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 Ivanalesi (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 11 May 2017 (→‎Loveurope2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Kati Agócs
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Underwood International College

    User Doodle2017 has persistently modified the text under subheading Controversy by removing information from an article which is published in an academic journal and adding sourceless information. These modification are similar to the modification by user Eciffociu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (UIC Office backwards), a username which was banned earlier because of being a promotional account. With his modifications, Doodle2017 has caused severe harm to the neutrality and the content of the article. Kailliak (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kailliak, I notified Doodle2017 of this discussion. At present I have no opinion on the possible COI or lack thereof. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BlackcurrantTea, on March 6 2017, IP user 165.132.5.146 modified "Controversy" by removing the content similarly to Eciffociu and Doodle2017. IP address 165.132.5.146 is geolocated to Yonsei University, and Underwood International College is part of Yonsei University. This evidence supports the suspicion that Doodle2017, as well as Eciffociu and 165.132.5.146, are COI users. Kailliak (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP user 165.132.77.96 had copy pasted copyright material from Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) homepage. The user had also made modifications to the controversy. The IP address was geolocated to Yonsei University, thus, it seems like 165.132.77.96 is a COI user. The user has been notified. Kailliak (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Talk page at Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). According to Doodle2017 "John Frankl cites official statistics from Yonsei University as an officer of the University and is therefore a credible source." These statistics have not been published and there is no other source than John Frankl blog writing. The fact that Doodle2017 states the statistics being official and Frankl acting as a university administrator proves that Doodle2017 is a COI user. Kailliak (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    John Frankl is currently the associate dean of the Yonsei University Office of International Affairs. http://oia.yonsei.ac.kr/intro/contact.asp He is a university officer and is responding to the claims in the article with retention statistics. If there is a desire to challenge these statistics, then a request for clarification should be sent to Yonsei University before they are dismissed as 'a blog post'. If Kalliak refuses to accept the statement of a Yonsei university administrative representative, then she needs to provide a valid source that shows otherwise.

    Ocean Medallion, Medallion Class Ocean Vacations, etc

    Almost all of this editor's contributions are about Carnival Corporation & plc products or television programs. The articles mentioned above are just the ones that they have created. The promotional tone of their contributions, such as "Ocean Medallion helps to make guests’ vacation experiences more seamless, from unlocking stateroom doors and speeding up the embarkation process. Other functions involve food and beverage on demand, anywhere anytime interactive gaming, personalized entertainment, and wayfinding to help family members find one another while onboard ships." is typical of a COI editor. I will leave them a COI templated notice, and let them know of this discussion, but action is needed! Edwardx (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oddly enough the phrase in Ocean Medallion about seamless vacation experiences is also found in this company brochure. It's not unusual for COI articles also to be plagued with copyvios. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than just that passage.
    Medallion Class Ocean Vacations has also copied "the world's first interactive guest experience platform" from a corporate press release . Also lots of copying from Venturebeat, according to Earwig's copyvio detector. - Bri (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some copyvio cleanup on these. The first two have been redirected and need WP:RD1. I'm tempted to bundle the other four and send them to AfD, thoughts? — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've done a great job, JJMC89. However, I've nominated Good Spirits for speedy deletion as G11/G12 – it's essentially still just a copy of the company's publicity materials, with four non-independent sources. For the others, I don't know whether deletion or redirection is really the better option – redirect and revdelete would probably be the most straightforward solution if there's consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have been redirected. Promotional editing from Carnival Cruise Lines has been a problem in the past, especially in 2013, when they had a really bad year with four major accidents, including the Costa Concordia disaster.[1]. There's an article for each Carnival ship, which is a bit much. Maersk doesn't have that, and they're a larger ship operator. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Polisport Group

    Wow, this is a near perfect recitation of the hallmarks and problems of a paid promotion.

    • created quickly by SPA
    • company history contains language like "created with vision and guidance of the founder"
    • products and services section
    • awards section
    • inappropriate links from other articles

    Busy now, can anyone have a look? Bri (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They make third-party plastic parts for motorcycles. 250 employees. In business about 35 years. Not to be confused with Polisport in Italy [2] which operates stadiums and leisure centers. Nothing in Google News other than some PR. Nothing in the first 5 pages of Google search other than self-generated material or brief product reviews. Seems to lack notability per WP:CORP. Suggest deletion. Prod, or AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lingveno

    Lingveno is a declared paid editor but is introducing problematic content violating WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOTPROMO. See for example the clean up required of Ahmad Ashkar. Rebecca Vogels, SOTpay and Jason Mace have all been deleted via AFD. I find the fake referencing here particularly egregious, particularly as I had already warned him about this. He has also removed COI tags: [3] [4] while citing a help page which specifically states that editors with a COI should not remove maintenance templates. While paid editing is permitted, violating core content policies is not and unless these problems cease to occur, I don't see how Lingveno can be allowed to continue to edit. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Smartse, yes, I have done some mistakes because of not fully understanding the regulations about the CoI and the paid editing. I think that it will be much better if I create another account in order to distinguish my volunteer edits from the edits with CoI, how do you think? Also, if the communty decides that I am not able to edit with the CoI, I will immediately stop any sort of paid editing and will only contribute as a volunteer as I have done before and as I am doing that in other projects. --Lingveno (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about paid editing rules it's about you writing promotional articles about non-notable subjects - that's a problem regardless of whether you are being paid or not. I see that you're continuing in the same vein as well: User:Lingveno/Alexander Hagerup. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My userspace is my userspace, right? The article is still under construction and is undergoing major edits. Also, I am not sure whether I will be publishing that. --Lingveno (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into the rest of this, but I don't see the fake referencing. The first of the two references is accurate, and the second links to an exert, so I can't judge if the full version would have contained the referenced material. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the reference was a video where the subject was interviewed and nowhere did I hear anything about nobel. It seems the organisation does call it the "nobel prize for students" but that's quite different from independent sources calling it that. The content I removed here most definitely was FAKE - absolutely none of it could be verified from the sources cited. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't fake - most was outsourced, and it was overly promotional, but fake is a bit strong. Reverting it was fine, but the sources are valid and cover some of the content, albeit not all. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding references that don't support content is a textbook example of WP:FAKE. If you look back through the history, you'll see that the content was there from the beginning and then they've just sprinkled references around to make it appear as if it is supported. That's obviously a whole lot easier than taking the time to read sources and then write content that is actually supported by them. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The references supported the claim "where he earned his MBA in international business and was the 2015 alumnus of the year", but not the rest of the text. Calling them fake seems like a stretch. I just want to be careful about what the problems were. - Bilby (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have decided to go through the draft and review process for CoI article since now, I think it solves that. --Lingveno (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingveno: That's a good idea, but it is important that you make reviewers aware of your COI so that they can account for this when reviewing. All paid edits need to be disclosed, not just those in mainspace as you seem to infer here. Also, this still doesn't absolve you from creating the problems that are detailed above. SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse:,I indicated that in the edit history. --Lingveno (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this, there seems to be a history of SPA activity around articles related to the Hult Prize. There's a USA Today affiliate article about Mr. Ashkar and the Hult Prize.[5] There's some criticism of this operation and of Mr. Ashkar, which would help the articles, since they have a bit too much PR-type happy talk. It's not clear that Ashkar is notable enough for a standalone article. He's the CEO of the Hult Prize operation, yes, but Bertil Hult put up the money and Bill Clinton's foundation is involved. Merge Ahmad Ashkar into Hult Prize, perhaps? John Nagle (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed merger. Also mentioned Bertil Hult at Hult Prize. John Nagle (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chalk (short film)

    Sandbox and article have been deleted. - Bri (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Promotional article, presumably written by the film's director, a WP:SPA. Hasn't responded to multiple policy advisories. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Article is at AfD. - Bri (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. There is a way forward with a new article as long as independent sources are used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan

    Appears to be a family editing about itself and its own achievements. Also uploading lots of images that may require OTRS verification. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits and uploads continue, including reuploads of deleted material. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tagged all the images for deletion. The articles need eyes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User CodeCurmudgeon

    The user mentions they are an employee of Parasoft in a post made on their user talk page, and has also made this fact known on their user page. Does this mean the editor is subject to WP:PAID and not just WP:COI when it comes to anything related to Parasoft.? The editor hasn't really made a ton of edits since creating the account and was fairly inactive until a few days ago, but there has been a recent spurt which has included some editing of articles related to Parasoft. The editor also appears to be working on major expansion of an article related to the company in User:CodeCurmudgeon/sandbox. Are employees of companies considered "paid editors" when they edit articles related to their companies? Is a "paid-contribution disclosure" required if they are? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to replace a "period" with a "question mark". -- 05:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)][reply]

    Yes, and yes; I don't think there's any ambiguity about an employer-employee relationship causing a conflict of interest. Bri (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of the guidelines and I'm being careful to only put factual info about the company and it's products. I welcome anyone else's comments on those edits and improvements on those pages. As you're aware, software development is often one of the dusty corners in Wikipedia and I happen to have a lot of expertise so I'm hoping to help clean up a bunch of the often overlook articles. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarifiction CodeCurmudgeon, but WP:PAID does require that you add a "paid-contribution disclosure" to you userpage, your edits and the talk pages of any relevant articles you are editing. Moreover, your expertise regarding software matters is appreciated and acknowledge, but you should be aware of WP:EXPERT and it might be better for any major edits ("major" is anything not WP:MINOR) you intend for Parasoft articles be requested on the repsective article's talk page first. You can always ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security in getting the major changes you want to make made to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a clarification I am not in fact paid to edit wikipedia. I happen to work at Parasoft and thought it would be good to bring the pages up to a better standard. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether Wikipedia makes the same distinction you're making which is why I started this discussion. According to Bri's post above it doesn't, but perhaps others will chime in and offer their opinions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAID says "with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" which certainly doesn't apply to what I'm doing. It's a pretty broad interpretation that would call this paid. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not 100% sure where the line is drawn, but the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 1#Defining commercial editing and Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure/Archive 2#Unclear definition? seem to suggest that a broad interpretation is made in such cases. I'll ping Smallbones since they were involved in both those discussions, and have also added a {{Please see}} to WT:PAID. More editors will hopefully pipe in and help clarify this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really make sense. If WP:COI always ends up as WP:PAID then there is no reason for both. Are we saying that every person who has a day job and edits wikipedia is now WP:PAID? It's ridiculous. If someone has a problem with an edit, fix it or let me know. So far it's been more a case of lawyering than any real issue. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read both of the archives you referenced, and they simply don't apply. I'm not editing for Parasoft. I do work for Parasoft and I do edit Wikipedia. That's the end of it. None of the definitions in the archives or the guidelines themselves put me in the category of paid. It's not part of my job. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try and assume good faith and don't be quick to suggest someone is wiki-lawering when they aren't. As I posted above, the distinction as to what is paid-editing in this case is not so clear, so asking for clarification does not seem unreasonable. Moreover, another editor seems to feel it might be. Even if it's just a case of simple COI, you probably shouldn't really be directly editing articles related to your company except for the reasons explained in WP:COIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the ping. If you want to pick apart WP:PAID and what exact jobs at the company it applies to, you have to provide details on what exact job and job duties you are talking about.

    But first let's talk about the WP:COI guideline. A guideline means that "Occasional exceptions may apply." Put the emphasis on "occasional." We do not willy-nilly ignore our guidelines on WP:Notability, or WP:Cite, or WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:External links or WP:Fringe or any of the other dozens of guidelines. It can be difficult to exactly describe exactly all the many dividing lines related to these questions, so please use common sense when something is not clear. But WP:COI is extremely clear in this case. If you are an employee of a company you have a conflict of interest on articles about the company or its products. You should not be editing these articles. Please restrict yourself to the talk page. You can request extensive edits there or link to a whole "article" that you think should be included, if it is in one of your sandboxes.

    Some obvious dividing lines for WP:PAID. If you own the company, are one of the officers (e.g. Vice-President), in the PR, marketing or advertising departments, or work for outside PR, legal, marketing firms hired by the company, you almost certainly expect to get some dollars out of putting your POV into the article (and everybody has a POV). Or perhaps the editing is close enough to your regular work that your boss will give you credit for "work done." It doesn't matter that "editing Wikipedia" is not in your formal job description. You are paid in terms of the policy.

    On the other hand, if you are a janitor or a 9 to 5 assembly line worker you probably don't expect to get any money from your edits, and would generally not be considered a paid editor. There are lots of jobs that are in between these 2 extremes. Probably the best way to handle these in-between cases is to strictly follow WP:COI. Don't edit the article, restrict your self to talk pages. And just to be clear to everybody, please put a Paid Editor, or at least a COI contributor notice on your user page.

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:PAID applies to paid editors. If you are not being paid to edit (or receiving compensation in some form FOR your edits) you are not a paid editor. Policy is clear on this. COI applies where you have a (potential) conflict due to your employment. Which has been noted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    EmilyOBX

    Refspam cleaned up, editor blocked by Doc James. - Bri (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Says paid editor for one company but than adding spam links for other groups. Have blocked indefinitely. Clean up needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's scrubbed now. Mostly refspamming. - Bri (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yuva Association of the Deaf, Mumbai

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadmumbai2010 (talk • contribs)

    The above edit is the only contribution of this editor. Wikipedia has no article for "Yuva Association of the Deaf". No idea what this editor wanted. User Yadmumbai2010, please tell us more. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anitasss

    I've found several commercial edits (refer to talk page above for list) where this user posted company links without any ties to the Wiki articles in question. Across 2 of these edits, advertised sites had the same template and were both Hotel/motel company sites (although hotels in a different location). Thus I suspect as these sites are similarly designed, they belong to the same party, and Anitasss' behaviour is severed by that as likely the same business entity then gave the order to place these links, as they may belong to a same company. This proves it's likely the editor Anitasss went out specificly to post advertisement links in favour of one business (2 hotels under the same owner?) so this makes it blatant company/commercial placement. I think that should have a consequence beyond a nice warning on their talk page, which I added.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blooker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC) -- EDIT: I think you can consider this report finished as I found a sockpuppet investigation, in which process this account (Anitasss) was blocked, crossed this COIN report. Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manusaxena2512 it's amongst the confirmed and blocked accounts.--Blooker (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    jeepcoon and Z-turn

    Per [ http://www.ecvv.com/company/jeepcoon/products.html ] and [ http://jeepcoon.en.ec21.com/company_info.jsp ] this user appears to be using Wikipedia to advertise a product that he himself sells. User:Lz6661 appears to show the same editing pattern.

    I have deleted all of the links to this that have been spammed into other articles.

    As for the article itself, It has been deleted before [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Z-turn+board ].

    Also of interest: [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nihaowiki ] [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lz6661 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Cleanup is complete. The spam page has been deleted, all links to it have been removed, all of the copyright-violating images have been deleted from commons and enwikipedia, and both users have been tagged as possible socks of each other. Wikipedia is no longer providing free advertising for the Z-turn board. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maja Nikolic

    User has been deleting sourced content from the article on the basis that "I changed this because these information insult Maja big career and she has more to offer then this" (1 2 3 4), while also adding unsourced content in the article (1, 2), and claiming to be getting the information from Maja Nikolic herself (1). Bennv3771 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is under-cited. So is Maja Nikolić discography, which is small and could be merged into Maja Nikolić. The negative info is better cited than most of the PR-type info. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Enova Technology Corp

    The two articles Hardware-based full disk encryption Opal Storage Specification

    are POV dominated by commercial refspam, (plus a weak Trusted Storage specification) including SPA/almost SPA editors such as:

    Secude

    Trusted Storage specification

    Given, many old accounts but several current, long-term Enova COI spamming (reccd salting those) and refspam dominated articles. Deleted articles may connect more accounts and IPs that are not available to non admins. Widefox; talk 11:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editor request backlog needs attention

    COI editors who want edits made can use a template on the article's talk page. This is picked up by a 'bot and listed at User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable. Right now, there are about 150 requests pending. I've dealt with about 10 of them, but that task needs more than one person on it. We should at least deal with the dozen or so requests left over from 2016. (Previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Challenges getting responses to COI edit requests, but few people read that. Short version of discussion: the backlog is too big, and most of the requests are not very good.) John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    FXCM

    FXCM was for many years up until recently the largest retail forex trader in the US. In February they were prohibited from trading in the US by the CFTC *and* the related self-regulatory agency (NFA) for lying to their customers over an 8 year period. The CFTC called it "fraudulent misrepresentation" and documented about a dozen specific cases. They are not even allowed to reapply for a CFTC license. On top of that the NFA would need to reregister them *before* the CFTC could grant a license, and they are being investigated overseas as well. Add in shareholder lawsuits and customer lawsuits. The fraud likely affected most of their approx. $200 million revenue each year. Did I mention that they are broke?

    User:Gouykou looks like the classic sleeper/SPA/paid editor - 3 edits before August 2015, 22 edits to FXCM and related in the last month and no other edits. I've asked him if he is a paid editor (at User talk:Gouyoku) but he flatly denied it with no explanation, accusing me of bad faith. Two other editors, with very long histories of editing retail forex articles have chimed in since February, but appear to have abandoned the article since then. I have no opinion one way or the other on whether they are paid editors.

    It is difficult editing in such circumstances, e.g. "recentism" and "too much detail" tags have been placed and just about everything I write gets reverted. I don't think this is as serious as the Banc De Binary article, but it is quite serious. I'll start editing this article again soon and the article would benefit from a bit of supervision. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a redirect from Global Brokerage, their new name. They're still mostly known as FXCM, but are in the process of rebranding, Bloomberg says.[14]. Bloomberg's news on them is all about six lawsuits. Lexis/Nexis is worse.[15]. Emphasis on their problems is clearly not "undue". John Nagle (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with no explanation" is a lie as I have explained my reasons for edit with the following sentence: "I have decided to improve this article as it was filled with inaccuracies and breaking WP:NPOV."[16]
    • "accusing me of bad faith" is a lie as I have asked Smallbones (talk · contribs) to assume good faith about me: "Please engage in discussion on the talk page about contested changes and WP:AGF."[17]
    I may not have been an active editor until now, but I have also never seen an article that inaccurate and biased. For example, the article suggested the company has already closed down - falsehood introduced twice by Smallbones (talk · contribs). My reason for editing this article is a desire to read encyclopedic content on Wikipedia and not feel like I'm reading a news article sponsored by competition. In my opinion, difficulties editing the article might not be caused by ill will of others but factual inaccuracies and lack of WP:NPOV in Smallbones (talk · contribs) edits. Gouyoku (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    MARHy Wind Tunnel

    I'm posting here not because I think Sandra c has committed a blatant COI violation, but because I'm looking for a second opinion on how this situation should be handled. I've read the relevant documentation on COI editing and am unsure about the degree of this COI and would appreciate any help with the matter. I noticed that the user's username was similar to the author of one of the references added to the document, so I contacted the editor about whether they have a connection to the article. Their response can be seen here. The user does not work for the company that produces the wind tunnel, but does mention their company (ICARE) in the article, and the reference added was indeed written by that same user. The article doesn't seem overly promotional or controversial, but it does require a thorough copyediting. I don't believe that this user is being underhanded at all and I think they are trying to comply with the rules. I would think that maybe adding Template:Connected contributor to the article's talk page and asking the user to state how they are connected to the article on their userpage would be appropriate, but I'm not sure if there is more that should be done. Any suggestions would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon editing from the IP has been blocked for a year by Ronhjones. Bri (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An unregistered user with an Art Institute of Chicago address has been adding external links to the AIC website to dozens of articles. Examples: [18], [19], [20]) The links are to single items in a larger collection. None seem very useful to the reader (i.e., they do not expand the information about the article's subject beyond what is already in the article and its External links section). Does this qualify as spam? Should it be allowed to continue? 32.218.39.134 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Analog Pussy

    I don't know if this is the right place to mention this, but it's certainly about a conflict of interest. The Analog Pussy article is about a two-person group. They broke up, and now they maintain rival "official" web sites for the group, and have both edited the article. Today one of them added some sentences in German, which I have twice removed on the grounds that they're not in English. I'd prefer not to be the person who tries to find a balance between them. Maproom (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article survived an AfD in 2005, but where's the notability required by WP:MUSIC? Not seeing two recordings on a major label, appearance on a recognized top-N chart, or any major award. Can't find anything non-PR about them in Google other than one interview. Send to AfD again? John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Review needed

    Sandbox and articles deleted by Athaenara. - Bri (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Dharmesh Gohil/sandbox review needed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Have blocked the account as lots of copy and paste, promotional and COI issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated the sandbox for speedy. Payrexx is bad too. - Bri (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    G11ed Payrexx, also this is an SPA, spammer only:
    re-G11ed User:Dharmesh Gohil/sandbox (prev CSD declined)
    Sandbox and article deletions were done by admins. If there's nothing left to do I'll close this case. - Bri (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Subscription boxes

    This needs cleanup bad. Copyvio detector reports near 50% copyvio on Subscription boxes; article is full of dubious sources like Forbes sites and bloggy things more unfamiliar to me. Plus plain old refspam like boxofchallenge.com , pour-this.com, ohmybox.com, etc. - Bri (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I did some cleanup. Article cut down from 41 kB to about 12. Probably enough. - Bri (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopened: Justlettersandnumbers identified more copyvio. - Bri (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolpad Group

    In the edit summary he admitted he is [a staff] from Coolpad Group. Compare to version before his edits and latest version, much ad was added. Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    two more socks
    Bookperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Emma0924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Matthew_hk tc 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    one more socks. Matthew_hk tc 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Pure Leisure

    A google search suggests that this is a paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Loveurope2016

    (re-open archived above #Review needed)

    • Loveurope2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • User:Loveurope2016 needs blocking WP:NOTHERE promo only account, [21] dislosed as Maxim Zimin. possible meat/sock of blocked:
      • User:Dharmesh Gohil,
      • User:Ivanalesi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs blocking WP:NOTHERE promo only account (has also been implicated too per User talk:Loveurope2016). disclosed as agent (below) WP:NPA vios [22] [23]
        • Maxim Zimin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PRODded BLP fails WP:GNG
        • Brandon Maïsano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PRODded BLP fails WP:GNG
        • TopCar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - G11ed Widefox; talk 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've declined speedy on this as it didn't seem overly promotional to me (though probably failing GNG) and the user's edits did not seem entirely spammy (though again notability problems with drivers who I think fail WP:NMOTORSPORT). But any other admin should feel free to override this without consulting me if there's a bigger problem of which I'm unaware. GoldenRing (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, that's a reasonable assessment. PRODded GNG/CORP. Widefox; talk 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I very much respect your rules, no matter how insanely complicated they are, but this section NMOTORSPORT is a bit of a joke. There's no A1GP or CART, they are looong gone, and as someone who is currently involved in motorsport as driver agent and previously as journalist, the common opinion is that the ladder to F1(that's F4-F3-GP3-FV8-F2) is highly professional, certainly more professional than Trans-Am where if my memory is correct the late Paul Newman was winning races in his 80s! Also, a team like Champion, even though its long time since it has been active, is still remembered by many Le Mans fans for running the Audi R8 with legends like Tom K behind the wheel.
              • On the front of my account deletion, I'd say that I have done previously the vast majority of the motorsport section(I think the whole junior single-seaters section) in the Bulgarian Wiki in 2008, but I haven't cared too much for honors etc and as you can see, my account was registered much later on. So, yeah... you can delete my account. I don't care. But I believe, it would be much better if Wikipedia is open to people who have insider knowledge in some industries, despite not having the account points of honor or whatever.
              • Yes, there are sometimes interests behind adding articles on Wikipedia, that's why I did the motorsport section, but this is because Wikipedia is a well organized source for information and when i.e. a potential sponsor is looking for information - it can help him understand the sports/industry structure.
              • Many of the rules you're quoting are not applicable to the present(especially trusting only Reuters, AFP and such) and it will be sad if the growth of Wikipedia is limited by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanalesi (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for commenting. So, you are a driver agent and therefore have a WP:COI with these topics but have not disclosed this yet? Pls read and follow through the disclosure. Widefox; talk 12:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, I don't have conflict because I work with others and in a wholly different field in racing. You're assuming stuff all the time. All the content is completely impartial and if you had a slight idea about racing and have followed single-seaters, you'll know it. That's why as I said, if you don't have any fucking idea about motorsport - don't fucking comment on it! If you don't know iota about smth, then just keep your mouth firmly shut, OK? Now because I see you get those nice dopamine rushes from using your Wiki powers, delete my account. Fuck you and have a nice day!

    Deb Lawrence

    From UAA. Editor is editing article about herself. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It was also created and the overwhelming majority of the content came from another SPA with PROMO overtones. This to me seems a candidate for AfD as I'm unsure if their agent is encyclopaedic, and removal (which would be my preferred edit) would leave it completely unsourced (even now, it just has one primary source). Rayman60 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agent? Do you mean article? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A commercial art dealer is not a reliable source. This one doesn't even mention the artist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want me to nominate this? Not my intention when I came here, I just want Deb indeffed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's certainly a possible AfD candidate, L3X1 – at a quick glance I don't see any strong evidence of notability. As for Debl101, shouldn't we hope that she/he will become a useful contributor to the encyclopaedia? I don't believe that one attempt at (possible) self-promotion is grounds for any sort of administrative action – a friendly personal message would probably be a better response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the scope of AGF and all that, yes. But Deb hasn't edited in more than 4 days, and I think it will bear out as another SPA/COI. I don't expect to hear from Deb until she discovers her edits were undone, if ever, but you have more experience in Wikipedia than I do. The account probably won't get any attention from admins, due to it being stale, already given a warn/welcome, and that an admin (UAA) has already declined to take immediate action. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Lawrence. Widefox; talk 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To The New

    Today I received an Upwork invitation to fix some issues on the article To The New. I checked the talk page and the linked user says that the article was deleted before but now it complies with the guidelines. I checked the user page of the user and he claims to be a seasoned editor, but only has 54 edits globally. Something is fishy. I suspect the editor has a conflict of interest towards the article, and in any case someone else is likely to accept the Upwork job soon, so we should keep an eye on the article. --Felipe (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sophivorus Thanks for bringing this to Wikipedia. It would be great if you can post the actual content of that job opening here.
    Upwork is a freelancing platform where businesses and independent professionals connect and collaborate remotely. Any of the Wikipedia contributors/editors should not be involved in any such activity which converts into monetary value i.e. money. As per the portal, one can receive any invitation if you show your skills on the platform.
    So, this implies that User:Sophivorus is involved in receiving payments for the contribution he has done to Wikipedia. All his contributions should be thoroughly examined. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitjigupta (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the userlinks for Sophivorus (Felipe), he's made fewer than 200 articlespace edits since 2009 and it's readily apparent he's a legit editor. There are many reasons why one of us may maintain contact with Upwork; Ankitjigupta, please be careful with your assertions. And if you do that, you must notify the subject (see red text at top of this page). - Bri (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bri I agree with the valid point made by Ankitjigupta. One can receive any job invitation on Upwork only if the person has shown similar skills and has done some work in the past and a payment has been made for the work done.

    Felipe has received an Upwork notification for editing/ making changes to a Wikipedia article which shows that he is involved in receiving payments for the contributions he has done to Wikipedia. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Though he could be a legit editor however, please make sure that all his contributions must be verified again. Amitpurple (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just clarifying a point or two here for User:talk:Amitpurple. You will receive Upwork notifications even if you have not previously accepted any contracts. Receiving such a notification doesn't show that someone has been paid to edit. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at the article and established that none of the references cited would meet the standard that we apply in the AfC process when considering the notability of a company. If I were reviewing this in AfC I would have declined it. I have explained my rationale on the article talk page and drawn Ankitjigupta's attention to it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The content of the job proposal is:

    We already have a page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_The_New). After it's creation in last week, the page has been marked nofollow noindex. Please check the source code of the Wikipedia page mentioned above.

    I need an expert who can fix it.

    Please mention your contributions to Wikipedia, the possible causes of this issue, and the possible ways you can solve this issue.

    And for the skeptics, if you want to do a thorough check of my contributions, go ahead, I have nothing to hide, but it'll take a while, because I have over 16000, plus many more to the software. Also, I get this kind of invites on an almost weekly basis, and ALWAYS reject them with a link to WP:COI. But this one was different in that it included the article name, so I was able to report it. I get this kind of invites because I'm a freelance MediaWiki developer (Upwork profile), not a paid Wikipedia editor. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my first message. --Felipe (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sidemen (YouTube group)

    The editor's single-purpose account has recently been created with a username that represents the group that is the subject of the article. They have been adding unsourced BLP material, and have removed the references that were present in the article, and have not left edit notes that explain why. They're approaching 3RR. I have left notices on their talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a go at tidying it up. Outside of the COI issues (unsure if it's just a fan or someone connected closer), it was poorly referenced and poorly written. I still feel there's work to be done, I really dislike the section about how this one met that one and so on. Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Point Blank Music School

    This article has suffered from serious COI/promo issues since it was created. It is quite easy to link the three who've used their real name to the organisation. The nature of the edits show that this was unashamedly WP:Promo abused. I have tidied it up over the years, adding COI tags in November 2015. The two older editors are long since inactive, the third appears to have stopped immediately prior to the new, anonymous editor commencing their activity - all are listed above for sake of completion. A new editor with no other contributions has been adding unsourced, promotional content in the last week and very enthusiastically removing COI tags repeatedly (despite it not necessarily being their solely because of them. Based on their activity, I have no doubt there is an underlying COI issue. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm posting it here so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent further abuse. Rayman60 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=779871664"