Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 114

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Lord Myners

Not an issue for COIN. Please don't report requests for editors here. - Bri (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Hi there, I am trying to work with the community to provide sourced updates to

Lord Myners
' page. It's listed as mid-importance in Peerage and Baronetage but I'm finding it tricky engaging with the editing community. I have a COI in that Lord Myners is the Chairman of the company I work for but am keen to work with someone on building a more complete entry as there's quite a lot of factual (and reference-able) information missing. What are my next steps to making that happen? I've copied it to my sandbox and added in additions with sources throughout to try and make it easy for someone to pick up. Hope you can help me out!

Paul Myners, Baron Myners

Jackedelman (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

Rick Bergman

Not an issue for COIN. Please don't report requests for editors here. - Bri (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Hi, I've posted some suggestions for improving Rick Bergman on the article's Talk page. The proposed updates include infobox improvements, removing a non-notable "Media coverage" section, and replacing primary sources with secondary ones. All the changes are fully detailed and sourced. I have a COI—I work for a communications firm that represents Bergman's employer, Synaptics—so I won't be editing the article myself. I'd be grateful if someone else could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

user:Pklucas

Pklucas is cooperating, other editor indeffed, article cleaned up. - Bri (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

User has been editing sporadically for over a decade, edits often consisting of adding promo info about a NY playwright/producer Paul Lucas eg [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. An article about mr Lucas was created a few days ago by another editor user:Mean Hunter and almost straight away user:Pklucas starts making a few tweaks to it. Frankly I also feel that the article smells like a 'for hire' creation. Could an experfienced editor review this entry & advise user:Pklucas of COI / promo editing rules ( it took me a while to figure out where to post this info. thanks --79.71.3.115 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)-

Thanks for the info. Mean Hunter is obviously an undisclosed paid editor - see the same pattern at E'mund Duke Mareno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was previously at User:Promokingz (edit | [[Talk:User:Promokingz|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I am said user. I have recently received a lot of attention for my play, Trans Scripts, including a high-profile NEA grant, several awards and productions at at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and the American Repertory Theater at Harvard. I have received 35 excellent reviews and I have been featured in American Theatre Magazine, the Boston Globe, the New York Times, Playbill.com and many other media outlets, and my play was just mentioned this month in Elle Magazine in a interview with Eve Ensler. I did ask someone to create an entry for me and tried to include only factual information with references. I did not realize that I was doing anything wrong in doing so. Please advise me as to how to fix this situation, as I respect wikipedia and it is not my intention to generate any misleading or inaccurate content. Respectfully, Paul Lucas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pklucas (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Pklucas (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on Pklucas's talk page with links to the COI policy and plain & simple COI guide. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And it was extremely helpful. Thank you! Pklucas (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. It's nice when these aren't long affairs full of drama. The other editor was indeffed. Will close this case soon if no one objects. - Bri (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Did some cleanup on the unreferenced parts of the article. Waiting a bit for any objection to closure. - Bri (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Gold Crude Research

Article speedily deleted (G5 creation by blocked or banned user). - Bri (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Gold Crude Research, it's now blue, with a PROD and an spa editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And not a viable reliable source in the bunch that I could see that would establish notability. Add in the 99% certainty of undeclared paid editing and this article should go away.
Ravensfire (talk
) 21:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Bilby for taking care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Advertorials from successtory.com point at COI editing

Companies
Executives

successstory.com describes itself as "a platform which is designed to give you exposure, appreciation, recognition and scaled distribution" -- i.e. advertorials and favorable billionaire profiles. Articles using it as a source have a certain flavor of COI editing and should be looked at.

Note that in one article we have a so-called FIRST Award for Responsible Capitalism of dubious notability, appearing in an article visited for a few years by SPA anon editors as well (one of whom is associated with the magazine). This has come up before in attempts to springboard notability.

Bio for exec at same publication was also created by an SPA. - Bri (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I just sent First Magazine Limited to AfD. - Bri (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Triple-S Management Corporation

Also editing the CEO's page

open channel
) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed PROD tag on
open channel
) 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
They are blocked now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:아이엠랩

User indeffed by GorillaWarfare - Bri (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Editor is using user space as a means of promoting a business. They could in some way be related to the buisness it's self. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Userpage was blanked but I also requested complete deletion under
WP:G11. - Bri (talk
) 03:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Yandiya Infrared Heating

Promotional contribs have been deleted. - Bri (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Editor appears to be using their sandbox for advertising?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 03:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox was deleted by admin per my speedy deletion request. - Bri (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Decibel Therapeutics

Clear case of UPE. Editor has repeatedly moved from sandbox to article space, even after being advised of AFC being a better bet. I have trimmed it of most of its cruft, etc, and tagged it. But further eyes on the article as it now stands would be appreciated. —

Imperatrix mundi.
19:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed even more cruft, proposed deletion. - Bri (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Check. Nice one. —
Imperatrix mundi.
09:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OurCrowd

The user in question has a quite obvious COI and keeps adding promotional material to the page in question. Can I et some eyes on the article, please? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The article has a bad PR spin noted by several eds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OurCrowd. The consensus there even by !keep voters was that it needs a purge or rewrite. It's rather odd that the founder's bio is shoehorned in with his father's (a notable rocket scientist). Maybe Unscintillating can explain why this was done? - Bri (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Inlinetext and admin/checkuser corruption

Inlinetext has made some pretty serious accusations at User talk:Inlinetext#April 2017 of admin/checkuser collusion with the Beutler Ink firm. Bringing it up here as it is within the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard purview. Please note I am making zero comments at this time as to the merits of the accusation. If this is way off base, I do not object to this being hatted by another COIN regular. Bri (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Noting that User:Inlinetext has been blocked by ArbCom (not for reasons relating to this thread). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone coming across this first here, I've responded to Inlinetext's charges at AN/I (diff) and at this user's talk page (diff) to note that the charges are untrue, and without even a claim to evidence. At Beutler Ink we always disclose according to WMF's Terms of Use, and we always strive to go above and beyond Wikipedia's guidelines in our client work. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

LiquidHub

Need some help with this article.

Iridescent and I have both attempted to purge promo stuff like "marketing, branding and identity" friendly blogs and CEO interviews recently. But SPAs keep popping up to restore it. Bri (talk
) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I worked over the Herzberg article. didn't make it to the main show above. Another day. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the editors listed above is still uncommunicative yet is editing LiquidHub and in fact de-prodded it. - Bri (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Could someone help me understand the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhuja Sukumaran (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
There's not much about this company in reliable sources. There are database entries in Bloomberg and some PR-generated puff pieces, but not much else. Except for coverage of Sletten v. Liquidhub, where the company was accused of discriminating against a gay male employee.[7]. That was settled and the case dismissed accordingly. Any objections to sending this to AfD for lack of notability? John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
You would get AfD support from me. - Bri (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Kristina Pimenova

This editor has an obvious Conflict of Interest, which they have failed to declare. They are purely here to promote one person, and there's been battlegrounding, forum shopping, all sorts, and I'd like this editor to come clean. See also their contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride and Draft:The Russian Bride. I've asked this editor before if they have a conflict of interest & they've avoided the question. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not avoided the question, I have cleary said that I have no conflict of interest with this topic. If I had, I would have declared it (there is nothing wrong with having a COI, most of us will have several). This is harassment. Lyrda (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
There's no harassment. This is a standard Wikipedia procedure. So you're saying you have absolutely no conflict of interest at all? No connection with her, her family, her employer, the film company? It's a yes-or-no question. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User: Exemplo347 is a single-purpose account whose only interest is to delete as many new articles as possible. Whenever they meet opposition, they become violent and vindictive. And, apparently, a stalker. Desired outcome: user not to bother me with COI accusations again, and to stop following me. Lyrda (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, is that a yes or a no? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
personal attacks. Do you have any connection to the subject of the article, her family, her employer, or an agency which works on behalf of her employer? Do you have any connection with the film company or an organization which works with or for them? BlackcurrantTea (talk
) 06:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, this, is just unacceptable. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Given his
CLUE. John from Idegon (talk
) 02:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IMHO these comments mostly signify that this board is not functioning very well. The slow pace invites bandwagoning and stalking. The original question has been answered four times already, including above in bold. All other users commenting here are off-topic and have been corrected elsewhere. Lyrda (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Meh. The slow pace is just us moving deliberately. Maybe. Anyway, you keep saying you don't have a conflict of interest, but you edit as if you do have a conflict of interest--and then there's this, "My love for Kristina surpasses everything". If that is true, then your love for Kristina also surpasses our policies and guidelines. That's fine, that's what love does, and I would be the last person to object to love (though maybe Magnolia677 has me beat, but it doesn't make for objective Wikipedia editing. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, especially after this I am convinced that this person has no business being here. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Again: stalking, bandwagoning, off-topic. Take it elsewhere, like the talkpage of the article as indicated by policy. Lyrda (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked indef for the undisclosed COI and
    battleground mentality, the editor might be brought into line with policies but this looks like a lost cause as there is no way to resolve the COI.
     — Berean Hunter (talk)
    18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hum TV, again

A few days after their last appearance here, when HumTV123 was blocked (the month after Studiohumtv and HumTVDRAMAEDITIING were blocked), Humtvdramaedit returned to editing. They've made about a dozen edits to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV, one to Meri Dewrani Meri Jithani, and one to Draft:Yeh Dil Muztar Hai. That draft was created by HUMTV123EDITDAY, and is the only edit under that username. Humtv123edit only has one edit, creating Naatak (TV series), which has been edited by HumTVDRAMAEDITIING and Studiohumtv. The three non-blocked users have been notified of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The account names alone amount to a wealth of evidence for
WP:SPI. Seems like an open-and-shut case of block evasion. There's an existing report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Humtv so I might as well just add to it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. As I was writing it up SPI occurred to me, but I was short on time and it was easier just to finish this. Their interest in Pakistani TV leads me to wonder if they're related to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir'khan12. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Economic Sociology and Political Economy

I am not entirely sure how to handle a COI-editor with dynamic single-purpose IPs. The community website economicsociology.org has been spammed in recent months in various articles (see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#economicsociology.org), and recent edits like [8] lack independent sources and use misleading claims to promote the site - this "global online community" does not have 42,000 members from 115 countries (subscribing to a channel or pressing a "like" button does not establish a membership in a formal academic "community") to exaggerate the site's importance. Despite all the fancy buzzwords, the site is a Wordpress blog where the author publishes his articles and serves as his own "editor-in-chief". There is no significant independent coverage of his website and "global community", it is not "notable" and arguably not even relevant in any other encyclopedic content. I have tried to contact the editor at User talk:77.127.10.183 and Talk:Economic sociology, but to no avail. An uninvolved look into this situation (admittedly I am a bit too close to 3RR for comfort) would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I note that the IP addresses all seem to be in the Tel Aviv area and one of the additions [9] was "... founded by an Israeli economic sociologist Oleg Komlik..." This is probably self-sourced and strictly removing such information might dissuade "whoever" is adding it. It's probably too soon to ask for temporary semi-protection at
WP:OWN behavior continues. - Bri (talk
) 17:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I have requested semi-protection for both articles (non-neutral COI editing still ongoing). Not to block any kind of encyclopedic improvements, but to start discussing issues with non-neutral and self-promotional content on talkpages. GermanJoe (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Babbel

I don't have time to deal with this, but maybe someone else wants to. This edit appears to promote the company using poor and selectively quoted sources. The quote "Since the launch of the software in 2008, it has rarely received criticism." is not found in the source. The only good source attached to the claim that it has "1 million active, paying subscribers" actually says that it has 100,000 subscribers. The PC Magazine review lists negatives, but the editor only summarizes the positives. Lots of tabloid spam sources, etc. KateWishing (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd spotted the massive Conflict of Interest edits, and if other editors hadn't commented since I would have reverted it back. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Monica Youn

User Vincentine and various IP addresses (I guess the same user) keep removing a totally valid image from the Monica Youn article by saying something about "unauthorized" image when it is a public domain image and the users only edit that one article. One of the IP users actually said the article was about "me" which makes me Vincentine is Monica Youn and she is treating this article like her resume or something, which is a conflict of interest. Further she threatened me with some lawyer-talk when the image is fine and she should stop removing it and should stop adding unsourced materials to her page. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nesnad, I've notified Vincentine and the two IPs I listed above of this discussion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Paten Hughes

The COI is clear: This is not an autobiography. It is written by a professional third party writer, simply using an affiliated login. The user should be blocked for the username alone since the user is not Paten Hughes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The user has been renamed to Finguerres. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Sent to AfD. Notability is marginal; despite much name-dropping in the article, the article subject is at best marginally notable for uploading videos to Vimeo about her tomato-growing. Reference to Variety did not mention the article subject. John Nagle (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
AfD closed as delete. Done. John Nagle (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Important discussion

Taking place here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TransPerfect

The user Tpt2001 (as well as multiple IPs prior to them, any one of which could be the same individual) has been attempting to remove information about what they term "incorrect legal activites"[10] without stating why they are incorrect. The "Tpt" in their username suggests to me an affiliation with the company(its full name is "Transperfect Translations) and they may feel that removing this information somehow puts the company in a better light. I've inquired about their username but have not gotten a reply. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would add that it was suggested that I come here after I filed a report at the edit warring noticeboard, which resulted in the page being protected. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

IPs are still attempting to remove the information without adequate explanation. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tpt2001 was indeffed with the block summary (Abusing
multiple accounts
) in 2017-03-29. Summary of users (the Removals columns only count removals in the TransPerfect article):
User/IP Removals (2017) Removals (total) Blocking admin Block started Block expiration Duration
Tpt2001 (talk · contribs) 3 3 NeilN (talk · contribs) 201703291802 indefinite Indefinite
38.121.133.2 (talk · contribs) 4 12 Widr (talk · contribs) 201703102312 201703112312 24 hours
98.175.245.172 (talk · contribs) 2 2 NeilN (talk · contribs) 201703291802 201703310102 31 hours
109.231.230.2 (talk · contribs) 5 9 Widr (talk · contribs) 201703271525 201706271525 3 months
Total (3 IPs, 1 account) 12 26 - - - -

The user used 3 IPs. Feel free to reply with additional user/IP reports. All times are in UTC. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Viktor O. Ledenyov

Viktor O. Ledenyov has been adding references to a book he wrote for some time. Some example diffs [11] [12] [13] [14]. Note that this book was published by

MrOllie (talk
) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldnt say you're out of line, you've been acting in line with site norms as I understand them. Except in the specific case of Capital Markets, I think it's the right thing to remove the source. For Capital Markets though, the Ledenyov source is needed to support the information in the 'Forecasting and analyses' section. I.e. The FT & Wilmott sources do not fully support the claims made in the section. Accordingly, I'll be restoring the source, as otherwise the articled has uncited information, some might say deceptively so, and arguably is violating WP:OR. (While Viktor was the one who first added the source to the article, it was me who added his book to the Forecasting section. I am the author of about 90% of the article. I used to work in investment banks, but not for over 10 years, I have no COI with the subject now, and don't know Viktor except for from wikipedia.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It is placed among two other references, so if it is needed for some particular statement in that section it should be moved to that statement - second, this is a not a book published by a company with a reputation for editorial control or fact checking (in fact they have a reputation for being a content mill who publishes manuscripts with numerous errors), so I am concerned that this is not a reliable source. -
MrOllie (talk
) 10:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Citizens United (organization)

Concerns are self-evident, and edits by the organization's self-professed executive vice president require scrutiny. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Note also the user has written a long statement on my talk page confirming his or her conflict.
Dyrnych (talk
) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The editor was reverted and indeffed for its username. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Pico Far East Holdings Limited

Both Ryansing131 and 218.103.57.11 are

wp:SPAs
and have only edited Pico Far East Holdings Limited. Ryansing131 created the article. The IP seems to be Ryansing131 logged out.

  • The article appears rather promotional, almost a vanity page.
  • This image, apparently of the company staff: File:PicoGlobalGP.jpg was added and removed twice 1 2.

Jim1138 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor tagging disclosed conflict articles

Hi everyone, sorry to bother the good folks here at COIN but this seemed like the most relevant place to ask: an editor has tagged up a few of the articles where I have made clearly disclosed contributions as a paid editor, with a warning template saying the article has been substantially edited in return for undisclosed payments. This editor–Pinkchaddigulz–created their account on the 9th and since then has mostly focused on adding these tags to articles.

As I've made my disclosure clear in each case, did not edit directly etc. what's the best approach to challenge these tags? Would an editor here be able to take a look?

FWIW, since I work with User:WWB Too, I'm guessing this tagging is not random and is related to the recent interactions he had with Inlinetext and accusations against our firm (see above), though neither of us have any connection to the others (Pancyadams and Kaldari) from Pinkchaddigurlz contributions. Thanks in advance to anyone who can look into this. Of course, I'm open to any feedback on how to better disclose and ensure I'm following the ToU to a t. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 16912 Rhiannon,
  • Paid COI is disclosed on the talk page. I have reverted their first, not their second edit.[15]
  • COI is disclosed on talk page. I have reverted the edit.[16]
  • I have also reverted this edit[17] as that too had paid COI disclosure on talk page. Luther Blissetts (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:LutherBlissetts, but it looks like they reverted you and added back the templates in each case and have now added one to Pierre Nanterme, too (as well as to Thunderbird School of Global Management where a former colleague disclosed their COI). Any ideas? Again, I'm totally happy to disclose however is needed and have tried my best to be crystal clear about my COI to date, so I'm at a loss here. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
All three reverts have been reverted, which adds back the templates.
The reasons they give are confusing. They clearly haven't read the talk page COI notices properly.
Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi 16912 Rhiannon, I reverted their reverts and left a message for them on their talk page. I have only addressed the three edits which directly relate to you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! Hopefully they'll look a bit closer before tagging anything again... Could I trouble you to take a peek at Pierre Nanterme, too? I have been involved on that page and as always did disclose. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The aforementioned WWB Too here. Luther Blissetts, thanks for assisting my colleague on this matter. I'd like to add one more: the same user has tagged New Media Strategies, which I created (also disclosing my work) nearly ten years ago, using a different account from when I was an employee of that firm, NMS Bill. If you could review and consider reverting this change as well, I'd be very grateful. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:WWB Too, I notice there's no COI PAID on the talk page for New Media Strategies. Do you think one should be applied? It might make it easier to remove the {{undisclosed paid}} template, and help other editors should it ever reappear. Luther Blissetts (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:WWB Too, I have added a {{connected contributor}} template and a {{COI editnotice}} to the page New Media Strategies. Now that the declaration is prominent, I will be able to remove the {{undeclared paid}} template. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @16912 Rhiannon and WWB Too:, the case has gone to ANI. Luther Blissetts (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. Thanks for the update and again, really appreciate you looking into this. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed response, as I've been traveling. And thanks for adding the template to the New Media Strategies page, Luther. Being this was a decade ago, the template was not yet established as standard procedure. I appreciate you making this update. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome 16912 Rhiannon and WWB Too, you're welcome. That user has been banned, which is, I think, the best outcome. If they're a grudge-bearer, they may resurface again in the future with similar behaviour, so while the addition of a COI won't deter future missionary vandals, it will at least reassure anyone reading the talk page today of BI's transparency in these matters (to be commended!). Luther Blissetts (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mather Group PR firm

articles

velut luna
16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

So many possibilities as to what article they are trying to create, they appear to be a Chicago based retirement/investment company. - Bri (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Chicago-based retirement/investment company? The domain for the email address on the talk page is "a Digital Marketing Agency that uses the latest marketing tactics." I wonder what their answer will be. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oops I was looking at another org with similar name (themathergroup.com). - Bri (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, Jen Sinkler is listed on Mather LLC's testimonials page [18] where they claim they "got the whole [Wikipedia article] done incredibly quickly". The creator was Jgreene1333, a blocked sock. - Bri (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, indeed. I wonder how many pages were created by all those socks. Quite a coincidence that the sock's username starts with Jgreene and Josh Greene is the founder of Mather. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think we don't have to be coy anymore. Because they sure aren't coy about manipulating Wikipedia for SEO [19] and "defending" client articles from the "trigger-happy Wikipedia community". Added one more advertised client's article, SPA creator.
Zippy Shell, repeatedly recreated, is also listed as a Mather client and is personally connected to firm's exec. The only keep !vote at Zippy Shell AfD with a legible rationale was cast by a sock of Nmwalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Added Mather clients
CustomInk, Urgent.ly and 1-800-Pack-Rat recreated as 1-800-PACK-RAT - Bri (talk
) 17:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental justice edits from UC Berkeley

I'll try to make this as neutral as I can. There is currently a UC Berkeley class, with Wikipedia assignments concerning "the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency". Several editors have expressed concerns about it; I am one of the concerned. Details at ANI and Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents/Archive 6#NPOV problem. Have listed just one article that I was involved in thru which I found the class. Train2104 has compiled a fuller list of over two dozen problematic articles. Bri (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I have been requested not to edit [20] after I declared my COI in this diff [21] I suggested that others should edit concerning an important development, as I recognised the COI. After a few days I made a non controversial edit that included some of that information and Luther Blissetts (talk), requested me not to edit in this diff which I took as a de facto ban. [22] I am not an experienced editor. I would have thought an admonishment would have been proportionate. Is it a ‘campaign’ or a COI to expect that reliable sources are used and that information is sensibly displayed? On 27 Mar, administrator Sarah SV contacted me. The result of this discussion [23] was that she suggested that I do not edit the article in this diff [24] This refers to allegations that have no foundation, and I have not seen what has been stated about me. One editor is an avowed ‘anti’ person who has previously expressed annoyance (off Wiki) that the HF in the UK page contains verifiable facts. He would dearly love to sabotage the article. There are many aspects of the ‘anti’ movement that fill all the requirements of pseudoscience. The HF in the UK page should avoid that and present reliable information about regulation and practice. I have updated my talk page with a discussion of my supposed ‘activism’ and have declared matters where I have had an input, and stated that I will not edit anything to do with these matters. See ‘Is editing based on established science and regulation a POV?’ on [25] There is a big difference between advocating something (I do not promote the industry) and presenting reliable facts in an NPOV way (which I do). I have been complimented by several editors for constructive edits, and learned from constructive comments. See [26], [27], [28], However when editor Luther Blissetts commented this newbie did not get the required support. [29] This indicated that I should declare a COI. I read the COI page and did not think that applied, as it states ‘That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity.’ I have no financial inducement to edit. I am a retired and financially independent oil engineer that wants to present HF in the UK accurately. The accusation that I am/was an editor on ‘Backing Fracking’ Facebook page is false, although I frequently debunk myths on this and other social media. (I have declared admin on another little used FB page. I resigned some time ago as I realised this could be taken as COI) We have a situation where I no longer can edit, and neither can experienced Wikipedian [User:Plazak] after some issue of citogenesis, and the others Mikenorton, Beagel, Martin Hogbin no longer contribute, I assume because any comment made results in an extended unpleasant exchange. See this discussion, where one editor browbeat the opinions of others over an irrelevant change to the lead. [30] I also raised concerns about [WP:CIVIL] in this discussion [31] There are hundreds of edits a month. Is this [WP:DE] ? Should one editor [WP:OWN] an article? That is the case at present. There is much more to write about the conduct of one editor but I will stick to the COI issue at present. The editor in question is Luther Blissetts Kennywpara (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you SmartSE for alerting me to this discussion. Kennywpara's COI has already been discussed extensively, and admin SarahSV has advised Kennywpara to use the talk page to suggest edits to the affected page, Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom page from now on. A {{connected contributor}} for two editors and {{COI editnotice}} have been placed on the talk pages. The page Shale gas in the United Kingdom is being updated with material moved from the Hydraulic fracturing in the UK page that belongs there (as per extensive talk page discussion going back to 2014) and I consider that page to also be a part of COI for both Kennywpara and Fyldeman. I'm not sure what further input I can make to this discussion that hasn't already been said. Luther Blissetts (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Further information on this matter:
Admin SarahSV wrote on 28 March 2017:

Hi Kenny, thanks for the response (here and on the talk page) and for explaining that you have no financial COI. I'm replying here because this concerns you rather than the article. The COI guideline includes a section on off-wiki activism, WP:COICAMPAIGN: "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest."

For example, you apparently made a real-life formal complaint about a professional, who you then criticized on the talk page. That violated COI and BLP. Another editor has posted that you run a Facebook page about the topic. It's also clear from your edits that you're what we call a single-purpose account, here to focus on one point of view about one topic, rather than helping to build an encyclopaedia.

It would probably be better for that article if those involved in real-life campaigns (on either side) would stick to the talk page or leave the topic alone altogether. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The other editor 'involved in real-life campaigns (on the other side)' who has a COI, and who has declared that they have a COI for this topic is Fyldeman, who I will now inform of this discussion at COIN. Luther Blissetts (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Luther Blissetts. I have accepted that my obvious COI means that I should not edit the "Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom" page directly and cannot understand why Kennywpara does not do the same. We are both "activists" on different sides of the argument and frequently cross metaphorical swords on social media and occasionally in real life. I run a Facebook page opposing shale gas and he is documented to have run one supporting it. He has admitted this on his Talk page. I would have thought that Wiki rules were clear on this issue, and it seems that he has also received clear advice from an Admin. I'm not sure why he persists in claiming that he is a special case here. Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed
Talk:Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom(which I understood to also include this page most recently edited). Luther Blissetts (talk
) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added COI's for
List of additives for hydraulic fracturing pages. Luther Blissetts (talk
) 13:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that the COI issue that I am supposed to have has been misrepresented, and would like SarahSV (talk) @SlimVirgin: @LutherBlissetts: to review here initial request that I do not edit the HF in the UK page. I have made a limited COI declaration in my talk page [34] where I undertake not to edit anything in HF in the UK related to matters I have been involved in. In fact I declared it in my initial post here [35]. I reported this matter to the COI noticeboard, as I feel that the initial request from [User:Slimvirgin] was based on incomplete information. [36]
COI and ‘campaign’ issues seem irrelevant when the sum total of my off wiki activity has been to debunk false science. Is it ‘promoting’ an industry? I can see why it could be interpreted as that. Regarding the issue of [WP:SPA], I note
‘The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. ‘’’However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.’’’ ‘
I have acquired a good independent knowledge of fracking that has enabled me to edit at a suitable technical level. Much of this has been because of the debunking of fake science that I have done. My talk page [37] shows that I have learned over the 3 years that I have been editing. I simply do not have enough technical knowledge in any other area to provide meaningful input. This is a specialised engineering area after all! I would prefer that editing on specialist areas should be done by suitably knowledgeable people.
My other supposed breaches of sockpuppetry have been covered. Basically an inexperienced editor who didn’t know he was doing wrong regarding uploading images, and I acknowledged that point. See [38] So why is an editor referring to this again in current discussion? See [39] This breaches many Wiki protocols, [WP:BITE] [WP:AGF] It was the same for [WP:BLP], where I apologised for an inadvertent breach of policy.
Now I see that LB has again used inappropriate language and is insisting that I do not edit a different article. I accept that a COI has been requested and I respect that. The page I edited is the one that should be the direct link to the ‘Fracture Fluids’ and I was going to edit the talk page to suggest that link be inserted. Currently the link is [40] a US based site that is irrelevant in the UK system. Changing the link to [41] will take the reader straight there. It’s the type of thing I referred to to here. [42] The edit (US data to US chemicals as a section, and UK data to UK chemicals) was uncontroversial. The deleted data involved matters that are not related to chemical usage, and had dead links. The ‘citation needed’ info was the same link as used on the HF in the UK page, with the direct quote. None of this is controversial. Please stop trying to attribute bad intent to matters that should be simple. If people want to see the regulatory position with regard to chems in the UK a simple click should provide that. I was following the Wiki advice [43] Is the edit controversial? My judgement is no, and I was going to refer you to it this evening but you beat me to it. I also have concerns about some of the recent edits and was going to make positive suggestions, links, and the like in the next couple of days. It may surprise editor LB but I want this to be a properly sourced encyclopedia page with working links and the like. Was it ever a 'campaign' article? Not according to the bulk of comments that appear on my talkpage. Nobody [WP:OWNS] this article Kennywpara (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I am mystified as to why Kennywpara continues to maintain here that his COI is in some way so limited that it doesn't matter. We are both vocal and public advocates on different sides of the fracking / hydraulic fracturing debate and I see his input every single day. I also know which pro-fracking social media groups he contributes to and has been admin of, and which pro-fracking websites he provides pro-fracking content to. I can't detail these here due to WP:OUT (and the dire warnings at the top of this page) but if any other admin needs to see what they are then I will happily oblige. Once again I would state that I acknowledge that my own COI means I should stay away from direct edits. I fail to see why Kennywpara cannot see this too. It seems to me that "the lady doth protest too much". Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) you should be able to confirm that the vast bulk of what I post (and I did declare that I post on social media) relates to providing science and evidence based material to people who do not seem to have much of a clue about what they are worried about. Wiki should be based on reliable science and evidence. Perhaps your website could adopt some of that? Kennywpara (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kennywpara. No I'm afraid I can't do that. Perhaps you could list any Facebook groups that you have ever been admin of, and any websites to which you have provided content, here to help the Wiki admins judge whether you are in fact an activist supporter in just the same way that I am an activist opposer. I accept that I shouldn't edit the articles directly, and I am very surprised that you don't as well. Maybe a list as suggested would help resolve this matter for the admins? Fyldeman - editor/author of the anti-fracking Refracktion website (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

user:jeh

I'd appreciate people who are good at evaluating these things to take a look at User:Jeh#COI disclosure and let me know if I'm within the green lines, so to speak. Jeh (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the noticeboard, and thanks for asking. Advice for expert editors point #6 is probably applicable. As you noted, transient relationships don't necessarily cause a lasting COI, but you do have to take some precautions. Making your position transparent, as you have done, is a good step. - Bri (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sofitel, again

Sofitel has been an ongoing problem article, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#Sofitel Luxury Hotels for background. Problematic and promotional edits have resumed and more eyes are needed. - Bri (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mean as custard for the cleanup. We still haven't heard yea or nay from Segmentluxe in response to my paid editing query and followup reminder, though they continued to modify the article after I placed it. - Bri (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Passion1000 and Top10Cinema

Passion1000 appears to have some affiliation with the website Top10Cinema, as evidenced by the fact that he adds it to almost every article he edits (courtesy). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kailash29792 (talk), Would like to confirm that, I do not have any affiliation with the website Top10Cinema. I'm quoting that website because I guess many wikipedians have used the references from all other websites and very few are quoting Top10Cinema. Whenever I have an oppurtunity, I have used other websites too. Thanks. Passion1000 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Okay then, I'll drop this discussion. But I think it is less often used because it's credibility is questionable. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

John Basedow

WeGoLook

The article was largely written by a

WP:PAID (undisclosed paid editing). I have explained my actions, but after finding out about the ANEW-report, I felt it was time to file a report here, since this implies TSG thinks they get get their way by harassing other users. Kleuske (talk
) 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely by Huon, article AfD'd. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Tom Parker (darts player)

Probably a one-shot account to edit his own wiki article. MikeTango (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I posted the standard COI policy notice on the user's talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3 cleanup

I listed this editor and some commercial articles as a concern at COIN in mid 2015. Lately he was blocked for socking. A deeper look might be a good idea to see if there's cleanup required. - Bri (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect

I reported this article at ANI because of a possible legal threat but I think editors here should be aware of it too. There's been a flurry of edits by what appear to be involved editors --- both pro and con --- at both of these articles, the Anne Frank article and the article on its director. Note this edit by a self-described connected party. I saw this article referenced off-wiki so there may be further such activity. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, Khowar Academy, Chitral Vision



Most of the socks/meats were blocked in the first case for trying to manipulate AfDs. COI has continued...I've indef-blocked an account today that definitely has a COI. Requesting assistance identifying and cleaning up promotion.

  • As an example, this template ostensibly pushes someone's keyboard invention and their academy to the forefront. Also, take a look at Portal:Khowar and notice the Featured article section...I see the above articles and they have been "Featured" for a long time. Looks like promotion to me but I'll let you decide.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I have blocked the head/admin of a new(?) wiki that states that he has an affiliation with the WMF. See this. And a list with many puppets helped approve this project at Meta. @MF-Warburg: Please review the above and advise.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
      • The situation is this: The m:language committee, of which I am a member, had previously approved the creation of Khowar Wikipedia, based on an apparently large number of editors editing in that language on Incubator. Some dubious things, e.g. about the alphabet they use and about them all being linked to the "Khowar Academy", led us to request a checkuser of the editors. The result was that Rachitrali, Zaheeruddin25, Mirajbibi, Abdulqayyumfsc, Cataloguers786, Agbiyani, Balimkhot, Chetraro.hawaz, Akbaralighazi, Fidaaliadif, Hafiznoorahmadsialvi, Amjad Mehmoodfsc, Khowaracademy and Zahid Mehmood 786 are the same person, based on the Incubator data. The approval was then rescinded. - It might be good to have them checkusered here as well and to block them, if the check has the same result. I am unable to say whether the 3 articles you listed meet any notability criteria, but it would probably be good to rigorously remove everything that is merely a self-promotion from Rachitrali / one of his socks. --MF-W 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Is Khowar Academy a flat-out hoax? Bri (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much MF-W and that certainly does help. I've listed the accounts that you have added to the SPI case. There is no need to checkuser most of them as they don't have activity or are stale. The one that I blocked today may have other accounts but I'll leave that up to the CUs. Uncertain if it is a hoax or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Sent Khowar Academy to AfD. This is the third AfD; #1 ended as Delete, but the article was re-created. #2 ended as no consensus, due to few votes. John Nagle (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

CasajeL

Editor is using their userspace for self-promotion, as seen here. Username suggests a clear conflict of interest. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@
WP:U5 and leave a followup note like this on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Whopper

Pretty blatant abuse of Wikipedia by a large well known company. Has made the national news e.g. [47], [48]

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You missed Burger King Corporation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)! SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What outcome are you seeking? The accounts named above are already blocked. ValarianB (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Community ban of the entire company - it's the company who decided to do this and meatpuppetted their advert into the article. They knew they were deceiving the public ahead of time and admitted it in the press. And broke the terms of use. I'll likely come back to this after the holiday, but if you want to take it forward now, please do. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
But what does that mean? Rangeblock the IP addresses of BK's corporate headquarters? ValarianB (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Christ, lets have a laugh about this and move on shall we? I only can imagine the headlines if we responded by banning the entirety of Burger King; talk about blowing things out of proportion. Sam Walton (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree that it's out of proportion. This was a coordinated corporate effort to abuse Wikipedia; responding at the corporate level is appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
How about we think of more productive ways to use the publicity? What about, and this is far from the only option, an open letter to Burger King about Wikipedia's rules and guidance for companies, that could also be published as a blog post or something and might get picked up by media? Seems like a more reasonable response than enacting an unenforceable ban on an entire company for a handful edits. Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so eager to find an excuse not to have them blocked. Blocking them does not prevent any other action. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying they shouldn't be blocked - the accounts are already blocked. This is about community banning the whole company. Sam Walton (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
How about merging Whopper into Burger King products? The products article is much more encyclopedic than the single-product article. John Nagle (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea but not a COI issue. It should be pursued through the normal merge discussion process (which allows for bold edits of course). And we will probably need to semi-protect some more pages to allow that process to proceed unhindered, but cross that bridge when we come to it. Andrewa (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea... others? Andrewa (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

How about grassroots action

I think that some grassroots action might be useful here, perhaps off-wiki and even off-Internet.

Wikipedia has great public cred and deservedly so, and I think the smart money would be that they've made a serious mistake and will eventually apologise. Softly softly of course. Nothing abusive or illegal. Make some fun of it. T-shirts with "Vive Wikipedia" on the back and "BK you make me sick" on the front? That sort of thing. Or if "BK..." is too chancey, just "Back to pizza". And let the public work it out. They will.

The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" is generally true, but it has exceptions just like "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" turned out to have. (Just ask United for example.) Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would someone please close this? Corporation makes a dumb decision. If anyone thinks anything we could do at this level will affect them, you are seriously mistaken. This is and always will be the Foundation's problem, not ours. So how about let's all go work on some articles, eh? John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Not me. Everything doesn't have to get kicked up to WMF. - Bri (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been searching for a Big Kahuna burger without luck. -Roxy the dog. bark 06:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with most of that. But the most important thing IMO is that we don't compromise our content in retaliation, and some other suggestions above seem to at least border on this. There seems a desire to do something at this level. I'm trying to point out that there are alternatives.
And we may not need to do anything. Grassroots reactions tend to just organise themselves.
It would be good to see a reaction from the Foundation IMO... or has there been one and I've missed it? Has anyone raised it via the appropriate channels? Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, in a few weeks we'll have an article on

reliable secondary sources. This may be a start, assuming The Verge
is accepted as a scource (I can't see why not).

For any interested who have not found it, Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 is recommended reading.

For Australians (disclosure: I am one) this incident probably comes as no surprise, see Hungry Jack's#2002 to present for just how successful (not) the Burger King management has been in making its brand name a selling point in Oz. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Open letter

I think the above idea of an open letter is very good and does not preclude any other action. I've written a draft at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter and will be polishing it over the next half-hour or so. I believe this letter requires quick action and apologize for my unavailability over the weekend.

Pinging @

Slim Virgin, Roxy the dog, and Doc James
:

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

By all means, but I really think that something this blatant is a Foundation issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse the multiple pings, but I think this is time sensitive @BlackcurrantTea and Nagle:
I wasn't thinking of going quite this harshly with the letter - especially not adding in 'demands'. Simply an explanation of Wikipedia's rules around paid/COI editing, that we wish they hadn't done this because [insert reasons], and that we hope they won't do it again. Pinging Ed Erhart who might be interested in putting something on the blog or another suitable location. Sam Walton (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The only demands are based on the terms of use requirement that paid editors disclose their paid edits (and for a general apology). I don't think we should go around asking "would you follow our ToU, pretty please?" If you feel that we should then please don't sign the open letter. If there's a claim that Burger King marketing and legal didn't know about our rules or the laws involved in a very aggressive million dollar advertising campaign, then that is only worse (for business people) - a case of total incompetence. Did you notice on the Burger King navigation template that there are 36 articles about BK's business, plus another 35 related articles. I believe that they know about our rules and choose to ignore them, or are totally incompetent. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be a way to educated the wider public regarding how WP works when it comes to paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; my request was just that we go with an educational rather than accusatory/hostile tone. Sam Walton (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the letter is an excellent idea and that you've made a good start, but I'd like to suggest a different direction. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter. I'd also like to say, I think time is on our side. We should not rush this. Reverting the inappropriate material was urgent. Reacting to it is not. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is absolutely lunatic, and on some level, is giving them exactly what they want.
On the first point, at most you'll get 100 psenonymous editors to sign on. How will that impact Burger King in any way?
On the second point, it might generate press coverage, which it's my guess is the intent. All that will accomplish is to keep this bullshit in the news. That gives Burger King exactly what they want, namely publicity.
One last point: although we all feel we have an ownership stake here, we don't actually have that. This website clearly belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation, not the editors. Quit deluding yourself and drop it. Our job here is to write articles and to a lesser extent, police ourselves. This has nothing to do with creating articles and the self - policing function has already been handled. Let the Foundation protect its brand and go write an article, not a self serving letter. John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I've seen this argument many times lately and it vexes me: that the WMF alone has a stake in what goes on when it comes to Wikipedia and its public image. I couldn't disagree more. Don't conflate the WMF and its ownership of brands and servers with the Wikipedia community and its own intertwined, but separate and legitimate, interests. - Bri (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with most of this.
Most important, Wikipedia belongs to the community. WMF is responsible to that community for the stewardship of the website and other resources.
How will it affect Burger King (henceforth BK)? Impossible to tell. But our aim is not to punish them, it's to protect Wikipedia. I think that just publishing these open letters (they are already on the web for all to see) is a good start.
Of course I particularly like my rather shorter and simpler version. The problem is, I'm assuming that others think like me. We all do. (See how to reveal yourself without really trying.)
I think the smart money is on BK already regretting what they've started here. But I could be wrong. They could do very well out of it.
But that's not the bottom line. There have been suggestions (see that one-edit IP above for example) that Wikipedia has performed badly in responding. I think we're doing well! Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know Advertising Age and Marketing Dive have reported on the open letter and given their audience - marketing people - some good info on our rules. So far, I think the situation has changed from "Gee, anybody can put any garbage they want on Wikipedia and nobody will even say a word," to marketing people knowing "Of course people object to this nonsense - there are rules against it." So a small Wiki-win so far. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And Campaign a marketing or PR site in the UK has a short article that was reprinted by PRWeek a US site for PR professionals. We're hitting one of the target audiences! Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Somebody else started a list at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter so I'll just list 3 more here and update a master list there if more come in
Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Emotions Anonymous

A representative from the leadership of Emotions Anonymous is making edits to the Emotions Anonymous article. This user identifies themselves as User:Emotions Anonymous -Scarpy (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Any account that is clearly a
WP:UAA. It'll get blocked per the username policy fast enough. --Drm310 🍁 (talk
) 02:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The user is soft blocked. I cleaned up the COI contribs from the article.- Bri (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Idaho State Department of Agriculture

A user who may be from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, given their user name, has been editing Agriculture in Idaho without making a clear disclosure of affiliation. After I placed the welcomecoi template on the page and suggested the user read policies on COI, a new editor with a similar name started editing. As the new user name does not have as clear a connection to the ISDA, I am not sure if another COI notice is in order, or a checkuser / warning about multiple accounts. Dialectric (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ISDA Chelsea. - Bri (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Wiki Chelsea 2017 was indeffed, the other Chelsea account got a 24 hour block (which has expired) and they were advised by admin NinjaRobotPirate to respond here. - Bri (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Messymarv

Editor is continually editing Messy Marv adding own material[49][50][51][52][53], despite being warned of a conflict of interest[54]. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Meat? farm UPE /promoting an individual

Sock/meat farm here I suspect. Clear UPE. The oldest account is Anuj Parikh (Created 3 April 2017 at 23:20), with Rakesh Ranpura (Created 20 April 2017 at 22:40), and Parikhanuj1 (20 April 2017 at 20:47). They have all created puff-pages for one Chintan Bhagat (redlinked above in case it moves to Aspace):

semper crescis, aut decrescis
07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

ReliefWeb

WP:COI by Wiae, who also removed some promotional content, later restored by Clarawegenast. Can I please get some eyes on the article to confirm that I'm not being paranoid? Thanks. Kleuske (talk
) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is worth adding Biratl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? They have also contributed solely to the articles on ReliefWeb and its parent organization, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and have just returned to post on the ReliefWeb talk page. They've also contributed File:ReliefWeb Logo.svg to Commons. /wiae /tlk 12:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering about starting an SPI for those two. Their fields of interest seem to match quite closely. Kleuske (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Weinberger

I've just undone a complete over-write of this article, done in good faith in response to a properly-presented edit request from a declared paid editor. I think everyone has stayed fully within the guidelines and I'm not naming any names here. But I would appreciate other views or comment on the article, the proposed rewrite and my own actions. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Earnest James Ujaama

The Intercept just published an article that appears to make a COI allegation regarding this article. I am merely relaying this story for your consideration; I'm not really interested in investigating this myself and will remain neutral on any decision made here. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The article reeks of COI and reads like an ego-document. Also "This author is in possession of all court transcripts, sentencing memorandums, and primary documents related to United States vs. Earnest James Ujaama, SDNY 04 CR 356 KBR. Most of these are filed under seal. At times, I have referenced a few of these documents throughout. Most of what is found on the Internet is piece-meal journalism, speculation or theory, and is outdated"
It isn't badly written, but as an encyclopedic article it needs
WP:TNT, if only for the verbatim transcripts, editorializing and BLP-issues. The accusation in the Intercept sounds pretty plausible to me. Kleuske (talk
) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
<digging>
Three major contributors to the article are SPA's:
I'm not saying that is Ujaama, but the coincidence is striking. Kleuske (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
<more digging>
The Commons contributions of Semaj247 are also interesting. The only upload to survive is a diploma for Earnest James Ujaama File:MAED degree.png, but here Semaj 247 claims copyrights to a photo he uploaded belongs to Ujaama's mother. In the next message Semaj claims: "If anyone owns the copyright, it is me. These images were stolen hacked from the subjects website and they still belong to him. Regarding the photos of the books, I took them myself with permission from the copyright owner, the subject.". A bit later he writes: "I am the only person who has the authorization to release this information that cannot be obtained from any other source which is of huge benefit to those who wish to know more about the subject, Earnest Ujaama"
So if Semaj isn't Ujaama, which is possible, Semaj is at the very least closely connected to him. Connected enough to claim copyrights w/o Ujaama's protest. Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
And spell the user name (Semaj) backwards, James, which is the subject's middle name. Concur this strongly feels like COI editing by the subject. The further notes section in the article and the article talk page have massive
Ravensfire (talk
) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jim Naymu

This article and this editor came up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 90. I feel like it's nearly the point that trouble could happen if I just keep removing his contributions. Could some other folks have a look? Bri (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Darcey Bussell, John Crittle

Soulac17 has repeatedly removed cited content and replaced it with other content, which does not reflect the citations, including The Guardian. One edit summary in particular suggests that they may have a conflict of interest, for Darcey Bussell, "Birth certificate authenticated by mother". User has ignored talkpage messages. Such editors normally give up and go away, but this one seems persistent. Edwardx (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Soulac17 is holding herself out as Bussell's mother, based on the edit summary of this edit. I have advised her about the verifiability policy and the need for published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Knowledge Academy

Pmguru has reverted back to a promotional version of this article eleven times in the last few months including six times in the last week. Given that they're a single purpose account and they've removed negative content it seems very likely that they have a conflict of interest. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

and it continues... @JzG and Doc James: care to take a look? SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Reverted to the last stable version and fully protected for a month. People need to get consensus on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

IdentityMind Global

I've just reverted an edit to this page (which is on my watchlist for some reason) for removing text and adding a promotional tone. Looking at the page history, however, a number of editors identifying as affiliated with the company have edited the page. I wonder if someone more comfortable with COI and NPOV issues might be willing to take a look at the article? Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ocean Medallion, Medallion Class Ocean Vacations, etc

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

Oddly enough the phrase in
Ocean Medallion about seamless vacation experiences is also found in this company brochure
. It's not unusual for COI articles also to be plagued with copyvios. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than just that passage.
Medallion Class Ocean Vacations has also copied "the world's first interactive guest experience platform" from a corporate press release . Also lots of copying from Venturebeat, according to Earwig's copyvio detector. - Bri (talk
) 17:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've done some copyvio cleanup on these. The first two have been redirected and need
WP:RD1. I'm tempted to bundle the other four and send them to AfD, thoughts? — JJMC89 (T·C
) 02:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You've done a great job, JJMC89. However, I've nominated Good Spirits for speedy deletion as G11/G12 – it's essentially still just a copy of the company's publicity materials, with four non-independent sources. For the others, I don't know whether deletion or redirection is really the better option – redirect and revdelete would probably be the most straightforward solution if there's consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems to have been redirected. Promotional editing from Carnival Cruise Lines has been a problem in the past, especially in 2013, when they had a really bad year with four major accidents, including the Costa Concordia disaster.[55]. There's an article for each Carnival ship, which is a bit much. Maersk doesn't have that, and they're a larger ship operator. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Polisport Group

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

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

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

They make third-party plastic parts for motorcycles. 250 employees. In business about 35 years. Not to be confused with Polisport in Italy [56] which operates stadiums and leisure centers. Nothing in Google News other than some PR. Nothing in the first 5 pages of Google search other than self-generated material or brief product reviews. Seems to lack notability per
WP:CORP. Suggest deletion. Prod, or AfD? John Nagle (talk
) 07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

user Anitasss is a commercial link placer

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

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

External links in multiple articles by Art Institute of Chicago editor

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

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

An unregistered user with an Art Institute of Chicago address has been adding external links to the AIC website to dozens of articles. Examples: [57], [58], [59]) The links are to single items in a larger collection. None seem very useful to the reader (i.e., they do not expand the information about the article's subject beyond what is already in the article and its External links section). Does this qualify as spam? Should it be allowed to continue? 32.218.39.134 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Review needed

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

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

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

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

Yuva Association of the Deaf, Mumbai

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

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

Maja Nikolic

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

talk
) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Lingveno

Lingveno is a declared paid editor but is introducing problematic content violating

fake referencing here particularly egregious, particularly as I had already warned him about this. He has also removed COI tags: [60] [61] while citing a help page which specifically states that editors with a COI should not remove maintenance templates. While paid editing is permitted, violating core content policies is not and unless these problems cease to occur, I don't see how Lingveno can be allowed to continue to edit. SmartSE (talk
) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Enova Technology Corp

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

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

Secude

Trusted Storage specification

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

User CodeCurmudgeon

The user mentions they are an employee of

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

Yes, and yes; I don't think there's any ambiguity about an employer-employee relationship causing a conflict of interest. Bri (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of the guidelines and I'm being careful to only put factual info about the company and it's products. I welcome anyone else's comments on those edits and improvements on those pages. As you're aware, software development is often one of the dusty corners in Wikipedia and I happen to have a lot of expertise so I'm hoping to help clean up a bunch of the often overlook articles. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifiction
WP:MINOR) you intend for Parasoft articles be requested on the repsective article's talk page first. You can always ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Software or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security in getting the major changes you want to make made to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk
) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As a clarification I am not in fact paid to edit wikipedia. I happen to work at Parasoft and thought it would be good to bring the pages up to a better standard. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether Wikipedia makes the same distinction you're making which is why I started this discussion. According to Bri's post above it doesn't, but perhaps others will chime in and offer their opinions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:PAID says "with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" which certainly doesn't apply to what I'm doing. It's a pretty broad interpretation that would call this paid. CodeCurmudgeon (talk
) 23:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'm not 100% sure where the line is drawn, but the discussions at
WT:PAID. More editors will hopefully pipe in and help clarify this. -- Marchjuly (talk
) 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense. If
WP:PAID? It's ridiculous. If someone has a problem with an edit, fix it or let me know. So far it's been more a case of lawyering than any real issue. CodeCurmudgeon (talk
) 00:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I read both of the archives you referenced, and they simply don't apply. I'm not editing for Parasoft. I do work for Parasoft and I do edit Wikipedia. That's the end of it. None of the definitions in the archives or the guidelines themselves put me in the category of paid. It's not part of my job. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Please try and
WP:COIADVICE. -- Marchjuly (talk
) 01:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

But first let's talk about the WP:COI guideline. A guideline means that "Occasional exceptions may apply." Put the emphasis on "occasional." We do not willy-nilly ignore our guidelines on

WP:COI
is extremely clear in this case. If you are an employee of a company you have a conflict of interest on articles about the company or its products. You should not be editing these articles. Please restrict yourself to the talk page. You can request extensive edits there or link to a whole "article" that you think should be included, if it is in one of your sandboxes.

Some obvious dividing lines for

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

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

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

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

COI editor request backlog needs attention

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

jeepcoon and Z-turn

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

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

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

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

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

Underwood International College

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

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

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

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

Analog Pussy

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

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

EmilyOBX

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

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

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

I think it's scrubbed now. Mostly refspamming. - Bri (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Chalk (short film)

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

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

Promotional article, presumably written by the film's director, a

WP:SPA. Hasn't responded to multiple policy advisories. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk
) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Article is at AfD. - Bri (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. There is a way forward with a new article as long as independent sources are used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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.

Draft:Pure Leisure

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

Sidemen (YouTube group)

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

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

FXCM

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

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

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

I added a redirect from
Global Brokerage, their new name. They're still mostly known as FXCM, but are in the process of rebranding, Bloomberg says.[71]. Bloomberg's news on them is all about six lawsuits. Lexis/Nexis is worse.[72]. Emphasis on their problems is clearly not "undue". John Nagle (talk
) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I may not have been an active editor until now, but I have also never seen an article that inaccurate and biased. For example, the article suggested the company has already closed down - falsehood introduced twice by
WP:NPOV in Smallbones (talk · contribs) edits. Gouyoku (talk
) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_114&oldid=1149826692"