![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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!
Jackedelman ( talk) 12:49, 30 March 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 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)-
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)
And it was extremely helpful. Thank you! Pklucas ( talk) 19:51, 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)
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)
Also editing the CEO's page Hernando Ruiz Jimenez. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel) 18:17, 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.
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 Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:04, 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)
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. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, this, is just unacceptable. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 02:03, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Taking place here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, a known Author mill. (See google for numerous warnings). Most recently we've been edit warring back an forth a bit at Capital market, which could use more eyes to break the impasse. Or tell me I'm out of line and I'm the one who should stop, either way. MrOllie ( talk) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
Jim1138 ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
{{
undisclosed paid}}
template, and help other editors should it ever reappear.
Luther Blissetts (
talk)
19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC){{
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)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)
User talk:47.202.61.216 :) ...trying to extract some information, first... — O Fortuna velut luna 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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.
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
The article was largely written by a WP:SPA and included promotional and improperly sourced texts. @ EricEnfermero: removed some of it and got reported to WP:ANEW (result: no violation). This morning I found this message on my talkpage, clearly indicating a COI and (presumably) a violation of 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)
Probably a one-shot account to edit his own wiki article. MikeTango ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Editor is using their userspace for self-promotion, as seen here. Username suggests a clear conflict of interest. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ideally, in a few weeks we'll have an article on Burger King attempt to subvert Wikipedia, similar to United Express Flight 3411 incident. But we must of course be extra scrupulous to base any such reporting here 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)
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 @ Andrewa, John from Idegon, Bri, Coretheapple, Slim Virgin, Roxy the dog, and Doc James:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:24, 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)
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)
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)
Editor is continually editing Messy Marv adding own material [49] [50] [51] [52] [53], despite being warned of a conflict of interest [54]. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
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): User:Anuj Parikh, a chunk of User talk:Anuj Parikh, Draft:Chintan Bhagat, User talk:Rakesh Ranpura, User:Rakesh Ranpura/sandbox, User:Parikhanuj1/sandbox. I'm guessing it's two people (AP & P1 are clearly the same person) working together; same PR firm perhaps. I have raised it on AP's talk page. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Clarawegenast, active since 18 April 2017, has contributed almost exclusively to this article. The other (three) edits insert external links to the website of this organisation into various articles about recent events ( 1, 2, 3). According to LinkedIn a person with this name has a clear COI concerning the organisation described. The user has previously been warned about 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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wow, this is a near perfect recitation of the hallmarks and problems of a paid promotion.
Busy now, can anyone have a look? Bri ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manusaxena2512 it's amongst the confirmed and blocked accounts.-- Blooker ( talk) 00:15, 1 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 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)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadmumbai2010 ( talk • contribs)
User has been deleting sourced content from the article on the basis that "I changed this because these information insult Maja big career and she has more to offer then this" ( 1 2 3 4), while also adding unsourced content in the article ( 1, 2), and claiming to be getting the information from Maja Nikolic herself ( 1). Bennv3771 ( talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Lingveno is a declared paid editor but is introducing problematic content violating WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOTPROMO. See for example the clean up required of Ahmad Ashkar. Rebecca Vogels, SOTpay and Jason Mace have all been deleted via AFD. I find the fake referencing here particularly egregious, particularly as I had already warned him about this. He has also removed COI tags: [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)
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:
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)
The user mentions they are an employee of
Parasoft in a post made on their user talk page, and has also made this fact known on their user page. Does this mean the editor is subject to
WP:PAID and not just
WP:COI when it comes to anything related to Parasoft.? The editor hasn't really made a ton of edits since creating the account and was fairly inactive until a few days ago, but there has been a recent spurt which has included some editing of articles related to Parasoft. The editor also appears to be working on major expansion of an article related to the company in
User:CodeCurmudgeon/sandbox. Are employees of companies considered "paid editors" when they edit articles related to their companies? Is a "paid-contribution disclosure" required if they are? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to replace a "period" with a "question mark". -- 05:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)]
Thanks for the ping. If you want to pick apart WP:PAID and what exact jobs at the company it applies to, you have to provide details on what exact job and job duties you are talking about.
But first let's talk about the WP:COI guideline. A guideline means that "Occasional exceptions may apply." Put the emphasis on "occasional." We do not willy-nilly ignore our guidelines on WP:Notability, or WP:Cite, or WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:External links or WP:Fringe or any of the other dozens of guidelines. It can be difficult to exactly describe exactly all the many dividing lines related to these questions, so please use common sense when something is not clear. But WP:COI is extremely clear in this case. If you are an employee of a company you have a conflict of interest on articles about the company or its products. You should not be editing these articles. Please restrict yourself to the talk page. You can request extensive edits there or link to a whole "article" that you think should be included, if it is in one of your sandboxes.
Some obvious dividing lines for WP:PAID. If you own the company, are one of the officers (e.g. Vice-President), in the PR, marketing or advertising departments, or work for outside PR, legal, marketing firms hired by the company, you almost certainly expect to get some dollars out of putting your POV into the article (and everybody has a POV). Or perhaps the editing is close enough to your regular work that your boss will give you credit for "work done." It doesn't matter that "editing Wikipedia" is not in your formal job description. You are paid in terms of the policy.
On the other hand, if you are a janitor or a 9 to 5 assembly line worker you probably don't expect to get any money from your edits, and would generally not be considered a paid editor. There are lots of jobs that are in between these 2 extremes. Probably the best way to handle these in-between cases is to strictly follow WP:COI. Don't edit the article, restrict your self to talk pages. And just to be clear to everybody, please put a Paid Editor, or at least a COI contributor notice on your user page.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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/?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)
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)
Please see Talk page at Underwood International College ( | 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)
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 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)
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)
A google search suggests that this is a paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
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!
Jackedelman ( talk) 12:49, 30 March 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 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)-
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)
And it was extremely helpful. Thank you! Pklucas ( talk) 19:51, 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)
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)
Also editing the CEO's page Hernando Ruiz Jimenez. Mlpearc Phone ( open channel) 18:17, 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.
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 Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:04, 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)
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. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 19:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, this, is just unacceptable. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 02:03, 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Taking place here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, a known Author mill. (See google for numerous warnings). Most recently we've been edit warring back an forth a bit at Capital market, which could use more eyes to break the impasse. Or tell me I'm out of line and I'm the one who should stop, either way. MrOllie ( talk) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
Jim1138 ( talk) 12:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
{{
undisclosed paid}}
template, and help other editors should it ever reappear.
Luther Blissetts (
talk)
19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC){{
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)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)
User talk:47.202.61.216 :) ...trying to extract some information, first... — O Fortuna velut luna 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)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.
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
The article was largely written by a WP:SPA and included promotional and improperly sourced texts. @ EricEnfermero: removed some of it and got reported to WP:ANEW (result: no violation). This morning I found this message on my talkpage, clearly indicating a COI and (presumably) a violation of 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)
Probably a one-shot account to edit his own wiki article. MikeTango ( talk) 15:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Editor is using their userspace for self-promotion, as seen here. Username suggests a clear conflict of interest. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 05:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ideally, in a few weeks we'll have an article on Burger King attempt to subvert Wikipedia, similar to United Express Flight 3411 incident. But we must of course be extra scrupulous to base any such reporting here 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)
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 @ Andrewa, John from Idegon, Bri, Coretheapple, Slim Virgin, Roxy the dog, and Doc James:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:24, 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)
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)
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)
Editor is continually editing Messy Marv adding own material [49] [50] [51] [52] [53], despite being warned of a conflict of interest [54]. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
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): User:Anuj Parikh, a chunk of User talk:Anuj Parikh, Draft:Chintan Bhagat, User talk:Rakesh Ranpura, User:Rakesh Ranpura/sandbox, User:Parikhanuj1/sandbox. I'm guessing it's two people (AP & P1 are clearly the same person) working together; same PR firm perhaps. I have raised it on AP's talk page. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Clarawegenast, active since 18 April 2017, has contributed almost exclusively to this article. The other (three) edits insert external links to the website of this organisation into various articles about recent events ( 1, 2, 3). According to LinkedIn a person with this name has a clear COI concerning the organisation described. The user has previously been warned about 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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wow, this is a near perfect recitation of the hallmarks and problems of a paid promotion.
Busy now, can anyone have a look? Bri ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Manusaxena2512 it's amongst the confirmed and blocked accounts.-- Blooker ( talk) 00:15, 1 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 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)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yadmumbai2010 ( talk • contribs)
User has been deleting sourced content from the article on the basis that "I changed this because these information insult Maja big career and she has more to offer then this" ( 1 2 3 4), while also adding unsourced content in the article ( 1, 2), and claiming to be getting the information from Maja Nikolic herself ( 1). Bennv3771 ( talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Lingveno is a declared paid editor but is introducing problematic content violating WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NOTPROMO. See for example the clean up required of Ahmad Ashkar. Rebecca Vogels, SOTpay and Jason Mace have all been deleted via AFD. I find the fake referencing here particularly egregious, particularly as I had already warned him about this. He has also removed COI tags: [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)
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:
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)
The user mentions they are an employee of
Parasoft in a post made on their user talk page, and has also made this fact known on their user page. Does this mean the editor is subject to
WP:PAID and not just
WP:COI when it comes to anything related to Parasoft.? The editor hasn't really made a ton of edits since creating the account and was fairly inactive until a few days ago, but there has been a recent spurt which has included some editing of articles related to Parasoft. The editor also appears to be working on major expansion of an article related to the company in
User:CodeCurmudgeon/sandbox. Are employees of companies considered "paid editors" when they edit articles related to their companies? Is a "paid-contribution disclosure" required if they are? --
Marchjuly (
talk)
04:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to replace a "period" with a "question mark". -- 05:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)]
Thanks for the ping. If you want to pick apart WP:PAID and what exact jobs at the company it applies to, you have to provide details on what exact job and job duties you are talking about.
But first let's talk about the WP:COI guideline. A guideline means that "Occasional exceptions may apply." Put the emphasis on "occasional." We do not willy-nilly ignore our guidelines on WP:Notability, or WP:Cite, or WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:External links or WP:Fringe or any of the other dozens of guidelines. It can be difficult to exactly describe exactly all the many dividing lines related to these questions, so please use common sense when something is not clear. But WP:COI is extremely clear in this case. If you are an employee of a company you have a conflict of interest on articles about the company or its products. You should not be editing these articles. Please restrict yourself to the talk page. You can request extensive edits there or link to a whole "article" that you think should be included, if it is in one of your sandboxes.
Some obvious dividing lines for WP:PAID. If you own the company, are one of the officers (e.g. Vice-President), in the PR, marketing or advertising departments, or work for outside PR, legal, marketing firms hired by the company, you almost certainly expect to get some dollars out of putting your POV into the article (and everybody has a POV). Or perhaps the editing is close enough to your regular work that your boss will give you credit for "work done." It doesn't matter that "editing Wikipedia" is not in your formal job description. You are paid in terms of the policy.
On the other hand, if you are a janitor or a 9 to 5 assembly line worker you probably don't expect to get any money from your edits, and would generally not be considered a paid editor. There are lots of jobs that are in between these 2 extremes. Probably the best way to handle these in-between cases is to strictly follow WP:COI. Don't edit the article, restrict your self to talk pages. And just to be clear to everybody, please put a Paid Editor, or at least a COI contributor notice on your user page.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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/?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)
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)
Please see Talk page at Underwood International College ( | 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)
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 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)
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)
A google search suggests that this is a paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)