![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Not entirely sure if this noticeboard is the right place for this. If not, feel free to remove and advise.
I'm not posting the links in the usual format since only the provided diffs are relevant.
25 accounts were blocked as a result of a recent sockpuppet investigation.
Each of them made exactly one significant edit. Every edit involved inserting about three references.
I linked this edit to a job posting on Upwork — the link to scottishkiltshop is a commissioned spam with no value as a reference.
It would be foolish to assume that any of the other edits was made in good faith, as you can verify by checking a few. For example the links to legionellacontrol.com are spammy.
Fixing this mess will require lots of work, since not in all cases the bad link can be identified easily — and reverting all of the edits would cause uproar. Not fixing this makes the SPI investigation completely and utterly meaningless, as I'm sure the person behind the accounts is already working from a new IP (or even the same IP, from what I understand another account would not be automatically detected). The hourly rates for this kind of work are not bad. In all cases, the links, once identified, should be run through the link search tool to identify additions in other articles by accounts not included here.
-- Rentier ( talk) 21:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just redirected a puff-piece on Pomeroy Studio to another on Jason Pomeroy, on the grounds that we don't need two articles on essentially the same topic. I note that a Singapore public relations company, Ellerton & Co, lists Pomeroy Studio among its clients and has a page dedicated to Pomeroy. I believe the similarity of name of the creator of these articles to that of the PR firm merits investigation. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Two articles about non-notable executives of Fractal Analytics created by new accounts in the space of a week. The rights to both photos were granted via an OTRS ticket. Rentier ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This editor has made disruptive edits to pages relating to Omar Amanat since December 2005. It seems that recently he has made it his mission to undo productive edits to the page. To use one specific example of unproductive edits, I'm not sure why this editor feels the need to make the out-of-date claim that Amanat is still the Chairman of Aman Resorts, when this has not been the case since 2014 [26]. Aman's Leadership page at https://www.aman.com/leadership will confirm that Vladislav Doronin is now the Chairman.
A look at his contributions shows him to be a clear SPA. In addition, he admitted a relationship to Amanat's MarketXT company in his here.
I addressed both of these issues on the Talk page with no response. Instead, the editor continues to edit the page in an unproductive fashion. This certainly deserves the attention of administrators for a ban discussion. Jeremy Harrison ( talk) 07:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for "Vince douville" copernic shows that this editor is an employee of the company that produces the software that the article is about. The editor has also contributed to Copernic and Copernic Desktop Search. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
[27] Rentier ( talk) 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The user Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light. He has been called out upon this many times and continues to pretend he is not affiliated with Dan Wagner. Please see old edits of his talk page before he whitewashed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Techtrek&oldid=708996381
He continues to act in a self-serving way to promote Dan Wagner, particularly in light of recent events that Mr Wagner is associated with. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2017/06/21/498936/uk-entrepreneur.htm
The user has a long history of this, and has even been cited in the media for his activity http://www.businessinsider.com/techtreks-wikipedia-edits-on-powa-founder-dan-wagner-2016-3?r=UK&IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.22.54 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, June 25, 2017 (UTC)
"Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light"with several diffs that show that? So far, we just know that they are a WP:SPA, which strongly suggests a COI, but doesn't mean that they have violated policy.- Mr X 13:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Since January 2016 this SPA editor has been attempting to massively re-write this article, removing all negative material. Basically a slow-motion edit-war, which he continues to ramp up. Softlavender ( talk) 06:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence proves that this editor is paid for her edits. In light of this, the lengthy talk page and Teahouse discussions she has engaged in were a big waste of everybody's time. The evidence also hints that this is not her only account. Rentier ( talk) 03:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I emailed the evidence to interested editors (none of whom are administrators). Not sure what else to do. Rentier ( talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Other possible accounts:
It is interesting that this article Mark Tedeschi was started by User:Morning277. Could they be a continuation of Morning's family of accounts? I am not convinced anything on upworks by this person is true either. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So what's to be done about her remaining articles? Her contributions to Francesco Clemente, Mark Tedeschi, Mike Gentile (author) (now at AfD), Allison Kugel and SurveyGizmo have been removed; Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent) is at AfD and does not look likely to survive; Burgruine Federaun and Dallas Stewart need some clean-up but I don't see any grossly inappropriate edits there, nor – surprisingly – to Ivan Olita, which already needed serious attention. That leaves Making Headway Foundation, Jasmine Directory and HK URBEX, all of dubious notability in my view. Unless anyone particularly wants to nominate any of those three for deletion (?), I propose moving them to draft space. I certainly won't do so if there's any objection here, or in any case in less than 24 hours. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Upwork job, timing matches the article creation by an SPA: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01a6012c4d9a411304
Rentier ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 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.
On July 17, 2017, I searched for instances of
RationalWiki being used as a source, as it frequently is improperly used as a source. I do this because Rational-Wiki fails
WP:RS as a source, and
consensus has been established to not include links to it on articles.
Freeman on the land has a link to Rational-Wiki, claiming that we are reusing their content. In the past, I have spared the link to Rational-Wiki on the article in question because content has supposedly been copied from their article, but this time I checked the corresponding R-W article for content copied into Wikipedia, and I did not find any sections that appeared to be copied. I also compared to older versions of the article there, and I still did not see anything copied from there. I did not go through the articles word for word, but if there is content copied, it seems it is so insignificant that Rational-Wiki could not claim copyright because I can't see any correlation. I removed the link with a note in the edit comment inviting anyone who may dispute the removal to discuss the matter on the talk page. If there is some portion of the article that is borrowed from Rational-Wiki, it would be useful to specify which portion we are referring to. Again, I did not go through the articles word for word, but I am not seeing the correlation.
Within less than one hour,
User:David Gerard reverted my removal of the link, but he did not state why he reverted my edit in his edit comment or on the article talk page. David Gerard identifies as a trustee of the Rational-Media Foundation on his talk page, and that organization owns Rational-Wiki. David Gerard declared involvement in the authorship of the Rational-Wiki article on the talk page of this Wikipedia article in 2015. In his 2015 comments, he loathed about the fact that Rational-Wiki does not meet
WP:RS.
Rational-Wiki acknowledges incompatibility with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view, and it
is not an encyclopedia, so I am not sure why we would copy or paraphrase content from their website anyway. I believe David Gerard does not want the link removed because he hopes it will generate traffic to the website he is deeply affiliated with.
As a disclaimer, I am against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes, including
the vandalism of Wikipedia and other wikis. Although the promotion of vandalism is no longer part of their official mission statement, I have confidential information that vandals are still very much active at the site, and as a matter of fact, I first became aware of Rational-Wiki because a respected contributor there engaged in disruption at Wikipedia and was community banned for it, and he is not the only person from that website we have had problems with (
I'm deliberately being vague about the users' identities). However, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest in this matter, because my opinion of Rational-Wiki is based on numerous Rational-Wikians' activities at Wikipedia. While I don't think David Gerard is deliberately causing disruption to Wikipedia, I think he needs to be more careful when making edits related to his website.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
03:50, 18 July 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.
Hello everyone! I want to bring it to the community that User:Ehsan Sehgal has edited Wikipedia to self-promote in many articles with many WP:SOCKPUPPETS. There is a discussion going on here. Please participate in settling the issue. You can ask me for any help. Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a little unusual. According to its contact page, worldoftrons.com is a web site operated by an academic. I guess he's cataloging things with the word "tron" in their name? Whether it is a notable expert on anything I can't assess. JGaweda is the only editor who has added links to this site (per EL search). And whether the many links added are relevant, I also can't assess in every case but this one to a highly spam-prone article doesn't inspire. Algatron is also problematic as the ELs consist of the academic's blog noted above, and a link to Amazon.com for the author's book on the subject. - Bri ( talk) 03:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
So apparently each time I am reprimanded, a paid editor gets busted. The latest set needs review: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UKranama2 Rentier ( talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sppweb has made many edits to Schar School of Policy and Government, and has been indeffed for the inappropriate username. Other contributions have been the creation of Mark J. Rozell, dean of that school, and a number of edits to our page on Hilton Root, who teaches there. That page has also been extensively edited by Hroot and Hroot2. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please help advise the user about COI? I'm not getting through, and they are making unsourced changes. By his own admission, the user is "the managing director for the consortium that currently owns Leonardo da Vinci Horse and Rider". Before I started work on it, the article was essentially a PR piece. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] -- Felcotiya ( talk) 20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This popped up on my watch-list because apparently I edited it ages ago. (Can't think why.)
Looking at it, it seems to be just an advertising piece created by a single single-purpose account. User:Wikiarchitects
I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if it's notable, or not. ApLundell ( talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions started a short attackish article with one very good source DW. I tend to believe the DW story, but the article is undersourced.
GlitterGirl83, PRMediaVision, and a half dozen anons don't like to see DW quoted. With a name like PRMediaVision, do we need more proof of paid editing? If so see [38]
Probably everybody would be happy if the article was deleted. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:24, 8 July 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.
Something smells fishy here. Brand new editor creates perfectly formatted article on first edit. Subject of article is American financial bizperson. Another brand new editor removes COI/paid tags and demands "please use the talk page to discuss [changes] line by line". ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Another article by Bonusplait and another SPA removing tags from it:
I think there's funny business going on. Unfortunately I'm on a mobile device today and can't format everything neatly but see my preliminary notes at User:Bri/COIbox54. Briefly, I think one of the blocked accounts may be related to MMG pr firm listed at an earlier COIN case. But it will require a look at deleted contribs to verify. Or if I got the two cases mixed up, apologies in advance. They're all likely to be operating in New York, per the account names, topics of interest, and the 104.162.107.* IPs. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's been suggested (e.g., here) that Marcomgirl is a paid editor. (S)he has declared as such in relation to Sheryl Nields, but strenuously denied any other paid work. Several articles have been deleted, some recently. What action, if any, is needed on the others?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields was closed as no consensus. The reasons given by SoWhy raise interesting and perhaps important questions: should articles created by undisclosed paid editors be deleted? Is it time to seek a change in policy that would mandate such deletions (we already have plenty of precedent, of course)? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
User's only edits appear to be towards these two articles. The username also strongly matches the real name of the artist mentioned in the Notaker page. I suspect a very strong COI. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 20:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! This may not be the right board, although I had some luck here the last time I posted. This is a little different from most posts here, because I have a COI, I know I have a COI, and I'm definitely not editing an article because of it. I'm looking for some help.
I'm part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's communications team, and I was asked to help update the National Renewable Energy Laboratory article. The existing, live version of the article has a lot of dubious text (including some that sounds promotional), but I probably shouldn't be the one to edit it down--so I just added and removed content and left everything else alone.
I tried to make sure everything that I changed or edited had sources and that it was as neutral as possible. Here's my draft and here's a comparison to the article that's live right now. I added and moved paragraphs, so it's REALLY messy. I changed less than it looks.
I posted on the NREL talk page (where I explained what I changed and why), but it seems pretty dead.
I'm wondering--could an experienced Wikipedian look at the draft and add some (or all) of the changes to the live article, based on what seems sensible to you? I'm glad to answer any questions. Es2017 ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
User is 100% WP:SPA for this article and the WP:APPARENTCOI is clear. They have been edit warring to include promotional content, have never used the article Talk page, and have removed my request & follow ups to disclose any connection with the organization that manages this digital currency. Jytdog ( talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Have to make this brief, for now. Bell Pottinger has a huge history at COIN. There is some messy, political and possibly BLP violating stuff going on right now if someone can take a look. Bri ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Both of these accounts have been editing, with strong POVs, the article on PTC. Both have username blocks on them now, but there are controversies on campus that need a NPOV editor, preferably an Arkansawyer without a dog in these fights. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
A lot of discussion about this problem has also happened at other pages (and I'll try to link to them here), but the Foundr page appears to have been created as part of an odious undisclosed paid editing scam: [40]. Related discussions are at: Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"The Wiki Fixers" article in Entrepreneur magazine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundr, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noam Javits. With regard to that SPI case, it would be particularly helpful if editors active at COIN could identify other accounts that may be socks; see also User talk:Bbb23#I think your closure was wrong.. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Continued at #Another sockfarm, below. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Enough instructed and even warned on his talk page.
The said user account is being used only for promotional purposes. The user mostly edits two pages only Tyagi and Chowdhury just for the caste/community promotional purposes only. He does not tolerate anything to be written on the page which is against the said promotion/his POV/his OR and sometimes he even removes the sourced contents from the primary linked article. Also his username contains the word Tyagi which itself indicates that he may be closely associated with the subject of the article as per WP:COI. His disruptive edit behaviour may specifically be seen here, here and here for pushing his Brahmin POV, he even does not bother what the sources actually say in this regard. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Following from Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai’s Wikipedia edited by account tied to House Republicans, Pittsburgh City Paper (PghCP), which quote 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors, including William Beutler. The IP checks out to the PA State House GOP Caucus via Geolocate. Turzai, the Speaker of the PA House of Reps can be said to control the IP per PghCP. I've confirmed several recent edits as being from the IP. Some older similar edits from Bnb5017.
User talk:192.216.120.25 has five warnings already 2008-2015. It should just be blocked now and forever (single IP, not a range).
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Admits that subject is a client of his, and that he is her webmaster; but has made no disclosure on his userpage. Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This must have a very long history. But please excuse my rushed here I don't have time to check much background. Note that the 2 users named above may be the people fighting the COI editors, not the COI editors themselves. Both have a long history on Wikipedia, and their input here is welcomed, without any accusation on my part.
The Times of South Africa published today Bell Pottinger’s wicked Wiki ways claiming that BP is deeply involved in the Gupta family article and the Draft:Oaktree Investments which is the Gupta company. The Times of SA article is part of a series. Our Gf article is obviously flawed, saying of the Guptas in the 2nd sentence "They are controversial for their ownership of South African president Jacob Zuma.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"
The paid editors, if any, may have been recently fired from BellPott. COI editors may be on the other side as well. Sorry to drop this and run, but I've got 5 other things on my plate off-wiki right now. I will inform the 2 editors named above, however, and emphasize that I'm just asking for info, not making accusations.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Heads up, I'm linking this discussion from the Signpost due to be published on Friday. Input & comments welcome of course via newsroom. Bri ( talk) 18:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Came across this deleted article National Academy of Sports Medicine, which had incoming links from mainly promo, non-notable articles with some SPA, duck COI editors.
close by articles
Widefox; talk 22:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm over reacting due to the previous edits on this article but I saw the tag on this edit saying "possible conflict of interest". This user writes on Medium promoting Smartmatic and has disseminated Venezuelan government claims of voter fraud (oddly they state that Smartmatic is a "Venezuelan firm" as well). The user originally made minor edits to the article which seemed decent, then began moving large portions of the history that might be deemed "controversial" to a lower part of the page (among other edits). The account was created days after another user of interest went under. This article has been controversial before, with a list of sockpuppets being blocked and a "PR Strategist" with links to the company making edits being notified, eventually ceasing to make edits after the notification. Once again, I am just looking for another eye on this article and a potential block for those who are not confirmed or autoconfirmed users. If I am overreacting, then I apologize.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As a reporter based in the Philippines, I am aware of the opinions surrounding the elections and the technologies used during the elections. I began investigating said topic and conducting my research through Medium to display the facts and information I was collecting. I believe Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a public encyclopedia. It’s a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars that the public can access and contribute to. In my initial research, I found that many of these company pages did not exist on Wikipedia and the ones that did exist contained very limited or false information. In researching this project, I found it very difficult to differentiate between what was an opinion or what was fact-based. This is because of the way in which material was sourced, organized, or used on the page. My intention was to clean up the page and improve the accuracy of all information written, make it as neutral as possible, and make it more fact-based overall. For example, basic things such as the founding dates of companies were not correct and were sourced to an irrelevant Wikipedia page that is not remotely related to the topic. Controversies were also listed in the history section and based on government documents published on WikiLeaks, some of the information was inaccurate and had a lot of inconsistencies. According to Wikipedia, a controversy “is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.” While it is right and fair that controversies should be covered in the page, it creates confusion by place those issues in the ‘history’ section. According to the Wikipedia editing policy, when a problem is spotted, instead of removing content from an article the editor should consider the following:
During my editing process, rather than removing Zia Later’s edits, I changed them as outlined and organized them instead. From my point of view, Zia Later has questionable motives behind his aggressive editing. He has removed the edits that I spent time researching, rather than following the steps outlined by Wikipedia.
Based on how aggressive Zia Later has been, his edits look more like an opinion rather than fact-based and neutral research. As a journalist, I am questioning his ethics and motives behind the edits he makes. The edits he makes lead me to believe that he is in fact part of the problem and he is creating controversial and biased material on the page. I believe that neutral and fact-based research should be the priority, especially since everyone is able to access Wikipedia. His opinion-based research is not neutral nor is it correct. I believe his edits should be investigated, as well as the other entries he has created in the past. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater does not have the right to attack me and question my credibility just because I am based in the Philippines. I am not a PR strategist; I am a journalist and I don’t appreciate he/she comparing me to previous editors. I understand there have been issues of whitewashing in the past. However, I am not one of the previous editors that has caused problems. Can you explain why adding the correct year Smartmatic was formed is whitewashing? The edits I have made are fair and sourced correctly. I have been writing a series on polling technology and the edits made were a direct result of my investigation. ZiaLater does not have the right to proclaim herself/himself owner of the page and attack everyone who edits it. ZiaLater has not provided any supporting information to counter my sources or edits that I made. Instead, he/she is claiming whitewashing and reverting all the edits and blatantly disregarding the point of a collaborative community and the point of Wikipedia.
I have researched the topic of polling technology and voting for some time. I have found that the topic is important and needs to be documented correctly. This page has some of the biggest problems, which makes it even more suspect. ZiaLater’s attempt to control this page is the biggest red flag.
The presentation of information is incorrect, biased and not sourced correctly. Simply put, the page needs editing because its blatantly wrong.
ZiaLater should not be using “filler” or document information and state she/he will attempt to find more information to support it later. It’s unacceptable. Do your homework. Source it when you have the information. Do not edit or add information that cannot be sourced correctly.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort. ZiaLater continues to demonstrate disruptive editing and plainly is not following Wikipedia guidelines. As stated by Wikipedia, disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Also, some of the material ZiaLater continues reverting back to contains no reliable, published sources, which is not allowed.
The background of another company should not be listed in the history section for the subject which the article is written about. I agree, the article most certainly should be free of whitewashing, which is why I took it upon myself to clean it up. While ZiaLater states that only a few edits were made, he/she reverted the article back to the original text. In addition, ZiaLater says he/she has no POV on Smartmatic yet he/she continue reverting the article back to their edits, which is against the edit warring policy.
As a Wikipedia editor, I have worked collaboratively making partial revisions to this article, fixing errors and providing additional published sources that are free from bias.
Not only is this article an issue, but ZiaLater’s lack of regard for other editors is concerning which is why I am escalating this issue to the Arbitration Committee. ZiaLater does not own the page and other editors should be allowed to edit accordingly. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 08:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater:, you seem to be implying that this may be a sockpuppet; if you suspect that, then file a report at WP:SPI. -- Softlavender ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: Not sure if they are or not, they may know how to work around it. I can only see similarities within the edits and with the dates certain users stop editing and a new one begins. If it is best to check, I will do it. It does't hurt to be too safe.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@zialater @softlavender Allow me to chip in my two cents in this discussion. As someone who has covered elections in Venezuela for the past 17 years, I think Zia Later should make a better effort to keep this profile as objective and balanced as possible. And by that I mean letting others edit the profile and not pretending to be the sole owner of the truth. Insisting on relating Smartmatic to the Venezuelan government throughout the whole profile has clearly a political and biased objective. For example, the alleged ownership of 28% of Smartmatic by the Venezuelan Government (giving no other proof but an article that talks about another company -Bizta) raises suspicion and hurts ZiaLater credibility as an editor. Elections are controversial everywhere, but more so in a country deeply divided by a political crisis. Zia Later, who has shown a great interest in Venezuelan Politics, should leave the polarization aside and concentrate on facts that can be referenced with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenio Martínez puzkas ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I just noticed I was mentioned in here. A few months back, I had a similar exchange with ZiaLater. However, I stopped editing this article as I just didn’t have the time to engage in an editing war with her. I have not problem at all with anybody investigating my profile as I am not in any way a sockpuppet nor a WP:SPA. The truth is that the last few months I've been really busy and the last thing in my mind has been editing WP. However, I've been researching quite a lot about great things happening on the e-Democracy arena lately, particularly in Europe and Africa, and I'm hopping to get back to editing as soon as I have the time. Regarding this discussion where I am indirectly referred to, looking at other editing that ZiaLater has worked on, one can see how she has a strong political viewpoints and engages in this types of conflicts often. I have to say I agree with other editors who have pointed out that ZiaLater is keen to pushing her own POVs to the extreme of jeopardizing Wikipedia’s neutrality. There seems to be a pattern or agenda in her editing with this article in particular, and this is simply not of my interest. That’s is why I during the time being I refrained from making more edits in this article. But yes, this definitely hurts Wikipedia. E-DemSnoopy ( talk) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: as I have explained, I am a journalist who began researching the topic of voting and polling technology. You can see in my previous edits that I have not solely been editing Smartmatic and therefore I am not a single-purpose user. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 07:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Carriedelvalle23:@ E-DemSnoopy: I will probably list both of you on the WP:SPI just to be safe. Thank you for being honest with your opinion E-DemSnoopy, and I just found that the edits being performed were quite the coincidence. If I am trying to push anything, it is not a POV but against the whitewashing of articles. That is the only thing I personally despise in these instances. I will continue to try to and work with each of you and thank you for your involvement.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Just thought it should be noted that Smartmatic has been using journalists from the Philippines to do PR work, attempting to hire a journalist from the Filipino newspaper Malaya. The source may not be the best, but it at least sheds light on the COI issues with the Smartmatic article since multiple journalists/bloggers from the Philippines have been editing the page. In WP:COIN Archive 111, it was established that one Wikipedia account was a " Digital PR Strategist, Online Reputation Manager" who had met with Smartmatic, writing an article about the encounter. A sockpuppet investigation has since been opened. I would just like to note this for future reference if other issues arise. This will also be placed on the sockpuppet board.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Potential COI edits still occurring. Will someone check this out?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident has been creating articles loosely related to actor Ron Thompson for a while now. It appeared to me as an attempt to bolster Thompson's status. I prod'ed an article about Buy the Bi and Bye (a play that Thompson appeared in), but Neptune's Trident removed the prod with a false claim that he had added an additional "full length review". That source he used was already in the article and is far from a full length review. When I asked about it on his talk page, he deleted my message with no comment.
This all ties back to Neptune's Trident's promotion of J. C. Macek, whose over 600 citations on Wikipedia bear no relationship to his professional standing. Macek is a producer of the film Cargo. Ron Thompson appears in the film. Neptune's Trident has recently created an article for the film, but was attempting to insert it in articles even before the movie was released (or finished, probably).
I believe it is very likely that Neptune's Trident needs to declare himself a connected contributor on Cargo and any artciles which relate to J. C. Macek. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Just for fun, I'll add this external link search. One J. C. Macek article is used as a reference on 42 separate Wikipedia articles. It is not a useful reference for at least 40 of those. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Obvious and direct conflict of interest along with a WP:UPOL violation (despite being declined.) CyberBuzz GA is GA Tech's student information center/college PR. See this and this. I realize that's an old newsletter however it is obvious based on the edits + name that this is intended to be a promotional account for the school and implies shared use. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Digbyjohn is an WP:SPA who only edits material related to Steve Nardelli, i.e. mainly that article and The Syn. These edits are usually of a promotional nature with a loose idea of WP:RS. Egregious examples include [41], [42] and [43]. User:Dl2000 has twice warned DigbyJohn on his Talk page. I have long presumed that User:Digbyjohn is Nardelli, so I added a WP:COI tag to the Steve Nardelli article in Jan 2017.
Recently, DigbyJohn added promotional material to the Steve Nardelli article about Nardelli's company, P3, sourced to P3's website: [44]. I removed as not having any secondary sources. DigbyJohn re-added but now citing local government planning paperwork: [45]. This does not seem like sufficient secondary sourcing to me. I removed, DigbyJohn re-added. Rinse and repeat. I raised the issue on the Talk page at Talk:Steve_Nardelli#Himley_Village_edits. There was no response. DigbyJohn subsequently re-added the material. Input from others would be helpful. Bondegezou ( talk) 19:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Created as the 10th edit of this editor (if I include 3 deleted edits to an earlier version of this article, deleted after a PROD). I randomly selected a few sources and they either didn't mention Korobkov or were press releases. To be fair, this editor has many more edits on the Russian WP, which explains their mastery of syntax perhaps, but still this looks to good to be true. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Onslaught of promotional edits to a fairly dormant article by an employee, as well as the uploading of fair use files. I've attempted a cleanup to remove some of the blatant promo, but it's still a lot of unnecessary detail and peacockery. – Train2104 ( t • c) 22:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that indicated any notability and per longstanding tradition and school article guidelines, I redirected it to Manhattan#Education. I have no objection if someone wants to revert me and we can take it to AFD. I was not aware of this discussion when I redirected it. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Richard has a properly, but only recently, declared (on his user page) CoI, but has not responded to an earlier request on his talk page to discuss his changes to the article on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether COI/N is still considered an appropriate venue for discussing COI edit requests, as I've seen some disagreement about this in the recent past. However, this forum was suggested to be by an editor commenting on a COI request I've posted at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures, so here I am for now. That request (see previous link) is about updating the Controversies section to make it easier to follow, and remove extraneous detail. If anyone here is willing to have a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The editor was advised about the COI policy on their talk page in May 2016, but no disclosures were made. The user has edited many other articles in addition to those listed above. Rentier ( talk) 11:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier:, the links on the freelancing websites that you’ve shared don’t reflect my editing history. If you check them carefully, you can see that those are random jobs that simply have the word ‘Wikipedia’ in their titles and don’t have anything in common with my contributions. Unless you consider an article to be written not from a NPOV, your tags {{Undisclosed_paid}}, don’t have a reason behind them, except for WP:HA. Based on your posts, anyone who creates or edits an article about a living person, a film or a software has a COI which is not true, as nobody authorizes me or other editors to contribute to Wikipedia with our time and efforts. I hope and suppose it is a good faith care and is not outing, as pointing other users out with allegations of non-disclosed COI that are not based on any fact, looks misleading and not fair. L7starlight ( talk) 00:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier:, among the five “ads” you shared there are only three actual links and only one of them is working… The content of the link only states “Wikipedia page” in its title, yet it doesn’t provide any details, neither it matches any of the articles I've edited/created. Your accusations and thus {{Undisclosed_paid}} tags are merely based on good faith assumptions. But instead of contributing to WP they waste time and energy of editors on proving you wrong (you can’t prove you’re right). It violates policy and should be stopped.-- L7starlight ( talk) 01:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Question: The Upwork ads I linked to are now hidden. Can anyone frequenting this noticeboard who has visited the pages earlier confirm or deny the following two facts:
This is what my accusation is based on, in addition to the following observations:
With regards to the outstanding Upwork ad, https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01123975935102ff4d ( backup):
All Upwork jobs I mentioned were done by the same Upwork user.
Some of the evidence is circumstantial, but the pattern is clear, even discounting the now inaccessible ads. L7starlight's edits correlate tightly with ads to recruit paid editors appearing on Upwork. As their talk page shows, I am not the first person to notice L7starlight's apparent conflict of interest. The only conclusion I come up with, and the only conclusion I think it's reasonably possible to come up with, is that L7starlight is an undisclosed paid editor who, by posting here, is attempting to game the system in a way that, frankly, must require a great deal of moral flexibility. Rentier ( talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional evidence based on Flickr timestamps. It shows that L7starlight uploaded photos to Commons shortly after they were either uploaded to Flickr or modified on Flickr by the copyright owners (perhaps to change the license?). It's a further corroboration of my claim that the editor has been working on behalf of the articles' subjects. Rentier ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
File | Uploaded to Commons | Uploaded to Flickr | Last modified on Flickr | Verification | Backup |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
File:The Sextones.jpg | June 21st | June 19th | - | https://www.flickr.com/photos/149691098@N02/35409787315/ | [47] |
File:The Hunted film poster.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [48] Put in the photo_id 35266022772, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [49] |
File:Casar Jacobson Miss Canada.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [50] Put in the photo_id 35033325750, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [51] |
File:Casar Jacobson UN2.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [52] Put in the photo_id 35380976246, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [53] |
File:Casar Jacobson UN.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/35290965821 | [54] |
File:Casar Jacobson.jpg | June 20th | May 14th | June 20th | [55] Put in the photo_id 34277070930, and check the dateuploaded and lastupdate timestamps. | [56] |
Hopefully the Flickr pages won't all get hidden now. Rentier ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
L7starlight is appealing the block stating that I put incorrect Flickr upload dates. It would be advisable for someone to verify and confirm the dates (which is trivial but not obvious) because if the photos are taken down, like the Upwork jobs were, there will be no objective evidence left beyond my word and L7starlight's pattern of edits.
Rentier (
talk)
17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on a Google search of "Canada 150" together with the editor's name, this appears to be an undeclared paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
An anonymous user is adding promotionally-worded content to several articles related to the Cleveland Clinic. This seems to have been an issue in the past (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#Cleveland_Clinic). I have left a COI notice on the IP talk page, but haven't gotten a response. Deli nk ( talk) 14:44, 6 July 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. |
Not entirely sure if this noticeboard is the right place for this. If not, feel free to remove and advise.
I'm not posting the links in the usual format since only the provided diffs are relevant.
25 accounts were blocked as a result of a recent sockpuppet investigation.
Each of them made exactly one significant edit. Every edit involved inserting about three references.
I linked this edit to a job posting on Upwork — the link to scottishkiltshop is a commissioned spam with no value as a reference.
It would be foolish to assume that any of the other edits was made in good faith, as you can verify by checking a few. For example the links to legionellacontrol.com are spammy.
Fixing this mess will require lots of work, since not in all cases the bad link can be identified easily — and reverting all of the edits would cause uproar. Not fixing this makes the SPI investigation completely and utterly meaningless, as I'm sure the person behind the accounts is already working from a new IP (or even the same IP, from what I understand another account would not be automatically detected). The hourly rates for this kind of work are not bad. In all cases, the links, once identified, should be run through the link search tool to identify additions in other articles by accounts not included here.
-- Rentier ( talk) 21:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I've just redirected a puff-piece on Pomeroy Studio to another on Jason Pomeroy, on the grounds that we don't need two articles on essentially the same topic. I note that a Singapore public relations company, Ellerton & Co, lists Pomeroy Studio among its clients and has a page dedicated to Pomeroy. I believe the similarity of name of the creator of these articles to that of the PR firm merits investigation. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Two articles about non-notable executives of Fractal Analytics created by new accounts in the space of a week. The rights to both photos were granted via an OTRS ticket. Rentier ( talk) 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This editor has made disruptive edits to pages relating to Omar Amanat since December 2005. It seems that recently he has made it his mission to undo productive edits to the page. To use one specific example of unproductive edits, I'm not sure why this editor feels the need to make the out-of-date claim that Amanat is still the Chairman of Aman Resorts, when this has not been the case since 2014 [26]. Aman's Leadership page at https://www.aman.com/leadership will confirm that Vladislav Doronin is now the Chairman.
A look at his contributions shows him to be a clear SPA. In addition, he admitted a relationship to Amanat's MarketXT company in his here.
I addressed both of these issues on the Talk page with no response. Instead, the editor continues to edit the page in an unproductive fashion. This certainly deserves the attention of administrators for a ban discussion. Jeremy Harrison ( talk) 07:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for "Vince douville" copernic shows that this editor is an employee of the company that produces the software that the article is about. The editor has also contributed to Copernic and Copernic Desktop Search. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
[27] Rentier ( talk) 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The user Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light. He has been called out upon this many times and continues to pretend he is not affiliated with Dan Wagner. Please see old edits of his talk page before he whitewashed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Techtrek&oldid=708996381
He continues to act in a self-serving way to promote Dan Wagner, particularly in light of recent events that Mr Wagner is associated with. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan-business/2017/06/21/498936/uk-entrepreneur.htm
The user has a long history of this, and has even been cited in the media for his activity http://www.businessinsider.com/techtreks-wikipedia-edits-on-powa-founder-dan-wagner-2016-3?r=UK&IR=T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.22.54 ( talk • contribs) 13:42, June 25, 2017 (UTC)
"Techtrek has repeatedly over the years edited the Dan Wagner page to shine him in a positive light"with several diffs that show that? So far, we just know that they are a WP:SPA, which strongly suggests a COI, but doesn't mean that they have violated policy.- Mr X 13:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Since January 2016 this SPA editor has been attempting to massively re-write this article, removing all negative material. Basically a slow-motion edit-war, which he continues to ramp up. Softlavender ( talk) 06:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence proves that this editor is paid for her edits. In light of this, the lengthy talk page and Teahouse discussions she has engaged in were a big waste of everybody's time. The evidence also hints that this is not her only account. Rentier ( talk) 03:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I emailed the evidence to interested editors (none of whom are administrators). Not sure what else to do. Rentier ( talk) 14:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Other possible accounts:
It is interesting that this article Mark Tedeschi was started by User:Morning277. Could they be a continuation of Morning's family of accounts? I am not convinced anything on upworks by this person is true either. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So what's to be done about her remaining articles? Her contributions to Francesco Clemente, Mark Tedeschi, Mike Gentile (author) (now at AfD), Allison Kugel and SurveyGizmo have been removed; Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent) is at AfD and does not look likely to survive; Burgruine Federaun and Dallas Stewart need some clean-up but I don't see any grossly inappropriate edits there, nor – surprisingly – to Ivan Olita, which already needed serious attention. That leaves Making Headway Foundation, Jasmine Directory and HK URBEX, all of dubious notability in my view. Unless anyone particularly wants to nominate any of those three for deletion (?), I propose moving them to draft space. I certainly won't do so if there's any objection here, or in any case in less than 24 hours. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Upwork job, timing matches the article creation by an SPA: https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01a6012c4d9a411304
Rentier ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 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.
On July 17, 2017, I searched for instances of
RationalWiki being used as a source, as it frequently is improperly used as a source. I do this because Rational-Wiki fails
WP:RS as a source, and
consensus has been established to not include links to it on articles.
Freeman on the land has a link to Rational-Wiki, claiming that we are reusing their content. In the past, I have spared the link to Rational-Wiki on the article in question because content has supposedly been copied from their article, but this time I checked the corresponding R-W article for content copied into Wikipedia, and I did not find any sections that appeared to be copied. I also compared to older versions of the article there, and I still did not see anything copied from there. I did not go through the articles word for word, but if there is content copied, it seems it is so insignificant that Rational-Wiki could not claim copyright because I can't see any correlation. I removed the link with a note in the edit comment inviting anyone who may dispute the removal to discuss the matter on the talk page. If there is some portion of the article that is borrowed from Rational-Wiki, it would be useful to specify which portion we are referring to. Again, I did not go through the articles word for word, but I am not seeing the correlation.
Within less than one hour,
User:David Gerard reverted my removal of the link, but he did not state why he reverted my edit in his edit comment or on the article talk page. David Gerard identifies as a trustee of the Rational-Media Foundation on his talk page, and that organization owns Rational-Wiki. David Gerard declared involvement in the authorship of the Rational-Wiki article on the talk page of this Wikipedia article in 2015. In his 2015 comments, he loathed about the fact that Rational-Wiki does not meet
WP:RS.
Rational-Wiki acknowledges incompatibility with Wikipedia's
neutral point of view, and it
is not an encyclopedia, so I am not sure why we would copy or paraphrase content from their website anyway. I believe David Gerard does not want the link removed because he hopes it will generate traffic to the website he is deeply affiliated with.
As a disclaimer, I am against almost everything Rational-Wiki promotes, including
the vandalism of Wikipedia and other wikis. Although the promotion of vandalism is no longer part of their official mission statement, I have confidential information that vandals are still very much active at the site, and as a matter of fact, I first became aware of Rational-Wiki because a respected contributor there engaged in disruption at Wikipedia and was community banned for it, and he is not the only person from that website we have had problems with (
I'm deliberately being vague about the users' identities). However, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest in this matter, because my opinion of Rational-Wiki is based on numerous Rational-Wikians' activities at Wikipedia. While I don't think David Gerard is deliberately causing disruption to Wikipedia, I think he needs to be more careful when making edits related to his website.
PCHS-NJROTC
(Messages)Have a blessed day.
03:50, 18 July 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.
Hello everyone! I want to bring it to the community that User:Ehsan Sehgal has edited Wikipedia to self-promote in many articles with many WP:SOCKPUPPETS. There is a discussion going on here. Please participate in settling the issue. You can ask me for any help. Thanks. Greenbörg (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a little unusual. According to its contact page, worldoftrons.com is a web site operated by an academic. I guess he's cataloging things with the word "tron" in their name? Whether it is a notable expert on anything I can't assess. JGaweda is the only editor who has added links to this site (per EL search). And whether the many links added are relevant, I also can't assess in every case but this one to a highly spam-prone article doesn't inspire. Algatron is also problematic as the ELs consist of the academic's blog noted above, and a link to Amazon.com for the author's book on the subject. - Bri ( talk) 03:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
So apparently each time I am reprimanded, a paid editor gets busted. The latest set needs review: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UKranama2 Rentier ( talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sppweb has made many edits to Schar School of Policy and Government, and has been indeffed for the inappropriate username. Other contributions have been the creation of Mark J. Rozell, dean of that school, and a number of edits to our page on Hilton Root, who teaches there. That page has also been extensively edited by Hroot and Hroot2. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please help advise the user about COI? I'm not getting through, and they are making unsourced changes. By his own admission, the user is "the managing director for the consortium that currently owns Leonardo da Vinci Horse and Rider". Before I started work on it, the article was essentially a PR piece. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] -- Felcotiya ( talk) 20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This popped up on my watch-list because apparently I edited it ages ago. (Can't think why.)
Looking at it, it seems to be just an advertising piece created by a single single-purpose account. User:Wikiarchitects
I don't know enough about the subject matter to know if it's notable, or not. ApLundell ( talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
ProhibitOnions started a short attackish article with one very good source DW. I tend to believe the DW story, but the article is undersourced.
GlitterGirl83, PRMediaVision, and a half dozen anons don't like to see DW quoted. With a name like PRMediaVision, do we need more proof of paid editing? If so see [38]
Probably everybody would be happy if the article was deleted. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:24, 8 July 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.
Something smells fishy here. Brand new editor creates perfectly formatted article on first edit. Subject of article is American financial bizperson. Another brand new editor removes COI/paid tags and demands "please use the talk page to discuss [changes] line by line". ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Another article by Bonusplait and another SPA removing tags from it:
I think there's funny business going on. Unfortunately I'm on a mobile device today and can't format everything neatly but see my preliminary notes at User:Bri/COIbox54. Briefly, I think one of the blocked accounts may be related to MMG pr firm listed at an earlier COIN case. But it will require a look at deleted contribs to verify. Or if I got the two cases mixed up, apologies in advance. They're all likely to be operating in New York, per the account names, topics of interest, and the 104.162.107.* IPs. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It's been suggested (e.g., here) that Marcomgirl is a paid editor. (S)he has declared as such in relation to Sheryl Nields, but strenuously denied any other paid work. Several articles have been deleted, some recently. What action, if any, is needed on the others?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields was closed as no consensus. The reasons given by SoWhy raise interesting and perhaps important questions: should articles created by undisclosed paid editors be deleted? Is it time to seek a change in policy that would mandate such deletions (we already have plenty of precedent, of course)? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
User's only edits appear to be towards these two articles. The username also strongly matches the real name of the artist mentioned in the Notaker page. I suspect a very strong COI. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 20:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi! This may not be the right board, although I had some luck here the last time I posted. This is a little different from most posts here, because I have a COI, I know I have a COI, and I'm definitely not editing an article because of it. I'm looking for some help.
I'm part of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's communications team, and I was asked to help update the National Renewable Energy Laboratory article. The existing, live version of the article has a lot of dubious text (including some that sounds promotional), but I probably shouldn't be the one to edit it down--so I just added and removed content and left everything else alone.
I tried to make sure everything that I changed or edited had sources and that it was as neutral as possible. Here's my draft and here's a comparison to the article that's live right now. I added and moved paragraphs, so it's REALLY messy. I changed less than it looks.
I posted on the NREL talk page (where I explained what I changed and why), but it seems pretty dead.
I'm wondering--could an experienced Wikipedian look at the draft and add some (or all) of the changes to the live article, based on what seems sensible to you? I'm glad to answer any questions. Es2017 ( talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
User is 100% WP:SPA for this article and the WP:APPARENTCOI is clear. They have been edit warring to include promotional content, have never used the article Talk page, and have removed my request & follow ups to disclose any connection with the organization that manages this digital currency. Jytdog ( talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Have to make this brief, for now. Bell Pottinger has a huge history at COIN. There is some messy, political and possibly BLP violating stuff going on right now if someone can take a look. Bri ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Both of these accounts have been editing, with strong POVs, the article on PTC. Both have username blocks on them now, but there are controversies on campus that need a NPOV editor, preferably an Arkansawyer without a dog in these fights. Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
A lot of discussion about this problem has also happened at other pages (and I'll try to link to them here), but the Foundr page appears to have been created as part of an odious undisclosed paid editing scam: [40]. Related discussions are at: Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"The Wiki Fixers" article in Entrepreneur magazine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundr, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noam Javits. With regard to that SPI case, it would be particularly helpful if editors active at COIN could identify other accounts that may be socks; see also User talk:Bbb23#I think your closure was wrong.. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Continued at #Another sockfarm, below. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Enough instructed and even warned on his talk page.
The said user account is being used only for promotional purposes. The user mostly edits two pages only Tyagi and Chowdhury just for the caste/community promotional purposes only. He does not tolerate anything to be written on the page which is against the said promotion/his POV/his OR and sometimes he even removes the sourced contents from the primary linked article. Also his username contains the word Tyagi which itself indicates that he may be closely associated with the subject of the article as per WP:COI. His disruptive edit behaviour may specifically be seen here, here and here for pushing his Brahmin POV, he even does not bother what the sources actually say in this regard. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Following from Pennsylvania House Speaker Mike Turzai’s Wikipedia edited by account tied to House Republicans, Pittsburgh City Paper (PghCP), which quote 3 or 4 Wikipedia editors, including William Beutler. The IP checks out to the PA State House GOP Caucus via Geolocate. Turzai, the Speaker of the PA House of Reps can be said to control the IP per PghCP. I've confirmed several recent edits as being from the IP. Some older similar edits from Bnb5017.
User talk:192.216.120.25 has five warnings already 2008-2015. It should just be blocked now and forever (single IP, not a range).
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Admits that subject is a client of his, and that he is her webmaster; but has made no disclosure on his userpage. Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This must have a very long history. But please excuse my rushed here I don't have time to check much background. Note that the 2 users named above may be the people fighting the COI editors, not the COI editors themselves. Both have a long history on Wikipedia, and their input here is welcomed, without any accusation on my part.
The Times of South Africa published today Bell Pottinger’s wicked Wiki ways claiming that BP is deeply involved in the Gupta family article and the Draft:Oaktree Investments which is the Gupta company. The Times of SA article is part of a series. Our Gf article is obviously flawed, saying of the Guptas in the 2nd sentence "They are controversial for their ownership of South African president Jacob Zuma.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"
The paid editors, if any, may have been recently fired from BellPott. COI editors may be on the other side as well. Sorry to drop this and run, but I've got 5 other things on my plate off-wiki right now. I will inform the 2 editors named above, however, and emphasize that I'm just asking for info, not making accusations.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Heads up, I'm linking this discussion from the Signpost due to be published on Friday. Input & comments welcome of course via newsroom. Bri ( talk) 18:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Came across this deleted article National Academy of Sports Medicine, which had incoming links from mainly promo, non-notable articles with some SPA, duck COI editors.
close by articles
Widefox; talk 22:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm over reacting due to the previous edits on this article but I saw the tag on this edit saying "possible conflict of interest". This user writes on Medium promoting Smartmatic and has disseminated Venezuelan government claims of voter fraud (oddly they state that Smartmatic is a "Venezuelan firm" as well). The user originally made minor edits to the article which seemed decent, then began moving large portions of the history that might be deemed "controversial" to a lower part of the page (among other edits). The account was created days after another user of interest went under. This article has been controversial before, with a list of sockpuppets being blocked and a "PR Strategist" with links to the company making edits being notified, eventually ceasing to make edits after the notification. Once again, I am just looking for another eye on this article and a potential block for those who are not confirmed or autoconfirmed users. If I am overreacting, then I apologize.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As a reporter based in the Philippines, I am aware of the opinions surrounding the elections and the technologies used during the elections. I began investigating said topic and conducting my research through Medium to display the facts and information I was collecting. I believe Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a public encyclopedia. It’s a comprehensive compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars that the public can access and contribute to. In my initial research, I found that many of these company pages did not exist on Wikipedia and the ones that did exist contained very limited or false information. In researching this project, I found it very difficult to differentiate between what was an opinion or what was fact-based. This is because of the way in which material was sourced, organized, or used on the page. My intention was to clean up the page and improve the accuracy of all information written, make it as neutral as possible, and make it more fact-based overall. For example, basic things such as the founding dates of companies were not correct and were sourced to an irrelevant Wikipedia page that is not remotely related to the topic. Controversies were also listed in the history section and based on government documents published on WikiLeaks, some of the information was inaccurate and had a lot of inconsistencies. According to Wikipedia, a controversy “is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.” While it is right and fair that controversies should be covered in the page, it creates confusion by place those issues in the ‘history’ section. According to the Wikipedia editing policy, when a problem is spotted, instead of removing content from an article the editor should consider the following:
During my editing process, rather than removing Zia Later’s edits, I changed them as outlined and organized them instead. From my point of view, Zia Later has questionable motives behind his aggressive editing. He has removed the edits that I spent time researching, rather than following the steps outlined by Wikipedia.
Based on how aggressive Zia Later has been, his edits look more like an opinion rather than fact-based and neutral research. As a journalist, I am questioning his ethics and motives behind the edits he makes. The edits he makes lead me to believe that he is in fact part of the problem and he is creating controversial and biased material on the page. I believe that neutral and fact-based research should be the priority, especially since everyone is able to access Wikipedia. His opinion-based research is not neutral nor is it correct. I believe his edits should be investigated, as well as the other entries he has created in the past. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 00:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater does not have the right to attack me and question my credibility just because I am based in the Philippines. I am not a PR strategist; I am a journalist and I don’t appreciate he/she comparing me to previous editors. I understand there have been issues of whitewashing in the past. However, I am not one of the previous editors that has caused problems. Can you explain why adding the correct year Smartmatic was formed is whitewashing? The edits I have made are fair and sourced correctly. I have been writing a series on polling technology and the edits made were a direct result of my investigation. ZiaLater does not have the right to proclaim herself/himself owner of the page and attack everyone who edits it. ZiaLater has not provided any supporting information to counter my sources or edits that I made. Instead, he/she is claiming whitewashing and reverting all the edits and blatantly disregarding the point of a collaborative community and the point of Wikipedia.
I have researched the topic of polling technology and voting for some time. I have found that the topic is important and needs to be documented correctly. This page has some of the biggest problems, which makes it even more suspect. ZiaLater’s attempt to control this page is the biggest red flag.
The presentation of information is incorrect, biased and not sourced correctly. Simply put, the page needs editing because its blatantly wrong.
ZiaLater should not be using “filler” or document information and state she/he will attempt to find more information to support it later. It’s unacceptable. Do your homework. Source it when you have the information. Do not edit or add information that cannot be sourced correctly.
Furthermore, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort. ZiaLater continues to demonstrate disruptive editing and plainly is not following Wikipedia guidelines. As stated by Wikipedia, disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. Also, some of the material ZiaLater continues reverting back to contains no reliable, published sources, which is not allowed.
The background of another company should not be listed in the history section for the subject which the article is written about. I agree, the article most certainly should be free of whitewashing, which is why I took it upon myself to clean it up. While ZiaLater states that only a few edits were made, he/she reverted the article back to the original text. In addition, ZiaLater says he/she has no POV on Smartmatic yet he/she continue reverting the article back to their edits, which is against the edit warring policy.
As a Wikipedia editor, I have worked collaboratively making partial revisions to this article, fixing errors and providing additional published sources that are free from bias.
Not only is this article an issue, but ZiaLater’s lack of regard for other editors is concerning which is why I am escalating this issue to the Arbitration Committee. ZiaLater does not own the page and other editors should be allowed to edit accordingly. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 08:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater:, you seem to be implying that this may be a sockpuppet; if you suspect that, then file a report at WP:SPI. -- Softlavender ( talk) 12:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: Not sure if they are or not, they may know how to work around it. I can only see similarities within the edits and with the dates certain users stop editing and a new one begins. If it is best to check, I will do it. It does't hurt to be too safe.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@zialater @softlavender Allow me to chip in my two cents in this discussion. As someone who has covered elections in Venezuela for the past 17 years, I think Zia Later should make a better effort to keep this profile as objective and balanced as possible. And by that I mean letting others edit the profile and not pretending to be the sole owner of the truth. Insisting on relating Smartmatic to the Venezuelan government throughout the whole profile has clearly a political and biased objective. For example, the alleged ownership of 28% of Smartmatic by the Venezuelan Government (giving no other proof but an article that talks about another company -Bizta) raises suspicion and hurts ZiaLater credibility as an editor. Elections are controversial everywhere, but more so in a country deeply divided by a political crisis. Zia Later, who has shown a great interest in Venezuelan Politics, should leave the polarization aside and concentrate on facts that can be referenced with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenio Martínez puzkas ( talk • contribs)
Hello, I just noticed I was mentioned in here. A few months back, I had a similar exchange with ZiaLater. However, I stopped editing this article as I just didn’t have the time to engage in an editing war with her. I have not problem at all with anybody investigating my profile as I am not in any way a sockpuppet nor a WP:SPA. The truth is that the last few months I've been really busy and the last thing in my mind has been editing WP. However, I've been researching quite a lot about great things happening on the e-Democracy arena lately, particularly in Europe and Africa, and I'm hopping to get back to editing as soon as I have the time. Regarding this discussion where I am indirectly referred to, looking at other editing that ZiaLater has worked on, one can see how she has a strong political viewpoints and engages in this types of conflicts often. I have to say I agree with other editors who have pointed out that ZiaLater is keen to pushing her own POVs to the extreme of jeopardizing Wikipedia’s neutrality. There seems to be a pattern or agenda in her editing with this article in particular, and this is simply not of my interest. That’s is why I during the time being I refrained from making more edits in this article. But yes, this definitely hurts Wikipedia. E-DemSnoopy ( talk) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Softlavender: as I have explained, I am a journalist who began researching the topic of voting and polling technology. You can see in my previous edits that I have not solely been editing Smartmatic and therefore I am not a single-purpose user. Carriedelvalle23 ( talk) 07:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Carriedelvalle23:@ E-DemSnoopy: I will probably list both of you on the WP:SPI just to be safe. Thank you for being honest with your opinion E-DemSnoopy, and I just found that the edits being performed were quite the coincidence. If I am trying to push anything, it is not a POV but against the whitewashing of articles. That is the only thing I personally despise in these instances. I will continue to try to and work with each of you and thank you for your involvement.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Just thought it should be noted that Smartmatic has been using journalists from the Philippines to do PR work, attempting to hire a journalist from the Filipino newspaper Malaya. The source may not be the best, but it at least sheds light on the COI issues with the Smartmatic article since multiple journalists/bloggers from the Philippines have been editing the page. In WP:COIN Archive 111, it was established that one Wikipedia account was a " Digital PR Strategist, Online Reputation Manager" who had met with Smartmatic, writing an article about the encounter. A sockpuppet investigation has since been opened. I would just like to note this for future reference if other issues arise. This will also be placed on the sockpuppet board.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Potential COI edits still occurring. Will someone check this out?-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident has been creating articles loosely related to actor Ron Thompson for a while now. It appeared to me as an attempt to bolster Thompson's status. I prod'ed an article about Buy the Bi and Bye (a play that Thompson appeared in), but Neptune's Trident removed the prod with a false claim that he had added an additional "full length review". That source he used was already in the article and is far from a full length review. When I asked about it on his talk page, he deleted my message with no comment.
This all ties back to Neptune's Trident's promotion of J. C. Macek, whose over 600 citations on Wikipedia bear no relationship to his professional standing. Macek is a producer of the film Cargo. Ron Thompson appears in the film. Neptune's Trident has recently created an article for the film, but was attempting to insert it in articles even before the movie was released (or finished, probably).
I believe it is very likely that Neptune's Trident needs to declare himself a connected contributor on Cargo and any artciles which relate to J. C. Macek. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Just for fun, I'll add this external link search. One J. C. Macek article is used as a reference on 42 separate Wikipedia articles. It is not a useful reference for at least 40 of those. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Obvious and direct conflict of interest along with a WP:UPOL violation (despite being declined.) CyberBuzz GA is GA Tech's student information center/college PR. See this and this. I realize that's an old newsletter however it is obvious based on the edits + name that this is intended to be a promotional account for the school and implies shared use. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Digbyjohn is an WP:SPA who only edits material related to Steve Nardelli, i.e. mainly that article and The Syn. These edits are usually of a promotional nature with a loose idea of WP:RS. Egregious examples include [41], [42] and [43]. User:Dl2000 has twice warned DigbyJohn on his Talk page. I have long presumed that User:Digbyjohn is Nardelli, so I added a WP:COI tag to the Steve Nardelli article in Jan 2017.
Recently, DigbyJohn added promotional material to the Steve Nardelli article about Nardelli's company, P3, sourced to P3's website: [44]. I removed as not having any secondary sources. DigbyJohn re-added but now citing local government planning paperwork: [45]. This does not seem like sufficient secondary sourcing to me. I removed, DigbyJohn re-added. Rinse and repeat. I raised the issue on the Talk page at Talk:Steve_Nardelli#Himley_Village_edits. There was no response. DigbyJohn subsequently re-added the material. Input from others would be helpful. Bondegezou ( talk) 19:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Created as the 10th edit of this editor (if I include 3 deleted edits to an earlier version of this article, deleted after a PROD). I randomly selected a few sources and they either didn't mention Korobkov or were press releases. To be fair, this editor has many more edits on the Russian WP, which explains their mastery of syntax perhaps, but still this looks to good to be true. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Onslaught of promotional edits to a fairly dormant article by an employee, as well as the uploading of fair use files. I've attempted a cleanup to remove some of the blatant promo, but it's still a lot of unnecessary detail and peacockery. – Train2104 ( t • c) 22:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article that indicated any notability and per longstanding tradition and school article guidelines, I redirected it to Manhattan#Education. I have no objection if someone wants to revert me and we can take it to AFD. I was not aware of this discussion when I redirected it. John from Idegon ( talk) 03:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Richard has a properly, but only recently, declared (on his user page) CoI, but has not responded to an earlier request on his talk page to discuss his changes to the article on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether COI/N is still considered an appropriate venue for discussing COI edit requests, as I've seen some disagreement about this in the recent past. However, this forum was suggested to be by an editor commenting on a COI request I've posted at Talk:Rothenberg Ventures, so here I am for now. That request (see previous link) is about updating the Controversies section to make it easier to follow, and remove extraneous detail. If anyone here is willing to have a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 18:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The editor was advised about the COI policy on their talk page in May 2016, but no disclosures were made. The user has edited many other articles in addition to those listed above. Rentier ( talk) 11:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier:, the links on the freelancing websites that you’ve shared don’t reflect my editing history. If you check them carefully, you can see that those are random jobs that simply have the word ‘Wikipedia’ in their titles and don’t have anything in common with my contributions. Unless you consider an article to be written not from a NPOV, your tags {{Undisclosed_paid}}, don’t have a reason behind them, except for WP:HA. Based on your posts, anyone who creates or edits an article about a living person, a film or a software has a COI which is not true, as nobody authorizes me or other editors to contribute to Wikipedia with our time and efforts. I hope and suppose it is a good faith care and is not outing, as pointing other users out with allegations of non-disclosed COI that are not based on any fact, looks misleading and not fair. L7starlight ( talk) 00:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier:, among the five “ads” you shared there are only three actual links and only one of them is working… The content of the link only states “Wikipedia page” in its title, yet it doesn’t provide any details, neither it matches any of the articles I've edited/created. Your accusations and thus {{Undisclosed_paid}} tags are merely based on good faith assumptions. But instead of contributing to WP they waste time and energy of editors on proving you wrong (you can’t prove you’re right). It violates policy and should be stopped.-- L7starlight ( talk) 01:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Question: The Upwork ads I linked to are now hidden. Can anyone frequenting this noticeboard who has visited the pages earlier confirm or deny the following two facts:
This is what my accusation is based on, in addition to the following observations:
With regards to the outstanding Upwork ad, https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01123975935102ff4d ( backup):
All Upwork jobs I mentioned were done by the same Upwork user.
Some of the evidence is circumstantial, but the pattern is clear, even discounting the now inaccessible ads. L7starlight's edits correlate tightly with ads to recruit paid editors appearing on Upwork. As their talk page shows, I am not the first person to notice L7starlight's apparent conflict of interest. The only conclusion I come up with, and the only conclusion I think it's reasonably possible to come up with, is that L7starlight is an undisclosed paid editor who, by posting here, is attempting to game the system in a way that, frankly, must require a great deal of moral flexibility. Rentier ( talk) 03:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Additional evidence based on Flickr timestamps. It shows that L7starlight uploaded photos to Commons shortly after they were either uploaded to Flickr or modified on Flickr by the copyright owners (perhaps to change the license?). It's a further corroboration of my claim that the editor has been working on behalf of the articles' subjects. Rentier ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
File | Uploaded to Commons | Uploaded to Flickr | Last modified on Flickr | Verification | Backup |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
File:The Sextones.jpg | June 21st | June 19th | - | https://www.flickr.com/photos/149691098@N02/35409787315/ | [47] |
File:The Hunted film poster.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [48] Put in the photo_id 35266022772, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [49] |
File:Casar Jacobson Miss Canada.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [50] Put in the photo_id 35033325750, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [51] |
File:Casar Jacobson UN2.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | [52] Put in the photo_id 35380976246, and check the dateuploaded timestamp. | [53] |
File:Casar Jacobson UN.jpg | June 20th | June 20th | - | https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/35290965821 | [54] |
File:Casar Jacobson.jpg | June 20th | May 14th | June 20th | [55] Put in the photo_id 34277070930, and check the dateuploaded and lastupdate timestamps. | [56] |
Hopefully the Flickr pages won't all get hidden now. Rentier ( talk) 10:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
L7starlight is appealing the block stating that I put incorrect Flickr upload dates. It would be advisable for someone to verify and confirm the dates (which is trivial but not obvious) because if the photos are taken down, like the Upwork jobs were, there will be no objective evidence left beyond my word and L7starlight's pattern of edits.
Rentier (
talk)
17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on a Google search of "Canada 150" together with the editor's name, this appears to be an undeclared paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
An anonymous user is adding promotionally-worded content to several articles related to the Cleveland Clinic. This seems to have been an issue in the past (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#Cleveland_Clinic). I have left a COI notice on the IP talk page, but haven't gotten a response. Deli nk ( talk) 14:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)