards seeking an image for his Wikipedia page but I NEVER INTENDED TO OR RECEIVED ANY MONETARY OR COMPENSATION IN ANY MANNER. Mr RD 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have a personal interest in plywood companies too? How about this. Have you been compensated for editing any of the articles listed above? Please answer with a simple yes or no. — Brianhe (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NO. If I had, I would have disclosed so. Century Plyboards comes under Wikiproject India and Companies, both among my field of interest. I de-prodded PolicyBazaar as I found enough citations to support its notability. I'm associated with Wikiproject:India and better understand if an Indian company is notable or not. Not everything you see is black & white. Mr RD 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr RD, this isn't my first rodeo. Your claims are implausible. It would go better for you if you just said that you had forgotten to tag some articles. I'm now going to restate some words that I used when having this conversation with another editor who ended up getting blocked because they persisted in the same sorts of claims.
    Your editing history is singularly focused on attention-seeking people, whose own careers benefit from the attention you provide them. It looked indistinguishable from paid COI to me (see User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#EBY3221 for clearly parallel cases) and we investigate this sort of stuff day after day, as is appropriate. One additional thing: I write sometimes about authors who probably benefit from attention, and I write sometimes about rocks that don't care if they get attention (my history is also transparently documented at my userpage). But if all I wrote about was attention-seeking people, and never about rocks, it wouldn't be surprising to me if some other editor confronted me about it and at least asked the question "why"? Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from a suspicious mind I'd say there is nothing else going on. I help those who are notable according to me but lack technical know-how of how to create a Wikipedia page. I disclose the relation with them both on my user page and on the talk page of the subject as per Wikimedia guidelines. Moreover, to improve Wikipedia further, I create Wikipedia pages over subjects which are googled often, are notable also but do not have any Wikipedia page. Is it too hard to believe? You are free to review all my contributions and I believe I have revealed all of them to my knowledge (I removed some of them as when they got deleted or redirected to some other pages). In many of the pages you've mentioned, like Archana Kochhar which you mentioned specifically in your last comment, I have already disclosed my COI. As far as argument of rock goes, there are 7 billion people on earth, not everyone is same. Mr RD 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Full contribution surveyor results are at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor and in addition to the creations listed above, include such things as an in-depth look at the various acquisitions of Irish Car Rentals [81], refspam for pet sitters [82], the notable advertising campaigns of the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau [83], and so on. – Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please give me some time to analyze these. I do not have access to such tool and will happily include all where I have any COI. Thank you. Mr RD 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you do, http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor which created the results I posted at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor when given your account name as input. But I don't see why you need to analyze your own editing??? By the way when another COI editor dragged things out for over a month and claimed the dog ate his email, things didn't go well for him. – Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr RD: I see you added to your disclosures: [84]. Is that all? I'd also remind you that the client must be disclosed for TOS compliance. What does "wherever information available" mean? Why would you not know who you were working for? Brianhe (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff, Smartse, and DGG: Requesting a temporary block at this time, as the editor resumed editing at Policybazaar India prior to resolution of the disclosure issue. - Brianhe (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disclosed all my paid edits. Mr RD 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'm not connected with PolicyBazaar in any manner. I got to know about it through your activity itself (When you mentioned it beside Oriental Insurance Page). Mr RD 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Raju Kapuria and others

    User has not responded to two editors asking on his talkpage whether he is a paid editor. Editing history suggests the answer is positive. In fact user has never posted to his own talkpage, any other user's talkpage, or an article talkpage. – Brianhe (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Dabbu Ghosal, apparent associate and creator of probable autobio at Dabbu. Brianhe (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Raju Kapuria has not responded to the templated request to stop editing and confirm or deny his paid status. He has edited several India TV related articles since the request was posted on 13 October. - Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Macdonald-King

    Context: Archive 86 PFT.

    This is too obvious. Suspicious editing of previously deleted COI articles by brand-new editor Kyra Jones. Brand-new editor Roadpiper took over immediately after I asked Kyra Jones if she was a paid editor. Brianhe (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These are probably new actors in the Kabir Vaghela sockfarm. Reopened SPI with a total of five subjects. — Brianhe (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prime Focus Technologies is related to EveryMedia Technologies, search for the post I made on the latter (in archives somewhere). —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff: I think you mean th EveryMedia Technologies case in archive 89; there was an earlier Everymedia.in case in archive 87. This was really fast tracked; they are all indeffed for sockpuppetry now. But this was a lucky catch because I was still watching one of the deleted articles. We really should have bots looking for recreations of articles and slight variants on capitalization etc. File away for the COIN wishlist I guess, if WMF decides to throw money this way for tools development. -- Brianhe (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be a good idea to put in for a bot request; sort of like DumbBOT and prods where the bot can look for article titles (new creations/moves less than 5 days or something) with certain keywords. This of course doesn't have to be restricted to COIN stuff, there's a lot of other areas where this could be of help. —SpacemanSpiff 04:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding Kunalforyou who seems to have a singular interest in these topics reinforced by this recent edit deprodding Hindi Movies and adding Everymedia's name. - Brianhe (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sciaky, Inc.

    Single purpose account promoting products made by Sciaky, Inc. and a "new" technology that Sciaky calls "electron beam direct manufacturing". IP Geolocates to the general area where Sciaky, Inc. has its headquarters. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs work. See also Electron beam melting, which is a very similar 3D printing process. It's a good subject for an article, but the current article is an ad. There are other 3D printing processes and vendors which build up a solid object by welding wire [86], and those should go in one article. There's a taxonomy of these things - the working material can be powder or wire, and the energy source can be a laser, an arc, an electron beam, or a torch. Most of those combinations have been tried. Good subject for a compare-and-contrast article. Anybody into 3D printing? John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been combining Electron beam freeform fabrication, Electron beam melting, and Electron beam direct manufacturing into a more general Electron beam additive manufacturing article. All three of those articles read like ads, but combined into one article which discusses the similar but competing technologies, the result is more like an encyclopedia article. The good stuff from Sciaky, Inc. (there are some good references) could probably go in there, too. John Nagle (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job. I like what you have done so far. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kozanno

    Kozanno is Samuel Koza, stated at [87].
    WarPaint International if founded by Jessica Mae Koza with a CEO of Sammy Koza.
    Jessica Mae is married to Samuel Koza.
    L.A. Nik's publicist is Samuel Koza.
    All editing by Kozanno is promotional editing for these three subjects. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed down WarPaint International article. Proposed deletion on Jessica Mae. John Nagle (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest potential at Athletes First

    Per comment, "I'm reaching out to follow-up on a page I created five years ago for our agency, Athletes First. We are a sports agency that represents more than 200 players, coaches and broadcasters in the NFL.".

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see also Special:Contributions/Austinlyman. It is likely all contributions by this user are for, what they refer to as, "our agency"... — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ranveer Brar

    Article Ranveer Brar was created as a drat by Coolkrc and even after several AfC declines he/she himself/herself moved it to the mainspace articles. Though this could not be a big deal but if we look at her/his contribution on Wikipedia it points towards Conflict of Interest or Paid-Editing; which can be confirmed from the on-going AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranveer Brar. — Sanskari Hangout 18:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not Paid Editing - I have had a look at the contribution link provided by @Sanskari:. This article is my first and ONLY WIKI article. Obviously that's why the contributions page contains a history of edits I have done for the article titled "Ranveer Brar". I have not been paid to do this. I bear no relation to the chef, nor do I work for him. This was a purely voluntary submission, as I wanted to work on a WIKI article and this has been a learning process for me in every way. I assure Wiki admins that I do not have personal interests vested here, nor did I violate WIKI rules to publish this article. I had no idea about self-publishing an article, it was with the help of a WIKI ADMIN who went through the article with me word-for-word in November 2014 (LAST year) and only after his approval (unfortunately I dont recall his name), and guidance that I came to know of the self-publishing option. Chef Ranveer has pages after pages of search results in Google search, that helps establish his notability.
    If I am defending this article, it is because, it is my ONLY article, and only I can defend it!! Whatever concern was raised between Sept-Nov 2014 as can be seen on my Talk page, was addressed then and there with the help of WIKI admins. I have only stated facts on this page, supported by relevant newspaper and magazine links, as well as peer appreciation. How best can I clear this Conflict of Interest issue? Coolkrc (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolkrc: As you specified on above that on English Wikipedia you are contributing/learning since 1 year but your contributions is not indicating that you are really interested in Editing on Wikipedia. In fact your AfD participation seems to be Canvassing. — Sanskari Hangout 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sanskari "contributing/learning since 1 year " Sorry, I don't see where I have mentioned this in my answer above!! I've only stated that this is the only article I have contributed and since I am responsible for my article I have edited it (not any other article)from time to time to keep it up to date. If the Contributions page history shows edits related to only 1 page, that is because I have created only 1 page! In fact creating and maintaining this one article itself has been such an exhaustive experience!! Again to reiterate.... I have not mentioned anywhere that I am interested in editing or that I am editing since past 1 year. Coolkrc (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian television production and actors PR

    Too many COI articles to list here; this is his top 10 creations listed by the contribution surveyor tool (output here).

    other


    Kunalforyou seems to have a singular interest in Indian television production and actors. His edits include the following:

    The editor's article-space contributions are almost entirely centered around actors and production companies related to the following:

    Note that every single one of the top 10 articles listed above is either related to Sony, Star or Zee.

    This body of work and the specifics shown above strongly at undisclosed paid editing. There is additional off-wiki evidence that ties this account's original username to an amalgam of two PR executives at indiantelevision.com.

    Other editors strongly suspected of working with this one include the following.

    The editor interaction results are instructive.

    And a plethora of other one-time SPA and anon editors can be found as well, but a deeper look will be required to sort the wheat from the chaff. - Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will say that in this particular case it appears to be more of fan editing than paid editing. The other sockfarm that I keep blocking on this (and for which I've done protections) -- Jaswanthvijay could be paid editing (but not a very high probability). It's extremely unlikely for a paid editing group to overlap across Viacom 18, Sony Entertainment Television (India), Star India, and Zee Entertainment Enterprises as the competition is severe and agencies do not overlap. Agencies will also not subcontract to individuals with conflicting clients, the agencies involved in this are from the big league. I only do some random admin work in the area, but TheRedPenOfDoom and Dharmadhyaksha do editing in this area and may be able to offer more insight.—SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP might be a fan but I'm really not so sure about either registered account, especially Kunalforyou. Several counter-indications exist. 1) I found the off-wiki evidence to be a pretty strong indication of linkage to a PR firm to at least one of these accounts. Smartse has seen it too, so I hope we get to hear his opinion as well. The evidence is related to a prior name the person/persons edited under. 2) Fans usually write about actors and shows, not production companies, and I can't see any fan writing what he said about Dillagi, quoted in my opening round. 3) Certain technical evidence I'd rather not discuss in public, but is available to non-admins, indicates a very structured editing pattern unusual for amateurs. 4) Innocent editors usually show up at COIN to discuss what's going on. 5) The editor's use of sources looks more like an insider's industry view, not a fan's. A random example, three sources at ZeeQ, none of which is consumer oriented, all discussing a channel that hadn't even launched at the time of writing. 6) The connection to Everymedia is just too much to take as a coincidence with everything else going on. – Brianhe (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let me take a deeper look at this. Could be a mix of COI and other editing then. —SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it could be a case of the PR firm contracting out "get this client in Wikipedia" which would account for the cross -company nature of the edits, but fan obsession seems more likely. has there been any check in the other language wikipedias like Hindi and Tamil? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we see Kunalforyou reverting the other registered account [90] which makes collusion sort of unlikely. However his sudden change of behavior in June, 2015 is still of concern. This creation also looks highly unusual for a typical fan. Have you ever heard of a fan of a home shopping channel and its two creators?
    Kunalforyou has made just one edit on hi.wikipedia [91] and I found none on any other language. Brianhe (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick update, Kunalforyou replied on my talkpage a moment ago that he is a student and not a paid editor. Brianhe (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to impersonate Wikipedian

    User talk:Catsmeat#Someone is impersonating you is an anon advising Catsmeat that they have been impersonated. There is a same-named Elance account who had many private jobs but one non-private job to edit Bobby Yazdani (May 2015). I have reported it as a possible Orangemoody case.

    The same Elancer has advertised some other WP jobs that may be traceable. One was a "golf fitness coach" bio (March 2015). Another was for an autobio in which he describes himself: "I am an internet search pioneer, professor and consultant" (January 2015). He hires out a lot of other unethical work like reverse SEO and buying Facebook likes. Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tewapack: Thanks for the input on the possible golfer article: Daniel Robert Shauger. I see that the subject is deceased, which usually rules out COI, but the article includes rather a lot of book links, which is a positive indicator. Perhaps the creator of the article, Phil Golf will come and clear this up. - Brianhe (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nasscom Emerge 50

    Indian software industry award for "some of the most exciting solutions of their times". No independent references. Just happens to have been visited by one of our favorite names. — Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One would expect more references. I found [92], but that's one of the few reliable independent sources. That's surprising, since they're supposed to be the trade organization for the IT industry in India, which is not small. They sponsor an event called NASCOM INNOTREK, which brings selected Indian startup enterpreneurs to Silicon Valley for a week. Yet that seems to have generated no press coverage in Silicon Valley, and only minor coverage in India. [93] It's not even in Lanyrd's list of Silicon Valley events. Their video of the event [94] gives a hint - they're one of many sponsors of that event. I'd suggest keeping the basic NASSCOM entry, since we can verify that they exist, do have several offices in India, and do typical trade-association things. The "Emerge 50" list, though, is closer to pure PR and probably should go. John Nagle (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh oh, NASSCOM has been edited by Co9man, a Mushroom9 sock. Same sockfarm was involved at Foodpanda / hellofood, a Rocket Internet subsid (it was me who added this to the SPI case). Maybe we need an offline talk about how to handle these India related articles. - Brianhe (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    JamieCW777

    JamieCW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems likely to be associated with the subjects of the articles into which he is inserting rather spammy content. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles the editor contributes to (Danielle Nierenberg and Ellen Gustafson) are already listed on this page at #FlowerStorm48 sockfarm cleanup. Should we move the conversation there? - Brianhe (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seealso Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nourishing the Planet, DN's organization. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HeinOnline

    Hello, this is an account that I have set up to suggest changes and possibly make small, uncontroversial edits to articles related to HeinOnline. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of HeinOnline and in consultation with them, and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to HeinOnline's article, hopefully leading to a much improved article. On any pages where I look for assistance, I will be sure to disclose my relationship to HeinOnline in the interests of transparency. If you would like to help me, please let me know. Thanks, Tak1335 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Tak1335 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Honestly, at this point if the article had been created today it would likely get tagged for speedy deletion under criteria A7; no claim to significance. The article contains only a primary source, that of the organization itself, with no credible claim of significance. That the article has exited for 10 years in such a state is surprising. As is, the article should probably go up for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hammersoft, BusterD, and DGG: Before you get your hopes up about speedy deletion, read this proposal to jettison the "suicide pact" and apply g11 more broadly in a similar case, and the responses to it; as well as my comments on g11 failures and responses in the active thread on Jimbo's talkpage. There's something broken when we can't use speedy in cases like this that cry out for it. – Brianhe (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not angling for speedy deletion, and wouldn't do so because the article has been in existence for 10 years. I don't think G11 applies, as it is not promotional. It is neutrally worded. I do think that if it were created today, there's a fair chance someone would tag it A7. That said, I don't think it should be speedied. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • why does this case cry out for speedy deletion? We partner with them and they are mentioned in a number of publications. Often, as you know, the test for deletion as applied is not citations in the article but the possibility for notability. I believe it exists here. As for the COIN, Tak, you should follow the procedures, and make sure that every claim you make is supported by an independent source. I believe that many law school's law libraries will discuss Hein and this will not be difficult. Best of luck. I followed the Hein page, so I will take a look at your work and respond on talk page if I feel so moved. --JumpLike23 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I don't care about debates about speedy deletion vis-a-vis this case. My point is the article isn't referenced to anything other than its own entity. FIX it. That's my point. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All the article on Hein needs is to have suitable refs added. It's one of the two competitive largest legal databases in the world. It should easily pass Afd--so easily that there's no point even bringing it there-- see WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the general matter of deletion,borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason, but not at CSD. G11 is a deletion criterion without clear lines--I use it a good deal, but some of my nominations have been sometimes questioned. AfD always ahas the advantage of preventing re-creation without improvement.FWIW,m I would personally be willing to consider supporting a rule for the deletion of the content added by undeclared paid editors and their socks added before their detection, just as we routinely do for that added afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hammersoft, I misinterpreted your comment, so have struck out two words above. However, the overall sentiment remains that speedy seems to be failing much more than is reasonable. My thoughts on this are on record here among other places. - Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HeinOnline is an extremely important and widely used information resource, and the idea of deleting the article about it is meritless and should not be mentioned again. Using this thread to raise a concern about the current state of the article is especially problematic because according to a widespread, if somewhat simplistic, interpretation of the COI guideline, Tak1335 would surely be criticized if he tried to expand and improve the HeinOnline article, although I certainly agree that somebody should. @Tak1335: Please feel free to come to my talkpage with any specific questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sigh. Look, I'm not a lawyer. You are. I have no reason to even know of the existence of HeinOnline, much less its notability. As the article stands, it has been tagged with {{refimprove}} for six years with no action on it. I make no assertions as to whether the site is notable or not. I don't care. what I DO care is that as the article stands (and has stood since its creation 10 years ago), it is badly in need of secondary sources attesting to its significance. I don't care if you are a lawyer and say it is important. I really don't. I can even agree with you that it is important. Let's just agree it's the most important website that's ever been in existence. It does NOT matter. What matters is the sorry state of the article, a state it has been in for 10 years. If it is that bloody significant, then it should be absolutely trivial to find reliable sources attesting to that. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one that's not a primary source. Best I could find is this article talking about accessing HeinOnline using Fastcase 7, but it's a passing mention. This database may be important, but it's lacking the depth of coverage necessary to satisfy any sort of notability guideline. clpo13(talk) 16:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    HeinOnline, and the company behind it, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., have a remarkably low profile on the Web. Every major law library has the service, so there are hundreds of pages from law libraries mentioning it. But I can't find many news articles. Nobody seems to write much about the company. LexisNexis is much better known, but they index fields outside the law. Hein is for legal research only. They're privately held, 80+ years old, and the grandson of the founder is the chairman of the board.[95], so there's not much info about them from sources other than the company itself. A developer bought their headquarters building in Buffalo, NY.[96]. They won a Vision Award from Niagara University in Buffalo in 2009, and that article has some background on the company we could use in an article.[97] They have a gallery of black and white building photographs.[98]. A Canadian legal publication had a brief article about them.[99]. They're now mostly online, but they started as a publisher of law books, and still do that, but on a smaller scale. There's about enough here for a company stub. I'd suggest a short company article using the available reliable sources, and a mention of the HeinOnline product. John Nagle (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Real estate companies of India

    I've noticed a great many problems with articles in the category Category:Real estate companies of India.

    One particularly problematic article is Raheja Developers. Promotional stuff started almost as soon as RfC was accepted mid 2014: "some of the most challenging projects in India today...some of the best contractors in the world..." [100] and the latest edit there was this addition a few hours ago of a press release to the article by Ncrboy.

    There's been many confirmed or suspected sockpuppets active at the article.

    Full analysis is under way but I thought I'd start the ball rolling now. Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be relevant to some of the other ongoing cases at COIN. One of the now-indeffed editors flatly denied paid editing, "I was just practicing my edit in Wikipedia.", even when told there was off-wiki evidence confirming it. – Brianhe (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that Shapoorji Pallonji might be a ruse here to deflect from the paid article. There's more than enough good quality sourced positive content available for that (and those sources aren't even used in the article). I've had great difficulty adminning the Raheja bit, so if someone else wants to do some stuff there, that'd be great.—SpacemanSpiff 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wheels (film)

    I think somebody made a mistake and jumped the gun ... the WP:FAKE citation just added to the article [101] is obviously hosted at http://hits1k.com/, a traffic generation website. Brianhe (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleveland Clinic


    There's a slowly unfolding trainwreck over at Cleveland Clinic. User:HealthMonitor has a declared COI (see [102]) and has very extensively edited the article. It's nice that they declared the COI, but their version has substantial formatting and style problems. User:Elvey deleted a large (33 kB) chunk of the article as "advocacy" here, which was restored by User:BlueRasberry here with a reasonable explanation that "to remove this much text needs a little more explanation." User:Elvey reverted back. The COI editor then proposed restoring his preferred version on the talk page (how's this for a talk page comment?) and did so after giving all of two days on a rather obscure and little-watched article. I reverted this back, not because I actually care about the article or the content, but because there was not a reasonable time for discussion or objections. (Yes, I know, reverting because of objections to an edit war is like The Fugs' song "Kill for Peace.")

    So what to do? WP:TNT comes to mind. The COI editor definitely needs to slow down but so does User:Elvey. Maybe lock down the article pending further discussion? Whoever is willing to do this is welcome to revert my latest change first. Anyway this can't go on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Thanks for noticing this. Your summary is insightful and I agree with it.
    Elvey has valid concerns that merit being acknowledged. I asked for a little clarity - I hope that I was not asking too much - because I do think that all of the text has been thoughtfully contributed and deserves more consideration than blanking only on the basis of COI.
    I propose to give Elvey time to comment further. Either this person will say something or not, but in either case after they have opportunity, I would like to get more comments from more people. It would be nice if anyone would give some brief comment now to encourage more conversation before I solicit interested WikiProjects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added full protection for two days and asked HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, to refrain from editing the article, except for minor changes. This was the article before HealthMonitor began rewriting it in August. Sarah (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. I see HealthMonitor already ignored / did NOT respect the instruction to "avoid editing or creating articles related to ... your organization. So while another warning (this time from an admin) is good, the soft touch rather than am explicit warning that violation could lead to being blocked, (or a block) at this point feels ... insufficient.
    Yes, not only do I have valid concerns, but I expressed them on the article talk page (and in edit summaries and on the user's talk page); Not 3-week-old user (!) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris makes no mention of any of that. If the initial notice here had mentioned that, it would feel more neutral. I wrote a response to Blue's latest, but it seems to have been lost (editing error? Browsing crash?) In any case, my concerns which need to be and have yet to be addressed by the COI user include:
    I don't dispute that HealthMonitor has made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia rules, however, undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules. (What part of "Revert edits which consist of undisclosed paid/sponsored advocacy. Disclosure within an article is not allowed by Wikipedia policy; authorship attribution is normally limited to edit histories. Undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations" DO you understand?) I would certainly be open to offering deeper criticism - however first the criticism I already offered ought be responded to more substantively by HealthMonitor. Until then, HealthMonitor, you're edit warring by reverting and more importantly, you need to be aware that adding undisclosed paid promo. content that violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules - even if it's you adding the content by reverting my revert. I see you saw my comment on User_talk:HealthMonitor where I've already offered deeper criticism.
    Contributions that violate US law are not welcome here. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, HealthMonitor has failed to
    • avoid editing or creating articles related to this organization. And Bluerasberry has edited to perpetuate edits that fail to do that!
    • exercise great caution so that not to violate Wikipedia's content policies.
    Finally: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information" rather than content written by a paid advocate such as yourself. That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes. It is essential to achieve consensus on the conflict between this content that I removed and FTC Guide and policy. Understood, HealthMonitor?
    --Elvey(t•c) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the content, since October 1, almost the entire article has been replaced. That's not good. John Nagle (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am uncomfortable with this conversation continuing for so long as Elvey insists on talking about how these edits to Wikipedia constitute violation of US Federal Law. If someone's editing is against the law then the illegal activity needs to stop, and if the editing discussed is not against the law then I would like for someone to resolve this point. I started a discussion about legality of editing at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Reversion.3F, where I offered to escalate the situation if that would be useful. Per WP:No legal threats, talk of legal threats are supposed to go to the administrator's board. Slimvirgin - you and I have talked at the "no legal threats" page, and you are an administrator. Are you comfortable giving comment in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Elvey Thanks for trying to reply to my comment at Cleveland Clinic, even if somehow what you wrote was not saved and I could not read it. You deserve clarity on the legality of other users' contributions and you are right to demand disclosure from people with a COI. May I ask, what do you expect in the disclosure process? From the beginning the user in question disclosed a work affiliation. Briefly, could you be explicit about what more you expect when you request disclosure? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused about what is happening here. For example, before HealthMonitor's edits, the article included a report from Consumer Reports that the Cleveland Clinic did not rate well when it came to hospital-acquired infections.
      HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, removed this during his rewrite. Elvey restored it. [103] Bluerasberry, who works for Consumer Reports, reverted to HealthMonitor's version. [104] Could someone explain? Is the Consumer Reports material (here and here) not considered reliable? Sarah (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I am not aware of Consumer Reports content being in dispute here. In the edit you shared I reverted a 40kb change, which is a massive edit to make without explanation. If 0.5kb of that said something about Consumer Reports then I was not aware. The Consumer Reports content is great. Feel free to restore it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'm not involved in editing the article, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's an RS. Elvey has restored it. I was just puzzled by someone from Consumer Reports helping a Cleveland Clinic employee to remove a Consumer Reports report about the hospital. But if you didn't see it, that explains it.
    In general, it's important not to revert to COI editing when an editor in good standing objects to it (not counting libel, copyright, BLP issues and similar), and perhaps especially when it's a health-care issue and there has been such an extensive rewrite. Sarah (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I had been discussing CR rankings with this person - see Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Still, this is a nonissue in the context of the 40kb change.
    I reviewed the edits HealthMonitor made and so far as I can see, they have been complying with Wikimedia guidelines. I am pleased with their willingness to go to the talk page and respond to concerns which can be answered. There is a record of that at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#New_First_Paragraph_with_Additional_Data and other conversations elsewhere. So far as I know, no one else has given any criticism of the content they added. So far as I know, Elvey's complaints only are about violation of US and German law, and not that the text is inappropriate for inclusion by content standards. I remain interested in restoring content which has been removed based on judgements other than content quality. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be consensus that a wholescale rewrite by an employee wasn't appropriate, so the best way forward is to break the rewrite down into individual edit requests, both removals and additions. The removal of criticism would need to be examined separately and carefully, but the addition of lists of services is problematic too, in that it might make the article appear to be an advertisement, which I believe is what Elvey was arguing.
    HealthMonitor can use the {{edit request}} template to suggest that X be removed or Y added, then other editors can decide whether it's appropriate, and if there's consensus a volunteer editor can make the edit. Sarah (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin: The content involving the U.S. News & World Report rankings and Consumer Reports rankings is another issue. Those facts are well-sourced and I leave it to others to decide if they belong in the article or not. I have been open about the fact that I work for the subject of the article, and I realize that leaves me open to the charge of COI. All I can say on my side is that I took it upon myself to edit the article, because I thought the incumbent article was skimpy, it had warnings about "weasel words" and promotional copy, and because it's a subject I know lot about, and I believed I could add a ton of objective, sourced facts to the article. (I also thought it could use some better pictures, so I went out and took some with my iPhone). If the edited article was still up there, editors could judge for themselves whether or not the edits met Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing and objectivity. HealthMonitor 18 October, 2015 5:41 pm EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthMonitor (talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HealthMonitor, can you say why you removed the Consumer Reports material? Sarah (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an explanation at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any explanation there. Bluerasberry, posting the whole draft again in one diff isn't helpful. It would be better to break the draft down into separate requests, and deal with each one individually out of respect for volunteer time. (See WP:COITALK.) Post one request, gain consensus, close it. Then post a second, and so on. Sarah (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Slimvirgin about the CR content - in the discussion I provided, it begins, "The Rankings section was taken out..." then a discussion follows explaining why. In what way does this not meet your expectation?
    I broke the proposal into 10 sections. Are you suggesting that these sections need to be offered piece wise, perhaps 1 every ten days, and then wrap up in about 100 days? What are you requesting? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion is becoming fragmented between this noticeboard and the article talk page. The COI issues seem to have been clarified, so might I suggest that further discussion on how to edit the article be centralized at Talk:Cleveland Clinic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kent Broadhurst

    User (with two accounts) is an SPA on this topic. Has turned a small neutral stub into a veritable advertisement [105], [106], including uploading and posting three of Kent Broadhurst's paintings (copyvios?) [oops, four, see File:Self Portrait - At Thirty.jpg], and a photo of Kent Broadhurst claimed as "own work". Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The inactive account is so old that this is probably a user-lost-the-account situation. All NYBri has done is add links to some pictures, most of which they uploaded on Commons as their own work. Pictures are:
    Those need an ORTS ticket to be accepted for upload. If "NYBri" is in fact the author, they can do that. See Commons:OTRS for the procedure. John Nagle (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cryptome

    See this diff, specifically noting We made a few corrections. An editor using the name John Young (the name of one of Cryptome's founders) has been editing the article to balance out criticism of the site. However, that editor (and an IP which is likely related; see this diff) has also added commentary to the article deriding Wikipedia's coverage of the site. As far as I can tell, neither the account or the IP has discussed this on the talk page. Judging from the history of the talk page, however, accounts and IPs related to Cryptome have been editing this article for a long time (Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of interest editing & primary sources and Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of Interest). clpo13(talk) 15:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=686430418"