![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The purpose of these account appears to be to "puff up" the notability of Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.
User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.
With reference specifically to User:Austin-geo, their edits rely heavily on real estate sites as sources, and text added is often trivial in detail (eg. the price of toll roads), or promotional in tone (eg. the price of homes and number of neighborhood amenities). An attempt has also been made to show the boundaries of Northwest Hills as being much larger than they are.
Northwest Hills has no GNIS entry, and appears to be a small, affluent housing complex in northwest Austin, Texas. Google Maps specifically outlines the boundaries of Northwest Hills.
Attempts to trim excessive content, or remove content with only a slight connection to Northwest Hills, have been met with reverts, and hostile talk page comments and edit summaries.
Examples:
Austin-geo stated here that they do not have a conflict of interest, writing "You could have just asked (and not posted that warning on my talkpage), or read the DYK nomination. You did not assume good faith. If I were affiliated to a real estate agent, I would have probably just used one agency, don't you think? If I were involved with the NWACA, I would have favored their opinions in the Austin Oaks PUD debate."
This account has the hallmarks of a single-purpose account attempting to puff up the notability of an affluent neighborhood by making it read like a real estate listing, and make it eligible for this DYK nomination. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an SPA undisclosed paid editor working in a PR firm. They have ignored the warning I added on their talk page and are continuing to edit promotionally, with a determination to see their draft accepted into main space. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like someone is spamming links to an article they published, "Survey data on Vietnamese propensity to attend periodic general health examinations". These two IPs are doing nothing but force-fitting this one reference into every article they can:
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.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For quite some time user 特克斯特 is editing the "I am a singer" series of articles (and related articles). These articles are often poorly sourced or sourced with related sources. I am not entirely sure if this is a case of Conflict of Interest or that 特克斯特 just has no clue what he is doing here.
Especially this edit where he claims to know the results of the competition without it being broadcast or sourced, gives me the idea that he is operating on inside information.
I have multiple times requested him to explain if, and if so, how he is related to the show. No answer at all. An earlier block and discussion (I had asked administrator Drmies for advice), did not help at all.
I do not know how to proceed from here. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I upgrade this case to AN/I as User:特克斯特 continues with his edits. The Banner talk 08:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no SPI for this but the last two users are already blocked and the first is an obvious DUCK. SmartSE ( talk) 19:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 49.207.232.141 ( talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles:
Involved Users (Active):
Involved Users (Inactive):
This user has been editing a large number of articles that are linked to the above person. I have asked a number of times to make a disclosure of his COI which he refuses to do. On commons he refers to this individual's interests and company by saying "we" [2] He has added dozens of references to this person and his family and interests over 9 years by adding photos links and taking over the editing of another user that carries the name of a person closely linked to Demitz User:EmilEikS Emil Eikner. EmilEiks asked to be blocked and a few months later SergeWoodzing popped up to take over his editing. This editor has been blocked indefinitely on Swedish WP for COI editing on these subjects here. There has been speculation on the Swedish WP as to the real identity of this user but as per WP:OUTING I have not repeated these allegations I have however asked him several times to disclose his COI here and here and here amongst other. He replied "pass" here with an edit summary of "go away please". So I think that I have no choice but to open a case here.
Here are a very small selection of his COI edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]where he has inserted or wedged photos that he has uploaded to commons with references to Demitz or another of his group and with a spammy text on the photo that says:
Assistant for CabarEng. - This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC. Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain. Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, Hallowe'en 2008. This work is freeand may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2010092510008875. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010092510008875
The Swedish article for Demitz was deleted a number of times as not being notable. [13] he has also been adding spam to German wikipedia and got into a heated discussion here because he wanted to add of photo of Demitz to illustrate the article on the town called Demitz and was told by different users including an administrator that just because he has the same name as a town that doesn't make the photo relevant especially as Demitz does not have a page on German WP.
I have opened a ticket on the commons adminstrator's notticeboard to try and understand how commons can be used to host so much promotional material but I'm not getting much of a reply. commons AN Domdeparis ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been here for many years and have learned a lot. The only time I remember having been seriously accused of COI before on English Wikipedia (and even then by Swedes whom I've had to comment on here) I was deemed OK. If I've unintentionally taken that as license and liberty to conrtibute things which the Community here cannot find constructive, I am truly sorry. The replacement of 2 images and some text by me yesterday was done in a spirit of cooperation.
Always, I would much rather help in fixing whatever problems I may have caused than argue about them. In cases where I've opposed someone else's action I've always (always) given up, if proven wrong by guidelines or consensus, and tried to do so gracefully. There are no rules that we must always agree, but we must always try to be (1) fair and (2) civil.
Two of my images being removed by another user today cause me no heartache. On the contrary, all of us should appreciate help in cleaning some of our edits up. I have never contributed anything, though, without feeling it was relevant to an article, whether or not I know someone in an image or know someone who knows someone, and so on.
Though I feel minimal confidence anymore, based on behavior I perceive, that my e-mailing scans of newspaper articles to this nominator will end up with their being treated faily and constructively, I will now do so anyway in good faith.
There is evidence here and here, however, that as of today there is collaboration between my new antagonist (as I perceive it) here at EnWP (and Commons), and one of my most lengthily vehement opponents at svWP. Things like that scare me, and about as much as the many attempted outings at svWP last year (not much in the way of ethics rules over there) and the attempted outings & horrifying personal attacks by an IP made here yesterday but removed relatively fast.
Anything that isn't done, right now, to try to distract me from my rather urgent research would be very much appreciated, me being an old man now, with worsening eyesight and a bit of brain damage. I spent considerable time researching at the National Library of Sweden again today to get better information and try to prop up the Jacob Truedson Demitz article by clarifying and translating reliable sources under it for evaluation in that deletion process.
I've read WP:COI several times carefully, earlier and recently, and have always tried to edit in a way where my good faith would be evident even though I know some of these people and they know and have worked with a lot of famous people: many Swedes, a Frenchman and a Dane and a Norwegian and a German or two, a few Englishmen, and a number of Americans. I am always interested in constructive criticism and have made hundreds of edits to correct mine and those of others, whether or not there have been COI concerns raised or other problems. I've done lots of reference research, once I finally got the hang of formatting citations well enough (I thought). It has been my honest (honest) belief that it is allowed to add information about people one knows, as long as it is well sourced and relevant and benefits the project. That's why I've added it, and for no other reason ever.
I've also specialized a bit in fixing a lot of confusing Swenglish in English articles (which has rubbed a few Swedes the wrong way, as complained about severely at their own project), and in reverting obvious mischief. My watchlist here is huge, and at Commons considerable. I try to get through them daily.
The example of Mattias Klum as part of this accusation is quite odd, since it is not mine and there I have repeatedly criticized the fact that it's been mostly edited under several user names which have included the Klum name, and at first was also almost exclusively self-referenced. The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know, and my contributions to them have not been major.
I would now like to be given a few days of relative peace to go on putting together that reference improvement in time, before defending myself additionally here, as probably will be needed. If y'all want me to go away, I'll be sad to do so, because I've felt kid of at home here, but at least I'll have a lot of permanent contributions here to be proud if, most of whch have no connection whatsoever to anyone I know. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I knowsomewhat disingenuous given that the Charles article, at least, was created by EmilEik, who was apparently the same person as EmilEikS, and the reason we're in this mess right now is because you were adding images of one Emil Eikner (often pictured with Demitz, or with Yaiya) into all kinds of different articles [25] [26] [27]. While they edited at different times, these accounts also seem to have similar interests (even in Mae West, whom Demitz is apparently a big fan of). The inclusion of Klum here shouldn't be a mystery to you, given that you've yourself written that they have the same grandfather. You can't possibly expect us to believe that this is all a coincidence. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I've skimmed this discussion, Jacob Truedson Demitz, and the AfD. From what I see, the content concerns are valid and the WP:IDHT from SergeWoodzing regarding WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT problems should be enough for a block or ban. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That is a severely fluffy article. I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person. However, I can say, and this is of some relevance, that my CU tool reveals no evidence of foul play, and it seems to me that, given the admission of the computer and other aspects of this discussion, the use of CU was more than warranted here. Serge, please try using <p> to create paragraph breaks. Drmies ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that you are honest and do not wish to lie so are in an impossible position and cannot disclose correctly. If we wanted to clean up the COI work it would take years to do seeing the extent. None of what you have added is essential or unique. All the photos I have seen are additional photos that can be removed without damaging the articles. There are a large number of other editors that work on the non COI pages you have edited. As such I believe that your presence and edits are far from being necessary and mostly contrary to policy so I suggest an indefinite block and Nuking all your edits. I don't know if this is possible or not. Domdeparis ( talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again unavoidably on the defensive, because the usual cabal of enWP-infrequent and biased Swedish editors are ganging up here again, disrespectful (as I see it) of the advice of neutral editors who do a lot of good work on enWP and know the ropes, my rather sad comments are these:
Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these comprehensive lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none (almost none) of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all.
There you have the main reason I have not been able to find good faith in the attitude of these elite editors there, and why it has only been rational (to me) to assume the opposite: that their actions there, which spill over here from time to time as they habitually stalk me (as I perceive it), are based on personal animosities.
The sarcasm and skadeglädje (a form of gloating joy - word is common in Swedish but does not exist in English) that's going on now in discussions on the talk pages of some of these svWP users, because I'm in trouble here, is a good example of why several of us who've complained about problems at that project are gone.
I have commented recently, in several other discussions about me on enWP, on the infleunce, as i see it, of the Law of Jante on problems such as these, on the very unpleasant reactions I've had from some (only some) Swedes when I've cleaned up their unintelligible Swenglish here (which one usually must know both langiages well to be abe to do) and on the lack at svWP of most guidelines here which help us resolve conflicts and deter us from attacking each other. Seems strange to feel compelled to put those opinions of ours (i.e. several ex-users of svWP) on page after page of discussions. I wish I did not feel duly compelled. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be very interested to know if documents were ever sent, and if Dom or Bishonen saw anything that might shake up the AFD underway on the Demitz article (as of now, it seems to be leaning delete). If Serge has agreed not to edit where he has a COI, and abides by that that is good enough for me, and I don't see the need to seek any further admin action - but there is still lots of cleanup to be done, and for that reason I do not think we should rush a close of this section. Personally I'm at least considering nominating some of the other articles linked above for deletion, especially AlexCab, Wild Side Story, and Birgit Ridderstedt. Would love it if others (especially the Swedish-speaking editors) could take a look and see if they agree that notability is suspect there. I have a feeling that Throne of a Thousand Years might just squeak through an AFD but other opinions are welcome there. If its kept, it may need a depuff. Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Davykamanzi is a paid editor that does disclose, but tends to write overly promotional, poorly sourced BLP content. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Seth_Godin above. Apparently Davykamanzi has decided to not follow COI very closely despite the previous discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This user name is an apparent COI: CanadianSpecialForcesRF. I put a template on his talkpage, but since I am not an admin, I can't block him. I hope I did everything right?-- Biografer ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a WSJ article that should likely explain this in detail Fed Economists’ Stakes in Forecasting Firm Spur an Internal Probe (but I don't have a WSJ subscription) and an available article Wikipedia Keeps A Record Of Your Edits — These People Don’t Seem To Know That - Why do Federal Reserve employees who make economic forecasts own a company selling private economic forecasts? and a mention in passing at Bloomberg [29]
There is a Fed employee named Jasper McMahon, there's not much activity at
Nowcasting (economics). I do have to say that IMHO the Fed has to be the squeakiest clean part of our government. If they start playing around with our money - sooner or later our money could become worthless. There have been edits by IPs in NY (where McMahon is likely located) and in NC (where there are no Fed operations that I know of). Some extra eyes on this, beyond what the article itself might suggest, would be appreciated.
Smallbones(
smalltalk)
14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a fantastic case though, maybe the first time I've seen COI manipulation of a Wikipedia article being the direct subject of a lawsuit. May be an inflection point of a) WP's influence being significant to society in the real world and b) people in the real world caring enough to do something about it and c) at least one person thinks they can explain a and b to a judge. Above The Law has more about this [30]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Edits by an IP that geolocates to the same state where August Busch IV is from (this is public knowledge). The edits reveal information that is unsourced except to an individual with close ties to the subject of the article.
I don't know who this IP is, what connection they might have to Bush, it doesn't matter, but the edits show an unusually high level of inside knowledge and interest about Bush, and they tend to whitewash some things. -- Green C 12:42, 17 October 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.
I've blocked Starshine60 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as it is obvious they are an experienced undisclosed paid editor. These are their creations:
Not a creation but also COI affected:
They also removed tags from this article created by an SPA (stale now):
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.
Don't even know what to do with this. My AGF self-wants to say it is 12 k (!) of misguided, unreferenced OR. My skeptical self wants to say it is support for one or two spam links. What to do? Nom for deletion? Redirect? But where?
It's really hard to tell which way plagiarism is going but this passage is found elsewhere on the World Wide Web. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:03, 22 October 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.
A new sockfarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan which might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Seems to be naive yet extra persistent. Details in a moment... ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Self-declared COI ( edit summary here), but not a verified account. I've just reverted some highly promotional edits and left them a COI warning. Other eyes may be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Are this editor's edits ok? /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/OfficialShindig
And this looks like the smae person. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/KentFrederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 ( talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a question: I work for an Art gallery. My job involves curating and writing about some of the artists we host. I've been getting acquainted with Wikipedia these last few days to see how I may be able to contribute within guidelines. Would my contributions be considered COI editing? I am not paid by the artists involved, but my employer is an arts organization that hosts some of these artists. I have been advised by another editor that I should only limit my contributions to article Talk pages, is this the policy or personal opinion? Do I need to declare I'm a paid editor? If so, where? Thank you in advanced for your help. CroatianNeptune ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoping that the major contributor to the articles above can explain what's going on here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can.
1. Zvi Harry Hurwitz is not a business. He was an Israeli diplomat, journalist and political operative. The insinuation that I was paid for it is ludicrous. The man is dead. I knew him and once worked with him some 35 years ago and wrote the article for altruistic reasons alone.
2. Zohar Zisapel, together with his brother Yehuda, founded Israel's first home-grown hi-tech start-up group. Both brothers have served as chairmen of the country's electronics industry association. As the article notes, he is often called the "Bill Gates of Israel" in the media. The industry he created now employs something like 10% of the Israeli workforce. Perhaps calling him the "Bill Gates of Israel" is an understatement. I wrote the article together with a friend who is also a Wikipedia contributor, and both of us know the Zisapels (so do thousands of other Israelis who have been involved in the hi-tech sector and in the various charities they support, but we received no payment. In fact, Zohar was unaware we wrote the article and may even be unaware that it exists -- we've never spoken to him about it.
3. I wrote the article on Safe Drive Systems after it's Israeli competitor, Mobileye, was purchased by Intel for $15 billion. Mobileye, apart from having its own article, is mentioned in the Intel and Intel Mobile Communications articles (and maybe more). Because I know people who work in both Mobileye and Safe Drive Systems, I also know that it is inherently unfair to host an article about one and not to have one about the other, since collision detection technology is not unique to Mobileye. That would be akin to having an article about the iPhone without one for Android. Zozoulia ( talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The article Jillian Shea Spaeder was created first [31] on 17 October by User:StageDDesigns ( talk), who was promptly banned for having a promotional username. The editor was able to edit the article in question several times, and published an image of the article subject on commons. On 19 October the article was recreated by User:Gmalagon ( talk) using the same information and the same image. This implies to me that either the original editor returned under a new name or someone is soliciting paid editors to create the Jillian Shea Spaeder article. The second option appears to be more likely as Gmalagon has been active longer. SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please can you review the pattern of editing of Special:Contributions/IMSMTS. This editor has declared that they are a paid editor, and has gone on to create a series of drafts relating to albums recorded by the band that they are working for. Are they ok to do that, or should they be requesting new articles at WP:REQUEST? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis has uncovered ten years of socking. He has a fondness for an author named Ralph Ellis who publishes unusual religious theories. I might be wrong but this edit, still standing, is concerning [32]. Is it the person adding references to his own work? ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refer to "Mediation decline of My Edits were removed from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion page" under the User talk:Ggitzen. In the last 2 months (September 2017) I have found that the administrator: Horst59 is a board member of the Drake Navigators Guild. The Drake Navigators Guild are the promoters of Drake in California; an unproven anchorage. In my mind, this is a total conflict of interest and all of my edits which were deleted should be reinstated. As a legitimate long-time researcher and well accepted author, I should be permitted to post to the Francis Drake and New Albion pages.
P.S. The Drake Navigators Guild has been saying that the NPS as designated official site of Drakes Bay but the NPS Pt. Reyes National Seashore page says: "probably landed" is not conclusive. And their official documents which I have thoroughly researched say "Drakes Bay as the most likely site"; again this is not proof or conclusive.
Additionally, As of September 2017 I am now the President of the 501(c)3 Sir Francis Drake Association. We are registered in both Oregon and California. Ggitzen ( talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I like to bring the following incident to your attention, which might be relevant to enwp as well because both users are editing here:
Relevant discussions (in german language) are viable here with deeper details:
Best -- Steinsplitter ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Lots of work ahead of us, I have begun placing the COI and UDP tags.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone (most probably Pete Hawkes) has been continually editing the Pete Hawkes since at least 2013, continually using new throwaway accounts, to promote the subject. I've only listed the single-purpose accounts from this year above. The latest edits aren't terrible, but they do include peacock terms like "supported some of the biggest names in the industry". This is continual, blatant violation of the CoI policy. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd say permanent semi-protection would at least force the author to make some edits to other articles before polishing his own article. -- Slashme ( talk) 22:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution on the suggestion of Berean Hunter, who has already done a CU on a few of the accounts listed there. No question that some socking has gone on but concerns have been raised that it may also involve undisclosed paid editing, so I was asked to mention it here also in the hope of getting further input.
As I say on the SPI case page, the filing is a bit rough round the edges. There was a lengthy discussion on my talk page (linked at SPI) and it became so complicated that none of us seemed to be prepared to take the plunge re: filing. I'll try to copy some diffs over to the SPI later when I get back from a job, although I suspect the automated report will have highlighted a lot of the issues before then. - Sitush ( talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Reping Berean Hunter, just for their info. - Sitush ( talk) 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michakellies
Potentially all part of one or two SPIs. Details to come. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Editing only on these articles, and username indicates he/she is a company employee. Redirected article consisted of promotional content of non-notable subject. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It would appear this user (all four accounts appear to be posting similar information) is a former partner of Katie Geralds and due to some personal conflict that ended their relationship appears to be adding inflammatory content to this page. Based on the name it would be obvious that this is a conflict of interest. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 05:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Article on Wall Street bank, created and principally edited by the above SPA. Requires major work, and also the editing activity indicates probable paid editing, COI at a minimum. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A promotional editor who has declined to disclose.
First edit was to vote in an AfD and they already new about GNG. [35] Followed by adjusting piped links. [36]. So this is not their first account. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Not for immediate action, just awareness. A recent SPI has indications that MusicLover650/Earflaps ( COIN archive 109) may still be active. Will follow up if anything especially interesting occurs. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to split this post up, but I just wanted to list them here whilst I have the time.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Rug Connoisseur is an employee of Claremont Rug Company: Our page has now been deleted and I request that it please be restored and in the future, I will not add written content to corresponding pages from our website. My intention was to provide more educational information about these types of rugs to enhance the user experience when searching through Wikipedia for these rug types and then reference the source not to promote our website. Thank you.
[37]
Jan D. Winitz is the founder and president of Claremont Rug Company.
The editor has attempted to create an article for Claremont Rug Company (speedy deleted for being promotional), spammed the company's website, and copied information from the website into an article [38].
I've reverted the latest edits from Rug Connoisseur because they once again used poor, promotional sources originating from the company (a press release and a article for an insurance company's newsletter written by Winitz).
At this point, I'm thinking a block might be the best solution. --
Ronz (
talk)
22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Absolutely, I have a few more sources I would like to provide you for review to support the content on the page. Would you like me to add these sources and the content they support on the article talk page? Thank you. Rug Connoisseur ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Editor has recreated Rajesh Shah, already AfDd three times (twice with result delete). Other articles created include a number of Indian playback singers, in a pattern that fits WP:Identifying PR, for example, a list of "appearances at various national and international events, and television reality shows" and brand ambassador endorsements.
There is a connection to another editor whose history includes recreation of a repeatedly deleted article, Bookeventz, and another one who created Akhil Talreja. In addition Rohanpednekar38 uploaded a homeopathy-related file, now deleted. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 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.
I recently joined upwork and now I am able to understand the issue, some clients told me that some users are claiming they have special rights on Wikipedia, they could be admins. They even told me that they own multiple accounts and even give guarantees and approves low rating articles. I have evidence of most of the cases. I have seen many profiles on upwork charging a lot of money. Maybe you guys should investigate which admins are involved in paid editions and reviewing lower grade articles as I have seen on Wikipedia that the article, if approved by an admin nobody touches it. I read investigations and archives and have seen some projects I think users here who have many problems with paid editions are those users on upwork who are charging that's why they only hit those articles (and users) which they don't get or have an open project description. eg, this article Le Trio Joubran there was a job on upwork for this article and it was updated right after that on October 7, 2017, and the client was looking for an admin with rights to edit a protected page. There are three more people active and I hope @ Smartse: will investigate this as well.
Also, see who approved these Ntfrmhre and FreshAddress and this Oliver Isaacs article's reviewer and creator is a paid editor. I have evidence for all of them and surely who approved those and others I have listed are surely paid admins who are hidden and only hitting new users who create articles where they don't get that job on upwork and start investigating those articles. Obviously, if people are posting jobs on upwork for editing Wikipedia articles, multiple people could apply and I have seen some high ranked profiles. I have some names that I can give who I think are paid admins.
I have also seen that this process say that do not post anything without evidence while most of the accounts were blocked without an evidence and also reverted changes without any solid proof, again all those mentioned admin accounts involved in these quick actions. So please, investigate that also if you are that much sincere and loyal with Wikipedia terms. I have other pieces of evidence as well that I will share soon. Investigator87 ( talk) 19:54, 2 November 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 purpose of these account appears to be to "puff up" the notability of Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.
User:Austin-geo has made 228 total edits, nearly all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas. User:2605:6000:E94A:AA00:6554:1E46:79C4:3305 has made 21 edits, all to Northwest Hills, Austin, Texas.
With reference specifically to User:Austin-geo, their edits rely heavily on real estate sites as sources, and text added is often trivial in detail (eg. the price of toll roads), or promotional in tone (eg. the price of homes and number of neighborhood amenities). An attempt has also been made to show the boundaries of Northwest Hills as being much larger than they are.
Northwest Hills has no GNIS entry, and appears to be a small, affluent housing complex in northwest Austin, Texas. Google Maps specifically outlines the boundaries of Northwest Hills.
Attempts to trim excessive content, or remove content with only a slight connection to Northwest Hills, have been met with reverts, and hostile talk page comments and edit summaries.
Examples:
Austin-geo stated here that they do not have a conflict of interest, writing "You could have just asked (and not posted that warning on my talkpage), or read the DYK nomination. You did not assume good faith. If I were affiliated to a real estate agent, I would have probably just used one agency, don't you think? If I were involved with the NWACA, I would have favored their opinions in the Austin Oaks PUD debate."
This account has the hallmarks of a single-purpose account attempting to puff up the notability of an affluent neighborhood by making it read like a real estate listing, and make it eligible for this DYK nomination. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an SPA undisclosed paid editor working in a PR firm. They have ignored the warning I added on their talk page and are continuing to edit promotionally, with a determination to see their draft accepted into main space. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like someone is spamming links to an article they published, "Survey data on Vietnamese propensity to attend periodic general health examinations". These two IPs are doing nothing but force-fitting this one reference into every article they can:
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.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For quite some time user 特克斯特 is editing the "I am a singer" series of articles (and related articles). These articles are often poorly sourced or sourced with related sources. I am not entirely sure if this is a case of Conflict of Interest or that 特克斯特 just has no clue what he is doing here.
Especially this edit where he claims to know the results of the competition without it being broadcast or sourced, gives me the idea that he is operating on inside information.
I have multiple times requested him to explain if, and if so, how he is related to the show. No answer at all. An earlier block and discussion (I had asked administrator Drmies for advice), did not help at all.
I do not know how to proceed from here. The Banner talk 16:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Can I upgrade this case to AN/I as User:特克斯特 continues with his edits. The Banner talk 08:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There's no SPI for this but the last two users are already blocked and the first is an obvious DUCK. SmartSE ( talk) 19:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 49.207.232.141 ( talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Articles:
Involved Users (Active):
Involved Users (Inactive):
This user has been editing a large number of articles that are linked to the above person. I have asked a number of times to make a disclosure of his COI which he refuses to do. On commons he refers to this individual's interests and company by saying "we" [2] He has added dozens of references to this person and his family and interests over 9 years by adding photos links and taking over the editing of another user that carries the name of a person closely linked to Demitz User:EmilEikS Emil Eikner. EmilEiks asked to be blocked and a few months later SergeWoodzing popped up to take over his editing. This editor has been blocked indefinitely on Swedish WP for COI editing on these subjects here. There has been speculation on the Swedish WP as to the real identity of this user but as per WP:OUTING I have not repeated these allegations I have however asked him several times to disclose his COI here and here and here amongst other. He replied "pass" here with an edit summary of "go away please". So I think that I have no choice but to open a case here.
Here are a very small selection of his COI edits [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]where he has inserted or wedged photos that he has uploaded to commons with references to Demitz or another of his group and with a spammy text on the photo that says:
Assistant for CabarEng. - This image comes from the Southerly Clubs of Stockholm, Sweden, a non-profit society which owns image publication rights to the archives of Lars Jacob Prod, Mimical Productions, F.U.S.I.A., Swenglistic Underground (formerly CabarEng), Ristesson Ent and FamSAC. Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain. Deputy Chairman Emil Eikner for the Board of Directors, Hallowe'en 2008. This work is freeand may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2010092510008875. If you have questions about the archived correspondence, please use the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010092510008875
The Swedish article for Demitz was deleted a number of times as not being notable. [13] he has also been adding spam to German wikipedia and got into a heated discussion here because he wanted to add of photo of Demitz to illustrate the article on the town called Demitz and was told by different users including an administrator that just because he has the same name as a town that doesn't make the photo relevant especially as Demitz does not have a page on German WP.
I have opened a ticket on the commons adminstrator's notticeboard to try and understand how commons can be used to host so much promotional material but I'm not getting much of a reply. commons AN Domdeparis ( talk) 17:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been here for many years and have learned a lot. The only time I remember having been seriously accused of COI before on English Wikipedia (and even then by Swedes whom I've had to comment on here) I was deemed OK. If I've unintentionally taken that as license and liberty to conrtibute things which the Community here cannot find constructive, I am truly sorry. The replacement of 2 images and some text by me yesterday was done in a spirit of cooperation.
Always, I would much rather help in fixing whatever problems I may have caused than argue about them. In cases where I've opposed someone else's action I've always (always) given up, if proven wrong by guidelines or consensus, and tried to do so gracefully. There are no rules that we must always agree, but we must always try to be (1) fair and (2) civil.
Two of my images being removed by another user today cause me no heartache. On the contrary, all of us should appreciate help in cleaning some of our edits up. I have never contributed anything, though, without feeling it was relevant to an article, whether or not I know someone in an image or know someone who knows someone, and so on.
Though I feel minimal confidence anymore, based on behavior I perceive, that my e-mailing scans of newspaper articles to this nominator will end up with their being treated faily and constructively, I will now do so anyway in good faith.
There is evidence here and here, however, that as of today there is collaboration between my new antagonist (as I perceive it) here at EnWP (and Commons), and one of my most lengthily vehement opponents at svWP. Things like that scare me, and about as much as the many attempted outings at svWP last year (not much in the way of ethics rules over there) and the attempted outings & horrifying personal attacks by an IP made here yesterday but removed relatively fast.
Anything that isn't done, right now, to try to distract me from my rather urgent research would be very much appreciated, me being an old man now, with worsening eyesight and a bit of brain damage. I spent considerable time researching at the National Library of Sweden again today to get better information and try to prop up the Jacob Truedson Demitz article by clarifying and translating reliable sources under it for evaluation in that deletion process.
I've read WP:COI several times carefully, earlier and recently, and have always tried to edit in a way where my good faith would be evident even though I know some of these people and they know and have worked with a lot of famous people: many Swedes, a Frenchman and a Dane and a Norwegian and a German or two, a few Englishmen, and a number of Americans. I am always interested in constructive criticism and have made hundreds of edits to correct mine and those of others, whether or not there have been COI concerns raised or other problems. I've done lots of reference research, once I finally got the hang of formatting citations well enough (I thought). It has been my honest (honest) belief that it is allowed to add information about people one knows, as long as it is well sourced and relevant and benefits the project. That's why I've added it, and for no other reason ever.
I've also specialized a bit in fixing a lot of confusing Swenglish in English articles (which has rubbed a few Swedes the wrong way, as complained about severely at their own project), and in reverting obvious mischief. My watchlist here is huge, and at Commons considerable. I try to get through them daily.
The example of Mattias Klum as part of this accusation is quite odd, since it is not mine and there I have repeatedly criticized the fact that it's been mostly edited under several user names which have included the Klum name, and at first was also almost exclusively self-referenced. The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I know, and my contributions to them have not been major.
I would now like to be given a few days of relative peace to go on putting together that reference improvement in time, before defending myself additionally here, as probably will be needed. If y'all want me to go away, I'll be sad to do so, because I've felt kid of at home here, but at least I'll have a lot of permanent contributions here to be proud if, most of whch have no connection whatsoever to anyone I know. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The articles on Alexandra Charles and Yaiya were not created by anyone I knowsomewhat disingenuous given that the Charles article, at least, was created by EmilEik, who was apparently the same person as EmilEikS, and the reason we're in this mess right now is because you were adding images of one Emil Eikner (often pictured with Demitz, or with Yaiya) into all kinds of different articles [25] [26] [27]. While they edited at different times, these accounts also seem to have similar interests (even in Mae West, whom Demitz is apparently a big fan of). The inclusion of Klum here shouldn't be a mystery to you, given that you've yourself written that they have the same grandfather. You can't possibly expect us to believe that this is all a coincidence. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I've skimmed this discussion, Jacob Truedson Demitz, and the AfD. From what I see, the content concerns are valid and the WP:IDHT from SergeWoodzing regarding WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT problems should be enough for a block or ban. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
That is a severely fluffy article. I don't understand why someone would fill a wall of text and then say "oh yeah I share a computer with this guy"--I mean seriously, no one like that should be writing on that person. However, I can say, and this is of some relevance, that my CU tool reveals no evidence of foul play, and it seems to me that, given the admission of the computer and other aspects of this discussion, the use of CU was more than warranted here. Serge, please try using <p> to create paragraph breaks. Drmies ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that you are honest and do not wish to lie so are in an impossible position and cannot disclose correctly. If we wanted to clean up the COI work it would take years to do seeing the extent. None of what you have added is essential or unique. All the photos I have seen are additional photos that can be removed without damaging the articles. There are a large number of other editors that work on the non COI pages you have edited. As such I believe that your presence and edits are far from being necessary and mostly contrary to policy so I suggest an indefinite block and Nuking all your edits. I don't know if this is possible or not. Domdeparis ( talk) 06:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I am on friendly terms with Jacob Truedson Demitz in real life. The friendly terms are personal, not financial, but constitute a conflict of interest in this regard. I decline to publish my private circumstances on Wikipedia, but will no longer edit any article about him directly. I might put suggestions for improvement, especially to sources, on the talk pages of articles where a conflict of interest on my part is involved. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Once again unavoidably on the defensive, because the usual cabal of enWP-infrequent and biased Swedish editors are ganging up here again, disrespectful (as I see it) of the advice of neutral editors who do a lot of good work on enWP and know the ropes, my rather sad comments are these:
Before I left Swedish Wikipedia last year I made these comprehensive lists in good faith, to help them decide whether or not I actually had done any substantial harm there. Almost none (almost none) of all that on those lists has been reverted or addressed at all.
There you have the main reason I have not been able to find good faith in the attitude of these elite editors there, and why it has only been rational (to me) to assume the opposite: that their actions there, which spill over here from time to time as they habitually stalk me (as I perceive it), are based on personal animosities.
The sarcasm and skadeglädje (a form of gloating joy - word is common in Swedish but does not exist in English) that's going on now in discussions on the talk pages of some of these svWP users, because I'm in trouble here, is a good example of why several of us who've complained about problems at that project are gone.
I have commented recently, in several other discussions about me on enWP, on the infleunce, as i see it, of the Law of Jante on problems such as these, on the very unpleasant reactions I've had from some (only some) Swedes when I've cleaned up their unintelligible Swenglish here (which one usually must know both langiages well to be abe to do) and on the lack at svWP of most guidelines here which help us resolve conflicts and deter us from attacking each other. Seems strange to feel compelled to put those opinions of ours (i.e. several ex-users of svWP) on page after page of discussions. I wish I did not feel duly compelled. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I would be very interested to know if documents were ever sent, and if Dom or Bishonen saw anything that might shake up the AFD underway on the Demitz article (as of now, it seems to be leaning delete). If Serge has agreed not to edit where he has a COI, and abides by that that is good enough for me, and I don't see the need to seek any further admin action - but there is still lots of cleanup to be done, and for that reason I do not think we should rush a close of this section. Personally I'm at least considering nominating some of the other articles linked above for deletion, especially AlexCab, Wild Side Story, and Birgit Ridderstedt. Would love it if others (especially the Swedish-speaking editors) could take a look and see if they agree that notability is suspect there. I have a feeling that Throne of a Thousand Years might just squeak through an AFD but other opinions are welcome there. If its kept, it may need a depuff. Fyddlestix ( talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Davykamanzi is a paid editor that does disclose, but tends to write overly promotional, poorly sourced BLP content. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Seth_Godin above. Apparently Davykamanzi has decided to not follow COI very closely despite the previous discussion. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This user name is an apparent COI: CanadianSpecialForcesRF. I put a template on his talkpage, but since I am not an admin, I can't block him. I hope I did everything right?-- Biografer ( talk) 17:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a WSJ article that should likely explain this in detail Fed Economists’ Stakes in Forecasting Firm Spur an Internal Probe (but I don't have a WSJ subscription) and an available article Wikipedia Keeps A Record Of Your Edits — These People Don’t Seem To Know That - Why do Federal Reserve employees who make economic forecasts own a company selling private economic forecasts? and a mention in passing at Bloomberg [29]
There is a Fed employee named Jasper McMahon, there's not much activity at
Nowcasting (economics). I do have to say that IMHO the Fed has to be the squeakiest clean part of our government. If they start playing around with our money - sooner or later our money could become worthless. There have been edits by IPs in NY (where McMahon is likely located) and in NC (where there are no Fed operations that I know of). Some extra eyes on this, beyond what the article itself might suggest, would be appreciated.
Smallbones(
smalltalk)
14:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a fantastic case though, maybe the first time I've seen COI manipulation of a Wikipedia article being the direct subject of a lawsuit. May be an inflection point of a) WP's influence being significant to society in the real world and b) people in the real world caring enough to do something about it and c) at least one person thinks they can explain a and b to a judge. Above The Law has more about this [30]. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Edits by an IP that geolocates to the same state where August Busch IV is from (this is public knowledge). The edits reveal information that is unsourced except to an individual with close ties to the subject of the article.
I don't know who this IP is, what connection they might have to Bush, it doesn't matter, but the edits show an unusually high level of inside knowledge and interest about Bush, and they tend to whitewash some things. -- Green C 12:42, 17 October 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.
I've blocked Starshine60 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as it is obvious they are an experienced undisclosed paid editor. These are their creations:
Not a creation but also COI affected:
They also removed tags from this article created by an SPA (stale now):
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.
Don't even know what to do with this. My AGF self-wants to say it is 12 k (!) of misguided, unreferenced OR. My skeptical self wants to say it is support for one or two spam links. What to do? Nom for deletion? Redirect? But where?
It's really hard to tell which way plagiarism is going but this passage is found elsewhere on the World Wide Web. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:03, 22 October 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.
A new sockfarm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ren Yifan which might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. Seems to be naive yet extra persistent. Details in a moment... ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Self-declared COI ( edit summary here), but not a verified account. I've just reverted some highly promotional edits and left them a COI warning. Other eyes may be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Are this editor's edits ok? /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/OfficialShindig
And this looks like the smae person. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/KentFrederick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 ( talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a question: I work for an Art gallery. My job involves curating and writing about some of the artists we host. I've been getting acquainted with Wikipedia these last few days to see how I may be able to contribute within guidelines. Would my contributions be considered COI editing? I am not paid by the artists involved, but my employer is an arts organization that hosts some of these artists. I have been advised by another editor that I should only limit my contributions to article Talk pages, is this the policy or personal opinion? Do I need to declare I'm a paid editor? If so, where? Thank you in advanced for your help. CroatianNeptune ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoping that the major contributor to the articles above can explain what's going on here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can.
1. Zvi Harry Hurwitz is not a business. He was an Israeli diplomat, journalist and political operative. The insinuation that I was paid for it is ludicrous. The man is dead. I knew him and once worked with him some 35 years ago and wrote the article for altruistic reasons alone.
2. Zohar Zisapel, together with his brother Yehuda, founded Israel's first home-grown hi-tech start-up group. Both brothers have served as chairmen of the country's electronics industry association. As the article notes, he is often called the "Bill Gates of Israel" in the media. The industry he created now employs something like 10% of the Israeli workforce. Perhaps calling him the "Bill Gates of Israel" is an understatement. I wrote the article together with a friend who is also a Wikipedia contributor, and both of us know the Zisapels (so do thousands of other Israelis who have been involved in the hi-tech sector and in the various charities they support, but we received no payment. In fact, Zohar was unaware we wrote the article and may even be unaware that it exists -- we've never spoken to him about it.
3. I wrote the article on Safe Drive Systems after it's Israeli competitor, Mobileye, was purchased by Intel for $15 billion. Mobileye, apart from having its own article, is mentioned in the Intel and Intel Mobile Communications articles (and maybe more). Because I know people who work in both Mobileye and Safe Drive Systems, I also know that it is inherently unfair to host an article about one and not to have one about the other, since collision detection technology is not unique to Mobileye. That would be akin to having an article about the iPhone without one for Android. Zozoulia ( talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The article Jillian Shea Spaeder was created first [31] on 17 October by User:StageDDesigns ( talk), who was promptly banned for having a promotional username. The editor was able to edit the article in question several times, and published an image of the article subject on commons. On 19 October the article was recreated by User:Gmalagon ( talk) using the same information and the same image. This implies to me that either the original editor returned under a new name or someone is soliciting paid editors to create the Jillian Shea Spaeder article. The second option appears to be more likely as Gmalagon has been active longer. SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Please can you review the pattern of editing of Special:Contributions/IMSMTS. This editor has declared that they are a paid editor, and has gone on to create a series of drafts relating to albums recorded by the band that they are working for. Are they ok to do that, or should they be requesting new articles at WP:REQUEST? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ralphellis has uncovered ten years of socking. He has a fondness for an author named Ralph Ellis who publishes unusual religious theories. I might be wrong but this edit, still standing, is concerning [32]. Is it the person adding references to his own work? ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refer to "Mediation decline of My Edits were removed from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion page" under the User talk:Ggitzen. In the last 2 months (September 2017) I have found that the administrator: Horst59 is a board member of the Drake Navigators Guild. The Drake Navigators Guild are the promoters of Drake in California; an unproven anchorage. In my mind, this is a total conflict of interest and all of my edits which were deleted should be reinstated. As a legitimate long-time researcher and well accepted author, I should be permitted to post to the Francis Drake and New Albion pages.
P.S. The Drake Navigators Guild has been saying that the NPS as designated official site of Drakes Bay but the NPS Pt. Reyes National Seashore page says: "probably landed" is not conclusive. And their official documents which I have thoroughly researched say "Drakes Bay as the most likely site"; again this is not proof or conclusive.
Additionally, As of September 2017 I am now the President of the 501(c)3 Sir Francis Drake Association. We are registered in both Oregon and California. Ggitzen ( talk) 17:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I like to bring the following incident to your attention, which might be relevant to enwp as well because both users are editing here:
Relevant discussions (in german language) are viable here with deeper details:
Best -- Steinsplitter ( talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Lots of work ahead of us, I have begun placing the COI and UDP tags.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Someone (most probably Pete Hawkes) has been continually editing the Pete Hawkes since at least 2013, continually using new throwaway accounts, to promote the subject. I've only listed the single-purpose accounts from this year above. The latest edits aren't terrible, but they do include peacock terms like "supported some of the biggest names in the industry". This is continual, blatant violation of the CoI policy. I'm not sure what the best solution is. I'd say permanent semi-protection would at least force the author to make some edits to other articles before polishing his own article. -- Slashme ( talk) 22:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution on the suggestion of Berean Hunter, who has already done a CU on a few of the accounts listed there. No question that some socking has gone on but concerns have been raised that it may also involve undisclosed paid editing, so I was asked to mention it here also in the hope of getting further input.
As I say on the SPI case page, the filing is a bit rough round the edges. There was a lengthy discussion on my talk page (linked at SPI) and it became so complicated that none of us seemed to be prepared to take the plunge re: filing. I'll try to copy some diffs over to the SPI later when I get back from a job, although I suspect the automated report will have highlighted a lot of the issues before then. - Sitush ( talk) 12:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Reping Berean Hunter, just for their info. - Sitush ( talk) 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michakellies
Potentially all part of one or two SPIs. Details to come. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Editing only on these articles, and username indicates he/she is a company employee. Redirected article consisted of promotional content of non-notable subject. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It would appear this user (all four accounts appear to be posting similar information) is a former partner of Katie Geralds and due to some personal conflict that ended their relationship appears to be adding inflammatory content to this page. Based on the name it would be obvious that this is a conflict of interest. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 05:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Article on Wall Street bank, created and principally edited by the above SPA. Requires major work, and also the editing activity indicates probable paid editing, COI at a minimum. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
A promotional editor who has declined to disclose.
First edit was to vote in an AfD and they already new about GNG. [35] Followed by adjusting piped links. [36]. So this is not their first account. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Not for immediate action, just awareness. A recent SPI has indications that MusicLover650/Earflaps ( COIN archive 109) may still be active. Will follow up if anything especially interesting occurs. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to split this post up, but I just wanted to list them here whilst I have the time.
SmartSE (
talk)
12:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Rug Connoisseur is an employee of Claremont Rug Company: Our page has now been deleted and I request that it please be restored and in the future, I will not add written content to corresponding pages from our website. My intention was to provide more educational information about these types of rugs to enhance the user experience when searching through Wikipedia for these rug types and then reference the source not to promote our website. Thank you.
[37]
Jan D. Winitz is the founder and president of Claremont Rug Company.
The editor has attempted to create an article for Claremont Rug Company (speedy deleted for being promotional), spammed the company's website, and copied information from the website into an article [38].
I've reverted the latest edits from Rug Connoisseur because they once again used poor, promotional sources originating from the company (a press release and a article for an insurance company's newsletter written by Winitz).
At this point, I'm thinking a block might be the best solution. --
Ronz (
talk)
22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Absolutely, I have a few more sources I would like to provide you for review to support the content on the page. Would you like me to add these sources and the content they support on the article talk page? Thank you. Rug Connoisseur ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Editor has recreated Rajesh Shah, already AfDd three times (twice with result delete). Other articles created include a number of Indian playback singers, in a pattern that fits WP:Identifying PR, for example, a list of "appearances at various national and international events, and television reality shows" and brand ambassador endorsements.
There is a connection to another editor whose history includes recreation of a repeatedly deleted article, Bookeventz, and another one who created Akhil Talreja. In addition Rohanpednekar38 uploaded a homeopathy-related file, now deleted. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 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.
I recently joined upwork and now I am able to understand the issue, some clients told me that some users are claiming they have special rights on Wikipedia, they could be admins. They even told me that they own multiple accounts and even give guarantees and approves low rating articles. I have evidence of most of the cases. I have seen many profiles on upwork charging a lot of money. Maybe you guys should investigate which admins are involved in paid editions and reviewing lower grade articles as I have seen on Wikipedia that the article, if approved by an admin nobody touches it. I read investigations and archives and have seen some projects I think users here who have many problems with paid editions are those users on upwork who are charging that's why they only hit those articles (and users) which they don't get or have an open project description. eg, this article Le Trio Joubran there was a job on upwork for this article and it was updated right after that on October 7, 2017, and the client was looking for an admin with rights to edit a protected page. There are three more people active and I hope @ Smartse: will investigate this as well.
Also, see who approved these Ntfrmhre and FreshAddress and this Oliver Isaacs article's reviewer and creator is a paid editor. I have evidence for all of them and surely who approved those and others I have listed are surely paid admins who are hidden and only hitting new users who create articles where they don't get that job on upwork and start investigating those articles. Obviously, if people are posting jobs on upwork for editing Wikipedia articles, multiple people could apply and I have seen some high ranked profiles. I have some names that I can give who I think are paid admins.
I have also seen that this process say that do not post anything without evidence while most of the accounts were blocked without an evidence and also reverted changes without any solid proof, again all those mentioned admin accounts involved in these quick actions. So please, investigate that also if you are that much sincere and loyal with Wikipedia terms. I have other pieces of evidence as well that I will share soon. Investigator87 ( talk) 19:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)