Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 14 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

David Packouz[edit]

No WP:HA or WP:OUTING here, but this page is consistently being edited by one editor Factdefender (talk), who appears to have strong connection to the case and insider information. User constantly tells me to "stop editing", and has a history of inserting WP:PROMOTION. I think it's clear that Factdefender should declare a COI if they want to keep editing this page. Will happily comply with them afterward. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not connected to the case or know any of the individuals personally. I am a musician and use the BeatBuddy that David Packouz invented, so perhaps that is my source of my interest in this case. But I don't think that is any more a COI regarding this case than you having been in the US Army. Or of an iPhone user editing the page about Steve Jobs. I simply find this story fascinating. All information I have is publicly available. I have just studied this story (perhaps too) extensively. My objections to your editing are entirely based on your disregard for facts and sourced information that you consistently ignore. I believe that we have made progress in our dialogue recently and look forward to continuing this discussion in a productive manner. Factdefender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's appropriate but I have added another contributor and 3 other pages that are edited by these 2 profiles. It is very curious that as musician(s) the only edits that these contributors do is to pages linked to the 2 people subject of this film. Even if there is no COI (which I very much doubt) there is clearly un unhealthy obsession with Packouz and Diveroli and all subjects linked to them which seems to be clouding their capability to be objective about this subject. As Factdefender admits himself he is fascinated and may have studied this story too extensively. It may be time now for these 2 editors to move onto another subject and leave the editing of these 4 pages to those that are probably more objective and less fascinated by these 2 unsavoury characters. Domdeparis (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Despite my niche interest in this story, I believe that my edits are far more neutral and well sourced than those of FuzzyGopher, and I invite an Admin to read through the David Packouz talk page to make a final decision on the issues discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factdefender (talkcontribs) 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but I have reread the talk page and it seems almost impossible that you do not have some kind of vested interest. The section on the Beatbuddy is pointless there is a page that gives all the relevant information. He is most defiantly not a notable musician so the part on his musical career is far from useful. You have removed only information that paints the subject in a negative light such as the un-safe helmets and failure to deliver the pistols. This information is well documented and is important but IMHO has its place in the part about AEY. You have changed the sentence of the subject being 7 months for conspiracy whereas the source that you cite says he pleaded guilty to fraud but from what I can find they were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371 which is Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/plea_agreements/dockets/AEY.htm. I'm going to make some edits and see if that will come to some kind of consensus. Domdeparis (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Can I ask everyone to show good faith. One editor account is new and may not fully understand everything that is going on.
@Domdeparis - I cannot see where you assumption arises that they are both only editing the same limited topics.
One editor has 77 edits and is a one topic editor (including beatbox) whose account has existed since 29 August 2016
The other editor has 1000+ edits and only 30 are bots (well, automated as that includes TW) and whose account has existed since 13 August 2016 (= 12 a day avg.)
I am still researching, but would expect to find much less than could be gleaned from a sockpuppet check. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Chaosdruid i think I may not have been clear in what i was saying. I am far from suggesting that FuzzyGopher is limited to these topics I am suggesting that 2 undermentioned editors are 1 topic editors and possibly the same person as 1 stopped editing in July 2016 and the other started editing exactly the same topics in August 2016
The COI edits are still going on...Domdeparis (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The original adder of the 1000+ chars on BeatBuddy with this edit is another "single topic" editor (also on Packouz et al.) - and they appeared between the two mentioned above Chaosdruid (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And another ... Colon ... Chaosdruid (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And another ... Veritas ... Chaosdruid (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Rob Shirakbari[edit]

  • Possible sockfarm/meats

Behaviour evidence: group of suspicious / blocked / not fully disclosed paid editors & accounts not exactly clear the connections/COIs):


Rob Shirakbari clearly needs some cleanup. The main problem is the extensive list of credits, many of which are in minor roles. That needs a trim. So do the references, many of which are to list-type sites, not articles primarily about the article subject. The subject of the article was engaged to the singer of Rumer [3] and is now her husband, but this is not in the article. Does the article subject clearly pass WP:MUSIC? John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup. There's several composers/artists/producers with such a large table of minor roles. I've just PRODded some, this may be more borderline but worth taking to AfD as the notability isn't clear under the mass of minor roles. Widefox; talk 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Nmwalsh has been sanctioned; see top of this case. Brianhe (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nmwalsh hasn't/doesn't fully disclose per WP:PAID (userpage and articles both don't have disclosures about which edits are paid), although has used the paid template in their sandbox, so appears to be willfully breaking the WP:TOU with no explicit disclosure per the best practice. Widefox; talk 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
...saying that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Minded (Canadian rapper) does have a paid template, so there's some disclosure although not done on the userpage as well. Widefox; talk 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Chaker Khazaal was deleted on 27 October 2015 after a deletion discussion here. They created the article again with a different title now Chaker Khazaal (author). The creator Lateguy2011 is clearly not a new user. Edits like a pro. - Mar11 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Kerio Technologies[edit]

Editor Special:Contributions/TheKarpati & Special:Contributions/Mlovato543 have extensively (and solely) edited on topics relating to Kerio Technologies. I've just removed massive amounts of promo & WP:MANUAL content (sample diff), but would also like for an experienced participant to have a look. The users have been notified of this discussion on their respective Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I do not quite understand, why you complain about this. As a person, using those products, you start changing one article and then you see, there are other articles, talking about the products you use. So you continue. So what is the problem? TheKarpati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

TheKarpati Do you have a WP:COI ? Are you paid to edit? See WP:DISCLOSE. Your account, as well as several others, are WP:SPAs, so other editors may assume, as I do, that a promotional article with several SPAs needs some explaining. Go ahead. Widefox; talk 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox No, I am not paid. I just use those products myself and thought, it is worth mentioning them, respectively updating the articles. I just saw for example, that also Microsoft is shown with separate articles for each of their products. So I do not understand all the complaints. As I am not a wikipedia editor professional, maybe someone (you?) can help me on that? Thanks TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
For the record, you have no connection whatsoever with the products, company, affiliates etc etc (broadly construed) in any form, per COI. Do you? (For why notability for other articles is irrelevant see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Widefox; talk 06:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati The COI question was asked by another editor on your talk page two years ago [5] but went unanswered. Explain. Widefox; talk 06:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox Thanks for pointing me to this. I added a comment. You see, I am not a wikipedia pro at all. And I only contribute to things I know. And I think I do not violate any rules of wikipedia like the COI thing you mentioned. Again: I am just a user of those products why I think it is worth, contributing to those articles.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Let me say, then, TheKarpati, that you find yourself in the unenviable position of having an edit history that looks absolutely indistinguishable from someone who has a conflict of interest - that it to say, your editing has the hallmarks of a Single Purpose Account interested in only one thing - in this case, Kerio. Our very long experience of COI editing is that users with edit histories like yours are generally connected to the product or service being edited. You'll forgive me - or not - in harbouring considerable doubt and reservation as to whether you are being completely candid in your responses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Tagishsimon So you would say, when contributing to other articles, even if I do not know at the moment to which, would change the impression? So you basically say, contributing to other articles just for the sake of contributing to others would be helpful, even if my opinion is: better contribute to things you know well instead of contributing to things you are not familiar with? TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) TheKarpati This early edit [6] (the accounts only use of the minor edit flag, used incorrectly as well) about the company (not the product) indicates to me, that your answer above isn't in any way convincing. Editors with a COI must disclose, they can still edit. Note: I've given this editor the COI template so they can read how to disclose any COI they may remember about in future.
Now, TheKarpati have you used any other accounts, or do you know the users of the other accounts that have edited these articles? Widefox; talk 06:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox No I have not used any other accounts. This early edit was just done, because I visited San Francisco/San Jose in that year and I just went to the place of the company, from which I use nearly all products. And I thought, it is nice mentioning them on this Silicon Valley page (San Jose is Silicon Valley, right!?). If this was a mistake, please accept my excuse. TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox So again: No, I have no relationship to this company, except using their products TheKarpati
TheKarpati how do you explain your only non-Kerio edit [7] - which attempted to delete a communication product not from Kerio? Promo edits on Kerio, deletion for an other. According to (what you said above) you only edit what you know/use. Explain? That appears WP:NPOV, COI, and promo / WP:NOTHERE. Why shouldn't we just block your account to protect our content from this - for failing to disclose (also see about violating the TOU here -> WP:TOU), and violating core principles of neutrality and transparency? Widefox; talk 07:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox that was basically a childish reaction after another user nominated a page I created for deletion. Check my contribution history please. As far as I remember, it was after my created page for "Samepage" got the deletion nomination. I was really upset, after spending much time for creating this particular page, that it got deleted, which I could not understand at this point, seeing pages like the "Yammer" page not being deleted. Apologies.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This is getting "curiouser and curiouser". Then why attempt to restore WP:MANUAL material as in this diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Samepage was created by User:Mlovato543. So you're admitting that account is also yours, yes? How many accounts have you used? Widefox; talk 07:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Here [8] a Kerio marketing employee User:Tromele asked if you were also an employee! You only answered that question when I pointed out that you hadn't answered it. Even the Kerio marketing department that has stated it wants these articles created thinks TheKarpati is/was an employee! Widefox; talk 07:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox I remember I created a samepage article I believe not being logged in as a registered user around 2013. Maybe you can check that from the history for articles named "Samepage"? I do not how. My only account here on Wikipedia is TheKarpati. No other account.You may check that by cross-checking the IP?
I personally get more and more the feeling, you are now only searching for reasons for blocking, deleting whatever just for the sake of getting a contributor blocked/locked out from this system. Proof me if I am wrong. But it really looks like a "user hunting game" at the momentTheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just an editor like yourself so I can't view deleted pages. All I can see was it was deleted in 2013 and then recreated (and at least two other editors were involved in the deletion). Admins can view deleted pages. I will ask no further questions, as some of them still haven't been fully answered (see above). Widefox; talk 08:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
WidefoxI really lost the track because of this immense text/answers published already. Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talkcontribs)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TheKarpati editors are not meant to engage in protracted discussions with you per WP:COITALK. Your pattern of editing including trying to !vote more than once at a merge discussion, borderline WP:OWN, overly promo SPA account speaks louder than an absence of disclosure. Widefox; talk 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I nominated Kerio Operator, Kerio Control‎ and Kerio Connect for deletion as I don't believe that they meet general notability guidelines. This will give other editors the chance to determine if they should be listed. Shritwod (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I note that a user calling themselves TheKarpati took it on themselves to post a Kerio promotional video (redacted) - on the same day that TheKarpati was posting some Kerio stuff here. tbh, if Kerio employees lie & lie & lie, it's not much of an advert for their software/service. Major ethics 101 fail. Kerio not to be touched with a bargepole. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Redacted link to an off-Wiki forum. - Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati I'm still waiting. Answer to these above? Widefox; talk 08:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Widefox And I already wrote, that I really lost track.Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talkcontribs)
TheKarpati The evidence that you work at Kerio...? Widefox; talk 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WidefoxWhich I already answered with a No, but I am pretty sure, you will find something else, what you dislike, so the discussion will be endless. Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it... BTW: after thinking again about merge/no merge of the articles into on article I came to the conclusion, that it is maybe a good idea. So everything is in one place instead of several places. TheKarpati 09:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC) --TheKarpati 09:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the two product articles into the company article, and put the company article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerio Technologies (2nd nomination). Enough with these shills. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon Same comment for you: Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it...--TheKarpati 09:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talkcontribs)
TheKarpati it is odd that someone with exactly the same username as you is uploading promotional videos for Kerio on a web site (profile deleted but still visible) and since 2012 you have contributed 248 times and every single time it was on a Kerio related subject. Even trying to assume good faith we can apply the WP:DUCKTEST here and if you were us what conclusion would you come to? Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Domdeparis I partially agree: the fact with the same username on Reddit is odd, but I cannot solve it. The fact with my only contributions to Kerio: I only contributed to this, because I use those products for years now, as I wrote several comments before. Is it mandatory to contribute to other articles too, only for the purpose/sake that others do not get a wrong impression? That would be a pity --TheKarpati 10:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati despite over 4 years of presence as a wikipedia editor you have never been tempted or in the least bit interested in editing a page that doesn't deal with kerio products????? Even if you do not have a COI (tries not to laugh out loud) you have an obsession with this company that verges on the pathological. Yours is a very clearly a WP:SPA Domdeparis (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
TheKarpati "odd, but I cannot solve it" no reasonable person would be convinced by your reply to that. When busted, there's no point keeping up the pretence, is there? The problem with the line that being treated this way means you will go away, is that readers deserve less undisclosed COI/paid editing, not more. Your only non Kerio contribution was to try to delete a rival. It really is shameless. Widefox; talk 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I relisted Kerio Operator at AfD. Widefox; talk 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed block[edit]

ANI, but don't see why we shouldn't gather opinions here. Widefox; talk 12:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Delhi School of Internet Marketing[edit]

This editor has recreated the Delhi School of Internet Marketing page.
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_107#DrankJetter_sockfarm for prior discussion. 220 of Borg 09:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi School of Internet Marketing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It is going to be deleted, so any COI may be somewhat moot. Edwardx (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Obie Scott Wade[edit]

The user name and article name are the same. I notified the user that it is an issue to write an article about themselves, and did not receive a response. It appears that the user predominantly writes about Obie Scott Wade, and the company created by Wade called SheZow, although it has been years since Wade has written about SheZow.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there information that I can gather to help facilitate the review?
This summary, for instance, shows that all but four edits were made to Wade or his company's article:
Article
  • 52 Obie Scott Wade
  • 16 SheZow - Wade's organization
  • 2 Sebastopol, California
  • 2 Guy (given name)
I don't know if it's germane, but there have been a couple of attempts to remove the COI tag here and here by an internet IP user.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think that removing COI warnings is germane on the COI noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Lol, I shouldn't have used "germane" - I meant I don't know how much of it might play into the decision.
For what it's worth, a lot of the content in the article is not cited. I do see 5 articles in HighBeam, some articles that are reliable sources in google news, and what look to be 3 sources that could be used in google books, although 2 of them are snippet views.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what else is needed for this. I haven't been commenting on other items on this page, except in one case, because it's out of my league. Instead I have been working on Articles for deletions as a way of chipping in.
Is there something wrong with this posting? Did I miss a step? Is there something more that is needed that I haven't provided? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
And, another attempt by the IP user to remove the COI tag.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: If you consider the repeated tag removals to be disruptive, which I think is a reasonable position, you can either wait for an admin to see this thread and take action, or bring it up explicitly at WP:ANI or ask for semi protection at WP:RPP. It's unlikely for this level of activity to result in a block IMO. Also, you should consider sending them a warning like {{uw-disruptive1}} - Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I am kind of confused. If standard practice is to allow certain levels of autobiographical editing, who am I to say any differently?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm in kind of a sour mood ... I've come to expect minimum response from the current active admins. There's a lot of self-promotion going on here and not a lot of accountability. The minimum is what I indicated above. If you want to go for more, be my guest. - Brianhe (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. I'm in a disillusioned mood at the moment - and I truly get confused by the processes. I'll let it settle in my mind overnight. Thanks, Brian.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have moved uncited content to the talk page - which was most of it - and tagged the article for clean-up so that reliable secondary sources are used. I will be happy to work with the edits on requested edits. All I'm asking at this point, is: Is it alright for me to post {{Connected contributor}} - or can someone else do it if it should be done by an administrator - for these two users on the talk page. I'll work with any {{request edit}}s. Would that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Since this posting, {{Connected contributor}} has been posted on Talk:Obie Scott Wade and Talk:SheZow for Obie scott wade. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Eric Lux[edit]

Various factors in the behaviour of this editor at this article and that of Gérard Lopez (businessman) lead me to believe that the editor has some connection to the subjects of the articles or the business. These factors include: unexplained removal of content that may be seen at negative (i.e. subsection 'Nightclub incident'), addition of significantly detailed unsourced personal history, use of peacock terms to describe subject's business acumen, and editing history limited almost solely to directors of one company (Genii). Pyrope 18:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and, other than one edit to another biography, it seems that the user has only edited Eric Lux and Gérard Lopez (businessman) articles, according to his edit history.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added the COI tag to Gérard Lopez (businessman). The article has a bunch of unreliable sources and I will see if I can trim them later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Promotion, or useful links?[edit]

I really don't know whether this is a problem, so I am asking here. Peterhoneyman has been adding a large number of wikilinks to J. Alex Halderman.[9] Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If Peterhoneyman is writing about a colleague at University of Michigan, there could be a COI issue. I don't want to go further without knowing if WP:REALNAME affords the privilege. - Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Halderman, whose contributions are mentioned dozens of time in wikipedia, is a leading and prominent expert in cybersecurity of voting systems, a topic that is both timely and long-studied. I threw up a rudimentary page and resolved a number of dangling links to help people looking for information about Halderman. Peterhoneyman (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Peterhoneyman: I noticed you didn't address the purpose of this noticeboard, which is conflict of interest. Could you tell us if you are in fact connected with Halderman in some way, including as colleagues ast the same institution? - Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted all of Peterhoneyman's spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this at IPsec. I think it's stretching COI too far to say that adding valid wikilinks is a problem, particularly when it is to an existing article for an academic. Someone adding links to a branded product might be a problem, but citations are supposed to have all the details, and if Wikipedia has an article on an author, the author should be wikilinked. If a colleague of the author (or even the author themselves) decides to do that, I don't see that we should be concerned. There are many other real COI and promotional editing problems. However, I believe the author field of {{cite web}} should not be wikilinked because that field is used to generate machine readable data. Use the alternative at Template:Cite web#Authors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this at Pwnie Awards since I watch that page; I put back the link to Halderman's article. I have no COI on these topics, and I agree with User:Peterhoneyman that Halderman is a well-respected expert in his field. It makes sense to me that Halderman should have a Wikipedia article with links to it from related articles where he's mentioned. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have no objection to the reverts. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I went through and reverted the ones where he's mentioned in the article text. I didn't revert the citation links - somebody else is welcome to do that if they like; I agree with using the alternative formatting Johnuniq pointed out. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Quarry Hill Creative Center[edit]

I am doing my best to add only information that is true and of general interest. I cannot help being related to the family the article covers but am t trying my best to write true and honest information. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This was originally posted at WT:COI and I have moved it here--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi thank you for your honesty and disclosure. I would say most of what you have edited does not pose a problem with the exception of this last edit.
On August 11-12, 2016, it celebrated what may be its final annual All Night Dance Party, begun in1984 as a birthday party for Joya Lonsdale. Isabella Fiske's daughter. (See Facebook: Invitation to the Party by Katharina Francpise, Summer 2016). Internet rumor states that Eva Us, re Fiske's granddaughter, wishes the party to continue.
As a member of the family it seems inappropriate to be talking about unsubstantiated rumours about yourself or your family...i would strongly suggest that you take this out as it is clearly COI editing and could be construed as promotion for a future event. And BTW facebook is very rarely an appropriate source --Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Capital Float[edit]

According to recent edits, Capital Float is "the pioneer of digital lending in India". This article was discussed in the Smileverse case, archive 88. Editor also is adding questionable material to AuthBridge and probable refspam elsewhere [10]. Looked at as a whole, the account seems to be devoted to COI editing. Brianhe (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of these "digital lending to business" companies.[11] Names include Mahindra Finance, Bajaj Finserv, Capital Float, Religare, SMEBank.in, Mandii.com and ICICI Bank. These seem to have been affiliates of AskMe, which is a unit or brand of Getit Infoservices Private Limited, which is majority owned by Astro All Asia Networks plc. AskMe seems to have come apart.[12] Operations were suspended in August 2016 and a forensic audit started. Neither the Getit nor the Astro article mentions this, and both articles have and "ad" tags. All this indicates that Wikipedia's coverage of India's financial sector needs work. So I added a note at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#India_financial_sector_articles_need_attention. John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

STICLI[edit]

Airport Master (video game) is current being developed by a company named STICLI. Obviously this probably isn't a coincidence. Stikkyy (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've already reported to UAA. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Raul Escribano[edit]

My thanks to User:Marchjuly for mentioning this article on the COI talk page. Evidently the user in question was ordered to create an article for his superior, a prominent general in the U.S. Army! I suggest that this article be carefully monitored, keeping in mind that the poor soldier ordered to create this article is not exactly a free agent. I really feel sorry for the poor guy. I have never heard of a situation like this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Binary options churn continues[edit]

Here's another WP:NOTHERE pumping binary options. Just opening this thread for awareness, not requesting specific action at this time. Unless you want to !vote at the AfD. Brianhe (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Binary options people seem to be using Wikipedia aggressively as a marketing platform. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: hallelujah. The history of Binary option over the past year is pretty dismal. There's a lot of churn from anons, SPAs and socks (not mutually exclusive), but no significant improvement other than Nagle's addition of the Times of Israel exposé in June and some formulae from Parsiad.azimzadeh. In fact the only other apparent GF contributor in the past year may be Limit-theorem. Sorry if I missed someone, but here's relevant diffs that I think make my point: Nagle + Nagle + Parsiad = year net. There were about 200 garbage edits over this time period. I wonder if it's time to consider indefinite semi protection? - Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
One of the directors of Daweda Exchange, Eran Chertok-Gorodezky,[13] was previously the CEO of Ouroboros Derivatives Trading, the company behind AnyOption in Tel Aviv.[14]. AnyOption is on warning lists from securities regulators in Canada and France.[15]. So this looks like it comes from the usual suspects. Voted to delete because there seem to be no non-hype sources. John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Things are looking up. The Israeli Securities Authority finally raided a binary option company and arrested the CEO and six others.[16]. There's a bill in the Knesset to prohibit binary option operations. Right now, it's legal in Israel for these companies to scam people in other countries. Only scamming Israelis is prohibited. This is starting to become politically embarrassing to Israel as a country. John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll certainly monitor this area as best I can. I'm glad you both have technical expertise in this area. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pat Ryan (executive)[edit]

This editor has only edited this article, and their editing is typical of a COI editor. I left them a COI templated message on their talkpage on 23 November. They then stopped editing. On 2 December, they started editing again, but have not responded to the COI message on their talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The user has changed his username to User:TimDolby. For now I am assuming good faith and not thinking it's attempt to conceal a connection. --Drm310 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"SEO Friendly Wikipedia Backlinks" ad[edit]

From an ad for Wiki Editors United:

I am very experienced with Wikipedia and I have an extremely reputed and trusted account with over 40,000 edits. I am a wikipedia editor and all my links are guaranteed for a minimum of 6 months and they will be on wikipedia. It takes much time and effort to get links on wikipedia, especially links that I guarantee for 6 months.

As you may know it is almost impossible to get links into Wikipedia without an extremely trusted and authoritative site and most links get deleted by moderators the next day! With my reputation, authority, and ability to stay under the radar in Wikipedia I am able to get stable long term links.

I will add a link to your site in Wikipedia, on an existing page related to your subject. I will pick the best page allowing for both a high chance of the link sticking as well as maximizing traffic to your site. There are a lot of moderators and editors watching all the content so everything I do has to be thoroughly planned out.

420 successful links placed. 155 customers and counting. 11 years of experience. 98% stick rate.

[17]

Is this a known paid editing company? John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I've come across them before. Will send you an email. SmartSE (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also interested. 11 years is a long time to go unnoticed (if they did as they say). - Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I read this as saying they have 11 years of experience on Wikipedia, not necessarily that they've been running this little commercial enterprise for 11 years. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
That may be correct. Domain creation date: 2015-11-04. First Internet archive copy: 2016-01-17.[18] John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Veri854[edit]

Following my last discussion of his here, Veri854 did not bother explain his actions but had the gall to come write in my userspace (link), as opposed to my talkspace, to tell me to leave "his article" alone (which I did not notice until last week). Following the AfD nomination, because the articles had been salted, he chose to recreate them as two draft articles, thus he can no longer be trusted anymore and needs to be closely watched. Donnie Park (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

His last edit was in October. If he tries this kind of thing again, I'd bring it up at WP:AIV. --Drm310 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
IIRC, one of the draft article was last reviewed and rejected on 25 November. Donnie Park (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nordeus[edit]

Nordeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone like to take a look? I removed some content I thought overly promotional, and left some COI advice on the talk-page. The content has been stuck straight back, with no edit summary. I don't know if the editor has a COI, but it's beginning to look that way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted back to the previous version. Further checking will be needed DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Per (Redacted), the user is indeed working for the company. --Finngall talk 02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Same material re-inserted (and the partially reverted) by another new account (Benoitd) who is apparently another company employee per (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finngall (talkcontribs) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Weiss (journalist)[edit]

Gogetherray who's most likely also IP Editor 72.229.254.252 has been deleting large sections of cited work on Michael Weiss's page. Amounting to page vandalism. It's likely that it is Michael himself and would amount to conflict of interest editing. He has no talk page. The Armchair General (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Gogetherray has edited only Michael_Weiss_(journalist), so that does look like an SPA. I put a COI notice template on User Talk:Gogetherray, which hadn't been done. If they have anything to say about this, they should post here. As to the content, some of the "criticism" sections seem strange. The "self appointed Russia expert who doesn't speak Russian and hasn't lived in Russia" seems to be a valid criticism of a journalist. The business about him traveling to Syria is hard to evaluate. The source for that, a Shia PR site, says "The Brookings Institute and Huffington Post are both US organizations with highly questionable ties and sympathies towards the Salafi-Wahhabi extremist terror network." That seems unlikely. Better cites for criticism would help. This is in a very controversial area with propaganda on both sides, so we're going to have political problems. This may not be COI, just politics. John Nagle (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed that the Gogetherray account has "COI" written all over it, but also that there are BLP red flags fluttering around the article. The "doesn't speak Russian" stuff was especially jarring as well as being unsourced. This article definitely needs a close examination from a BLP standpoint, but I would have preferred it if the subject (assuming that's who it is) had raised the issue in the BLP noticeboard rather than charging in like this. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Some of the sourcing in that article is really inappropriate for a BLP and have removed. Am posting in BLPN to get more eyes on this article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Russia Today says he doesn't speak Russian, but that may not be reliable either.[19] A defense of Weiss not speaking Russian is on Medium.[20] Not a great source either. There are other Weiss-related diatribes from various sources and political positions. There's also Weiss's own Twitter feed, with four updates in the last hour.[21] Probably all we should have is a bare bio article - worked there, did that, wrote this. Otherwise we get into a political mess we can't resolve objectively. I'm thus inclined to let BLP handle this. John Nagle (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely. We need to tread carefully here, given the Russian involvement, and I agree about a bare bio article with every fact sourced. The primary problem is not COI but BLP as I see it. Journalist articles are frequently swamps of self-glorification, but in this case the COI seems in a defensive posture. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Billy Carson[edit]

One user with a suggestive name has created the biographical article Billy Carson as well as articles Pantheon Elite Records, United Family of Anomaly Hunters, and First Class Space Agency for organisations owned or operated by Billy Carson. There doesn't seem to be any massive subterfuge going on, but without wanting to out any editor, this does seem like an undeclared conflict of interest. Lithopsian (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Antony1821 sockring[edit]

sockfarm
targeted articles (sample)

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antony1821 is ongoing. This came across my radar because of some Greek/Cyprus articles on my watchlist from the recent Cypriano/Euclidthalis case. Bringing up at this time to invite more eyes on the articles they are hitting. The group has an additional interest in Asian commercial concerns which I may write more about later if somebody else doesn't bring it up first. Brianhe (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)