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 KTKonkel (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 13 April 2018 (→Adverse Childhood Experiences Study: I do not have a conflict of interest.). 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:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Looks like bullying

    Please explain how this comment from Kudpung follows Wikipedia guidelines on COI editing. "IMO every attempt possible should be made to delete Bbarmadillo's paid articles. This will force him to refund his clients' money and be a lesson for anyone else contemplating using Wikipedia for profit". To me this looks like double-standards and bullying. Wikipedia has an approved policy that I fully comply, declaring me edits. This comment clearly says "Hang them all"! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not bullying. You are 'complying' with a loophole in our current policies to make money out of a project that is otherwise built and maintained by volunteers. If loopholes can be found to have the articles deleted, they will be. Paid editing is not 'approved' - it's barely tolerated at all, that's why the COIN department exists; the broader community quite obviously does not approve of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung why do you call published policy a "loophole"? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and your generally poor quality editing, paid or otherwise requires great time and effort to be improved by volunteer editors. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Theroadislong amazed to hear that. I worked on 4 articles of yours and somehow managed to improve them. Hmmm.... -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Theroadislong also I never asked you to improve my articles. If massive deletions could pass for "improvements". -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbarmadillo, when Wikipedia was founded, paid exploitation of it was not anticipated on such a scale. As the project grows organically, so have new rules to be established that will close the gaps. By the way, have you read WP:BOGOF? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung yes, I've read this. I've provided my doze of comments to the current COI practices. To sum up, by doing what you are doing (being super-creepy to paid editors) you are just making the problem worse as more of them would be saying "To hell with these quasi-rules, I never declare paid edits again". So you will just have much more Indian, Pakistani and all other kind of single-purpose accounts apparently "improving" Wikipedia. Punishing paid editors who follow the rules is an easy task because, hey, all their edits are declared! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung also "not approving the standards" and going after one particular user contributions are two different things. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "you will just have much more Indian, Pakistani and all other kind.." I wasn't expecting jingoism today, but here it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbarmadillo, we've heard all these arguments before. Most paid editing is underground anyway - until some users are forced to come clean. No one is 'punishing' anyone, except perhaps from depriving them from making a fast buck out of our voluntary work. No one is going after one particular user - we investigate them all. That's what COIN is all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung this is not what you've said above. What you've said looked like Wikihounding. Hence this topic. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of our best editors fighting against the overrunning of Wikipedia with spam are South Asian. We do get a lot of spam from South Asia, but some of the most active regular participants on this board are South Asian. I’d encourage you not to make comments that could be taken to imply that editors from one of the largest English-speaking regions of the world are somehow less desirable. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly a lot of spam and vanity comes from outisde Europe, North America, and other Western demographics, but it's due to a cultural dichotomy and a failure to understand the difference between Wikipedia and company listing sites. In my experience, the most blatant and sophisticated exploitation of the encyclopedia to make money by selling Wikipedia articles comes not from Asia (where I happen to live and work for many years). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On a meta-level, is UPE geographically localized? I think not! And I will agree with K's above comment.~ Winged BladesGodric 03:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We have not yet banned paid editing. Until then, we have to judge paid editors by the notability of the topics they accept commissions for, the quality of the edits and their willingness to declare and follow the COI rules in general. I haven't surveyed this editor's articles in detail yet, but most though not all seem to be justified by notability. However, I and other editors have noted that many of them seem to need substantial improvements. I have been making some change for the ones I think sufficiently important especially if they seem to have been volunteer, not paid editing, but I would have expected by now that it would not still be necessary--there is a limit to the patience of volunteers for doing work that other people are being paid for. The editor does follow the current rules, and getting people to declare is after all the purpose of those rules. My priority for editors like this is to see if the editor can learn to write proper non-promotional articles that do not need significant further work. Declared paid editors must expect their work to be examined, and the practical way to do this is editor-by-editor. Concentrating on one editor at a time is not an indication of animus. I would hope paid editors see this as other editors do, as the opportunity for them to improve their quality of work. The purpose should not be to drive out paid editors altogether, but to stop those who persist in submitting unsatisfactory work or who try to avoid the COI requirements. Realistically, this can be expected to remove the lower quality paid editors. Based on what I have seen over the years, if we can do this, there is reason to hope that there will not be many left and the new recruits to the business will be easily spotted. If this succeeds, the community may well not see a need to ban paid editing altogether. If we cannot effectively stop bad paid editing, then even those who philosophically want to permit it may have to conclude it permitting any paid editing is inconsistent with a quality encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    While I readily agree that disclosed paid editors do (and should) come under scrutiny, I must admit that threatening to have everything someone has written deleted so that they have to pay back their clients as a lesson is not conducive to a friendly and workable environment. No matter how we may feel about paid editing, if someone is acting in good faith within policy we need to treat them with civility. I can't see how threats such as what started this can be seen as anything other than harassment. - Bilby (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the comment by Kudpung was not helpful, but I don't think it necessarily amounts to bullying. The fact is, people will continue to be paid to edit regardless of whether it is permitted or not. Treating paid editors who disclose in this way is not at all likely to encourage others to disclose, when, as we all know there are plenty of ways to get away with UPE. It's unfortunate that the community tends to treat disclosed paid editors in this way (see also CorporateM) but Bbarmadillo has to accept that paid editing is only tolerated and that by playing by the rules, they draw attention to their edits. The solution from their position is to ensure that they only create articles on subjects that are clearly notable and that articles do not contain anything which could be construed as promotional. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually i think the comment by Kudpung does amount to bullying, and is certainly a violation of WP:AGF. Any deletions had better be very well justified, in light of such comments. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment by Kudpung is not good. The OP should keep in mind that paid editing is tolerated (barely) and not loved, and like it or not you are going to catch some sharp elbows from time to time because you are exploiting the value the community has created to make money for yourself. (see here). Some people take being exploited personally and lash out. That should not happen but it will.
    But you should know that posting complaints like this is going to make everyone look at you and your paid work yet more (opening a thread means that you get looked at too, and people need to look and see if your paid edits should be deleted - hey maybe Kudpung had looked and was correct). The last editor who went down this "aggrieved paid editor" path got themselves indefinitely blocked.
    It is really just best for you to remain professional (you are doing this for work, after all), take the lumps as they come and not make drama over them, and make sure your paid edits are super high quality and of course, disclosed and put through prior review. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The best response to claims of bullying and harassment - even on Wikipedia - should not be to say "take the lumps" and "if you complain, you risk getting blocked". That's bordering on bullying in its own right. - Bilby (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you made that response to me before, when I said a similar thing about the editor who was acting all aggrieved like Bbarmadillo... who continued on down that bad path and get himself indefinitely blocked. I'm telling you, having a thin skin and being a paid editor do not go well together, and paid editors who get aggrieved do not last long. It really is best for them to keep their eye on the mission of WP and their own mission to get paid; it is very very hard to do both... heck volunteer editors who get all aggrieved also end up doing self-destructive things. Everybody needs to be resilient; paid editors more than most. That's all I am saying. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm aware that I pointed out that before. And I'm also aware that you still failed to get it now. You do not respond to bullying by saying that people should learn to accept it, and you don't respond to complaints of harassment by raising the possibility of being blocked for complaining. Especially when it was you who initiated the block discussion for the previous editor. - Bilby (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The AN I filed had overwhelming consensus to indef as you well know. And I didn't respond to this before, but I have never said "if you complain you risk getting blocked." You are actively twisting what I am saying. This is our typical interaction lately and I will not be replying to you further. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "The last editor who went down this 'aggrieved paid editor' path got themselves indefinitely blocked". I'm not sure how to read that other than "if you complain too much, you risk getting blocked". If you agree that the person has a valid concern, which you did, what you wrote was inappropriate. That said, the last editor wasn't blocked for complaining, as you may recall - it was for serious problems with misuse of OTRS and ongoing issues with their paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which does not say "they risk punishment if they complain". If you cannot make a distinction between "loss of focus and an approach to the community that leads to self-destructive behavior that leads to a block" from "complain and you will be blocked", you are either incompetent or actively twisting my words. I am getting very close to requesting an IBAN as I am getting tired of your consistent twisting of what I write. Please just refrain from talking about me or talking to me, and I will do the same. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see how that is twisting what you wrote at all. You wrote:
    "But you should know that posting complaints like this is going to make everyone look at you and your paid work yet more ... The last editor who went down this "aggrieved paid editor" path got themselves indefinitely blocked."
    Maybe there is some other way of reading this other than making complaints risks a block, but I can't see it. However, we clearly aren't going to make any progress discussing this. - Bilby (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have your own special standards regarding paid editing, Bilby. The point Jytdog is making is that the vast majority of the volunteers don't like the encyclopedia they build and maintain for free being blatantly exploited by 'career' paid editors. Exploitation of this kind even when complying with our barely tolerated current rules, is not good faith work and never can be. Those paid editors are inevitably going to come under extreme scrutiny and the community is perfectly at liberty to voice their disaproval of it. How they do it is another matter, but a comment I made on my own talk page might not have been phrased as nicely as it should have been; the inference was nevertheless clear, but it can hardly be construed in that context as bullying. I suggest you give it a rest - not because I feel personally affected by it, but persistently perpetuating this thread is not the best way to go, it's not what COIN is for. If you have anything to say to me or Jyt, say it on our talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment in this case to Jytdog was not about paid editing, but about the correct response to claims of harassment and bullying. You should never both say that the treatment was bad, and at the same time tell someone that they risk punishment if they complain and that they should learn to take it. That is an inappropriate response, and borders on perpetuating the harassment.
    Paid edits should be scrutinized. But that's not the same as saying that you should live with harassment and not complain. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying that "they risk punishment if they complain". Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would either warn each of them or block them from 24-48 hours. That's just me, though. ⌤TheMitochondriaBoi⌤(☎) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on editor Rusboot

    Requesting some other editors take a look at edits by Rusboot (talk]). Notably, the editor in question began his editing career by declaring [1] a paid connection, though he never edited the subject in question. They have recently been creating a number of articles that should be looked at, namely Nandy (singer) and Mwasiti. Both of these articles use images that were claimed as the "own work" of User:Saleh Gadau [2] on the Wikimedia commons who has made no other contributions. Note that both articles where created several hours apart. A similar instance can seen on a former version [3] of Chad Tennies, another article created by Rusboot, in which another single edit account on the commons [4] uploaded an image [5] claimed as "own work" that Rusboot used.

    This could all be coincidence of course, but Rusboot has also been asked [6] about potential conflicts of interest and has thus far declined to respond. Pinging User:Rusboot, could you clarify your situation? I will also like to ping Justlettersandnumbers, as they have also commented on Rusboot's situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bythebooklibrary. SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I share the concerns of SamHolt6, partly because the editing pattern is so atypical of a good-faith new user, and so typical of a paid hack. More specifically, the images of Nandy and Mwasiti are obviously the work of a professional, and it is probably no co-incidence that they were uploaded by a user with the same name as a "talent manager" in Dar es-Salaam who acts for both artists, nor that Rusboot created both articles within less than twenty-four hours. Rusboot has now disclosed his/her paid editor status. I was going to propose moving all article creations to draft space for volunteer editor review, but if Smartse is right about the socking then I imagine they will be deleted instead. At least some of these people are notable, I think. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rusboot mentions here [7] that they have also been paid by Lastee to edit his article and make changes to another. All of this was not properly disclosed, so I will add the appropriate UDP tags until such a disclosure is made.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Justlettersandnumbers As I've mentioned there it's actually more likely to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vukhudo, but it's fairly academic when it's abundantly clear that Rusboot is not a new editor. SmartSE (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rusboot has now stated [8] that they were unaware of our disclosure policy. I'm moving to tag all of their articles with the UDP tag, as they are all suspect and Rusboot has declined to make an appearance here despite my earlier pings.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to seeing this thread, I started looking through Rusboot's history. I've WP:G12'd several of his creations as blatent copyvios, and sent a few others to AfD. Strongly suggest this editor be banned and everything they've created be inspected for copyvios and/or spam which needs to be eradicated. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Leo Burnett Worldwide (Publicis)

    Cleaned up by Winged Blades ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I should probably give this article a rest before it becomes an edit war with the other editor[9][10][11]. Could somebody else keep an eye on this? ☆ Bri (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much. Glad I wasn't the only one seeing problems there. BTW this is a Publicis subsidiary. We're getting hit hard by these guys. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reene 23 sockfarm

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reene 23. This is ongoing CU-wise but it's fairly obvious that they are UPEs. This is a list of articles created by users originally listed there by Mean as custard that require eyes:

    Some of them may not be problematic, but there is no doubt that this groups of editors are up to something nefarious. SmartSE (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits like this are clearly WP:REFSPAM as well, but they are quite well hidden between other edits. I will try and generate a list of possibly problematic links. SmartSE (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more: Scout Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Do You Actually Need A Wikipedia Page for Your Business?

    [12] this article may be an interesting read for some of the regulars here given what it details. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think he knows that the stock price of a company goes down when their Wikipedia page gets more views? Mduvekot (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SamHolt6: I saw the article - and I just hate articles like that. I'm at a loss for what we can do about this one, but if you have any ideas I'd be glad to help.

    @Mduvekot: I'd guess you're just making up that stock price correlation just to make a point. Fair enough. But I doubt that conclusion for several reasons:

    • It's pretty hard to do an event study like that properly, e.g. getting all the stock returns, lining up the event dates (date of article start on Wikipedia) etc. I'd want to see it in a finance journal before I really believed it.
    • Most of our problems are with pretty small companies who aren't traded on exchanges - so they don't have stock prices (or returns) readily available.
    • I suspect that company managers do know, more-or-less and in the short term, what benefits their companies. So why pay money to upe's unless they expect it to raise the stock price. Long-term they might just not know what they are getting into.
    • Bitcoin prices - according to a couple non-academic reports - are highly correlated to Google searches for the term "Bitcoin". This suggests that the more publicity a "business" gets the better it is for the "business". No surprise really.
    • But the above did suggest to me to check our page views against bitcoin's price. It's pretty amazing.
    Daily page views for the Bitcoin article over the last year

    Detailed traffic statistics

    compare this to the price graph at [13] (Set the time frame to 1 year). The 2 peaks are about a week apart.

    There's nothing scientific about this, and nothing that shows causation being in one direction or the other. But still the correspondence is amazing. I conclude that it's fairly likely that bitcoin's price is influenced by the amount of publicity it gets on Wikipedia. Given that Facebook, Google, and Twitter have recently banned cryptocurrency ads, the influence of page views on Wikipedia (if the influence continues as it has) can only increase.

    Don't take this back-of-the-envelope analysis too seriously, but it does cause some doubt about your suggested correlation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bitcoin doesn't get any publicity on Wikipedia, there are articles on cryptocurrency and the companies and technology involved - but they aim for neutrality. There is no reason for someone to look at any Wikipedia article unless they have already heard of the subject of the article.
    Bitcoin's values on the currency exchange markets had an unprecedented rise at the end of 2017, I don't think this was related to Wikipedia. I think the hype comes first. The increased media hype leading to people to check out what Bitcoin is about. That is a more likely in my opinion.
    People go to Wikipedia to get more information about a subject. So there could be a problem with people thinking that a Wikipedia article validates a company.
    The Customer Think article talks about having a Wikipedia article to "improve your business' credibility". The problem is lending unwarranted credibility to businesses, not marketing. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bitcoin doesn't get any publicity on Wikipedia" - I couldn't disagree more. The Customer Think article is not about "marketing"? You clearly have a different definition of marketing than I do. WP:COIN is at least 90% about companies using marketing and PR to get publicity from Wikipedia, so I doubt you'll find many supporters of your views on this page.
    One thing the price graph shows is that the price of bitcoin has gone down from $19,343 on Dec. 19, 2017 to $7,440.98 (right now). That's a -61.5% return over a bit more than 3 months. Which brings up my final question. Is there an easy way to go short bitcoin, i.e. bet that the price will go down further? Smallbones(smalltalk)
    Have you ever seen a bubble blow out? Me neither, but this one bears watching. Last trade at $6,750.21. Whoever knows how to short sell this, please let me know asap. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The housing bubble in US triggered the 2008 financial crisis. Here is a Telegraph article about shorting Bitcoin. It looks extremely risk to me. (article free to read if account is created) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/gold/can-short-bitcoin/
    Jonpatterns (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that we need to do anything about this article. Even after various of us went over to read it because of this thread, it has just 65 page vies. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I only agree with his first point about gathering notability. But promoting peacock language like "award-winning" for achievements is such a bad idea and would only draw attention to getting it removed. Swamy needs to warn about WP:PROUD (An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing) and WP:COI (need to declare a conflict of interest right away) the article could be used as one of those press mentions for Policybazaar, assuming that page is still around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the surest signs of paid editing is overemphasis on corporate wheeling and dealing -- how much money was raised in capitalization, who bought out whom, and so on. Policybazaar is a perfect example. Conversely, other than the fact that it's "an Indian insurance comparison shopping website" we're told nothing about what the company does, its products, or why anyone should care about it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent Policybazaar to WP:AFD. It is an advertising brochure article. scope_creep (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Fitchuk

    The only edits that this editor has made have been about Ian Fitchuk. A question about COI has not been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was told that the COI tag was one of various tags that I was not supposed to use in draft space because they cause the pages to included in categories of articles with various issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah that does make sense. Well it will not hurt to cite your concerns on the draft talk page, if you have not done so already.104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Polyarc reactor

    Polyarc reactor is a type (or brand?) of methanizer produced by a company called Activated Research, activatedresearch.com. All the major contributors to this promotional-sounding article are single purpose accounts. One account has an obvious username connection to the company. (WP:OUTING prevents me, I think, from saying anything about the other account). The IP is adding links to activatedresearch.com to the methanizer article. Jetanizer is an article about another Activated Research product and was created by Activated2014 and then deleted as blatant advertising (User:Activated2014/sandbox is probably a copy of that deleted article). Should Polyarc reactor be deleted also or redirected to methanizer? Deli nk (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the "other account" of which you speak, I found this cool thing called a "Google search" that lets me put in combinations of words (including names) and then returns web pages that have these words. I got some interesting results when I put in the account name and the name of the company. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Alberto Frigo

    Massively edited by article subject following failed deletion request by subject. I'm not sure which version to roll it back to. It is in a sorry state. After the AfD it was 15K; it is now at almost 100K, following additions of mainly above accounts. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the contributors are SPAs and seem to all be Frigo himself. I've re-AfDed and suggested WP:TNT and suggested also to block/ban all of the accounts from touching any form of the article if it survives or is recreated. Since this is an artist, I'd also like to ping admin Cullen328 to see if he has any further suggestions or input. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you kindly. That seems to be a good solution.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Table of Contents of that autobiography alone is a shocking document, and the fact that one example of the subject's own writings is cited 53 times shows that the article completely fails NPOV and should either be deleted or subjected to countless whacks with a machete. That level of self-indulgent promotionalism makes it difficult for me to evaluate notability until I sleep on it a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty sure that the subject thought "you won;t delete my article? Well then, I'll give you an article!" It's a surprisingly effective tactic as I just voted delete at the AfD.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, his web site matches the article style.104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    adding 85kb of material on oneself is a big time guilt-inducing event on Wikipedia, unless you happen to be Neil Young or the Queen.104.163.147.121 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and block/ban evasion

    Keevaymusic (talk · contribs), self-identified as the minor Canadian musician Catman Cohen, created articles on himself and other members of the Cohen family of Calgary, Alberta. He was permablocked in 2006 for repeated legal threats. Where that account left off, he continued to create and add to articles on his relatives via a series of sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keevaymusic. The articles in question are:

    --Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • My first thought is hey, what's the secret to getting an Order of Canada? (Philanthropy?) Secondly they all appear notable by our standards and the articles are not that bad. However I get that there is some sockfarm issue that may require deletion on principle. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SudhanshuKumar1 potential promotional editing and failure to properly disclose

    Editor SudhanshuKumar1 (talk) might be a case of undisclosed paid editing or improperly conducted disclosed paid editing. Their first edit [14] was to disclose that they had been paid by Digital Sukoon on behalf of SIS Security. This is concerning, for while SudhanshuKumar1 never edited (to my knowledge, edits could have been deleted, but doubtful) anything in relation to SIS Security, Digital Sukoon is a digital marketing and PR firm that offers "Wikipedia Creation, Correction and Updation." (see here [15][16]) as one of it's main features. Since his joining the project in December 2017, SudhanshuKumar1 has created [17] a number of articles, some of which have been deleted or are undergoing deletion for being non-notable or promotional. In addition, the editor engages (per his uploads at [18]) in the usual COI/UDP/DPE practice of being able to obtain images of his article subjects, though this could also be a case of lacking copyright attribution. In any case, we should keep an eye on the situation.

    I would also like to ask: SudhanshuKumar1, could you comment and clarify the situation for us? SamHolt6 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Twist in the story, SudhanshuKumar1 was registered as Sudhanshu6454 (talk · contribs) earlier who was blokced by Doc James for violating WP:PAID. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked as a proven sock as the contribution style is very similar, in addition to the name. Anything that can't be deleted as G11 can go the G5 way now. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff: Perfect! I will go with G5. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The CU found them unlikely to Sudhanshu6454 and later the case was moved to Abhishek4889 as the master but I think it worth comparing his behaviour with Abhishek4889 or other users in this farm. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly confident they are the same, Sudhanshu6454 became active after a two week absence today and made an almost identical case for their account not to be blocked. Also, thank you to the editors above for following up on my entry. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamHolt6: SudhanshuKumar1 was asked to add unblock request from their original account, at User talk:Sudhanshu6454. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    David Garrard (property developer)

    I'd reverted additions on this article which seemed to me to give undue weight to one particular activity and discussion had taken place on the talk page with the other editor. A new editor, Gunn Ben 66, has appeared now and made a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Garrard_%28property_developer%29&type=revision&diff=833220673&oldid=832600373 substantial (though unreferenced) expansion to the article), but says in their edit summary "The changes are now factually correct, the dates are accurate and they have come from Sir David Garrard via his Personal Assistant. Miss C. Bromley Executive Assistant to Sir David Garrard FRICS Tel: +44 (0)207 224 0050)" Not sure on what to do here, to be honest. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid the changes by the SPA. We're not here to serve as a web host for editors related to the subject. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Wikipedia,I can confirm that there is no COI with the person (David Garrard - property developer) who's original article on Wikipedia was factually incorrect. Im led to believe that the course of action was David Garrard who is clearly upset with the original page, asked his Personal Assistant (PA) to approach a business associate of mine. The business associate did not know much about Wikipedia so he approached me to make the necessary changes. At no time have I met Sir David Garrard and his PA and only received the changes in a word document. My input is on a goodwill basis. I hope this satisfies you that there is no COI and my involvement was to assist a friend. The objective is to ensure Wikipedia has accurate information on Sir David Garrard. Best intentions. Ben GunnBen Gunn (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Wikipedia, Further to my last input to the COI regarding David Garrard; I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any advice on how I obtain references on somebody I do not know or know nothing about. Would it be appropriate to remove the original page until a decision is made regarding COI? I have no doubt that the original editor of David Garrards page had best intentions in mind, however, to avoid further upset to Sir David, can I respectfully request that there is a blank page? Thank you, any advice on references or getting the facts authenticated would be appreciated. Ben GunnBen Gunn (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! We do not generally communicate with article subjects, as it reduces independence. Doing what you did (replace a page edited by volunteer editors with a page written by the article subject) is in effect working for the article subject. With such a clear conflict of interest (as you say trying "to avoid further upset to Sir David") you would be advised to stay away form the page. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Steamworks Brewing Company

    New account has added a lot of new material and some of it with a heavy promotional tone to the page in question. Some of the information added appears to not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article (broad information on where to buy product) but user has readded material back in after my revert and COI notice on their talk page. COI is suspected and user has avoided my query about their potential COI. Air.light (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I reverted back to the last COI-free version, and added a notability tag. I used to go there when it was in Gastown, it's just an average bar. I'd suggest an AFD, as deletion is probably the best solution.104.163.147.121 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The article was on AfD in 2012, with the result Keep, and I have now AfD'd it again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamworks Brewing Company (2nd nomination). As for the SPA User:Creator2018, they haven't edited since March 21, and may not be aware of the appeals for them to disclose any COI they may have, so I've left them alone for now. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Book Promotion...?

    A new user, using an IP account, advised in this talk page post that he is the author of a book about port visits by US Navy ships to ports in Australia. He has been editing numerous US Navy ship articles, to add his book as a source, to instances where the article denotes an Australian post visit by that ship, even if there is already an attached source supporting that info. Examples;

    FYI - theWOLFchild 11:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like they haven't continued since April 2. Most of their changes have been rolled back. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edits by User:SomnathSG and User:SomnathSNG

    Hi, I don't know if its the right place to report or not, but those 2 are editing Observer Research Foundation article, and they are using multiple accounts to do it, which, considering their intend, is against our policies. For the revision history see this and this.--Biografer (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Biografer:--I have culled the article, fleshing the promo-stuff out.Will be watch-listing.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 11:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    why not just move it to AfD? I looked for sources and could not find in-depth coverage, just name checks.104.163.158.37 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about whether this merits an independent article.If you wish for an AfD, you can proceed accordingly, after creating an account.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Social Distortion tours

    I've discovered a number of articles about Social Distortion tours that were all created by the same user in a concert-promoter type way. I'm not well-versed in WP:NCONCERT. Do these individual tours deserve their own articles, should they be merged into the main Social Distortion article, or would it be better to create a "Tours by Social Distortion" page and merge/redirect these articles to one main page? Several of the articles are entirely unsourced. I could speedy or PROD those, but I don't want to do that if other editors more experienced with NCONCERT think they might meet notability guidelines. Thanks for any guidance. Marquardtika (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see much to indicate COI, they could just as much be a fan, but unless there is substantial coverage about the tours (more than just reviews on individual gigs etc.) then it's very unlikely we should have articles on them. I'd suggest AFDing the individual articles and adding anything that is salvagable into a section in the band's article. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a squint on them. Looks I'm going to gen up on nconcert.:-) scope_creep (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Scope creep: And now I'm aware of WP:CONCERT, which is helpful. Marquardtika (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Heath

    I was going through pending changes and I noticed this user, PhitApp (talk · contribs) adding very promotionally worded and WP:PEACOCK type content to Phil Heath (see here). They have done this before in March, as well as removing negative content like any mention of a divorce, as shown in these two diffs, [19] and [20], where they were then warned by David in DC. However, they appear to have neglected the warning and I have since dropped them a new one. It appears to be a COI of Phil Heath who made the app "PhitApp". HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite the second warning, the editor just edited the page again with this edit summary "Deleted promotional link in other ventures as requested by editor." meaning they are likely in direct contact with Phil Heath[21]. It is fine to mention Phit App on the Wiki page that isn't the problem. The problem is the very promotionally worded content and the removing of references. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @HickoryOughtShirt?4:--Article cleaned and an Username+COI block sought.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 11:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sajith Raj

    Users:

    Articles:

    AdiiRam was registered a day after RHaworth deleted Draft:Sajith Raj which was created by Arjunlemona, and soon after AdiiRam recreated the same article in draftpsace Arjunlemona starts creating articles on films related to Sajith Raj. If somebody look at Draft:Kukkiliyar and Draft:Mera Ilaka as per the use of external links, ref etc. it looks like created by the same person and both made their last edit on 28th of last month, also as per this image uploaded by AdiiRam it smell something fishy. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Varunpeter143 ?

    Only edits by this editor in 2018 have been to this movie, not yet released, and its actress. (No edits shown in 2017.) No response to inquiry about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rip Rapson

    It looks like nearly everyone to ever edit this page is WP:PAID or otherwise has a COI. More eyes needed, needs to be re-written and formatted from top to bottom. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    At Afd.scope_creep (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mauro Mori

    Single-purpose account only editing this draft. No response to COI inquiry. MicheG87 may be Mauro Mori. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at that one. We need an A86 speedy delete criteria: "86 this article on the basis of persistent and sustained egotistical/narcissistic effort exceeding 6 months."104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophia Cacciola

    Based on the editing/collaboration patterns on these accounts/articles, as well as the obvious WP:REFBOMB on Sophia Cacciola, I believe there may be a violation of the COI guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Got your notice. I'm not personally related, besides meeting Sophia at a con once. I'm just interested in alternative film and underground art. Let me know if I can help. -- Huntelaar017 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Grenzfurthner article is very promotional, he seems to have 13 jobs. scope_creep (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) scope_creep (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly, we German speakers have a word for that: Kunstprekariat. (You better have 13 jobs, 'cause no one is paying well.) ___ K-pachs (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm editor at Q21 (http://www.q21.at/). It's part of my/our mission to feature resident artists/events/films that were initiated by artists and curators at MQ. Sophia and Michael were AiRs at Q21/MQ, that's why I'm engaged. Conflict? Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is the type of COI that needs to be declared somewhere, either on your user page or the article talk page. In this case, the discussion here may be sufficient, though I'll let the regulars here comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info. First of all, I'm not getting paid for this kind of support. I'm volunteering, but please let me know what I can do, I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I can definitely add something to my user page, please advise. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated my user page, to better reflect my mission. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    E!

    Editor has been continually been trying to finesse his autobio here, along with the article of E! (a network they founded) to their 'proper version'; it's been a very slow-rolling editing issue going back to their arrival in 2009, especially on the E! article, which has been reverted many times to the properly sourced version of E!'s founding. They seem to have also used IPs on their autobio to avoid further scrutiny. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleaned and watched the Alan Mruvka article. It heavily promoted the business interest of Alan Mruvka, that have now been removed. scope_creep (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Kenney

    Morganwhite33 is edit warring to try to add promotional, unsourced material to this article. Appears to be a COI situation, given their lack of edits to other articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Morganwhite33 has been indeffed for edit warring. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Danieli Wikipedia

    Dears, I am working for Danieli Marketing department and I would like to update our page with the current information. The info that is published at the moment is outdated and some info is incorrect. Please give me the possibility to edit the page and insert the photos. Thank you. TeacherJass (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing a page in which you have personal involvement is a really bad idea. It's much better to propose changes on the article's talk page. A quick check shows the article in its current state (and even more so before the recent reversion) is excessively promotional in tone. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are at least two other undisclosed paid editors, User:Natascia Presello and the Danieli corporate IP User:84.233.154.253, that edited this article in the past. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I made some trims to reduce the puffery.104.163.158.37 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest edits by User:TeacherJass have been blatantly promotional -- seriously, "We hold the latest technologies and have the capability to continuously innovate..." etc? The article needs more eyes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have reverted them. Danieli Automation had the same problems, I have boldly redirected it to the parent company. SmartSE (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please tell me what to do to make this work. I will modify the texts, and try not to use the promotional ones, but... The numbers on the right side aren't correct, the logo is the old one, Danieli is using a different one, and I want to put the list of the sister companies. Can you give me a hand, pls? I understand the issue, but certain items were just a pure info, not the marketing content. Thank you for understanding. TeacherJass (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Post a message to Talk:Danieli describing what you think needs to be fixed, and then leave it alone. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I will not comment further until you acknowledge that you have read and understood Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting help with potential COI and lack of article neutrality

    Can someone please take a look at edits made by Steelgraham on the Elsevier page? Over the past three years he has made more than 40 edits to the page. Without exception, each has been negative. His profile states that he is an Open Science Enthusiast who volunteers in an advisory capacity for PLOS – a direct competitor of Elsevier. Is this not the type of “close personal or business connection with article topics” that should preclude someone from editing an article? He has also published numerous blog articles expressing anti-Elsevier views. His edits all appear to “advance outside interests” (ie. promoting personal views at the expense of a fair and balanced article) more than they advance the aims of Wikipedia. Another editor placed a note at the top of the page back in September, acknowledging that there was a problem with the neutrality of the page, but he has nonetheless added more negative content – most of which was not particularly notable or worthy of inclusion on a Wikipedia article. The result is that Elsevier has a page whose Controversies section makes up more than two thirds of the whole article. People have a right to their opinions, but surely that isn’t what Wikipedia is about? For transparency, I work for Elsevier’s parent company, which is clearly stated in my profile, but I’ve always remained neutral and followed Wikipedia’s neutrality and COI guidelines. It’s just very hard to contribute to a balanced article when one side with a grudge against Elsevier is constantly trying to further their own agenda at the article’s expense. Many thanks. Ryoba (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure about the COI here. The crux of the issue is whether Steelgraham has edited the page in a good faith attempt to improve the coverage, or whether they have been doing so to "punish" Elsevier and "promote" OA. That they have added negative content, doesn't automatically mean that they have done so in order to further their own aims over Wikipedia's. The article suffers from an WP:ADAM-like style and undoubtedly should be reorganised so that the critical information is incorporated throughout per Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated_throughout_the_article but this has been the case since 2015 when Steelgraham made their first edit to the article. Can you please point out any of their edits that you think are particualrly problematic? SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into this. I agree that the page would very much benefit from being re-organised to integrate any criticism, and to remove the troll-bait Controversies section, but I'm not sure how to go about getting someone to do that? If we just leave it and wait, then I can't see it happening. Likewise, it's great to hear that someone recognises the WP:ADAM-like style, but I'm not sure who will do anything about it? Specifically regarding Steelgraham's edits - the main problem I have is with the quantity of poorly-sourced edits (generally to other OA sites), or edits which aren’t notable, coming from someone who is very open about his dislike for Elsevier - the volume of these updates combines to make the article unbalanced, and I can't see how someone who is vocally critical of a subject can make good faith updates about that same subject. I've added a few examples of posts that I see as being problematic.
    5 April: Added EU's Open Science Monitor criticism - This is a good example - He's added criticism sourced to an article entitled 'Hated Science Publisher Elsevier to Help EU Monitor Open Science'. Obviously not a fair or balanced source.
    Similarly, the various country boycotts that he added - In fairness, he has since updated them with a line that says "subsequently a deal was reached" - but the original "controversy" still remains. Essentially it says that something bad might have happened... but then it didn't. So it doesn't seem right to fill up the page with these.
    21 May 2017: Added details of Paywall Watch with relevant citations - He claims "Elsevier are one of the most frequent publishers who have been found to be selling open access content" - whilst sourcing it to his own website http://www.paywallwatch.com/contact
    26 June 2015: Parent organisation links to weapons industry - Claims made about a totally different RELX Group business were added to the Elsevier page. I can't think of any other reason for that being there than to "punish" Elsevier? That claim was subsequently removed by another editor, but it has re-surfaced recently (this time un-sourced)
    Ryoba (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the specifics. 5 April is sourced to Techdirt, which while not a brilliant source, it is not inherently biased and seems ok for supporting what was added. The boycotts are definitely worthy of mention, but they are probably given too much weight at the moment and should be combined into one section, rather than listing every country separately, as in the Nature coverage. Regardless of whether they went ahead or not, the coverage in Science shows it was considered important, and it is not up to us as editors to make a judgement, but rather to follow the sources.
    The addition of links to http://www.paywallwatch.com is problematic though, and does change the COI issue more generally too, as it makes it clear that Steelgraham is involved in advocacy against Elsevier in real life, definitely more problematic than being a volunteer with PLOS. I've removed these links and note that Steelgraham should not add more links to the site per WP:SELFCITE.
    The weapons thing was UNDUE and had already been removed. I've removed the unsourced part that was added, but that wasn't added by Steelgraham AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good to me. Thanks for looking at this, and for the balanced response. Ryoba (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IrishCentral

    and perhaps Thurles2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Some obviously promotional editing including copyvio. Doug Weller talk 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thurles2 (talk · contribs) is making a mess of the article - a literal mess, they wrecked the formatting. They then went on to delete part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrishCentral. I see none of the editors responded here. The article was speedy deleted as promotional but I persuaded the editor to give it another chance. Doug Weller talk 06:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional editing at Rayla

    An editor with a fairly blatant conflict of interest created and edited Rayla. I can infer from KDGMusicGroup's name that a conflict of interest exists. A second editor by the name of Ksask128184 (talk) has also edited the article, including multiple attempts (per their contributions [22]) to remove COI and UDP maintenance templates from the article. In addition, an image [23] uploaded to the Commons by KDGMusicGroup appears to not be used without attribution, which strongly implies that the photo is actually the "own work" of KDG. This implies a close connection to the subject. I previously filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KDGMusicGroup, but was informed that per our SOFTBLOCK policy KDGMusicGroup was allowed to create a second account and does not have to disclose that their first and second accounts are related. That being said, i'm requesting more eyes on the article and that we keep tabs on Ksask128184.

    In addition, I would like to ask directly; @Ksask128184:, do you have any sort of business or personal connection to Rayla, and are you related to KDGMusicGroup?--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sander van der Linden

    These accounts and IPs have almost exclusively added content in relation to Sander van der Linden over the last 5 years or so, including creating what is fairly obviously an autobiography. Some is clear WP:REFSPAM e.g. [24] or promoting their own work: [25]. Today's addition to Cambridge Analytica seems to me an inappropriate case of WP:SELFCITE. There's a fair bit of cleaning up to do, and I would request that the users refrain from adding more citations to Linden's work. SmartSE (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. The COI is as plain as day. This user(s) appears to be using Wikipedia solely as a vehicle to promote Van der Linden's work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous, I have taken the time to carefully write detailed biographies of several notable scientists (rather than stubs) in a similar domain because I am familiar with the field of study - I don't write about things on which I do not have expertise and I do not contribute regularly, but all of these articles are purely factual with dozens of appropriate primary and secondary references meeting Wikipedia's criteria.Science_contributor101

    Moreover, Today's addition was entirely appropriate because the article provides relevant expert opinion on the state of the evidence and directly references and provides context for the quote from Brendan Nyhan which is mentioned in the preceding sentence of that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 (talk • contribs)

    Ghost Stories (film)

    Hello. I understand if this might be stale but due to time differences, I only noticed this morning. An editor, Dysonjeremy (talk · contribs) removed a large part of the plot of Ghost Stories (film) citing "spoilers removed" as their reasoning [26]. I reverted due to my understanding of Wikipedia:Spoiler and because their new addition didn't help the plot. I left them a message on their talk page regarding this. They then left me a message on my talk page admitting to be the " co-writer and director of the film" [27]. I told them to request changes on the talk page. This morning I noticed a new account Andynyman (talk · contribs) (who seems to be the other director) removing the same parts of the plot and adding in an unhelpful (in my opinion) addition in its place [28]. I reverted and left them a message but this might become an ongoing problem. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Search Engine Marketing News has published an article 'Google Adds “Mentioned on Wikipedia” Carousels in Search Results' To get an idea just google "dog food brands" and up comes a horizontal list with pix that links to Wikipedia articles on about 8 dog food brands. It almost seems to guarantee that more companies and SEO black hats will be coming here to write advertising articles. I've tried different searches, e.g. "coffee brands" and "tea brands usa" gets similar carousels (tho "tea" is slightly different), other searches don't come up with carousels though. Does anybody know how this works? Is there anything we should do to prepare for an onslaught? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading the article, the data comes from either Category:X or List of X, images culled from their respective articles, then a random sample is taken. ACPERM will help, but the key problem is anything that makes it to mainspace is time-intensive to remove (increased notability requirements notwithstanding). I've been semi-protecting very spam-prone lists but again, that's just sticking fingers in the dyke. The only real solutions are stopping spammers before they sign up, then CSD. MER-C 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also curious about how google is gathering information for it's search carousel. I conducted a test edit (trying to effect search results for "Coffee brands") by removing [29] Eight O'Clock Coffee from , but after several hours I saw no change in the search carousel. This leads me to believe google is taking data from both List of coffee companies and Category:Coffee brands to fill it's search carousel. Regardless of how they do it, these category pages and lists need watching, as I am fairly certain that companies will not be above editing articles about them on Wikipedia trying to bathe in this new font of publicity.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They'll be caching the data they have scraped from us so it is no surprise that several hours later your change didn't make a difference. SmartSE (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • note, am posting a notice about this at jimbo-talk. This is very unhelpful to us, and I wonder if the WMF can stop the use of our name in advertising like this. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Adverse Childhood Experiences Study

    I have no conflict of interest. KTKonkel (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    People publicizing their agency's or ministry's involvement with this study, but not following our mandatory disclosure rules. Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=836265920"