![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The Smartmatic article has been whitewashed by numerous COI editors for months and I recommend a block from the article for Carriedelvalle23 and an account block for E-DemSnoopy who has been working by proxy for a previously blocked sockpuppet.
Below is the background on the users:
As I have been saying for months, the Smartmatic article is full of SPAs and COI users, many of which are employed by Smartmatic or potentially hired. I highly recommend action and will request page protection for the article.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
With the concerns of efforts to hire paid editors by the company in question I have protected with extended autoconfirmed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just picked off a sockfarm which has almost certainly been employed to edit articles relating to Albert Yeung and the Emperor Group. The history of some of these articles suggests that COI editing has been going on for some time, but I'm about to go offline and don't have the time to do the necessary detective work. If anyone's at a loose end, they could do worse than look into the history of the following pages:
and probably more. Have fun... Yunshui 雲 水 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Self-admitted Mother of current Mayor candidate for Detroit. Edit history suggests removal of information that could be seen as negative towards campaign, reducing the illegitimate son of Coleman Young, removal of birth name etc.
For updates, see this sock-puppet investigation.
Confirmed socks
Likely sock
Stale
Created
Content added
Content removed
Handled one way or another. Drmies ( talk) 13:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Other
These three articles came up in my search based on behavioural patterns, but the connection to the other articles/accounts is not as strong.
The Zaggora ad/bios apparently repeat misleading information.
The articles listed share the content/formatting style and the author's characteristics. I was careful, but a few false positives are possible given the high number of accounts. Let me know if there are any doubts. Rentier ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the behavior evidence is so strong I am supportive of deleting based on G11, G5, and TOU violations. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have concluded, PRODs expired, most articles are deleted, and SPI is inactive. I'll close this soon if nobody asks for more time on it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I cleaned articles created by the original group of ~8 but there were many new accounts found with checkuser tools ( permlink). The checkuser said that they were creating promotional articles, which now need to be reviewed. G5 nominations have been very effective lately. (edited to add) Anatha Gulati sockfarm may be linked, at least two editors were picked up by CU in both cases, which makes things interesting. See above #Another day, another sockfarm.
I'm trying something new with ProRealTime, would appreciate if that article wasn't nominated for deletion right away. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The relatively new article Celixir has been created and improved by a series of four editors in such a way that I suspect a violation of WP:COI. User:Bkoohy, User:Willjol27, User:Zsdftb, and User:Elrx have all contributed only to the Celixir article and pages related to the company, and have successfully fought off attempts to delete the page. Note that on the article talk page ( Talk:Celixir) User:Elrx stated that "we're a group of teenage interns who have never done this before", which to me implies a COI in regards to the article subject. I don't think action can be taken at the moment, but a record should be kept in case the article goes to Afd. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is any use since the account is stale although I have prodded the article so we'll see if anyone shows up to defend it. I came across the above from a report at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#dream marriage search about an article on a questionable site. When investigating, I quickly became concerned since the article basically references press releases, except for 1 ref to the site itself and one ref to some random award which itself doesn't seem significant or notable. Further, the editor has done nothing other than create this article (including initially in their sandbox) and blue link their talk and user page. Since they weren't autoconfirmed, they took over a disambig to create the article, although at least redirected the new redirect to one of the original targets although that may have been as much as anything because they realised someone may get suspicious if they came across the weird redirect. Incidentally, while I wonder if the PROD may draw them back, I'm fine with anyone deleting it straight away. Or maybe better, move it back to Drethc and history merge it with the new Dretch (since someone else has also edited that), and just rev delete the Dream Marriage nonsense. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
ACMM98 and Hollywood98 are the same person, who began writing about Geoffrey R. Moore and Ambra Moore on August 3, inserting them into the actor biography Roger Moore. [3] After looking at the promotional tone of the contributions, it became clear to me that ACMM98 was closely connected to the topics, and I warned her here about a conflict of interest. A few minutes later Fabrictramp warned her about writing her own autobiography. [4] Less than an hour later, the account Hollywood98 was registered, immediately continuing the work of ACMM98 who had stopped editing.
I'm not sure what course to take here. I created AfD pages for Ambra Moore and And The Winner Isn't because they appeared to me to have not enough significant coverage in the media, but the other new article Geoffrey R. Moore seems like it can be kept after more sources (which exist [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) are brought to bear. But what to do about Hollywood98's conflict of interest? Binksternet ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am having real problems with Rijusikri at Padmanabh Singh. I've tried to explain in various places, including the article talk page and here (I haven't responded to their actual email). Other people have also been involved in trying to explain.
They've declared that they are an employee of this self-styled maharajah (see this version of the article re: use of the title) but they are not getting it. There's no doubt some of the material is verifiable, as I have indicated, but the sycophantic babble needs to stop. Later today, I can try to expand the article from a stub such as that which I have just linked in the diff but I can't do it if they keep reinstating the rubbish. Can someone please explain this to them - I'm running out of patience. - Sitush ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Ran into a User with a name similar to a ( [12]) political consulting company, and so I put username COI tag on their talk page. The user then requested to change his/her name to its current one, TxFactChecker. This user has continued to create articles about politicians in Texas, and I thought it would be prudent to bring this to the attention of editors more experienced in these matters than I am. SamHolt6 ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the current Wikipedia article, "Greg Karais (b. 1970), is a Canadian Bear enthusiast". The most current version of the article was created by on 31 July by User:Not Your Average Wikipedian. According to the logs, the article has been created and deleted twice before. User:CanadianWikilover was responsible for one of the earlier versions. Very shortly after I pointed out the connection between the two accounts, both of the users blanked their user pages.
Aside from being a bear enthusiast, Greg Karais is also the publisher of Yukon, North of Ordinary, a quarterly magazine which serves as the in-flight magazine for a small regional airline. All three of the named accounts and at least one of the IPs have edited the article. It may also be helpful to know that Greg Karais (along with his wife Krystal and their Wheaten Terrier "Cargo") rents out cabins at Crag Lake, near Carcross, Yukon. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Andromeda Creative" is the name of an LA based marketing firm. Here is a tweet saying they are working with Skeptoid to promote their new film " Principles of Curiosity" which is dated to July 20th. On July 20th, this user who has the same name as the marketing firm, made the Wikipedia page for "Principles of Curiosity", and inserted the page under "In Popular culture" sections to several articles using the official website of the film as a source. I believe this user to be the same as the marketing firm, as both names and dates line up. I don't believe the film is notable enough to have its own page, nor is it notable enough to be referenced in other articles and this user has a profound conflict of interest. WP:USERNAME also bans company names from being used as usernames. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In a previous posting on this noticeboard, I outlined Neptune's Trident's long history of promoting J. C. Macek. The latest example is even clearer. On July 27, Neptune's Trident created an article for a book publisher, Bloodhound Books. On July 28, Bloodhound books announced that it had signed J. C. Marek to a book deal. Not only does it appear that the article exists only because J. C. Marek is involved, but it was created before his involvement was publicly announced. How obvious does something have to be before it can be stated here? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Noticed that editors are adding perfectly formed but unreferenced articles at high speed today, suggesting to me some form of paid editing. There are probably more, which I shall now look for. - Roxy the dog. bark 07:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
GAB gab 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I came across this draft during AfC. Rather than being an article about grammar, it appears to be nothing more than a crude SEO technique to promote a company called Mentor Media. A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they work as an online marketing consultant. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Kopaz is a newly-registered WP:SPA account whose only Wikipedia edits have been to the Dale Groutage article and its current AFD discussion; I already suspected conflict of interest due to his WP:BLUDGEONing tone in the discussion, but was reluctant to actually bring it up here because I couldn't figure out how to raise the issue without outing him. However, in his most recent comment at the AFD discussion, he switched from referring to Dale Groutage in the third person to referring to Dale Groutage in the first person — so for all intents and purposes he's now outed himself. That said, since I'm the primary person in his line of fire at the AFD discussion, I'm not the right person to decide if any COI warnings or sanctions are warranted or not. Bearcat ( talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Daowner ( User talk:Daowner)) recently created the article Daniel C. Adams (web designer), which I tagged for COI after Daowner cited [13] as a source. When that article was subsequently deleted for violating G11, User:Alvinturner ( User talk:Alvinturner338) created the articles Daniel C Adams and Daniel C. Adams (designer). I think we should keep and eye on these editors and content relating to Daniel C Adams. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As part of the OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm cleanup above, I dialed back the product features in Technical analysis software. This is following even more excision of product feature lists by MrOllie. Unfortunately an anon has reverted both of us without any explanation, restoring over 20k of unsourced material. The IP is a static Comcast Business IP geolocates to the same area that just happens to be headquarters of one of the companies whose article links to Technical analysis software. The MetaStock article also has pages and pages of feature lists and such. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
According to evidence on talkpage, this is indistinguishable from OM. User is blocked though hasn't been tagged yet. Articles listed above are page creations. Several go back to 2015, newest was created under 90 days ago. SPI started: permlink ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same according to Bloomberg [14] and the company creates software called Mobilizer. The editor, formerly named Mobile1st, has partially disclosed a conflict but hasn't specified what it is and continues to directly edit. WP:REALNAME applies. His latest action (after a years long hiatus) is to add several sources to dePROD the article, including springbox.com and mobile1st.com. It is problematic. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it is not at all true that Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same.(Mobilizer is a web tool sold by Mobile1st.) Mobile1st was spun off from Springbox in 2014. The services offered and the personel are entirely different. Here is some info on the leadership of Mobile1st: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/digital-agency-executive-jonathan-silverstein-named-ceo-of-mobile1st-and-its-pioneering-mobile-conversion-optimization-organization-300496685.html I have alerted the Springbox people to the erroneous info offered by Bloomberg, which Bri cites. My conflict of interest -- I am a friend of Springbox ceo, and he asked to me produce a factual, verifed account of the company. I tried to find good sourcing for the key facts of the entry. Jake Rabin ( talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh here's a page detailing the leadership of Springbox, which you can see is different from mobile1st: https://www.springbox.com/about/ And here's mobile1st, though its new ceo isnt mentioned: https://mobile1st.com/about/ Jake Rabin ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to add that I'd love your guidance on how to make the article better fit Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your help! Jake Rabin ( talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Easyship was created a few days ago by User:Kingd97, who has no edits other than on this topic. The company may or may not be notable but the original article was filled with blatant promotion. I trimmed the advertising and editorializing after which there wasn't much left. User:Kingd97 restored the promotion by the rather unconventional approach of moving the article to Draft space, editing it there, then it moving back to article space. More eyes are needed on the article. Not sure what to make of moving the article back and forth to Draft space -- it could be seen as disruptive, or it may be that User:Kingd97 simply is inexperienced. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did create a Wikipedia page for Easyship, but it was not meant for promotion. I am making a page for Easyship like every other company with a Wikipedia Page, to inform others what Easyship is, and Easyship is a notable company. I was told by a Wikipedian (whose Username I have forgotten) to make a page for Easyship again, and that is what I did. He told me to switch from Article to Draft, write a better one and then switch it back to Article. And also, so many other companies have a Wikipedia page, how come they are not deleted and Easyship's is? If you believe that those company pages are not there for promotion, then how/why is that the case for Easyship? Kingd97 ( talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they are an employee of the company, and an undeclared paid editor using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Bringing this here because there was what appeared to be a paid editing declartion that was later rescinded after I noted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. There does appear to be a COI here given the very long defense at the AfD and the lengthy bouts of inactivity followed by creation of perfectly formatted articles from scratch. The following were created by the user:
Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25, which is connected to this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Silicon Valley "home renovation resource platform...with the goal of helping others make their renovation dreams a reality" with $1M startup money. And a shiny new Wikipedia page from a just as new editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This user, whose username strongly suggests a conflict of interest, has for a third time overwritten the article with the identical advert, despite talk-page warning : Noyster (talk), 12:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati
Articles created
Added since 30/7
More older articles
Substantially edited
Given the redirect method used to create these it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing and have been blocked before. I think regardless of the SPI, these are all safe to delete via G5 per WP:DUCK. SmartSE ( talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I was curious about the zipper related articles. All of them seemed to have links to the website of SBS zippers. Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology was created by User:Mozhike, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mokezhilao (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive). Connected? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
User:182.64.255.167 creates Draft:Oswald Foundation at 7:38, edits it until 7:54. User:Pushingatoms moves it into mainspace at 8:07. User:Nishant Gadihoke has only contributed to this article. Similar pattern with Anand Chowdhary. User:Bluemusic15 has only contributed to Oswald, Chowdhary, and one other. User:Arvindsingh2 has only contributed to Chowdhary. Likely that these accounts are all somehow connected. Edwardx ( talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
A cool edit filter that was brought to my attention, Filter 867, flagged one or more of the articles above. Ubet (company) created by a brand-new editor with unusual facility for creating entire articles in one edit. Who has done several more since. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I edited the Omaze article to remove insufficiently notable and biased information. This information appears to have been added by H-riddle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is repeatedly reverting my edits to the article. CoolieCoolster ( talk) 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A little bit of outing is required here, so here I go. I reviewed his draft articles, and looking at his contributions it was evident that he is a paid editor. A search for the given user name reveals that he is an Upwork freelancer. The magnitude of his contributions indicate that he needs to be blocked before this goes any further. Jupitus Smart 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Redacted per WP:OUTING - Bilby ( talk) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
First created by this group [15].
Now again:
Other articles:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Long-lived single-purpose account. User page says CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC
, no COI or paid editing disclosed despite initial COI notice by @
Diannaa and "me" last year. The article on Retrospect doesn't seem to be anywhere near the encyclopedic standards, and hasn't improved since last year despite continued contributions from DovidBenAvraham; quite the opposite, in my opinion.
On first look, the article on Ronny Lee is probably fine. But I have no idea what to do about the Retrospect article, so I'm bringing this up here as a first timer. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 18:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
For comparison:
2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to be seen as harassing/outing him, but it is obvious from his contributions that he is a paid editor. I searched for him, and it turns out that he is an SEO Executive at some firm (Not providing link to prevent being misconstrued as outing), suggesting that most of his contributions have been paid for (which is anyway evident from looking at hs contribution history). He hasn't responded to warnings on his talk page, but I will still ping @ Sandiprajbhar: to see if he has anything to say. Jupitus Smart 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Recreation of article posted by Orangemoody sock, Arr4. ☆ Bri ( talk) 08:07, 22 August 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.
The page and its AfD would benefit from some examination by editors who are experienced with COI issues. (By the way, I've taken COIN off my watchlist.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The articles listed above are the existing articles by this on-again-off-again editor (a pattern commonly but not always that of paid editors). With Nicholas C. Rowley, this editor found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BME917. It is true that the subject editor has stated that they do not have a conflict of interest with regard to C. Shegerian and to Favale. The sockpuppetry (in order to have another account remove the G11 tag) has been confirmed by a CheckUser. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelgaStick which will shortly be moved
here
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. One of the accounts had semi-disclosed they were taking jobs from Fiverr but none of the others had. They also had a keen interest in politics as well, which may need looking at closely.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've only included obvious UPE articles here. There are other political biographies which could also be.
More added by Bri below.
More missed by Smartse:
There's a contribution surveyor report for the three really active accounts here. Regarding your question about the not-obviously-commercial editing, it's hard to suss out. Example, what is this all about? HelgaStick is the "good hand" and Liborbital, GringisMan the "bad hand"? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Would someone else like to look at this? It was created by KAustin, who acknowledges here that it was written for "my boss". Neagleyz knows Casali well enough to have taken this photograph of him (but, Neagleyz, why did you upload such a low-resolution copy of your photo, and without any EXIF data?). It's no surprise to discover that the IP range 129.111.0.0/16 is registered to UTHSCSA, University of Texas, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio.
The content appears to have been created as a part of someone's paid employment, and I've suggested here that either the text be removed from the page, or the page moved back to draft ... with predictable response. I then – very reluctantly, I must admit – started cleaning it up myself; when I was reverted by SwisterTwister, who was responsible for moving it into article space in the first place, I stopped. I don't plan to touch it again, hence this post. The subject, by the way, is most certainly notable by our standards.
This article aside, I think it's time to review with care our handling of both of COI content in draft space, and of TOU violations. Specifically, is there any reason why an editor, any editor, should not remove all body text – with TOU violation as rationale – from an article like this one, so that a neutral and non-conflicted page can be written in its place? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Whitewashing of a company page by an editor who claims they aren't compensated for their edits. However, an Upwork job requesting edits to the Mannatech page has been started a few weeks ago (a link would have to be to the freelancer's profile - let me know if it's OK to post it), and the company appears to have a long history of editing the page. Rentier ( talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The article has definitely been cleaned up, good team effort. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Both the user and the IP seem to be the subject of this biography. They appear to be making good faith attempts to update and correct their biography, but keep getting reverted with little explanation. They could probably use some guidance from someone experienced in COI issues. Edgeweyes ( talk) 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
COI editing appears to have persisted "to inform the public" with sourcing and copyright violation issues. This is also a medical topic. More attention to the article welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that these two editors may have a conflict of interest, but when I have tagged the article, Truthtellers19 removes the template. Note that, according to the article, Klein's company is called Truth Fairy TV Media Group. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Same name as flutist with questionable nobility. Article is poorly sourced and cruft continuously is added to it. Article was not created by user, but that is the only article they have edited. Username might be a violation, but I don't even know if this person is "famous". — nihlus kryik ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User continues to add content, despite a COI notice on talkpage and obvious COI as evidenced by username. Edwardx ( talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Please advise who to get in touch with to discuss GROHE_Marketing —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure how to handle this case, but I will still try. This person has accepted that he is a paid editor, and has provided a list of articles that he has been paid for on his user page. Paid editing if declared is probably a transgression that is forgiven here. However there are many other articles that he has created which are probably paid editing as well, and have not been declared as such by him or mentioned as such on the talk pages of the articles. Some of the undeclared suspected paid edits include
I am pinging @ Uyarafath: for comments. Jupitus Smart 10:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion last week and you can see the talk thread with user here. I recommended Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists for deletion but then saw user's upload of a commercial looking image to Jade Mya. The photo came from Flickr and looks like it was uploaded a day or two prior. Upon Googling the name of the original uploader on Flickr, I find it is linked to a company that offers paid services for editing Wikipedia. I am not putting any names - company or person - here to avoid outing, but you can easily follow the path for yourself. I should note that prior to me contacting user on their talk page, they had only two paid editing disclosures I could find and the disclosure on their userpage was non-existent. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Acting sheepish won't really be helpful. Here are some points to consider:
Bah. Jupitus Smart 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The new article Yan Gorshtenin has been introduced and edited mainly by User:Gorshteninyan ( talk), which implies a potential conflict of interest. The editor has several times removed an autobiography tag placed on the article, and some of the information added to the page seem to be very promotional towards the subject. Requesting we keep an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A WP:SPI also is in order. The subject lives in Los Angeles, and the article is being edited by both User talk:Gorshteninyan and two IPs that geolocate to... guess where? I've gotta get to bed but if somebody wants to file the paperwork that would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
User has returned after being warned of COI seven years ago. Of course we allow people to edit articles about themselves and their associations, but there's no attempt, then or now, to communicate, follow guidelines, or add reliable sources. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Emma Harbonnier started the article CORYS, which is a notable company. The article, as created had a distinct promotional tone. A casual check on linkedIn revealed a person of this name is an employee (Assistante en communication) of said company. I proceeded to place a {{ uw-coi}} template on her userpage. Today she removed maintenace templates and reinstated much of the material which had been removed. This seems a clear case of undisclosed COI. Please advise. Kleuske ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thre was an offsite ad for work on WP articles relating to dice games. In reviewing this I came across a lot of dubious references at Craps. Even after a bunch of cleanup back in May [19], the article is pretty crappy, perhaps in WP:TNT territory, but I wanted a second opinion before proceeding further. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I have some concerns that the author of this article may be an undisclosed paid contributor, considering their name, the age of the account, and the lack of neutrality of their edits. PureRED ( talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry. I see the alert that there is a discussion about the article I wrote, but I cannot find the discussion.
The relevance of this article revolves around free speech issues. I deleted everything that may have been considered extraneous. Can someone please tell me if there is still an issue with the article. Thank you ghostwriter45
Articles edited linked to Upwork jobs:
Long-time paid editor, more than 100 Upwork jobs completed. Rentier ( talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
CREATED
EDITED
UNEXPLAINED
Fuller cleanup list above ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Article created by an SPA, and edited by five other SPAs since then. Subject is of questionable notability. Edwardx ( talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
SFM.Corporate is a SCAM, just google it Eu100 ( talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the recent 100+ article paid editing case I noticed several mattress companies bear marks of paid editing, and the same editor was involved in categorization, an odd choice. At any rate this edit indicates COI editing from a marketing exec at King Koil. The article was overly promotional and nearly all sourced to corp materials so I nominated it for G11 speedy. Eve Sleep is declared paid, and needs a cleanup job. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:06, 30 August 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.
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:47, 30 August 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 Smartmatic article has been whitewashed by numerous COI editors for months and I recommend a block from the article for Carriedelvalle23 and an account block for E-DemSnoopy who has been working by proxy for a previously blocked sockpuppet.
Below is the background on the users:
As I have been saying for months, the Smartmatic article is full of SPAs and COI users, many of which are employed by Smartmatic or potentially hired. I highly recommend action and will request page protection for the article.-- ZiaLater ( talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
With the concerns of efforts to hire paid editors by the company in question I have protected with extended autoconfirmed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just picked off a sockfarm which has almost certainly been employed to edit articles relating to Albert Yeung and the Emperor Group. The history of some of these articles suggests that COI editing has been going on for some time, but I'm about to go offline and don't have the time to do the necessary detective work. If anyone's at a loose end, they could do worse than look into the history of the following pages:
and probably more. Have fun... Yunshui 雲 水 15:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Self-admitted Mother of current Mayor candidate for Detroit. Edit history suggests removal of information that could be seen as negative towards campaign, reducing the illegitimate son of Coleman Young, removal of birth name etc.
For updates, see this sock-puppet investigation.
Confirmed socks
Likely sock
Stale
Created
Content added
Content removed
Handled one way or another. Drmies ( talk) 13:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Other
These three articles came up in my search based on behavioural patterns, but the connection to the other articles/accounts is not as strong.
The Zaggora ad/bios apparently repeat misleading information.
The articles listed share the content/formatting style and the author's characteristics. I was careful, but a few false positives are possible given the high number of accounts. Let me know if there are any doubts. Rentier ( talk) 19:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Since the behavior evidence is so strong I am supportive of deleting based on G11, G5, and TOU violations. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have concluded, PRODs expired, most articles are deleted, and SPI is inactive. I'll close this soon if nobody asks for more time on it. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I cleaned articles created by the original group of ~8 but there were many new accounts found with checkuser tools ( permlink). The checkuser said that they were creating promotional articles, which now need to be reviewed. G5 nominations have been very effective lately. (edited to add) Anatha Gulati sockfarm may be linked, at least two editors were picked up by CU in both cases, which makes things interesting. See above #Another day, another sockfarm.
I'm trying something new with ProRealTime, would appreciate if that article wasn't nominated for deletion right away. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The relatively new article Celixir has been created and improved by a series of four editors in such a way that I suspect a violation of WP:COI. User:Bkoohy, User:Willjol27, User:Zsdftb, and User:Elrx have all contributed only to the Celixir article and pages related to the company, and have successfully fought off attempts to delete the page. Note that on the article talk page ( Talk:Celixir) User:Elrx stated that "we're a group of teenage interns who have never done this before", which to me implies a COI in regards to the article subject. I don't think action can be taken at the moment, but a record should be kept in case the article goes to Afd. SamHolt6 ( talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this is any use since the account is stale although I have prodded the article so we'll see if anyone shows up to defend it. I came across the above from a report at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#dream marriage search about an article on a questionable site. When investigating, I quickly became concerned since the article basically references press releases, except for 1 ref to the site itself and one ref to some random award which itself doesn't seem significant or notable. Further, the editor has done nothing other than create this article (including initially in their sandbox) and blue link their talk and user page. Since they weren't autoconfirmed, they took over a disambig to create the article, although at least redirected the new redirect to one of the original targets although that may have been as much as anything because they realised someone may get suspicious if they came across the weird redirect. Incidentally, while I wonder if the PROD may draw them back, I'm fine with anyone deleting it straight away. Or maybe better, move it back to Drethc and history merge it with the new Dretch (since someone else has also edited that), and just rev delete the Dream Marriage nonsense. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
ACMM98 and Hollywood98 are the same person, who began writing about Geoffrey R. Moore and Ambra Moore on August 3, inserting them into the actor biography Roger Moore. [3] After looking at the promotional tone of the contributions, it became clear to me that ACMM98 was closely connected to the topics, and I warned her here about a conflict of interest. A few minutes later Fabrictramp warned her about writing her own autobiography. [4] Less than an hour later, the account Hollywood98 was registered, immediately continuing the work of ACMM98 who had stopped editing.
I'm not sure what course to take here. I created AfD pages for Ambra Moore and And The Winner Isn't because they appeared to me to have not enough significant coverage in the media, but the other new article Geoffrey R. Moore seems like it can be kept after more sources (which exist [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) are brought to bear. But what to do about Hollywood98's conflict of interest? Binksternet ( talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am having real problems with Rijusikri at Padmanabh Singh. I've tried to explain in various places, including the article talk page and here (I haven't responded to their actual email). Other people have also been involved in trying to explain.
They've declared that they are an employee of this self-styled maharajah (see this version of the article re: use of the title) but they are not getting it. There's no doubt some of the material is verifiable, as I have indicated, but the sycophantic babble needs to stop. Later today, I can try to expand the article from a stub such as that which I have just linked in the diff but I can't do it if they keep reinstating the rubbish. Can someone please explain this to them - I'm running out of patience. - Sitush ( talk) 07:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Ran into a User with a name similar to a ( [12]) political consulting company, and so I put username COI tag on their talk page. The user then requested to change his/her name to its current one, TxFactChecker. This user has continued to create articles about politicians in Texas, and I thought it would be prudent to bring this to the attention of editors more experienced in these matters than I am. SamHolt6 ( talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the current Wikipedia article, "Greg Karais (b. 1970), is a Canadian Bear enthusiast". The most current version of the article was created by on 31 July by User:Not Your Average Wikipedian. According to the logs, the article has been created and deleted twice before. User:CanadianWikilover was responsible for one of the earlier versions. Very shortly after I pointed out the connection between the two accounts, both of the users blanked their user pages.
Aside from being a bear enthusiast, Greg Karais is also the publisher of Yukon, North of Ordinary, a quarterly magazine which serves as the in-flight magazine for a small regional airline. All three of the named accounts and at least one of the IPs have edited the article. It may also be helpful to know that Greg Karais (along with his wife Krystal and their Wheaten Terrier "Cargo") rents out cabins at Crag Lake, near Carcross, Yukon. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Andromeda Creative" is the name of an LA based marketing firm. Here is a tweet saying they are working with Skeptoid to promote their new film " Principles of Curiosity" which is dated to July 20th. On July 20th, this user who has the same name as the marketing firm, made the Wikipedia page for "Principles of Curiosity", and inserted the page under "In Popular culture" sections to several articles using the official website of the film as a source. I believe this user to be the same as the marketing firm, as both names and dates line up. I don't believe the film is notable enough to have its own page, nor is it notable enough to be referenced in other articles and this user has a profound conflict of interest. WP:USERNAME also bans company names from being used as usernames. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
In a previous posting on this noticeboard, I outlined Neptune's Trident's long history of promoting J. C. Macek. The latest example is even clearer. On July 27, Neptune's Trident created an article for a book publisher, Bloodhound Books. On July 28, Bloodhound books announced that it had signed J. C. Marek to a book deal. Not only does it appear that the article exists only because J. C. Marek is involved, but it was created before his involvement was publicly announced. How obvious does something have to be before it can be stated here? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Noticed that editors are adding perfectly formed but unreferenced articles at high speed today, suggesting to me some form of paid editing. There are probably more, which I shall now look for. - Roxy the dog. bark 07:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
GAB gab 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I came across this draft during AfC. Rather than being an article about grammar, it appears to be nothing more than a crude SEO technique to promote a company called Mentor Media. A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they work as an online marketing consultant. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Kopaz is a newly-registered WP:SPA account whose only Wikipedia edits have been to the Dale Groutage article and its current AFD discussion; I already suspected conflict of interest due to his WP:BLUDGEONing tone in the discussion, but was reluctant to actually bring it up here because I couldn't figure out how to raise the issue without outing him. However, in his most recent comment at the AFD discussion, he switched from referring to Dale Groutage in the third person to referring to Dale Groutage in the first person — so for all intents and purposes he's now outed himself. That said, since I'm the primary person in his line of fire at the AFD discussion, I'm not the right person to decide if any COI warnings or sanctions are warranted or not. Bearcat ( talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Daowner ( User talk:Daowner)) recently created the article Daniel C. Adams (web designer), which I tagged for COI after Daowner cited [13] as a source. When that article was subsequently deleted for violating G11, User:Alvinturner ( User talk:Alvinturner338) created the articles Daniel C Adams and Daniel C. Adams (designer). I think we should keep and eye on these editors and content relating to Daniel C Adams. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
As part of the OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm cleanup above, I dialed back the product features in Technical analysis software. This is following even more excision of product feature lists by MrOllie. Unfortunately an anon has reverted both of us without any explanation, restoring over 20k of unsourced material. The IP is a static Comcast Business IP geolocates to the same area that just happens to be headquarters of one of the companies whose article links to Technical analysis software. The MetaStock article also has pages and pages of feature lists and such. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
According to evidence on talkpage, this is indistinguishable from OM. User is blocked though hasn't been tagged yet. Articles listed above are page creations. Several go back to 2015, newest was created under 90 days ago. SPI started: permlink ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same according to Bloomberg [14] and the company creates software called Mobilizer. The editor, formerly named Mobile1st, has partially disclosed a conflict but hasn't specified what it is and continues to directly edit. WP:REALNAME applies. His latest action (after a years long hiatus) is to add several sources to dePROD the article, including springbox.com and mobile1st.com. It is problematic. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, it is not at all true that Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same.(Mobilizer is a web tool sold by Mobile1st.) Mobile1st was spun off from Springbox in 2014. The services offered and the personel are entirely different. Here is some info on the leadership of Mobile1st: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/digital-agency-executive-jonathan-silverstein-named-ceo-of-mobile1st-and-its-pioneering-mobile-conversion-optimization-organization-300496685.html I have alerted the Springbox people to the erroneous info offered by Bloomberg, which Bri cites. My conflict of interest -- I am a friend of Springbox ceo, and he asked to me produce a factual, verifed account of the company. I tried to find good sourcing for the key facts of the entry. Jake Rabin ( talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh here's a page detailing the leadership of Springbox, which you can see is different from mobile1st: https://www.springbox.com/about/ And here's mobile1st, though its new ceo isnt mentioned: https://mobile1st.com/about/ Jake Rabin ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to add that I'd love your guidance on how to make the article better fit Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your help! Jake Rabin ( talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Easyship was created a few days ago by User:Kingd97, who has no edits other than on this topic. The company may or may not be notable but the original article was filled with blatant promotion. I trimmed the advertising and editorializing after which there wasn't much left. User:Kingd97 restored the promotion by the rather unconventional approach of moving the article to Draft space, editing it there, then it moving back to article space. More eyes are needed on the article. Not sure what to make of moving the article back and forth to Draft space -- it could be seen as disruptive, or it may be that User:Kingd97 simply is inexperienced. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did create a Wikipedia page for Easyship, but it was not meant for promotion. I am making a page for Easyship like every other company with a Wikipedia Page, to inform others what Easyship is, and Easyship is a notable company. I was told by a Wikipedian (whose Username I have forgotten) to make a page for Easyship again, and that is what I did. He told me to switch from Article to Draft, write a better one and then switch it back to Article. And also, so many other companies have a Wikipedia page, how come they are not deleted and Easyship's is? If you believe that those company pages are not there for promotion, then how/why is that the case for Easyship? Kingd97 ( talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they are an employee of the company, and an undeclared paid editor using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Bringing this here because there was what appeared to be a paid editing declartion that was later rescinded after I noted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. There does appear to be a COI here given the very long defense at the AfD and the lengthy bouts of inactivity followed by creation of perfectly formatted articles from scratch. The following were created by the user:
Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25, which is connected to this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Silicon Valley "home renovation resource platform...with the goal of helping others make their renovation dreams a reality" with $1M startup money. And a shiny new Wikipedia page from a just as new editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This user, whose username strongly suggests a conflict of interest, has for a third time overwritten the article with the identical advert, despite talk-page warning : Noyster (talk), 12:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati
Articles created
Added since 30/7
More older articles
Substantially edited
Given the redirect method used to create these it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing and have been blocked before. I think regardless of the SPI, these are all safe to delete via G5 per WP:DUCK. SmartSE ( talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I was curious about the zipper related articles. All of them seemed to have links to the website of SBS zippers. Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology was created by User:Mozhike, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mokezhilao (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive). Connected? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
User:182.64.255.167 creates Draft:Oswald Foundation at 7:38, edits it until 7:54. User:Pushingatoms moves it into mainspace at 8:07. User:Nishant Gadihoke has only contributed to this article. Similar pattern with Anand Chowdhary. User:Bluemusic15 has only contributed to Oswald, Chowdhary, and one other. User:Arvindsingh2 has only contributed to Chowdhary. Likely that these accounts are all somehow connected. Edwardx ( talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
A cool edit filter that was brought to my attention, Filter 867, flagged one or more of the articles above. Ubet (company) created by a brand-new editor with unusual facility for creating entire articles in one edit. Who has done several more since. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I edited the Omaze article to remove insufficiently notable and biased information. This information appears to have been added by H-riddle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is repeatedly reverting my edits to the article. CoolieCoolster ( talk) 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
A little bit of outing is required here, so here I go. I reviewed his draft articles, and looking at his contributions it was evident that he is a paid editor. A search for the given user name reveals that he is an Upwork freelancer. The magnitude of his contributions indicate that he needs to be blocked before this goes any further. Jupitus Smart 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Redacted per WP:OUTING - Bilby ( talk) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
First created by this group [15].
Now again:
Other articles:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Long-lived single-purpose account. User page says CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC
, no COI or paid editing disclosed despite initial COI notice by @
Diannaa and "me" last year. The article on Retrospect doesn't seem to be anywhere near the encyclopedic standards, and hasn't improved since last year despite continued contributions from DovidBenAvraham; quite the opposite, in my opinion.
On first look, the article on Ronny Lee is probably fine. But I have no idea what to do about the Retrospect article, so I'm bringing this up here as a first timer. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 18:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
For comparison:
2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to be seen as harassing/outing him, but it is obvious from his contributions that he is a paid editor. I searched for him, and it turns out that he is an SEO Executive at some firm (Not providing link to prevent being misconstrued as outing), suggesting that most of his contributions have been paid for (which is anyway evident from looking at hs contribution history). He hasn't responded to warnings on his talk page, but I will still ping @ Sandiprajbhar: to see if he has anything to say. Jupitus Smart 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Recreation of article posted by Orangemoody sock, Arr4. ☆ Bri ( talk) 08:07, 22 August 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.
The page and its AfD would benefit from some examination by editors who are experienced with COI issues. (By the way, I've taken COIN off my watchlist.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The articles listed above are the existing articles by this on-again-off-again editor (a pattern commonly but not always that of paid editors). With Nicholas C. Rowley, this editor found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BME917. It is true that the subject editor has stated that they do not have a conflict of interest with regard to C. Shegerian and to Favale. The sockpuppetry (in order to have another account remove the G11 tag) has been confirmed by a CheckUser. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelgaStick which will shortly be moved
here
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. One of the accounts had semi-disclosed they were taking jobs from Fiverr but none of the others had. They also had a keen interest in politics as well, which may need looking at closely.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've only included obvious UPE articles here. There are other political biographies which could also be.
More added by Bri below.
More missed by Smartse:
There's a contribution surveyor report for the three really active accounts here. Regarding your question about the not-obviously-commercial editing, it's hard to suss out. Example, what is this all about? HelgaStick is the "good hand" and Liborbital, GringisMan the "bad hand"? ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Would someone else like to look at this? It was created by KAustin, who acknowledges here that it was written for "my boss". Neagleyz knows Casali well enough to have taken this photograph of him (but, Neagleyz, why did you upload such a low-resolution copy of your photo, and without any EXIF data?). It's no surprise to discover that the IP range 129.111.0.0/16 is registered to UTHSCSA, University of Texas, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio.
The content appears to have been created as a part of someone's paid employment, and I've suggested here that either the text be removed from the page, or the page moved back to draft ... with predictable response. I then – very reluctantly, I must admit – started cleaning it up myself; when I was reverted by SwisterTwister, who was responsible for moving it into article space in the first place, I stopped. I don't plan to touch it again, hence this post. The subject, by the way, is most certainly notable by our standards.
This article aside, I think it's time to review with care our handling of both of COI content in draft space, and of TOU violations. Specifically, is there any reason why an editor, any editor, should not remove all body text – with TOU violation as rationale – from an article like this one, so that a neutral and non-conflicted page can be written in its place? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Whitewashing of a company page by an editor who claims they aren't compensated for their edits. However, an Upwork job requesting edits to the Mannatech page has been started a few weeks ago (a link would have to be to the freelancer's profile - let me know if it's OK to post it), and the company appears to have a long history of editing the page. Rentier ( talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The article has definitely been cleaned up, good team effort. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Both the user and the IP seem to be the subject of this biography. They appear to be making good faith attempts to update and correct their biography, but keep getting reverted with little explanation. They could probably use some guidance from someone experienced in COI issues. Edgeweyes ( talk) 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
COI editing appears to have persisted "to inform the public" with sourcing and copyright violation issues. This is also a medical topic. More attention to the article welcome, — Paleo Neonate – 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that these two editors may have a conflict of interest, but when I have tagged the article, Truthtellers19 removes the template. Note that, according to the article, Klein's company is called Truth Fairy TV Media Group. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Same name as flutist with questionable nobility. Article is poorly sourced and cruft continuously is added to it. Article was not created by user, but that is the only article they have edited. Username might be a violation, but I don't even know if this person is "famous". — nihlus kryik ( talk) 05:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
User continues to add content, despite a COI notice on talkpage and obvious COI as evidenced by username. Edwardx ( talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Please advise who to get in touch with to discuss GROHE_Marketing —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure how to handle this case, but I will still try. This person has accepted that he is a paid editor, and has provided a list of articles that he has been paid for on his user page. Paid editing if declared is probably a transgression that is forgiven here. However there are many other articles that he has created which are probably paid editing as well, and have not been declared as such by him or mentioned as such on the talk pages of the articles. Some of the undeclared suspected paid edits include
I am pinging @ Uyarafath: for comments. Jupitus Smart 10:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I had the same suspicion last week and you can see the talk thread with user here. I recommended Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists for deletion but then saw user's upload of a commercial looking image to Jade Mya. The photo came from Flickr and looks like it was uploaded a day or two prior. Upon Googling the name of the original uploader on Flickr, I find it is linked to a company that offers paid services for editing Wikipedia. I am not putting any names - company or person - here to avoid outing, but you can easily follow the path for yourself. I should note that prior to me contacting user on their talk page, they had only two paid editing disclosures I could find and the disclosure on their userpage was non-existent. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Acting sheepish won't really be helpful. Here are some points to consider:
Bah. Jupitus Smart 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The new article Yan Gorshtenin has been introduced and edited mainly by User:Gorshteninyan ( talk), which implies a potential conflict of interest. The editor has several times removed an autobiography tag placed on the article, and some of the information added to the page seem to be very promotional towards the subject. Requesting we keep an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 ( talk) 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A WP:SPI also is in order. The subject lives in Los Angeles, and the article is being edited by both User talk:Gorshteninyan and two IPs that geolocate to... guess where? I've gotta get to bed but if somebody wants to file the paperwork that would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
User has returned after being warned of COI seven years ago. Of course we allow people to edit articles about themselves and their associations, but there's no attempt, then or now, to communicate, follow guidelines, or add reliable sources. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Emma Harbonnier started the article CORYS, which is a notable company. The article, as created had a distinct promotional tone. A casual check on linkedIn revealed a person of this name is an employee (Assistante en communication) of said company. I proceeded to place a {{ uw-coi}} template on her userpage. Today she removed maintenace templates and reinstated much of the material which had been removed. This seems a clear case of undisclosed COI. Please advise. Kleuske ( talk) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thre was an offsite ad for work on WP articles relating to dice games. In reviewing this I came across a lot of dubious references at Craps. Even after a bunch of cleanup back in May [19], the article is pretty crappy, perhaps in WP:TNT territory, but I wanted a second opinion before proceeding further. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I have some concerns that the author of this article may be an undisclosed paid contributor, considering their name, the age of the account, and the lack of neutrality of their edits. PureRED ( talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry. I see the alert that there is a discussion about the article I wrote, but I cannot find the discussion.
The relevance of this article revolves around free speech issues. I deleted everything that may have been considered extraneous. Can someone please tell me if there is still an issue with the article. Thank you ghostwriter45
Articles edited linked to Upwork jobs:
Long-time paid editor, more than 100 Upwork jobs completed. Rentier ( talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
CREATED
EDITED
UNEXPLAINED
Fuller cleanup list above ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Article created by an SPA, and edited by five other SPAs since then. Subject is of questionable notability. Edwardx ( talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
SFM.Corporate is a SCAM, just google it Eu100 ( talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the recent 100+ article paid editing case I noticed several mattress companies bear marks of paid editing, and the same editor was involved in categorization, an odd choice. At any rate this edit indicates COI editing from a marketing exec at King Koil. The article was overly promotional and nearly all sourced to corp materials so I nominated it for G11 speedy. Eve Sleep is declared paid, and needs a cleanup job. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:06, 30 August 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.
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)