![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User appears to be on Wikipedia only for the purpose of advertising the company they founded. They have no-comment reverted several of my removals of their advertising, after I had warned them about COI. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
OK before any admins hit the block buttion please hear me out. I contacted Arbcom member Drmie privately yesterday asking how to proceed with this COI complaint, I did that to avoid outing Jeh and to avoid being charged with harrasment. Let me say now that as soon as I sent the message to Drmie I was banned as a sockpuppet. That's what happened with Rich Coburn User - ME. So here I am again having no choice but to go through with this publicly using another IP. However I am that person Rich Coburn. Second, two emails have been sent to all Arbcom members specifically stating Jeh's real name, his partners' names and the how they are associated Microsoft along with proof. So before banning me check with Jimmy Wales. Now I need to know how to proceed further without breaking any harrsment rules. Jeh is directly connected with the sources he uses as references in articles, much of it biased and misleading. I realise "misleading" sounds cliche after Jegenwegen fiasco but it is the truth. And for the record I'm not Jegenwegen and don't know him. I tracked him down after watching Guy and Jeh doubleteam him on one of the x86 articles or maybe PAE I don't rembember. But he was right Jeh and Guy are promoting misleading content. By the way, I'm an IT Engineer and have been in the industry for nearly 20 years. That's not a brag, just painting a picture of how I may be familiar with Jeh & computer hardware. My co-worker was pastie face, a Systems Analyst, now in the States. He and I are not "meat puppets" (lol I never heard that expression til yeterday - had to Google it). There is a clear history of complaints aginst Guy ad Jeh for editing biased misleading and deceptive content into articles. I mean going back more than 5 years. Anyway with that let us please have a dicussion without silly accusations of sockpuppetry. 122.58.8.40 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Btw if someone can unblock my Rich Coburn account I won't need to use a proxy. Thanks. -RC 122.58.8.40 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This "report" is a dupe/repeat of this one, only this time with far less "evidence". The replies to the previous report are relevant here. Also, whether or not reporter has been a sockpuppet in the past, he is self-admittedly using an IP to evade a block now. Jeh ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User admits they're a freelancer on their user page but has not fully disclosed any paid editing. I strongly believe they have in fact been paid to create this article based on the lack of neutrality. I've asked for a disclosure, but have yet to see one. -- PureRED | talk to me | 18:31, 1 September 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.
Subject of the article recently posted a request [2] on Freelancer. The article Ed Seeman was recently created by User:Jacqke ( talk), hopefully coincidentally, but I would like more experienced editors to investigate. Apologies in advance if I am making unsound accusations. SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 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.
See article: American Jews
Over the past week, Malik edit warred (going well beyond the WP:3RR limit) over the inclusion of what appears to be a politically motivated line.
Here is the passage in question: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white."
On the talk page, I argued that it is a WP:REDUNDANT line (since the passage it precedes says the same thing, but in a more neutral tone) and serves no real purpose other than to enforce a "point" about Jews. The hostile, accusatory nature of his responses, especially his justification for restoring the aforementioned passage*, only reinforce my concerns.
In other words, he feels it is necessary not because it improves the article (it doesn't), but because I mentioned in passing, on another talk page, that I don't share his views on this topic. Therefore, I (and my "friend", whoever that is) must be brought into line.
The diffs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Jews&action=history
The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Just blocked this guy and deleted the first two articles - please feel free to deal with the rest if necessary. GAB gab 15:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is a BLP and there have been all sorts of problems with sourcing. I'm now sure the guy is notable but, having done some clean up a few days ago, I've just had to revert a bunch of new edits because in most cases there is no way the sources support the statements in their entirety (eg: there is no way the source added in this edit will support all of the preceding statements). As a whole, the article relies far, far too much on WP:SPS and, well, it has been a bit of a nightmare just getting it into the shape that it now is. And the shape is not great because pretty much every non-SPS source is supporting ancillary info rather than info about the subject himself.
I've asked the contributor about a possible COI - could be the subject, could be a museum colleague or student etc - but they seem to be ignoring that and, indeed, do not appear to be particularly communicative. Which is not to say they've been entirely silent - they did query adding still more likely SPS stuff relating to Sutton Hoo but then went on today's spree without raising the edits at the talk page first.
I'm sure that they mean well but there is something not right here and I've not got the temperament to deal with it, sorry. Sitush ( talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I please have some help with this article? The COI issue is explained at Talk:Simonetta Lein#COI and promotionalism tags. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/wikiwhat/videos/110458719651405/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet another time sink of cleanup. Yet another AfD sockfarm corruption. More to come. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Refspam concern
Buddhabob replaced dead links to high quality souces with links to a private law practice, even though a quick google search finds government and university sources for the information. He did this just days after an Upwork job to make "Wikipedia page edits" was started by a client associated with the practice. Evidence:
More recently, Buddhabob added similarly questionable links to another law practice. In a discussion I initiated on his talk page, he argues that the edits are a net positive and denies having been paid.
Yes, to sum up what was said earlier, the existence of an Upwork job in relation to a source I used is simply insufficient evidence to accuse me of editing for money. Like I said before, my impacts on every article I edited were net positive, meaning that they served no other purpose but to replace dead links. Sure, you can remove them and replace them with different sources, and like I said, I don't really care. The purpose was to draw your attention to those pages while quickly putting up whatever source I can find. I am NOT working for money or anything, otherwise I would have easily put it up that I was. I don't see any harm in that. I've used other sources other than the carver once, which is just what I had on hand, so I am not doing any editing for Carver Cantin for money or anything else whatsoever. Buddhabob ( talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There is NO ONE evidence in this case. It's just a war started and continued by SamHolt6 Cavecanem101 ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Article concern
Michele Di Salvo was created by Buddhabob, later expanded by Cavecanem101 and IP editors. It had many of the hallmarks of a paid piece, so I added the Undisclosed paid tag, but it was removed by Cavecanem101.
-- Rentier ( talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know who is the creator. I was interested to the contents and make some edits there. Now I'm also working on the IT translation of this page. Sorry, but I do not think this page is payed, and you have a suspect but can not prove that. So, if have something sure let's discuss on... if not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavecanem101 ( talk • contribs)
I believe that, Per Rentier's evidence, the (UDP) and (Advert) tags should remain until they have been definitely disproven. As it stand, evidence has been submitted that suspects the page has been subject to paid editing.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If SamHolt6 have some information that consider "adv" can work to remove that directly, and do not continue to mark the page. Or is not able to prove and show and correct what he say? Cavecanem101 ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Username: Rentier, I have not known, nor have I intended to work for the subject, I have no paid or unpaid relations to the subject or the reference sources. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
1. an other editor (more competent) make some corrections in this sense.
Read before write!
2. you say "there are solid grounds (see above) to suspect that paid editing has taken place."
where are those?
in a case you mentionned and editor that NEVER wrote in this page
in a second case you mentioned some one that you linked in upworks that have no links or refers to this page
so... what you are speaking about???
I do not know why you are doing this war with me, but now is a for me it is a matter of principle.
Or should I feel that you're paid?
In this case, I'll have to tag EVERY your editing and editing action as in COI and paid!
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Buddhabob -- You are well spoken. Please answer Rentier without weasel words, exclusive editing ... for money. Tell Rentier that you have not, do not now, or intend to work for the subject, and that you have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. Otherwise, it sounds like word-parsing. Then we can put this all behind us. Rhadow ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Rhadow Whoops, sorry. Didn't realize that. I'll try to be more concise. Buddhabob ( talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC) @ Rhadow: How about now. Is that OK, or do I need to be even more explicit. Buddhabob ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Rhadow: @ Rentier: I have not had, nor will I have, relations with the subject. I have no intention to work for the subject, nor do I know him. I have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. If ever, in the extremely unlikely occasion that I work on Wikipedia for pay, the proper Wikipedia authorities will be notified, and the right tag be put in place. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier: @ SamHolt6: @ Rhadow: And the question remains. And what do I have to do? That is, it seems to me that you are playing with the small detective, but: the voice and the case would concern my account as you are doing a whole lot about other users, other pages, links and other sources. I would say this question and if you want to open it with me, because what seems to me obvious to me is that I have nothing to do with it. Cavecanem101 ( talk) 08:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This single-purpose user has a clear connection with the company that is the subject of the article, as easily established by a Google search. I put a COI warning on the user's talk page yesterday but they have continued to edit in a promotional way and have not declared themselves a paid editor, either on their talk page or the draft's talk page, contrary to Wikipedia's terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The article Asian Tigers Mobility Group was recently created (later deleted) by the now blocked editor User:Florence.Wong ( talk). However in the editor's unblock request at User talk:Florence.Wong#September 2017 she mentions her "team" and states "We will re-write again", leading me to believe that a company has paid someone or has instructed it's employees to create an article about itself. Definitely a trivial case, but we should watch the page in the future. This goes for the Chinese Wikipedia as well ( [4])-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The linked users are undisclosed paid editors employed in LogicManager's public relations department. I have cautioned both editors about WP:COI and WP:PROMO. The article content is currently more compliant than when I first found it, but still below what I would consider acceptable. It still reads as if it were written by someone from marketing and some of the sources seem to be either misrepresented or unsuitable for the information cited. Therefore, I am not pleased that tags are being removed by these editors. I am requesting another editor's assessment of the situation and suggestion on how to proceed. Furrykiller ( talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The user Rene Willemsen previously had the username Adler and Allan and changed it to their current valid name after (I presume) my post to their user talk page about their username. I also presume that their original username meant that they are an employee of the company, but they have continued to attempt to edit the page without declaring a COI or paid editing relationship. They are attempting to add very promotional language to the Adler and Allan article("leading provider", "leading spill responder") along with the minutiae of a company history most of which is probably not encyclopedic. 331dot ( talk) 09:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. The descriptions of the subjects in the articles perhaps is a clue. As is the focused editing history of their creator.
Another editor (above) has edit history uniquely connected to many of the same articles, and has created one of their own which Meatsgains approved. Additionally the sandbox is apparently re-creating iTutor.com, which was deleted by Kudpung. This account active in last 90 days. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yandex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yandex Maps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ffederal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Within the past month, the edits by User:Ffederal have been single-purpose focused on Yandex, Yandex Maps, and Yandex.People's map. The last was speedy-deleted as G11, spam. In response to my tagging of People's map as G11 (not the first tagging, but the editor in question removed the tag), the following explanation was put on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=799602953&oldid=799555908 In other words, it isn't spam because there is a lot of other spam also promoting Yandex. I am aware that there may be a language issue, because the editor's first language may be the same as the language of Yandex, which is Russian. The editor is now behaving aggressively with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandex Maps. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Back in late 2016, User:Siahar1 began adding references to "Gurdeep Pandher" to various articles. It was not a very sophisticated attempt at promotion judging by their edits. In 2017, User:MarkHilton came along and created an article for Pandher. That first article ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdeep Pandher and was deleted. MarkHilton was blocked over remarks he made in the AfD. On 28 May 2017, new user ( User:Cathy37) created a draft article on Pandher. The draft submission was declined. In August, another new user ( User:Pellycrossing) appeared and edited the draft. This time it was accepted. Pellycrossing continued editing to add Pandher to several articles. Yet another new user ( User:Bctoday) also dropped in to add almost 4k of text to Pandher's article.
The thing that drew me to this nest of simple purpose accounts is an edit by User:76.9.53.147. That IP editor had been involved in a series of promotional articles which I reported here. Like the topics involved in that report, Pandher is based in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. I strongly suspect the accounts are all related. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Long term promo, poorly sourced articles, promo, undisclosed COIs, paid editing Update to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_110#SelectorA. Widefox; talk 13:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
An Upwork job to create a page for Churchix was posted two days ago. The other articles match the freelancer's job history (e.g. [5]). Multiple talk page warnings and persistent removal of COI/advert tags. Rentier ( talk) 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.
I seems not to find George Uboh on Wiki pages. 129.56.11.16 ( talk) 12:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Sarah Jonson appears to work for Givaudan and is editing that article. Nothing in the editing here is outrageous, but I have asked her to declare her paid status. The (possibly) unusual aspect of this case is that Sarah Jonson is an international SPA see here in English, French, and German. She's also been asked to declare her paid status at Discussion_utilisateur:Sarah_Jonson by User: LaMèreVeille.
I understand that this noticeboard is only for matters on the English-language Wikipedia, but as I understand it, we are allowed to include evidence from other language versions. One additional problem I've noted from the French version of Givaudan is that another editor (not apparently SJ, but likely a COI or paid editor) has removed information about this case from the article.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Both accounts trying to update their page about the college. Have warned Ms. Lowden, but has continued nonetheless. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 07:11, 13 September 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.
This user was an undisclosed paid editor throughout their existence on WP despite having been
warned in 2012. He has recently declared on his userpage that he is a freelancer which explains why he promoted this
Upwork CEO last year. This
request is telling.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
11:24, 19 September 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.
Person has disclosed that they work for this company (so got that part correct) but are editing directly and aggressively, continually removing negative information and adding positive content and are not using the article talk page at all.
I think this person should be indefinitely blocked as they are WP:NOTHERE. Am looking for a patrolling admin to do this. If not I will follow through on an EWN case if they continue but it is really time for them to go. Jytdog ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 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.
This Kiev ip left then removed a message on my talk page requesting that I create an article for DMarket [6] [7]. I'm guessing they sought me out because of my editing to Initial coin offering. I'm not seeing anything else that's obviously from them, but I thought it best to bring up here in case they reach out to others or hire an editor. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, there a new edit filter, Filter 878, which is designed to detect and tag edits in which new users remove COI, UPE, and Advert templates. It's picking up some vandalism, and some good faith edits, but also quite a lot of COI edits. You can either look out for the tags, filter recent changes, or use the filter log. The filter is in its early days, but if you have any suggestions feel free to drop a note at WP:EFR or my talk page. Thanks to those who suggested it. Enjoy :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An article that already has a huge PAID notice on the top of it is being edited by someone from the company themselves. Sent them a nice note about not editing the article directly. Either hasn't read it yet, or is ignoring it. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sorted (magazine)#Recents edits to the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
See the evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stars Stripes Forever. Relatively abnormally, their MO is mainly editing existing articles rather than creating new ones, but many of them were created by throwaways, either recently or years ago. I haven't found all of the articles affected yet.
SmartSE (
talk)
22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
I did some analysis and sorting of the sockfarm's contribs here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this was/is going to be behaviorally linked to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FlowerStorm48/Archive. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The editor was blocked for socking has engaged in undisclosed paid editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The master and over 20 socks were blocked last September, a few more in December and one or two in February and March this year. Just the master and a few of the prolific socks are listed above. A fairly complete account of 370+ probably paid articles is here. It's too big for me to try to clean everything up, or even to {{ UDP}} tag every article. Any suggestions? Also I wonder if the paid-editing LTAs were included when checkusers went to work?
I'm running a trial G5 speedy on Bedgear Performance Bedding but it might be technically invalid. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone has started a deletion review here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
In the prior round of deletions I only deleted those that were edited by the socks in question after the TOU came into place. The question is should we delete the older articles that have not been substantially edited prior to that date? Lists here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Article is being edited by the subject himself by way of repeatedly adding unsourced self-promotional content. sixtynine • speak up • 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, these users all strike me as suspicious and very likely undisclosed paid editors. There are various crossovers (with Prowp it is mainly through talk pages and deleted contribs) but due to staleness there is not enough for an SPI yet. I'm still coming across more accounts, so please feel free to crosscheck. Quite a few of the articles have an Israeli connection. The article list is incomplete atm. SmartSE ( talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Some of these are creations, others are substantial contribs and others are just logo uploads but the articles are a mess anyway.
This is a question, maybe a meta-question, for COIN regulars or for anybody else with an opinion. We see so many of these startups like Accompany and these companies who are desperate for attention and awareness, WP is just such an obvious magnet. The idea of having new notability requirements has been raised, I think by DGG at a public conference at least. Has that made any headway? It seems like a better strategy than fighting these one-by-one tactically. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am confused as to what I am being accused of, not editing enough or not editing recently? thejavis86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
IP is the same as the user per [11]. Definitely a username vio and since they're editing pages directly related to them, a COI as well. As an IP I really don't want to touch this and am asking for someone more authoritive to step in. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
There are some IPs trying to avoid deletion of the article Carlos Becker Westphall. I'm pretty sure all the IPs are the same person, which is the subject in the biography. Thanks. 208.73.21.13 ( talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This curious Upwork Ad appears to be a joe-job aimed against... myself. I will post more details shortly. Rentier ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a somewhat unclear case of whether this user qualifies as a paid editor. I will also note that I have encountered the same situation with other articles and editors.
On their userpage, this user had declared quite some time ago that they were in a position with the organization they were writing about (however, no mention if it was paid or volunteer). Over the course of five years of extensive edits from them (and others), the article accumulated extensive copypastes from the organization's own website and was speedily deleted as WP:G12. The deleting admin, RHaworth, then restored it back to a cleaner version from 2012.
The user has recently indicated to me [12] that while they are employed - in a paid position - by the organization in question, they are not being paid specifically to edit its Wikipedia article. However, if their editing is done during the course of their workday, even if it's not at the direction of their employer, does it still count as paid editing? It is difficult to know if and when someone is editing on their own time.
Note: This kind of situation has cropped up before. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a bit unusual, but I'll just post this for others to comment or work on. I got an e-mail from an international Wikipedian questioning the quality of the paid-editing disclosure at User:Ventus55.
The disclosure is a bit difficult to find (hint:look under an elephant) and a bit clumsy. Ventus seems to misunderstand the English definition of "conflict of interest".
The emailer didn't ask for anonymity, only that somebody familiar with en:Wiki rules look at this. But I'm equally uncomfortable either posting his username here without his permission or posting this "anonymously." I'll stay out of this after a short copyedit here. I don't see any bad faith by anybody.
@ DGG and Jytdog: have previously worked with Ventus55 on this issue on his talkpage. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Mike Stainbank appears to be engaged in a legal dispute concerning the Apartheid Museum. He is editing the article to draw attention to the dispute in violation of WP:NPOV. This has been going on for quite a long time as apparent in the user's contribution log. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse the way I'm going to phrase this, since I have a potential COI issue on the subject I need to be rather careful what I say so as to not prejudice the response I get here or cause issues for myself or my employer in present or future business with any companies. To be clear, I'm posting request strictly because I believe in fair and equal application of Wikipedia policies regardless of whether the result is beneficial or detrimental to me personally.
Now that I've got that out of the way... I've noticed a few issues connected with this company's wikipedia page but would prefer to limit my involvement to flagging a few publicly available logs, I'll let someone with more familiarity with policy investigate and make any judgements. The issues are as follows:
It's possible that issues of the page quality and logo ownership can be resolved without any page deletions, and having good content is always better than not, but I leave that determination to others.
Nazzy ( talk) 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Have worked on some connections as per here. We have blocked socks in this family back to April 2012. [14] If we figure out everything created by this group after 2012 that has not been significantly edited by others we can simply delete based on G5. Would be a useful cleanup. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Merits a closer look, methinks... -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is promotional and probably paid for. Have moved it back to draft space. It contains text that is promotional and not supported by the refs.
Wondering peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User appears to be on Wikipedia only for the purpose of advertising the company they founded. They have no-comment reverted several of my removals of their advertising, after I had warned them about COI. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
OK before any admins hit the block buttion please hear me out. I contacted Arbcom member Drmie privately yesterday asking how to proceed with this COI complaint, I did that to avoid outing Jeh and to avoid being charged with harrasment. Let me say now that as soon as I sent the message to Drmie I was banned as a sockpuppet. That's what happened with Rich Coburn User - ME. So here I am again having no choice but to go through with this publicly using another IP. However I am that person Rich Coburn. Second, two emails have been sent to all Arbcom members specifically stating Jeh's real name, his partners' names and the how they are associated Microsoft along with proof. So before banning me check with Jimmy Wales. Now I need to know how to proceed further without breaking any harrsment rules. Jeh is directly connected with the sources he uses as references in articles, much of it biased and misleading. I realise "misleading" sounds cliche after Jegenwegen fiasco but it is the truth. And for the record I'm not Jegenwegen and don't know him. I tracked him down after watching Guy and Jeh doubleteam him on one of the x86 articles or maybe PAE I don't rembember. But he was right Jeh and Guy are promoting misleading content. By the way, I'm an IT Engineer and have been in the industry for nearly 20 years. That's not a brag, just painting a picture of how I may be familiar with Jeh & computer hardware. My co-worker was pastie face, a Systems Analyst, now in the States. He and I are not "meat puppets" (lol I never heard that expression til yeterday - had to Google it). There is a clear history of complaints aginst Guy ad Jeh for editing biased misleading and deceptive content into articles. I mean going back more than 5 years. Anyway with that let us please have a dicussion without silly accusations of sockpuppetry. 122.58.8.40 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Btw if someone can unblock my Rich Coburn account I won't need to use a proxy. Thanks. -RC 122.58.8.40 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This "report" is a dupe/repeat of this one, only this time with far less "evidence". The replies to the previous report are relevant here. Also, whether or not reporter has been a sockpuppet in the past, he is self-admittedly using an IP to evade a block now. Jeh ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User admits they're a freelancer on their user page but has not fully disclosed any paid editing. I strongly believe they have in fact been paid to create this article based on the lack of neutrality. I've asked for a disclosure, but have yet to see one. -- PureRED | talk to me | 18:31, 1 September 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.
Subject of the article recently posted a request [2] on Freelancer. The article Ed Seeman was recently created by User:Jacqke ( talk), hopefully coincidentally, but I would like more experienced editors to investigate. Apologies in advance if I am making unsound accusations. SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 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.
See article: American Jews
Over the past week, Malik edit warred (going well beyond the WP:3RR limit) over the inclusion of what appears to be a politically motivated line.
Here is the passage in question: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white."
On the talk page, I argued that it is a WP:REDUNDANT line (since the passage it precedes says the same thing, but in a more neutral tone) and serves no real purpose other than to enforce a "point" about Jews. The hostile, accusatory nature of his responses, especially his justification for restoring the aforementioned passage*, only reinforce my concerns.
In other words, he feels it is necessary not because it improves the article (it doesn't), but because I mentioned in passing, on another talk page, that I don't share his views on this topic. Therefore, I (and my "friend", whoever that is) must be brought into line.
The diffs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=American_Jews&action=history
The Human Trumpet Solo ( talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Just blocked this guy and deleted the first two articles - please feel free to deal with the rest if necessary. GAB gab 15:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is a BLP and there have been all sorts of problems with sourcing. I'm now sure the guy is notable but, having done some clean up a few days ago, I've just had to revert a bunch of new edits because in most cases there is no way the sources support the statements in their entirety (eg: there is no way the source added in this edit will support all of the preceding statements). As a whole, the article relies far, far too much on WP:SPS and, well, it has been a bit of a nightmare just getting it into the shape that it now is. And the shape is not great because pretty much every non-SPS source is supporting ancillary info rather than info about the subject himself.
I've asked the contributor about a possible COI - could be the subject, could be a museum colleague or student etc - but they seem to be ignoring that and, indeed, do not appear to be particularly communicative. Which is not to say they've been entirely silent - they did query adding still more likely SPS stuff relating to Sutton Hoo but then went on today's spree without raising the edits at the talk page first.
I'm sure that they mean well but there is something not right here and I've not got the temperament to deal with it, sorry. Sitush ( talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I please have some help with this article? The COI issue is explained at Talk:Simonetta Lein#COI and promotionalism tags. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/wikiwhat/videos/110458719651405/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janweh64 ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet another time sink of cleanup. Yet another AfD sockfarm corruption. More to come. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Refspam concern
Buddhabob replaced dead links to high quality souces with links to a private law practice, even though a quick google search finds government and university sources for the information. He did this just days after an Upwork job to make "Wikipedia page edits" was started by a client associated with the practice. Evidence:
More recently, Buddhabob added similarly questionable links to another law practice. In a discussion I initiated on his talk page, he argues that the edits are a net positive and denies having been paid.
Yes, to sum up what was said earlier, the existence of an Upwork job in relation to a source I used is simply insufficient evidence to accuse me of editing for money. Like I said before, my impacts on every article I edited were net positive, meaning that they served no other purpose but to replace dead links. Sure, you can remove them and replace them with different sources, and like I said, I don't really care. The purpose was to draw your attention to those pages while quickly putting up whatever source I can find. I am NOT working for money or anything, otherwise I would have easily put it up that I was. I don't see any harm in that. I've used other sources other than the carver once, which is just what I had on hand, so I am not doing any editing for Carver Cantin for money or anything else whatsoever. Buddhabob ( talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There is NO ONE evidence in this case. It's just a war started and continued by SamHolt6 Cavecanem101 ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Article concern
Michele Di Salvo was created by Buddhabob, later expanded by Cavecanem101 and IP editors. It had many of the hallmarks of a paid piece, so I added the Undisclosed paid tag, but it was removed by Cavecanem101.
-- Rentier ( talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know who is the creator. I was interested to the contents and make some edits there. Now I'm also working on the IT translation of this page. Sorry, but I do not think this page is payed, and you have a suspect but can not prove that. So, if have something sure let's discuss on... if not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavecanem101 ( talk • contribs)
I believe that, Per Rentier's evidence, the (UDP) and (Advert) tags should remain until they have been definitely disproven. As it stand, evidence has been submitted that suspects the page has been subject to paid editing.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
If SamHolt6 have some information that consider "adv" can work to remove that directly, and do not continue to mark the page. Or is not able to prove and show and correct what he say? Cavecanem101 ( talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Username: Rentier, I have not known, nor have I intended to work for the subject, I have no paid or unpaid relations to the subject or the reference sources. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
1. an other editor (more competent) make some corrections in this sense.
Read before write!
2. you say "there are solid grounds (see above) to suspect that paid editing has taken place."
where are those?
in a case you mentionned and editor that NEVER wrote in this page
in a second case you mentioned some one that you linked in upworks that have no links or refers to this page
so... what you are speaking about???
I do not know why you are doing this war with me, but now is a for me it is a matter of principle.
Or should I feel that you're paid?
In this case, I'll have to tag EVERY your editing and editing action as in COI and paid!
Cavecanem101 (
talk)
08:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Buddhabob -- You are well spoken. Please answer Rentier without weasel words, exclusive editing ... for money. Tell Rentier that you have not, do not now, or intend to work for the subject, and that you have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. Otherwise, it sounds like word-parsing. Then we can put this all behind us. Rhadow ( talk) 16:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Rhadow Whoops, sorry. Didn't realize that. I'll try to be more concise. Buddhabob ( talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC) @ Rhadow: How about now. Is that OK, or do I need to be even more explicit. Buddhabob ( talk) 17:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Rhadow: @ Rentier: I have not had, nor will I have, relations with the subject. I have no intention to work for the subject, nor do I know him. I have no other paid or unpaid relation to the subject or the reference sources. If ever, in the extremely unlikely occasion that I work on Wikipedia for pay, the proper Wikipedia authorities will be notified, and the right tag be put in place. Buddhabob ( talk) 23:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Rentier: @ SamHolt6: @ Rhadow: And the question remains. And what do I have to do? That is, it seems to me that you are playing with the small detective, but: the voice and the case would concern my account as you are doing a whole lot about other users, other pages, links and other sources. I would say this question and if you want to open it with me, because what seems to me obvious to me is that I have nothing to do with it. Cavecanem101 ( talk) 08:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This single-purpose user has a clear connection with the company that is the subject of the article, as easily established by a Google search. I put a COI warning on the user's talk page yesterday but they have continued to edit in a promotional way and have not declared themselves a paid editor, either on their talk page or the draft's talk page, contrary to Wikipedia's terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The article Asian Tigers Mobility Group was recently created (later deleted) by the now blocked editor User:Florence.Wong ( talk). However in the editor's unblock request at User talk:Florence.Wong#September 2017 she mentions her "team" and states "We will re-write again", leading me to believe that a company has paid someone or has instructed it's employees to create an article about itself. Definitely a trivial case, but we should watch the page in the future. This goes for the Chinese Wikipedia as well ( [4])-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The linked users are undisclosed paid editors employed in LogicManager's public relations department. I have cautioned both editors about WP:COI and WP:PROMO. The article content is currently more compliant than when I first found it, but still below what I would consider acceptable. It still reads as if it were written by someone from marketing and some of the sources seem to be either misrepresented or unsuitable for the information cited. Therefore, I am not pleased that tags are being removed by these editors. I am requesting another editor's assessment of the situation and suggestion on how to proceed. Furrykiller ( talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The user Rene Willemsen previously had the username Adler and Allan and changed it to their current valid name after (I presume) my post to their user talk page about their username. I also presume that their original username meant that they are an employee of the company, but they have continued to attempt to edit the page without declaring a COI or paid editing relationship. They are attempting to add very promotional language to the Adler and Allan article("leading provider", "leading spill responder") along with the minutiae of a company history most of which is probably not encyclopedic. 331dot ( talk) 09:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. The descriptions of the subjects in the articles perhaps is a clue. As is the focused editing history of their creator.
Another editor (above) has edit history uniquely connected to many of the same articles, and has created one of their own which Meatsgains approved. Additionally the sandbox is apparently re-creating iTutor.com, which was deleted by Kudpung. This account active in last 90 days. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yandex ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yandex Maps ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ffederal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Within the past month, the edits by User:Ffederal have been single-purpose focused on Yandex, Yandex Maps, and Yandex.People's map. The last was speedy-deleted as G11, spam. In response to my tagging of People's map as G11 (not the first tagging, but the editor in question removed the tag), the following explanation was put on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=799602953&oldid=799555908 In other words, it isn't spam because there is a lot of other spam also promoting Yandex. I am aware that there may be a language issue, because the editor's first language may be the same as the language of Yandex, which is Russian. The editor is now behaving aggressively with regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yandex Maps. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Back in late 2016, User:Siahar1 began adding references to "Gurdeep Pandher" to various articles. It was not a very sophisticated attempt at promotion judging by their edits. In 2017, User:MarkHilton came along and created an article for Pandher. That first article ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdeep Pandher and was deleted. MarkHilton was blocked over remarks he made in the AfD. On 28 May 2017, new user ( User:Cathy37) created a draft article on Pandher. The draft submission was declined. In August, another new user ( User:Pellycrossing) appeared and edited the draft. This time it was accepted. Pellycrossing continued editing to add Pandher to several articles. Yet another new user ( User:Bctoday) also dropped in to add almost 4k of text to Pandher's article.
The thing that drew me to this nest of simple purpose accounts is an edit by User:76.9.53.147. That IP editor had been involved in a series of promotional articles which I reported here. Like the topics involved in that report, Pandher is based in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. I strongly suspect the accounts are all related. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Long term promo, poorly sourced articles, promo, undisclosed COIs, paid editing Update to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_110#SelectorA. Widefox; talk 13:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
An Upwork job to create a page for Churchix was posted two days ago. The other articles match the freelancer's job history (e.g. [5]). Multiple talk page warnings and persistent removal of COI/advert tags. Rentier ( talk) 11:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.
I seems not to find George Uboh on Wiki pages. 129.56.11.16 ( talk) 12:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Sarah Jonson appears to work for Givaudan and is editing that article. Nothing in the editing here is outrageous, but I have asked her to declare her paid status. The (possibly) unusual aspect of this case is that Sarah Jonson is an international SPA see here in English, French, and German. She's also been asked to declare her paid status at Discussion_utilisateur:Sarah_Jonson by User: LaMèreVeille.
I understand that this noticeboard is only for matters on the English-language Wikipedia, but as I understand it, we are allowed to include evidence from other language versions. One additional problem I've noted from the French version of Givaudan is that another editor (not apparently SJ, but likely a COI or paid editor) has removed information about this case from the article.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Both accounts trying to update their page about the college. Have warned Ms. Lowden, but has continued nonetheless. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 07:11, 13 September 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.
This user was an undisclosed paid editor throughout their existence on WP despite having been
warned in 2012. He has recently declared on his userpage that he is a freelancer which explains why he promoted this
Upwork CEO last year. This
request is telling.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
11:24, 19 September 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.
Person has disclosed that they work for this company (so got that part correct) but are editing directly and aggressively, continually removing negative information and adding positive content and are not using the article talk page at all.
I think this person should be indefinitely blocked as they are WP:NOTHERE. Am looking for a patrolling admin to do this. If not I will follow through on an EWN case if they continue but it is really time for them to go. Jytdog ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 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.
This Kiev ip left then removed a message on my talk page requesting that I create an article for DMarket [6] [7]. I'm guessing they sought me out because of my editing to Initial coin offering. I'm not seeing anything else that's obviously from them, but I thought it best to bring up here in case they reach out to others or hire an editor. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In case you hadn't seen it, there a new edit filter, Filter 878, which is designed to detect and tag edits in which new users remove COI, UPE, and Advert templates. It's picking up some vandalism, and some good faith edits, but also quite a lot of COI edits. You can either look out for the tags, filter recent changes, or use the filter log. The filter is in its early days, but if you have any suggestions feel free to drop a note at WP:EFR or my talk page. Thanks to those who suggested it. Enjoy :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
An article that already has a huge PAID notice on the top of it is being edited by someone from the company themselves. Sent them a nice note about not editing the article directly. Either hasn't read it yet, or is ignoring it. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
RfC here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sorted (magazine)#Recents edits to the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
See the evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stars Stripes Forever. Relatively abnormally, their MO is mainly editing existing articles rather than creating new ones, but many of them were created by throwaways, either recently or years ago. I haven't found all of the articles affected yet.
SmartSE (
talk)
22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
I did some analysis and sorting of the sockfarm's contribs here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this was/is going to be behaviorally linked to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FlowerStorm48/Archive. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The editor was blocked for socking has engaged in undisclosed paid editing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The master and over 20 socks were blocked last September, a few more in December and one or two in February and March this year. Just the master and a few of the prolific socks are listed above. A fairly complete account of 370+ probably paid articles is here. It's too big for me to try to clean everything up, or even to {{ UDP}} tag every article. Any suggestions? Also I wonder if the paid-editing LTAs were included when checkusers went to work?
I'm running a trial G5 speedy on Bedgear Performance Bedding but it might be technically invalid. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone has started a deletion review here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
In the prior round of deletions I only deleted those that were edited by the socks in question after the TOU came into place. The question is should we delete the older articles that have not been substantially edited prior to that date? Lists here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Article is being edited by the subject himself by way of repeatedly adding unsourced self-promotional content. sixtynine • speak up • 07:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, these users all strike me as suspicious and very likely undisclosed paid editors. There are various crossovers (with Prowp it is mainly through talk pages and deleted contribs) but due to staleness there is not enough for an SPI yet. I'm still coming across more accounts, so please feel free to crosscheck. Quite a few of the articles have an Israeli connection. The article list is incomplete atm. SmartSE ( talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Some of these are creations, others are substantial contribs and others are just logo uploads but the articles are a mess anyway.
This is a question, maybe a meta-question, for COIN regulars or for anybody else with an opinion. We see so many of these startups like Accompany and these companies who are desperate for attention and awareness, WP is just such an obvious magnet. The idea of having new notability requirements has been raised, I think by DGG at a public conference at least. Has that made any headway? It seems like a better strategy than fighting these one-by-one tactically. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am confused as to what I am being accused of, not editing enough or not editing recently? thejavis86 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
IP is the same as the user per [11]. Definitely a username vio and since they're editing pages directly related to them, a COI as well. As an IP I really don't want to touch this and am asking for someone more authoritive to step in. 74.70.146.1 ( talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
There are some IPs trying to avoid deletion of the article Carlos Becker Westphall. I'm pretty sure all the IPs are the same person, which is the subject in the biography. Thanks. 208.73.21.13 ( talk) 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This curious Upwork Ad appears to be a joe-job aimed against... myself. I will post more details shortly. Rentier ( talk) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a somewhat unclear case of whether this user qualifies as a paid editor. I will also note that I have encountered the same situation with other articles and editors.
On their userpage, this user had declared quite some time ago that they were in a position with the organization they were writing about (however, no mention if it was paid or volunteer). Over the course of five years of extensive edits from them (and others), the article accumulated extensive copypastes from the organization's own website and was speedily deleted as WP:G12. The deleting admin, RHaworth, then restored it back to a cleaner version from 2012.
The user has recently indicated to me [12] that while they are employed - in a paid position - by the organization in question, they are not being paid specifically to edit its Wikipedia article. However, if their editing is done during the course of their workday, even if it's not at the direction of their employer, does it still count as paid editing? It is difficult to know if and when someone is editing on their own time.
Note: This kind of situation has cropped up before. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a bit unusual, but I'll just post this for others to comment or work on. I got an e-mail from an international Wikipedian questioning the quality of the paid-editing disclosure at User:Ventus55.
The disclosure is a bit difficult to find (hint:look under an elephant) and a bit clumsy. Ventus seems to misunderstand the English definition of "conflict of interest".
The emailer didn't ask for anonymity, only that somebody familiar with en:Wiki rules look at this. But I'm equally uncomfortable either posting his username here without his permission or posting this "anonymously." I'll stay out of this after a short copyedit here. I don't see any bad faith by anybody.
@ DGG and Jytdog: have previously worked with Ventus55 on this issue on his talkpage. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Mike Stainbank appears to be engaged in a legal dispute concerning the Apartheid Museum. He is editing the article to draw attention to the dispute in violation of WP:NPOV. This has been going on for quite a long time as apparent in the user's contribution log. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please excuse the way I'm going to phrase this, since I have a potential COI issue on the subject I need to be rather careful what I say so as to not prejudice the response I get here or cause issues for myself or my employer in present or future business with any companies. To be clear, I'm posting request strictly because I believe in fair and equal application of Wikipedia policies regardless of whether the result is beneficial or detrimental to me personally.
Now that I've got that out of the way... I've noticed a few issues connected with this company's wikipedia page but would prefer to limit my involvement to flagging a few publicly available logs, I'll let someone with more familiarity with policy investigate and make any judgements. The issues are as follows:
It's possible that issues of the page quality and logo ownership can be resolved without any page deletions, and having good content is always better than not, but I leave that determination to others.
Nazzy ( talk) 17:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Have worked on some connections as per here. We have blocked socks in this family back to April 2012. [14] If we figure out everything created by this group after 2012 that has not been significantly edited by others we can simply delete based on G5. Would be a useful cleanup. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Merits a closer look, methinks... -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is promotional and probably paid for. Have moved it back to draft space. It contains text that is promotional and not supported by the refs.
Wondering peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)