Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aireon

That page might need some cleaning up. I came across this account and page while looking into a proxy service being used by an unrelated sockmaster. It looks like possible paid editing. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Binary options and ICOs

Israel, the home of most binary option scams, has now passed a law criminalizing the selling of binary options. I think that marks the end of this particular scam, but folks here should be aware that these things often come back from the dead. They have been mentioned innumerable times on this page and in AfDs. For future use - e.g. in determining how pervasive and costly paid editing is - I'd like to put some kind of number on this. Can folks here help me find the number of deleted articles about binary options firms? The number still in article space? What was the earliest binary option firm to advertise here? What was the latest?

Part of the problem with scams on Wikipedia is that the firms often change names, even the names of the scams often change, so it is difficult to get exact information on any individual firm. If people let a firm have an article despite there being only fuzzy, self-generated information on the firm, it is difficult to get more neutral info. Is there any way we can overcome this built in bias to prevent scams from advertising on Wikipedia?

Not to be alarmist - I don't have enough info yet - but the next rumored big scam seems to involve Initial coin offerings. It would behoove us to at least keep on eye on this type of article. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding timelines, a little harder to sort but the COIN archives mentioning binary options give a hint.
My humble observation is that a lot of this stuff has been/is/will be sockfarm and LTA related. For instance Cypriano created a lot of the Cyprus related stuff, and the notorious Morning277 LTA created Banc De Binary almost certainly for a large bounty. UPE is part and parcel of keeping the scammers' preferred way of controlling the narrative about these instruments and the industry. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes we need some serious tools to address this sorts of issues. They are going to get worse as time goes on. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If you happen to come across accounts with 1-2 edits being used solely to spam a link (usually in ref tags), please drop me a line to let me know about it. I've blocked about 50 accounts from one particular sock ring in the past 48 hours, and I've found they cross-over with a couple more "traditional" promotional sockfarms, so I figure some of you will come across them in your normal work at COIN. ~ Rob13 Talk 01:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: I see this stuff all the time. Domains added by this bunch:
Extended content
@ BU Rob13: MER-C 04:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: replied with email. We have a black hat SEO operation here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just whacked 32 accounts and a pair of VPN ranges. @ Bri: That doesn't surprise me. These can be tied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrgrayzon and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin. ~ Rob13 Talk 10:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another batch of domains:

Blacklisted sedamipo.com fursan.qa. There's four more unblocked accounts:

Probably related (both accounts unblocked):

@ BU Rob13: MER-C 11:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it as far as I can tell. Vend (software) came up in the sockfarm above and should have the axe taken to it.
You may be able to find work to do by going through my recently CU blocked accounts... [by] searching for more accounts by the URLs they're adding.
Indeed, that's how I derived all of the above lists. The linkwatcher database works wonders when combined with CU. MER-C 13:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran down the example in SmartSE's black hat SEO link and found this insertion of chicagofed.org ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be related based on the behavior. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You were right. The diff I provided was a moved link not an inserted link. An anon editor added the link 25 july 2014. Bri.public ( talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiRecontributer47

User blocked per NLT ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:28, 13 November 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.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this user is being "used", if you'll forgive the expression, and is either making edits dictated to her by another individual or is allowing another person to make the edits in her name. See User talk:WikiRecontributer47 for the latest exchange on this subject but also check out the history of that talk page, where she has repeatedly deleted all warnings and comments on the subject of advertising and conflict of interest. This editor has been the subject of a previous report but no action seems to have been taken. I have proposed a voluntary topic ban but she doesn't seem to like that idea.

See also:

Note in particular the difference in the standard of use of English between her contributions to talk pages and the articles. Deb ( talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing war

This user is clearly involved in an editing war with me and when asked why he placed Close Connection notices, keeps making baseless accusations towards me, accusing me of working for various high profile politicians and other high ranking individuals whose articles I contributed to. I have reasons to believe that this is politically motivated and he’s using Wikipedia to run a political campaign in order to influence politics in this country as well as using Wikipedia to run a nationalist campaign. Indeed he made remarks about my background on my talk page, commenting on my poor command of English and referring to me as “foreigner”. He also made anti-Jewish remarks, accusing me of being personally connected with various Jewish religious leaders whose articles I contributed to. I have reported this to my local MP as I believe the authorities should intervene. This person’s remarks about my background, my command of English, and about religious leaders, politicians and other high profile persons who I have no connection with and whose articles I simply contributed to are not good for the country; Trolling and goes without mention - I have reported him to the police for that as it’s a separate issue. Kind regards, WikiRecontributer47 ( talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

After doubling down on it while WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WikiRecontributer47 blocked per WP:NLT. (Note also that based on a read of their talk page none of the claims they made about Deb are factual) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Evading ACTRIAL

Seems likely to be paid editing. At the very least, it's clear they edited until autoconfirmed status to evade ACTRIAL. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Another group of concerns

Articles

Account is not their first one by what it looks like... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Have started an SPI [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
They say they're just an enthusiast, so I'm not sure where we go from here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Shahin Novrasli

The usual. Subject is transforming his biography into a promotional press release. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, and thank you for your message. This is not paid editing at all. This is Shahin's wife. All the pubslishing, concert halls, magazines, almost everyone takes information from wikipedia, unfortunally the information here is not very much reflects Shahin's present concerts, and his family and real bio, what I am trying to do , from my side to write with many references the information, which would be more close to him. ( Shahin Novrasli ( talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC))
Unfortunately, conflict of interest is very much an issue. You've added a lot of unsourced and promotional content about your husband, like This classical background is often to be heard in his jazz compositions but his love for American music - its jazz, rhythm, harmony - prevails. Combining all the musical skills, from playing to composing, jazz opened the way for Shahin to express his inner world, his music and it was not long in becoming the main focus of his creativity. That is fine for a personal website, but not for an encyclopedic entry. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your remark and help, I will take this out and will think to add later in encyclopedic entry, the wikipedia language is not easy for me, so it takes a lot of time for me, being musician as well. ( Shahin Novrasli ( talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC))
Given your clear conflict of interest - that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing, it means you care about and benefit from your spouse's success -- you should avoid editing the article directly. Rather, use the article's Talk page to suggest edits to other editors, letting them decide whether the material meets Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233

probably not eligible due to deletion debate history but worth consideration given new information
probably not eligible if creation date is strictly observed, but worth consideration

This large family of socks appears to be the group WikiExperts who were community banned in 2013. [2]. This should now allow us to go farther back with our deleting. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Doc James: I had a quick look and none of the tagged socks has edited since 2016. We did a cleanup after "370 articles created by Jeremy112233 sockfarm" thread when I listed their known creations. The remaining articles created after the 17 October 2013 ban are listed above. Is there anything else we should be looking for at this time? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nominated everything in the "undisputed" list above for g5 speedy deletion except Jacket wrestling which has already been sufficiently cleaned & doesn't seem to have a particular POV/promotional bent anymore. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional nomination of James Cummins (author) under g11 alone; it was created in 2012 to tout one of the WikiExperts executives. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NotLazyAnymore

I've just blocked this user as they are obviously an experienced UPE.

Not a creation but obviously UPE too:

These are obvious  Stale socks:

SmartSE ( talk) 20:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Snak The Ripper

Editor is definitely associated with article subject as he/she took the photograph used for infobox image. Nearly their entire edit history is on this article that is promotional in tone, in addition to editing subject's name into related articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Beemer69 and Berean Hunter: Thanks. I've been meaning to do something about this myself. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Berean Hunter: Were you planning any blocks/warnings? Doug Weller talk 19:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've cu blocked the SnakTheRipper account which would be due for a username block anyway. So far, this looks like a regular COI and not UPE so RipMachine would be handled with a standard sock block of 72 hours with the hope he wouldn't go down that road again. I'll leave that as a block for those you to decide as there is the possible account remaining. OTOH, if someone finds out that UPE are involved, it could go to indef quickly. I will add that RipMachine may likely find themselves behind an autoblock before an SPI block is ever actioned
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

Requesting a second opinion on Guy Bavli, created by prior account of an indeffed editor. According to logs they also uploaded images of subject & unless I'm mistaken at least one is now OTRS tagged as having come from the subject, not the editor. Coincidentally, we also have a large edit from another indeffed UPE editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion was already closed "snow no" when I clicked through. Interesting commemts, though. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Bri:--The disc. has been re-opened.Feel free to let out your thoughts:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

Although some of his edits have been trivial, after this edit I advised him that he should not be making that type of edit. He didn't respond on his talk page but later made this edit to the lead, which is already unbalanced. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to make major and pov edits. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that he's engaged on his talkpage now (albeit WoT posts like this). Not sure what this noticeboard can do to help at this point. Maybe someone else here will have a better idea ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How to handle denial of WP:PAID

This is a general question which may lead to a specific report, depending on the discussion. I found a draft about a business tagged for WP:G11, created by a new editor. As I frequently do, I use search engines to cross-reference the username and the article title to find any connection. In this case, I found a social media account that shows that the editor works for the company.

I left both {{ uw-paid1}} and {{ uw-paid2}} notices for them, but didn't mention anything about the social media evidence. The editor replied and denied being paid. So would it be considered WP:OUTING if I showed them the evidence to the contrary that I found? And should it be confined to their talk page, or is it appropriate to display more openly at WP:COIN? -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Drm310: Please refer to the section of WP:OUTING that has the text Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes these paid editors try to split hairs: Both of the statements "I'm not being paid to edit" and "I am an employee of the company I'm writing about" may be true at the same time. From our perspective, either way, the person is being paid by the subject, even if not being paid specifically to write a Wikipedia article.
For that matter, here in Silicon Valley where I live, there are thousands of employees of start-ups who aren't being paid at all, hoping to strike it big someday. I would still say that any representative of a company would fall under WP:PAID when writing about that company, regardless of the company's actual financial arrangements with that person. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Presumably those not-now-paid employees in Silicon Valley expect to get some benefit in the future, so they are paid according to the ToU. Splitting hairs does not work as well. The community here has defined the rules, we know what "being paid" means according to community standards. The company involved does not get to define the fine points of the rules. That said, it would benefit everybody involved if we publicized our rules better to companies and the general public. Ultimately it comes down to: we get to investigate apparent violations of our rules within limits, we get to politely ask editors "Are you being paid for this work?", and we get to decide, according to our own rules rather than the rules of evidence required in a court of law, whether somebody is breaking our rules. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The interpretation we've always used in the past is that you have a COI if you are employed by the company in question, but only WP:PAID if you are expected to edit Wikipedia as part of your job. A financial services officer, for example, updating an article about their employer is typically editing with a COI, but is not being paid to edit WP. Someone working in marketing, on the other hand, is regarded as a paid editor even if they are not specifically told to edit WP, as online media is likely to fall under their responsibilities anyway. - Bilby ( talk) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bowery Electric

There has been a recently flurry of activity at Bowery Electric. At least four SPA accounts have been created and a couple of IPs are active suddenly. I'm not sure if any actions are necessary. I'm not an expert in the topic space or in COI, but it seemed fishy to me. -- Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Duncan McClure Fisher and his enterprises

At a cursory look these are full of WP:PRIMARY and raise questions of UPE. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Henry

An involved account was blocked and is a recently recognized WikiExperts operative. Looking at the list of recent contributors should make the ongoing issue clear. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association) is quite notable, I will be AfDing the article. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Monero (cryptocurrency)

A new user,

helpfully alerted folks to a reddit thread about the WP article about this cryptocurrency that includes things like YEAH! RAID WIKIPEDIA!!!! GO GO GO!!! (Note, a person who said they wrote that remark, has posted on my talk page here saying that was sarcastic/ironic. Jytdog ( talk) 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)) which is just the latest of several threads there. Monero is mostly driven by its reddit community, as I understand it.

Another new account,

also showed up and tagged the talk page with the Template:Recruiting tag. Their only edit.

In any case, the accounts above appear to come from Reddit. The most aggressive of these has been DreamingSea, who showed up today and left this "throw-down" on the Talk page of the Monero article, then restored a bloated, badly-sourced/unsourced version of the article. The other account and IPs then jumped in to try to "keep" it. Clear SOCK/MEAT going on. The article has now been extended/confirmed protected.

Per discussion at WT:COI, holding a cryptocurrency and editing about that cryptocurrency is a financial COI, so this behavior goes beyond organized advocacy/MEAT (which is a violation in itself, of course).

I provided notice of the COI guideline to DreamingSea who blanked it and left this charming note on my talk page.

I have also provided COI notice to TimeWalk, who has not had time to respond yet.

Because DreamingSea is unwilling to address the COI issues at their Talk page, have posted here so the community can help manage this. Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Just noticed the message that there's a COI discussion about that talk page. Thanks for initiating the discussion
The reason why this rally started is because of a Bitcoin Talk forums post (site blocked, see link included inside next reddit post) talking about how the article was slowly reduced as an act of hidden vandalism. This was caught up and posted in this reddit thread. This stretched out into multiple threads with a small part of the community (community is split up over IRC, Slack, Telegram, Reddit, ...) rallying to revert the edits as a counter to "the possible shill or organization".
At least in a good news, one of the core developers of this cryptocurrency did write a new Reddit post defending Jytdog's point to be legitimate edits and not an action of vandalism.
I hope that I wasn't too much of a burden as I do value the integrity of Wikipedia and in no way wanted to do bad-doing. After reading up I first thought that it was really a matter of slowly blanking the article as it is after all a financial matter and people would prefer to spread FUD and potentially rally up. In no way was it intended that I look like a sockpuppet account.
TimeWalk ( talk) 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a helpful response here. Jytdog ( talk) 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I note also cryptocurrency blog The Merkle has weighed in calling Jytdog a vandal, expect more advocates and holders along in due course; more eyes on the article would probably be welcome - David Gerard ( talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrei Popescu (businessman)

Almost certainly paid editing. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing useful in either of the deleted pages. MER-C 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Scandinavian sockfarm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruudtelemark. I've blocked the first three. GAB gab 20:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald H. Winston

This is an odd case, in that the author is using the name of the subject of the biography of a living person, but has stated that they are not the person. They first stated that they are an employee (and are using the name of the person based on the occasional error that one account should correspond to one article as its maintainer), and have subsequently stated that they think that the deletion of the article was an injustice. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Damian Mingle

This looks promotional to me. The author's other contributions also suggest possible paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur and also noticed that Sumitk c ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously created Flyrobe. SmartSE ( talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tove Lill Løyte

User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas ( talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cpicciolini

Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome article — longstanding editor Sciencewatcher has a potential COI

Inappropriate forum: WP:COINOTBIAS ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wikipedia article on the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has for many years been an area for edit disputes, due to the controversial nature and circumstances of this disease. Given the controversy, one would consider it prudent to check whether any of the regular editors might have conflicts of interest. Thus on the article talk page (where COIs are usually discussed), I asked two of the longstanding regular editors of the ME/CFS article whether they have any potential conflicts of interest, which is a legitimate and important question. The text of the ensuing discussion on the ME/CFS talk page can be found here. This link is a diff link ( sciencewatcher has deleted one of my comments on the talk page, but the diff link contains all the comments).

Note that I am not a Wikipedia editor and I am not involved with the editing of the ME/CFS article, but thought it would be a good idea to ask the regular editors of the ME/CFS article (those who have been editing it for many years) whether they might have a COI.

One regular editor ( Doc James) was happy to provide a clear statement that he has no COI, which settled that matter simply and easily. However, the other regular editor ( sciencewatcher) refused to provide any statement regarding possible COIs, even though he was asked several times. This raised some suspicion, and so I made some background checks, and found that sciencewatcher does indeed possess potential COIs: sciencewatcher has a published academic study (as a single independent researcher), a published book (available to buy on Amazon) and a website which all clearly advocate what is termed the psychogenic view of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The heart of the controversy about ME/CFS are the two competing views of the aetiology this disease: the view that ME/CFS is a psychogenic "all in the mind" condition versus the view that ME/CFS is a biologically-caused organic disease. Thus the fact that sciencewatcher has something of an external career as a promotor of the psychogenic view, and is selling a book expounding and advocating this psychogenic view, would appear to introduce a potential COI, especially in an area like ME/CFS which is surrounded by controversy.

When I put it to sciencewatcher that he has a book for sale on Amazon advocating the psychogenic view of ME/CFS, he completely denied this. But I know for fact that he does have such a book for sale, and can provide a weblink to it. So he appears to be trying to cover up this potential COI on the talk pages.

In order not to reveal identity, I will not post here any weblinks to his academic study, his book for sale on Amazon, and his website, but I will send those links, as well as the real life identity of sciencewatcher, to you by email if required.

Thus this is a request for COIN to look into this case, and consider whether these circumstances surrounding sciencewatcher represent a COI. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to have provided any evidence here, just your own bad-faith ( WP:AGF) speculation. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by evidence? I can provide links to his book, website etc, on request.
Good faith was indeed assumed, and any statement by sciencewatcher declaring no COIs would have been accepted on good faith. However, sciencewatcher repeatedly refused to provide such a statement. Since it is simple and straightforward to make such a COI statement, and would have settled the matter there and then, it was perplexing that sciencewatcher should refuse to give one. On investigation, I discovered he had written a book which is for sale that expounds the same psychogenic views that he advocates on the Wikipedia chronic fatigue syndrome article (as well as several other Wikipedia articles in which the same psychogenic vs organic controversy exists), which may in itself constitute a COI. sciencewatcher then lied about not having such a book (which does make one wonder whether good faith is appropriate in this case), and he has still not been courteous enough to volunteer a statement regarding whether he has COIs or not. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Twelve pings to science watcher in two posts seems like wp:badgering and wp:harrassment to me. You've had your answer at the talk page, and still provided no evidence. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What is a "ping"?
Roxy, Zalophus californianus. you don't seem that experienced in these COIN cases, judging by the absence of your username in the history page, so it would be nice to hear from people who are more experienced, who might also be kind enough to answer my question regarding what is evidence, which you didn't. At the top of this page, is says "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." That is my concern, and the reason I posted here. So I am asking the more experienced people here to look into whether sciencewatcher may be using Wikipedia to promote his own interests at the expense of neutrality. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
A ping is what you did to me above, causing me to be notified at the top of any page I visit on the project that somebody has mentioned me. You dont get pings because you dont use an account. you sent twelve pings to sciencewatcher. Hint:- count the number of times you linked sciencewatcher's name in your two posts above. as to the rest of your bad faith comments. Aha haha, hahaha. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You should probably AGF and assume the ip doesn't know that linking a username pings a person rather than assuming that they're trying to badger Sciencewatcher. (after all, it isn't exactly obvious that even linking someone's name pings them) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a COI matter?

46.208, I think you are mistaking COI for WP:Expert. Knowledge of a subject matter area does not imply any conflict of interest. The conflict comes in when one expects to gain something by editing here, or has "divided loyalties" as an editor wrt Wikipedia's mission to be an accurate and unbiased source of information. Asserting (without evidence) that an editor has written a book in no ways establishes COI. I'm concerned that this noticeboard may be misused as a bludgeon to "win" a content dispute by silencing other editors: WP:COINOTBIAS. That's not its purpose. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank your for your response, Bri. Just to clarify: are you saying that (1) the issue here is that I have not provided evidence that that sciencewatcher has actually published a book? The reason I have not posted links to this book, website and paper is because at the top of this COIN page it says "Be careful not to out other editors. ... If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email."
Or are you saying that (2) even if sciencewatcher has published a book, that alone is not sufficient evidence for a COI? It is the "divided loyalties" issue that I think could be a COI problem with sciencewatcher: when reading his book, website and published academic paper it is clear he is a strong proponent of one side of the chronic fatigue syndrome controversy (the so-called psychogenic view of ME/CFS), and is strongly against the other side of the controversy (the view that ME/CFS is a biologically caused disease). Thus outside of Wikipedia, sciencewatcher appears committed to one side of this polarized controversy. So this is where it seems that a COI may arise. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 19:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It is good to avoid WP:OUTING and I don't have a great answer as to what do do with that information other than to read the OUTING link. I don't think e.g. the functionaries mail list is appropriate under to the circumstances. What I see you describing, again just above, "a strong proponent of one side" is definitionally a (potential) bias, not a conflict of interest. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Bri, for clarifying the issues. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Insistence on the term "myalgic encephalomyelitis" automatically marks you out as one of the warring parties. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a 100% medically accurate and value-neutral term, unless you are entirely devoted to the belief that it is encepathomyelitis and cannot possibly be anything else, in which case you are not basing your belief on the evidence. I am not aware of any evidence that this is objectively proven to be a form of encephalomyelitis (feel free to fill a gap in my knowledge there). The use of pejoratives like "all in the mind" and "psychogenic" is profoundly unhelpful. I don't know anyone who believes that. All we know is that (a) nobody actually knows what the actual aetiology is and (b) some CBT techniques appear to help. That's not a surprise: self-reinforcing cycles are a problem in any disorder that either causes or is caused or is exacerbated by mental state. I've had PTSD, I have experienced this first hand. Oh, we know one more thing: there are some people, a minority, for whom the mere suggestion that the condition has any psychological component whatsoever is utterly unacceptable, to the point that they will attack anybody who even thinks about trying CBT as part of palliative treatment. I trust you are not one of those people. Fellow admins can look at the deleted history of Simon Wessely (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see what I mean. Guy ( Help!) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Christ! I just found out that we had forgotten to revdel the worst of it. Fixed now. Admins, take a look at this to see what I mean. Probably the worst BLP violation I have ever seen. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

SEO and PR on hotels articles

For more context see

Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Wikipedia. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. -- Qwacker ( talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/ Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). -- Qwacker ( talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [3], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [4]? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous ( talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis ( talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous ( talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with conflict of interest, is that the person with the COI is not a suitable person to judge what should be included in the article. In my experience with academics here writing about themselves or their projects, about half of them try to say too much, and about half too little. It is appropriate for you to add the information to WP, but according to our current practice, you should write additional articles about faculty in the department using the Article Wizard in Draft space, and suggest additions and changes on the article talk pages. If you wan to write about specific subjects in the field, I think you can do it directly and we're glad to have you, but be sure you do not write them to emphasize JHU people. Incidentally, according to our WP:PROF guidelines, there may be more notable faculty in your department than you think--in addition to members of the National Academies, very highly cited researchers also meet WP:PROF, and I would be surprised if this did not apply to at least all the full professors in your department. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of UPE from Investigator87


I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some sock/meat activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. At least two WP:SPAs have appeared to register Keep votes, and two others that left comments were blocked by Berean Hunter from a CU investigation. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
SPI open now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

On the same AFD we have:

whose set of oddball promotional article creations reek of UPE. I've already declined an unblock request from this user for a very suspect mistake so I'll hold off blocking for now. MER-C 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I concur that ( Richardaldinho is likely a paid editor given the history of the articles. DGG had tagged some of them for G5, and I deleted one, but it was raised to me by Sro23 they are technically on a 2 week CU block for vote staking, not for UPE, so I've sent one of them to AfD currently. All of these articles meet the signs of UPE: [5], [6], [7] and in terms of article style remind me a bit of this group, but that could simply be the likely UPE. Regardless, I would support a UPE block based on spamming, but won't do it myself given that I deleted and then restored a G5. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Richardaldinho creations and cleanup includes stuff listed above. I'm a bit confused -- can we g5 these or not? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The G5 has been contested by an SPI clerk as he is only blocked now for vote staking. That might change depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka. We can either wait to see how that SPI plays out, or PROD/AfD when necessary. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:BLG Logistics

I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recommend waiting for AfC feedback and going from there. Please do not edit this article in mainspace. Have you read WP:Identifying PR to make sure you avoid common issues? ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Jama masjid chalakpur

I can see a clear conflict of interest in this user. This user has been persistently creating pages related to himself. For example: this user has created Jama masjid chalakpur which this user's username. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The Software Toolworks

I have, and have declared, a COI for these articles, having been the founder of Toolworks, although not associated with it or any software company since 1994.

Is it permissible for me to make minor changes to this article, such as adding a lead section, references or graphics? What about clarifications that do not substantially change the meaning? I would like to polish it without burdening volunteer editors, but not at the risk of my reputation or the article's. Bilofsky ( talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It is advisable that substantive changes, such as adding text, references, and graphics, should be proposed by you on the relevant article's talk page. Editing the article directly for anything bigger than fixing a typo puts you in a minefield that you really don't want to be in. Thank you for doing this the right way. If you have trouble finding other editors to review things you put on the talk page, talk to me and I'll do it. Cheers, Tazerdadog ( talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Zangen

Appear to be paid editing. Refs added as an afterthought.

The prior version of this Brainsway had issues.

Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we have seen several things here lately driven by transcranial magnetic stimulation devices and technologies. Yes? ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sport 360

Pages
Editors
Websites


All of the articles listed above, which appear to me to be non-notable events and organizations, were created by the account Events360 who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor focusing on subjects closely related to Sport 360. I have proposed deletion for a couple of the articles, but would like to have others have a look and see if prod or AFD would be appropriat for any of the others. Peacock ( talk) 13:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Kuo-Chen Chou

May be salvageable, but this looks like autobiography to me. Guy ( Help!) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hungarians in the United Kingdom

User:Gabor Bartos has added himself as a "Famous Hungarian immigrants and Britons of Hungarian origin". I've had some email correspondence with him, where he admits he is the man concerned, but he is quite determined to have himself mentioned. Nigej ( talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

He'll have to understand that people don't get mentioned on Wikipedia simply because they want it. If he's notable enough to meet WP:NPOL, then someone not connected to him can write an article. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444

Several experienced editors have had a look and didn't see undeclared paid editing. Another Arbcom case will answer some questions about use of tools in a position of trust. ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:12, 22 November 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.

KDS4444 has been community banned for leveraging OTRS access into solicitation of paid editing. Concerns were brought up during that discussion that undeclared paid editing may have occurred. We probably should have some due diligence in checking over at least his most recent contributions. I've listed three creations just to kick off a discussion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Is there any evidence that I missed? KDS444 was very open about the articles they had been paid to edit. Of the list above, they specifically denied being paid to edit the now deleted Conso International Corporation article, and acknowledged payment for Tom Paradise. - Bilby ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You are right, Paradise was declared. I have not done a significant look yet and just came across another editor's concern at AN. The specific comment was "how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not." BTW I was not involved with the KDS matter at that time, and did not contribute there. So this is kind of fresh for me and unresearched. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that there was undisclosed paid editing going on, and I'm left thinking that if there was KDS4444 would have declared it as they declared other articles which would not have otherwise been identified. Part of the problem is that we can never be sure that an article wasn't paid for, but similarly if there isn't anything to go by - such as a job ad, articles created by users who should not have had that much skill on their first edits, or self disclosure - it is almost impossible to tell if it is the case. Thus I tend to fall back on simply general principles - if it is overly promotional or of questionable notability, we should address the articles under those terms, but otherwise just go with what works best for the project. - Bilby ( talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. I haven't wrapped my head around this yet, it is such an egregious abuse of a position of trust. Which is why I felt it must be brought up at the one noticeboard created explicitly for such abuses. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The actions on OTRS were abysmal. My difficulty here is that there no evidence of undisclosed paid editing, and no method of determining if it did occur. So I'm not sure of how this can proceed. - Bilby ( talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Heads-up: I'm planning to write up this case and probably the Mister Wiki case as a news item for upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--I will agree with Bilby on the point that KDS444 did not seem to have indulged in any UPE. Winged Blades Godric 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment. I think KDS4444 had pretty low standards for N and for sourcing anyway, which makes it very hard to distinguish his normal editing from paid editing. I think this is part of what made it so confusing for him that his paid edits were not received so well. Jytdog ( talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Kent Tate

Problem article was draftified ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The entire five-year edit history of user account centers only on Kent Tate, suggesting that she is connected to subject in some manner. The article itself is promotional in tone, including an upload of an excessive number of images to Commons. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The user does seem to be able to use talkpages in the past, and I've politely (non-template) invited comment here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I constructed this article and have been the primary contributor. I have made efforts to add content that is in compliance. If you can help me to resolve the problems on this page I would be very grateful. Cheri Brown ( talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Article has been draftified. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

More spam socks

The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This one is more of the same, including some of the same articles, which is what drew my attention here. Grayfell ( talk) 04:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like they've found a new webhost. Forgot to mention
got CU blocked by being on the same VPN as these spammers. MER-C 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ENKWMS

This is a very infrequent editor, who began editing in 2013. On his talk page he describes himself as a music enthusiast.

In 2014, ENKWMS left the following message here on an editor's talk page: "I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was asked to make edits on this article by representatives of this person. The information that I am submitting is factual and significant."

This editor created two draft articles, the first about a band called "Live Footage" ( [8]) in 2013/2014, and the second about the musician Hill Kourkoutis ( [9]), on July 6, 2016. Interestingly, Live Footage (band) was successfully created on July 19, 2014, and Hill Kourkoutis was successfully created on July 5, 2016 by a single-purpose editor.

The concern about paid editing began following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadeus (record producer). ENKWMS began leaving messages on user talk pages--in one instance leaving his personal email address--inquiring about how to restore the deleted Amadeus article (see [10] [11] [12] [13]). A caution about COI/paid editing was left for this editor here on Nov. 12, 2017. This editor denied any COI/paid editing here. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting second opinion/more eyes on this set of related articles. I think the artist has notability (hard to tease out from the incestuous media relationships) but maybe one or more redirects are in order? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Urban informatics

Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but this article is flagged COI and the WP:SPA user is very keen to include a book published by notorious vanity press IGI Global -to the point of rapidly reverting removal despite not having any actual activity on Wikipedia (example: [14] reverting in less than two hours, despite the user's last edit to Wikipedia being weeks before). [15] also adds an IGI published book. I smell a COI, and at the very least a massive dose of WP:OWN. Guy ( Help!) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Will be indulging in a massive cleanup/CE soon. Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Proware

Observe the ancient paid editor in its natural habitat. Keep quiet, it frightens easily. This is paid editing from back in 2006 and could use a look. I doubt it meets notability. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nimir

He has admitted to his closeness to the production team of this film, through this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Username is the name of their website designer/host; automatic WP:CORPNAME block. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wessex Institute of Technology

Bluntly, I think this article is a scam. I am unable to trace any good evidence that this is an actual degree-granting institution, it's "WIT Press" is listed by Beall as predatory, its conferences flag up hundreds of disparaging comments on the interwebs, and virtually the entire article is the wok of two WP:SPAs. Guy ( Help!) 01:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is wondrous, including three (3) pictures of the building and such essential academic facts as "local commoners have the right to graze their ponies" in the adjacent national park. I cut out the travel brochure stuff and a bunch of other badly sourced or unnecessary material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Wessex"? Sounds fictional. :-) XOR'easter ( talk) 04:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

I removed some predatory journals fomr this article two days ago. Up pops WikiJonathanpeter, who has not edited since March, to revert. I reverted, and in comes Ipadmasterman, with his grand total of four previous edits, all back in July, to revert again. I smell socks. Oh, note that WikiJonathanpeter's few other article edits are all to biblical topics. McIntosh is notorious as a creationist. Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the guy or the credibility of the source is irreverent. The source was written by the guy and expresses his view. This is the best evidence you'll get for ones view. Whatever you think of the guy, please be humble and let his views be expressed WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What I think is, actually, relevant, because unlike you I am independent of the subject. This is now at WP:ANI. Guy ( Help!) 23:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The article was created as a Coatrack a while ago. I and another guy set out to change it. Unfortunately, there are those who would want to get back the article to how it use to be. WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that User:WikiJonathanpeter has been blocked for socking, but not User:Ipadmasterman Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Socking is not what is going on here. User:WikiJonathanpeter is a separate entity that I have no connection with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadmasterman ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It might seem good, but it still lists one publication in a predatory journal. We should not be driving traffic to these abusive firms. Guy ( Help!) 10:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DeviceLock

I've cleaned up all the articles in mainspace from this person's spamming. Obviously here to promote the company. I have tried to open a discussion, but crickets so far.

I've nominated devicelock.com for the spamblacklist but until that goes through I don't want to get into edit warring with this person. Jytdog ( talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be keeping my watch on the user'd contributions.No worries:) Winged Blades Godric 09:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Anybody who reads Russian might like to check out ru:DeviceLock to see if that is spam or otherwise bad.

I have already put their logo up for deletion on the Commons due to its implausible claim to be licensed for unlimted reuse and modification. Surely no company would be that silly? The user who uploaded it is not the user above. He has uploaded similar logos for the same company and had them deleted before. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The ru:DeviceLock article is very well written. It is extremely comprehensive without being a hard sell. Obviously written by someone with an extremely intimate knowledge of the product, probably company director Ashot_Oganesyan ( see him here), who supplied the very similar advertorial that is used in all the sources. If the company needs a text for a product brochure, this would be it. It's clearly part of an organised marketing campaign. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw Records

Wikidocs appears to be here to promote Jigsaw Records and those associated with it. Wikidocs hijacked the original Jigsaw Records article (now Jigsaw Records (US company)) to replace it with what is now Jigsaw Records (UK company). The history was split by Dlohcierekim. (FYI: Justlettersandnumbers, Marchjuly, and Theroadislong) —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As I’ve told Theroadislong, my interest is in Gregor Coleman as a fan. I am therefore naturally curious of the label to which he is signed and the manager under which he is associated. I do not know why you have removed the page for Chris Percival, given multiple editors had already established its suitability. I have put a lot of time and effort into researching all of this. I am unconnected to these entities aside from being a fan of Gregor. You will also note that I have also edited other pages on Wiki. Wikidocs ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the "you" is in "you have removed the page for Chris Percival", but Chris Percival (Entrepreneur) was speedily deleted by Premeditated Chaos on November 22 per WP:G11. Moreover, if this is about this same Chris Percival, then that article was previously deleted four times and the title is now WP:SALTed because someone kept trying to recreate it. My suggestion is that, even if you don't have a COI, you work on a draft for the article and submit it to WP:AfC for review so that any issues found can be addressed accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the reminder to SALT Chris Percival (Entrepreneur). It was indeed quite promotional; one reviewer noted on the now-deleted talk page that it read almost exactly like everything at WP:Identifying PR. I can't help but agree. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, almost done, thanks all round. I've filed an SPI, as I don't think there's much doubt that this is another sock. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Which I now see was not necessary, as Yunshui had already reached the same conclusion and tagged the account accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Nowt wrong with being thorough, mind. Yunshui  雲 水 16:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Knanaya Catholics

I was discussing the recently created article Knanaya Catholics with its creator, but figured I better bring it here before proceeding. The editor appears to state that they're editing on behalf of the community in question to create the article, as they don't like what the main Knanaya article says. [16] Knanaya is rigorously sourced to high quality academic sources, but is regularly challenged by IPs and sockpuppets who dislike the material (it's been hit by both supporters and antagonists of the community). Unfortunately a lot of the material in the new article is dubious and appears not to be based on reliable sources. Can someone with more experience in these matters have a look? Cúchullain t/ c 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This wouldn't be COI. Would probably be NPOV or whatever. To be honest, I can't exactly tell what is going on here, and we don't really have that many very active editors who edit in Eastern Catholicism. Sitush, you might have thoughts on this. Since religion can often be used as a substitute for race or ethnicity in many areas involving Eastern Christianity, this subject is likely to be highly contentious. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Knanaya" stands for an ethnic community that might include people of different religions including Catholics, Orthodox, other religions or even non-believers. All cannot be contained in one article. And there can be different and opposing views. Knanaya Catholics are the majority of Knanaya and remain separate from other factions of Knanaya. So better allow a page for "Knanaya Catholics." This page will not be opposing any other factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Leeds Adel Carnegie Hockey Club

Promotional account editing only on this article, including adding unsourced content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User spamublocked
-- Alexf (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

One America News Network ‎

Editor is a WP:SPA in regards to these two articles about companies owned by Herring Networks. They have only used talk pages twice, once several years ago to tell an IP never to edit the AWE article after the IP had reinstated some critical material [17] and once to reply to my question on conflict of interest on their talk page. Their answer their was unsatisfactory. As you can see on their talk page, I'd asked a general question about the text in WP:PAID that says "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The response, in the section above my question, was "Freemediatv is NOT related to Herring Networks or any of its holdings." I have two problems with this. One is that "Freemediatv" could be the name of a website [18] and my question was about the editor using the name. Secondly of course is that the answer doesn't rule out getting some form of compensation. I asked a second time and got no response. The editor has also recently edit-warred suggesting they feel some form of ownership of these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At what point are we justified in adding Template:UPE to articles like this? Aside from the current activity OANN was originally created by a SPA who never edited on any topic other than OANN and AWE. Likewise there has been at least one SPA active at AWE. (I strongly suspect those two accounts are/were operated by the same person.) It's seems clear what's going on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Noting 24 hour block handed out at 3RRN. Block has expired. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I blocked Freemediatv as a spam-only account. The user is not listening. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Nea Anna Simone

Promotion of a barely-notable author, including using Amazon as a source and having taken the photograph in the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..Will be prob. dragging to AfD. Winged Blades Godric 08:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

X-Socks

I believe this user is editing without declaring a COI and possibly without declaring a paid editing relationship. Their usernames emphasizes the "X" and they created X-Socks, Draft:X-Technology Swiss research and development AG, and Timo Bracht(a company, one of its products, and an athlete who probably uses said product). They don't seem to have responded to my messages. 331dot ( talk) 09:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Luke Harding

I note that the user DinaNagapetyants who removed the section about the proven plagiarism by the professional anti-Russian journalist Luke Harding, a plagiarism that was admitted and apologised for by the Guardian, where the plagiarised material was published, is herself a writer for the Guardian who co-wrote an anti-Russia article with Mr Harding.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/natalia-potanina-vladimir-potanin-ex-wife-russia-richest-men-divorce

Surely this conflict of interest should have been declared at the very least? It's a clear abuse in my opinion: censorship of an embarrassing but obviously notable fact - because proven and well-sourced (see the talk page) plagiarism by a notable journalist is always notable - by a person who 1) professionally collaborates with the article's subject in his explicitly partisan (in Mr Harding's case, anti-Russian) journalistic discourse, 2) by co-writing articles for the same employer who 3) published the plagiarism and apologised for it, and 4) without this clear non-neutrality being disclosed.

To be clear, Dina Nagapetyants has two undisclosed conflicts here, her relationship with the Guardian and her relationship with Mr Harding.

Consider this a complaint against Dina Nagapetyants as well as a request for the reinstatement of the suppressed material in some form. I think Dina Nagapetyants should also disclose if she discussed her edits of Mr Harding's page with Mr Harding.

Dina Nagapetyants has also made her pro-Harding bias clear on her talk page /info/en/?search=User_talk:DinaNagapetyants where she rejects criticism (not from me) of her evident bias on the Luke Harding article. For example: "for his recent book Mr. Harding has received universal acclaim" - an egregiously sycophantic claim that is factually false - no partisan work receives universal acclaim.

121.72.181.139 ( talk) 03:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:DinaNagapetyants made only about 50 edits from June 6 - June 15, 2016 and hasn't edited since. I doubt we can do anything that addresses your complaint against her. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, but the section about plagiarism was removed and never replaced. Not brilliant sourcing, but evidently two sources - Private Eye and Newsweek have noted plagiarism. SmartSE ( talk) 13:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, I see that now: every single one of her edits was to the Luke Harding article where she had this undisclosed conflict of interest or to her talk page defending those edits, with the single exception of her own one-line user page. Can she just be locked out of editing this particular article? That would solve the problem, and it's worth doing because her inactivity could well end if changes are made to the page about her friend that is her sole focus on Wikipedia. I would also like to see the plagiarism section restored; I read SmartSE's comment as justifying this. I'd do it myself but I'm just a humble IP address and loath to enter a potential edit war with Mr Harding's friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.181.139 ( talk) 06:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I can see that I am perhaps wasting my time here, because Harding's sockpuppet wasn't working alone but with a senior Wikipedia editor, Philip Cross, who is an anti-Russian British activist with a deeply antagonistic attitude to various British left wing writers and a protective one to British right wing and anti-Russian journalists.

It's very obvious (and notorious) that Mr Cross is either the British anti-Russian journalist Oliver Kamm or a meatpuppet for Kamm. The evidence for this online is overwhelming. (see links below)

After conflict between Kamm and British journalist Neil Clark (who writes for RT) and between Kamm and Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and left wing whistle-blower, Mr Cross immediately stepped in with hostile activity on Wikipedia against Clark and Murray. Mr Cross shows an unmistakable pattern of deep hostility towards Mr Kamm's British left wing bêtes noires and strong protectiveness and personal warmth towards the British anti-Russia journalist fraternity of which Mr Harding is a member, especially towards Mr Kamm (and members of his family).

There is plenty of evidence for the above online:

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.nz/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-vendettas-of.html https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/03/the-astonishing-case-of-the-doppelganger/ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=147079088662589&story_fbid=545726222131205 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-left-vs-the-liberal-media/comment-page-1/

Alongside Mr Harding's sockpuppet Dina Nagapetyants, Mr Cross has also intervened to remove the plagiarism reference in Mr Harding's article and in general to remove anything in it critical of Mr Harding, a pattern repeated whenever Mr Cross works on a page relating to British right wing journalists and inverted into promoting critical material in the cases of British left wing journalists.

I can only assume that since none of this information is new, and since nothing has been done to prevent Mr Cross from pursuing his political agenda through Wikipedia, this kind of political control is acceptable to Wikipedia. If not, I ask that this matter be fully investigated and dealt with by Wikipedia administrators not including Mr Cross and that he be prevented from working on articles to which his egregious personal political agenda pertains. And that the plagiarism reference in Mr Harding's article be restored in an appropriate form.

As for me, I know better than to get into a bureaucratic dispute with a vindictive person in a milieu where they have the advantage of institutional knowledge and authority, while relying on an arbitration/control mechanism that I can already see has conspicuously failed to correct an abuse. Especially since I have nothing at stake personally and only got involved because I noticed some sockpuppetry, and also because I have now learned that Mr Kamm is well-known for his on-line stalking and harrassment of persons he dislikes (documented exhaustively in the links above) and I don't want to be targetted.

So I'll stick with being an anonymous IP address and probably sign off this case right here as unfixable given how Wikipedia works (or doesn't work).

But I will point out that this case of blatant partisan sockpuppets controlling the discourse around a particular milieu - UK political journalism in this case - highlights a definite problem with Wikipedia's model: that a person who works their way up the Wikipedia hierarchy by diligently editing then becomes able to pursue their personal and political loves and hatreds encyclopedically. Mr Cross has given Wikipedia a particular, non-neutral point of view regarding Mr Kamm's particular British journalistic milieu, and that is the right wing, strongly anti-Russian point of view of Mr Cross/Mr Kamm.

As Craig Murray put it in the entry I linked to above:

... a very serious point indeed about Wikipedia. “Philip Cross” is not just anybody who can, like you and me, make edits on Wikipedia. He is a senior editor with special administrative privileges. He uses this access on a continued basis to repeatedly and in enormous detail denigrate any individuals who hold anti-establishment views. Equally sinister, he bigs up and protects the reputation of those who promote the corporate media agenda. “Philip Cross” has not just edited, but according to Wikipedia “predominantly written” the hagiographic entries of

James Harding, Former Editor of the Times, now Head of BBC News Katherine Viner, Editor of the Guardian Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail Amol Rajan, Editor of the Independent and numerous other corporate media journalists.

Philip Cross may be Oliver Kamm. Or he may be someone who shares his views closely and echoes them in a synchronised way. Or he may be an identity which cloaks the activities of a group of people. But it is absolutely plain that “Philip Cross” is used systematically to attack the Wikipedia entries of prominent anti-establishment figures, and simultaneously to bolster the image of the corporate media. The purpose of “Philip Cross” is to ensure that an anti-establishment narrative does not take hold on Wikipedia. The burning question is this. “Philip Cross'” activities and purpose are blindingly obvious. Actions such as the hundred edits to my page and removal of my photo, or the continued war on John Pilger’s entry, are completely unjustifiable. Why then does Wikipedia continue to tolerate “Philip Cross” and grant him administrator privileges?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.178.149 ( talk) 04:13, 24 November 2017‎ (UTC)

This edit on May 1, 2014 about Harding's reputed plagiarism seems to be the one in contention. I removed the passage, for the reason I explained in the edit summary: "section has no third-party source & none traced; notability therefore questionable". I counted the Russian website "The Exile", which is now behind a sign-in page, as having a vested interest in propagating accusations against Luke Harding, and thus not properly third-party. Private Eye is not normally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Although Newsweek is normally perfectly acceptable, this Newsweek article by Julian Assange dated April 20, 2015, which has been cited and removed by other editors, is perhaps an exception.
The accusation I am Oliver Kamm, or his meat puppet, continues to amuse me. In truth, I have very limited online contact with Mr Kamm and have never met him. I edit according to my own preferences and inclinations, and not under direction from other people. I can assure IP user 121.72.178.149, that my own IP address demonstrates that I could not possibly be Oliver Kamm. Incidentally, I am not an administrator and have no wish to be one. The article about Neil Clark (writer) was deleted over eight years ago on the grounds of his (supposed) lack of notability. Philip Cross ( talk) 10:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

SaskTel Centre

While I do not disagree with the edit they made to the article about the arena, as the venue has not been renamed only the carpet that the Saskatchewan Rush uses has had a corporate name attached. This is clearly someone who works at Sasktel Centre editing, as noted by the edit summary stating "Removed an incorrect statement about [b]our[/b] venue." I believe this would be an obvious violation of the COI rule and it appears they have made previous edits to the arena's page as well and no other edits. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Shootmaster 44 This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. I mean why you can't just simply first ask them to change their name as it violates WP:UP (if their contributions are promotional, which their previous edits somewhat look like, they can be reported to WP:UAA for blocking)? And then give them an COI notice and tell them to disclose their COI. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter Is this page not for conflicts of interest? Which this is correct? I took this page to mean when an editor is editing pages that fall within a conflict of interest (i.e. editing their own page). If I am using the wrong notification that is fine. But a conflict of interest is when a user is editing their own page right? Which it clearly is in this case. If it should be reported elsewhere instead, I will do so. But that is how I interpreted the reason behind the COI rule. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 10:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Shootmaster 44 This is for conflicts of interest, but only when you can't resolve it yourself - it isn't obvious or the person is refusing to stop etc. Though maybe other people here might say something else, not an expert. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter I am not sure how I can resolve this myself. Upon what authority do I have to tell them they cannot edit their own page? I took these pages as like filing a report with the police. Yes I can tell someone to stop stealing clothes, but I have no judicial authority to punish them for it. Ergo, I raise it with them. Similarly, if the conflict of interest rules state you cannot edit your own page, I should report it to the COI page. If I should have filed a report on a different page, that is a different matter. But as far as I can tell I am filing it with the right Wikipedia governing body. If I am wrong and others feel differently on this that is fine. But reading the other reports above, it seems like the same issue. (shrugs) Anyhow, as you say others can weight in as well. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 10:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Shootmaster 44: Just some general comments. COI edting is not something expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia, and there are many editors with COIs who are able to contribute positively to building the encyclopedia by complying with relevant policies and guidelines. The reason that COI editing is highly discouraged is because it does often lead to more serious problems, and it is these problems which often require administrator intervention. If this user's username is a problem, you can add Template:uw-username to their user talk page, so that they are aware of the issue. If you don't like using templates, you can post a short message explaining the issue with a suggestion on how it might be resolved. The same goes for any other issues you notice with their editing. There are various user warning templates (see WP:UW for some examples) you can use to let another editor know that something they are doing might be a problem. You can even revert edits which you feel do not comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, but you should leave a clear edit sum explaining why and possibly even follow up with a post on the article's talk page to try and encourage further discussion. If the edit has problems that you yourself can fix, then WP:FIXIT may be a better option that reverting. Try and encourage the editor to discuss things per WP:DR. Just remember to keep your comments WP:CIVIL and try not to WP:BITE the other editor if they are new to Wikipedia; if they ignore you or engage in edit warring, then you can seek out an administrator.
You are correct that we as editors cannot prevent others from editing. However, if their editing or behavior becomes too disruptive, then there are various adminstrator noticeboards where you can seek assistance, and an administrator can issue WP:BLOCKs if necessary. In almost every case, however, you need to at least make an attempt to explain the situation to the other person. Once they are aware of the problem, the ball's in their court so to speak and it's up to them to seek further clarification or amend their behavior/editing accordingly. If they don't, they won't be long for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Getting back to the matter at hand, I reported the account to WP:UAA and it will be blocked outright for the obvious WP:CORPNAME violation. Why that wasn't pursued when the account first appeared last year, who knows... it may have gone unnoticed. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Account has been soft blocked for a username violation. FWIW, I tried to clean up the disputed edit a bit and also added some notification/warning templates to the user's talk page. So, if they decide to come back to edit again, they will at least knowthey are things they should be careful about when it comes to editing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep a watch on it and engage any editors that resume this behaviour. Since I happen to live in the same city as this place, they might be more inclined to listen to a "local". -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Young Mahasi

Rap artist has created his own autobiography. I have been trying to copyedit the article to clean it up to standards, but the author keeps adding back old errors. Could a few of you here keep eyes on the article. He has ignored COI messages and continues to edit the article disruptively. Thanks. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been rightly despatched to AfD and will meet it's inevitable fate.I will be keeping a watch on the user. Winged Blades Godric 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I also gave the user the hard truth about notability and autobiographies. We'll see if it makes a difference. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Rubén Darío Salas

I suspect the user has some relation to Rubén Darío Salas since its only contributions are about the biography and has uploaded two pictures of him similar from each other in Commons. In the first image they also stated that it is its original work, suggesting that they were the photographer. This is the first time I suspect of a COI, I feel the article currently has independent sources as well as adequate coverage, but I'm not sure how to notify about a possible conflict. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done.For such purposes of enquiry, type out the following template:--

{{subst:Uw-coi|Article name}} on the talkpage of the user.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

User 212.31.164.79 is an SPA and has declared a COI on this article as an employee of Koenigsegg Automotive, the company making the Koenigsegg car he is interested in adding to the list. See content [20] with manual sig as "Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)". The IP has recently made four significant edits to this article, two of them [21] [22] before declaring the COI and two afterwards [23] [24] (both restoring the full content of the twoprevious edits). The IP also previously made edits to articles concerning Koenigsegg in 2012 and 2014. The static IP geolocates to Ängelholm, Sweden. the location of the headquarters of Koenigsegg Automotive.

User StevenWade is an SPA and has declared a COI on this article as an employee of Koenigsegg Automotive, the company making the Koenigsegg car he is interested in adding to the list. See [25] with manual sig as "Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)" and full mention here [26]. This user further confirmed the COI in a talk page thread [27] and claimed to have never edited the article made. This is not correct. StevenWade has made one substantial edit to the article (an acceptable removal but incorrectly marked as minor) but the the user had previously (and recently) made four significant edits using the IP address.

Koenigsegg Automotive has a Communications and Copywriter employee named Steven Wade ( https://www.facebook.com/KoenigseggAutomotiveAB/posts/1296057017118884) who has written extensively about Koenigsegg cars on the company webpage and the company facebook page. (See http://www.koenigsegg.com/author/steven/ and https://www.facebook.com/KoenigseggAutomotiveAB/posts/1157818937609360 for example}. User StevenWade confims he is this employee but does not believe he is a paid editor [28] [29].

Is a company writer who writes about their cars on the company website and facebook page a WP:PAID editor when he writes about the cars on Wikipedia? Note that Koenigsegg Automotive material repeatedly added to the article by other users has been sourced to nothing but the online material on the Koenigsegg Automotive blog written by Steven Wade (although independent sources have now been provided on the talk page). Meters ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that at the top of this page it says "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Interesting.
I have been exceedingly transparent insofar as my connection to the company is concerned. Any errors that Mr Meters has picked up in terms of typical Wikipedia protocol are down to the fact that I am new to this. They are not malicious.
I have been accused by Meters on my profile's talk page of being a paid editor. I am not. I am a passionate and interested employee giving input to this page on my own time. I have been accused by Meters both privately and publicly of not being an independent reliable source. One could say I am not independent but I am certainly not unreliable. Nothing I have written on the page has been false, nor has it been pure advocacy. It has been measured, verifiable and logical.
I would have thought that input from within an industry would have been of some value on an industry-based page. Meters seems to disagree. In justifying himself on my private talk page, he said "It does not matter if the information is correct." That seems to be a strange attitude for an encyclopedia. Pages like this rely on industry-based information all the time. How do you think the moderators of that page know that there were 30 Bugatti Veyron Super Sports made? Because Bugatti put it in a press release. The only difference here is that moderators can actually ask a question directly to an industry source.
None of the participants on the page have had a problem with my contributions except for Meters. Read through the Talk page and you'll see that I've made reasonable, truthful and logical contributions. The page is incomplete and has errors and misunderstandings all over the place. I was trying to help. And I was presenting a reasonable case for the car made by my employer because the notion that it belongs there is the truth.
Finally, with regard to harrassment.... I have been called all these things I listed above, both privately and publicly. My last conversation with Meters prior to this COI report was 4 days ago, when he made a veilied threat that "If you continue to claim that you are not (a paid editor) then we can take this to the COI board and see what the community thinks." I made one short response to Meters shortly thereafter where I told him (again) that I was being transparent and honest. I made NO further contributions to the page in those four days, and I still haven't. And yet despite this lack of activity, he's reported me for COI anyway.
I respect the mission of Wikipedia and the others on this page have proven themselves to be reasonable and respectful. Meters - who I note only first made a contribution to this page on November 13 and prior to that, has had no interest in it, nor in any other automotive pages (according to his admirable and legthy to-do-list) - seems to think it's OK for him to be judge, jury, and excutioner. I don't believe that's fair, nor right.
I have been transparent. I have been honest. I have made a meaningful contribution based on facts and logic. If I've made errors of judgement or protocol, they were not malicious and I resent being depicted as duplicitous or devious. StevenWade ( talk) 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I further note at the top of this page that is says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period."
Meters has used my Talk page to raise his concerns - briefly - but no such effort has been made on the page in question's talk page. Furthermore, I have not added problematic material at all, let alone over an extended period. On the contrary, as noted above, I have made measured, transparent and logical contributions to the Talk page for the article. And I note again that this COI has been made after a threat being made to do it, and after 4 days of silence on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no outing by me. As my diffs clearly show, you stated that you were the company employee named Steven Wade, and you identified your IP .
I have not accused you of being "duplicitous or devious". I merely pointed out on your page, with diffs to prove it, that your claims "My only contributions since then [the COI] have been to the discussion" and that you had never incorrectly marked an edit as minor were incorrect. In fact, since you also made substantial edits to the article with your IP after declaring your COI your claim that you never did so is even further from correct.
There has been no private communication. All communication has been on talk pages. These are public pages that can be read by any editor.
I have not accused you of not being reliable. I simply said that a company blog is not an independent reliable source. Don't take it personally. A company blog is not an acceptable source for a claim of a new records regardless of who has written it. As I said on the article's talk page, I don't dispute the claims, and if we reach consensus that the car meets out criteria as a production car then the information can be added, sourced to the independent sources you have now provided.
There were no threats. I said that I thought that you were a paid editor. You disagreed, twice. I said that we could take it to the COI board so that the community could decide. I'm not being a " judge, jury, and executioner"". I'm bringing it to the appropriate board after attempting to discuss the issue with you on your talk page. That's as it should be. There is no requirement to discuss the possibility that you are a paid editor on the article's talk page, and I don't think such a discussion belongs there. It belongs on your talk page, and here. I simply added the connected contributor tag ton the article talk page for you and your IP so that other editors will be aware of your COI when reading talk page..
As for the extended period, well, you've been editing the talk page since Nov 13, and adding mention of your company's cars to the article since Nov 1. I notice that your first edit to the page was to restore mention of the Koenigsegg CCR, which your IP added in 2012, and which was immediately removed. Meters ( talk) 08:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going through the t/p and may chime in there but on first glances, it's very clear that Stephen, you not only do have a strong COI on the topic but also your heavy association(s) with the company as a paid employer are more or less sufficient for us to categorize your edits to be heavily prone and susceptible to perception-bias, even if I choose to believe that you are not paid for promotion of the company etc.In that case, it's mandatory that you completely refrain from editing the concerned articles directly and instead propose edit on the article talk-page to get them vetted by neutral eyes.In case you disagree with individual opinions, you may approach DRN followed by launching a RFC et al.Also, I believe that the concerns of outing dodon't stand, since you have already sufficiently outed yourselves. Furthermore, please have a go through WP:RS to find out more about what constitutes a rel. source and what not.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the comment that I said "It does not matter if the information is correct" on the user's talk page is taken out of context. I was discussing why the company blog written by Steven Wade is not an acceptable source. The full quote is I simply pointed out that a company blog is not an acceptable source. It's not independent. It does not matter if the information is correct. There are other reliable sources available but someone keeps re-adding the one that you wrote as a company employee. Meters ( talk) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

James F. Reynolds (mixer)

Edit history previously consisted of namedropping himself in certain articles. Has returned seven years later to post unsourced content in James F. Reynolds (mixer). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This is at least the third SPA with a name indicating connection to the subject, virtually none of the article is written by anyone else. The only actual claim to notability is a baronetcy. I suggest WP:TNT. Guy ( Help!) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've added the two other users above for completeness, even though the accounts are stale. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_122&oldid=1138418365"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aireon

That page might need some cleaning up. I came across this account and page while looking into a proxy service being used by an unrelated sockmaster. It looks like possible paid editing. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Binary options and ICOs

Israel, the home of most binary option scams, has now passed a law criminalizing the selling of binary options. I think that marks the end of this particular scam, but folks here should be aware that these things often come back from the dead. They have been mentioned innumerable times on this page and in AfDs. For future use - e.g. in determining how pervasive and costly paid editing is - I'd like to put some kind of number on this. Can folks here help me find the number of deleted articles about binary options firms? The number still in article space? What was the earliest binary option firm to advertise here? What was the latest?

Part of the problem with scams on Wikipedia is that the firms often change names, even the names of the scams often change, so it is difficult to get exact information on any individual firm. If people let a firm have an article despite there being only fuzzy, self-generated information on the firm, it is difficult to get more neutral info. Is there any way we can overcome this built in bias to prevent scams from advertising on Wikipedia?

Not to be alarmist - I don't have enough info yet - but the next rumored big scam seems to involve Initial coin offerings. It would behoove us to at least keep on eye on this type of article. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding timelines, a little harder to sort but the COIN archives mentioning binary options give a hint.
My humble observation is that a lot of this stuff has been/is/will be sockfarm and LTA related. For instance Cypriano created a lot of the Cyprus related stuff, and the notorious Morning277 LTA created Banc De Binary almost certainly for a large bounty. UPE is part and parcel of keeping the scammers' preferred way of controlling the narrative about these instruments and the industry. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes we need some serious tools to address this sorts of issues. They are going to get worse as time goes on. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If you happen to come across accounts with 1-2 edits being used solely to spam a link (usually in ref tags), please drop me a line to let me know about it. I've blocked about 50 accounts from one particular sock ring in the past 48 hours, and I've found they cross-over with a couple more "traditional" promotional sockfarms, so I figure some of you will come across them in your normal work at COIN. ~ Rob13 Talk 01:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@ BU Rob13: I see this stuff all the time. Domains added by this bunch:
Extended content
@ BU Rob13: MER-C 04:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: replied with email. We have a black hat SEO operation here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 06:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Just whacked 32 accounts and a pair of VPN ranges. @ Bri: That doesn't surprise me. These can be tied to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrgrayzon and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin. ~ Rob13 Talk 10:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another batch of domains:

Blacklisted sedamipo.com fursan.qa. There's four more unblocked accounts:

Probably related (both accounts unblocked):

@ BU Rob13: MER-C 11:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it as far as I can tell. Vend (software) came up in the sockfarm above and should have the axe taken to it.
You may be able to find work to do by going through my recently CU blocked accounts... [by] searching for more accounts by the URLs they're adding.
Indeed, that's how I derived all of the above lists. The linkwatcher database works wonders when combined with CU. MER-C 13:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran down the example in SmartSE's black hat SEO link and found this insertion of chicagofed.org ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be related based on the behavior. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You were right. The diff I provided was a moved link not an inserted link. An anon editor added the link 25 july 2014. Bri.public ( talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WikiRecontributer47

User blocked per NLT ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:28, 13 November 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.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this user is being "used", if you'll forgive the expression, and is either making edits dictated to her by another individual or is allowing another person to make the edits in her name. See User talk:WikiRecontributer47 for the latest exchange on this subject but also check out the history of that talk page, where she has repeatedly deleted all warnings and comments on the subject of advertising and conflict of interest. This editor has been the subject of a previous report but no action seems to have been taken. I have proposed a voluntary topic ban but she doesn't seem to like that idea.

See also:

Note in particular the difference in the standard of use of English between her contributions to talk pages and the articles. Deb ( talk) 18:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing war

This user is clearly involved in an editing war with me and when asked why he placed Close Connection notices, keeps making baseless accusations towards me, accusing me of working for various high profile politicians and other high ranking individuals whose articles I contributed to. I have reasons to believe that this is politically motivated and he’s using Wikipedia to run a political campaign in order to influence politics in this country as well as using Wikipedia to run a nationalist campaign. Indeed he made remarks about my background on my talk page, commenting on my poor command of English and referring to me as “foreigner”. He also made anti-Jewish remarks, accusing me of being personally connected with various Jewish religious leaders whose articles I contributed to. I have reported this to my local MP as I believe the authorities should intervene. This person’s remarks about my background, my command of English, and about religious leaders, politicians and other high profile persons who I have no connection with and whose articles I simply contributed to are not good for the country; Trolling and goes without mention - I have reported him to the police for that as it’s a separate issue. Kind regards, WikiRecontributer47 ( talk) 19:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

After doubling down on it while WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WikiRecontributer47 blocked per WP:NLT. (Note also that based on a read of their talk page none of the claims they made about Deb are factual) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Evading ACTRIAL

Seems likely to be paid editing. At the very least, it's clear they edited until autoconfirmed status to evade ACTRIAL. ~ Rob13 Talk 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Another group of concerns

Articles

Account is not their first one by what it looks like... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Have started an SPI [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
They say they're just an enthusiast, so I'm not sure where we go from here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Shahin Novrasli

The usual. Subject is transforming his biography into a promotional press release. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, and thank you for your message. This is not paid editing at all. This is Shahin's wife. All the pubslishing, concert halls, magazines, almost everyone takes information from wikipedia, unfortunally the information here is not very much reflects Shahin's present concerts, and his family and real bio, what I am trying to do , from my side to write with many references the information, which would be more close to him. ( Shahin Novrasli ( talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC))
Unfortunately, conflict of interest is very much an issue. You've added a lot of unsourced and promotional content about your husband, like This classical background is often to be heard in his jazz compositions but his love for American music - its jazz, rhythm, harmony - prevails. Combining all the musical skills, from playing to composing, jazz opened the way for Shahin to express his inner world, his music and it was not long in becoming the main focus of his creativity. That is fine for a personal website, but not for an encyclopedic entry. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 21:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your remark and help, I will take this out and will think to add later in encyclopedic entry, the wikipedia language is not easy for me, so it takes a lot of time for me, being musician as well. ( Shahin Novrasli ( talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC))
Given your clear conflict of interest - that's not a bad thing, that's a good thing, it means you care about and benefit from your spouse's success -- you should avoid editing the article directly. Rather, use the article's Talk page to suggest edits to other editors, letting them decide whether the material meets Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User has been blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jeremy112233

probably not eligible due to deletion debate history but worth consideration given new information
probably not eligible if creation date is strictly observed, but worth consideration

This large family of socks appears to be the group WikiExperts who were community banned in 2013. [2]. This should now allow us to go farther back with our deleting. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Doc James: I had a quick look and none of the tagged socks has edited since 2016. We did a cleanup after "370 articles created by Jeremy112233 sockfarm" thread when I listed their known creations. The remaining articles created after the 17 October 2013 ban are listed above. Is there anything else we should be looking for at this time? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Nominated everything in the "undisputed" list above for g5 speedy deletion except Jacket wrestling which has already been sufficiently cleaned & doesn't seem to have a particular POV/promotional bent anymore. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional nomination of James Cummins (author) under g11 alone; it was created in 2012 to tout one of the WikiExperts executives. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

NotLazyAnymore

I've just blocked this user as they are obviously an experienced UPE.

Not a creation but obviously UPE too:

These are obvious  Stale socks:

SmartSE ( talk) 20:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Snak The Ripper

Editor is definitely associated with article subject as he/she took the photograph used for infobox image. Nearly their entire edit history is on this article that is promotional in tone, in addition to editing subject's name into related articles. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 00:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Beemer69 and Berean Hunter: Thanks. I've been meaning to do something about this myself. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Berean Hunter: Were you planning any blocks/warnings? Doug Weller talk 19:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I've cu blocked the SnakTheRipper account which would be due for a username block anyway. So far, this looks like a regular COI and not UPE so RipMachine would be handled with a standard sock block of 72 hours with the hope he wouldn't go down that road again. I'll leave that as a block for those you to decide as there is the possible account remaining. OTOH, if someone finds out that UPE are involved, it could go to indef quickly. I will add that RipMachine may likely find themselves behind an autoblock before an SPI block is ever actioned
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

Requesting a second opinion on Guy Bavli, created by prior account of an indeffed editor. According to logs they also uploaded images of subject & unless I'm mistaken at least one is now OTRS tagged as having come from the subject, not the editor. Coincidentally, we also have a large edit from another indeffed UPE editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeing. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money?. Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 07:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion was already closed "snow no" when I clicked through. Interesting commemts, though. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Bri:--The disc. has been re-opened.Feel free to let out your thoughts:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

Although some of his edits have been trivial, after this edit I advised him that he should not be making that type of edit. He didn't respond on his talk page but later made this edit to the lead, which is already unbalanced. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to make major and pov edits. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that he's engaged on his talkpage now (albeit WoT posts like this). Not sure what this noticeboard can do to help at this point. Maybe someone else here will have a better idea ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How to handle denial of WP:PAID

This is a general question which may lead to a specific report, depending on the discussion. I found a draft about a business tagged for WP:G11, created by a new editor. As I frequently do, I use search engines to cross-reference the username and the article title to find any connection. In this case, I found a social media account that shows that the editor works for the company.

I left both {{ uw-paid1}} and {{ uw-paid2}} notices for them, but didn't mention anything about the social media evidence. The editor replied and denied being paid. So would it be considered WP:OUTING if I showed them the evidence to the contrary that I found? And should it be confined to their talk page, or is it appropriate to display more openly at WP:COIN? -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Drm310: Please refer to the section of WP:OUTING that has the text Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes these paid editors try to split hairs: Both of the statements "I'm not being paid to edit" and "I am an employee of the company I'm writing about" may be true at the same time. From our perspective, either way, the person is being paid by the subject, even if not being paid specifically to write a Wikipedia article.
For that matter, here in Silicon Valley where I live, there are thousands of employees of start-ups who aren't being paid at all, hoping to strike it big someday. I would still say that any representative of a company would fall under WP:PAID when writing about that company, regardless of the company's actual financial arrangements with that person. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Presumably those not-now-paid employees in Silicon Valley expect to get some benefit in the future, so they are paid according to the ToU. Splitting hairs does not work as well. The community here has defined the rules, we know what "being paid" means according to community standards. The company involved does not get to define the fine points of the rules. That said, it would benefit everybody involved if we publicized our rules better to companies and the general public. Ultimately it comes down to: we get to investigate apparent violations of our rules within limits, we get to politely ask editors "Are you being paid for this work?", and we get to decide, according to our own rules rather than the rules of evidence required in a court of law, whether somebody is breaking our rules. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The interpretation we've always used in the past is that you have a COI if you are employed by the company in question, but only WP:PAID if you are expected to edit Wikipedia as part of your job. A financial services officer, for example, updating an article about their employer is typically editing with a COI, but is not being paid to edit WP. Someone working in marketing, on the other hand, is regarded as a paid editor even if they are not specifically told to edit WP, as online media is likely to fall under their responsibilities anyway. - Bilby ( talk) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bowery Electric

There has been a recently flurry of activity at Bowery Electric. At least four SPA accounts have been created and a couple of IPs are active suddenly. I'm not sure if any actions are necessary. I'm not an expert in the topic space or in COI, but it seemed fishy to me. -- Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Adam in MO Talk 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Duncan McClure Fisher and his enterprises

At a cursory look these are full of WP:PRIMARY and raise questions of UPE. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Taylor Henry

An involved account was blocked and is a recently recognized WikiExperts operative. Looking at the list of recent contributors should make the ongoing issue clear. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless Edward R. Murrow Award (Radio Television Digital News Association) is quite notable, I will be AfDing the article. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Monero (cryptocurrency)

A new user,

helpfully alerted folks to a reddit thread about the WP article about this cryptocurrency that includes things like YEAH! RAID WIKIPEDIA!!!! GO GO GO!!! (Note, a person who said they wrote that remark, has posted on my talk page here saying that was sarcastic/ironic. Jytdog ( talk) 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)) which is just the latest of several threads there. Monero is mostly driven by its reddit community, as I understand it.

Another new account,

also showed up and tagged the talk page with the Template:Recruiting tag. Their only edit.

In any case, the accounts above appear to come from Reddit. The most aggressive of these has been DreamingSea, who showed up today and left this "throw-down" on the Talk page of the Monero article, then restored a bloated, badly-sourced/unsourced version of the article. The other account and IPs then jumped in to try to "keep" it. Clear SOCK/MEAT going on. The article has now been extended/confirmed protected.

Per discussion at WT:COI, holding a cryptocurrency and editing about that cryptocurrency is a financial COI, so this behavior goes beyond organized advocacy/MEAT (which is a violation in itself, of course).

I provided notice of the COI guideline to DreamingSea who blanked it and left this charming note on my talk page.

I have also provided COI notice to TimeWalk, who has not had time to respond yet.

Because DreamingSea is unwilling to address the COI issues at their Talk page, have posted here so the community can help manage this. Jytdog ( talk) 16:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Just noticed the message that there's a COI discussion about that talk page. Thanks for initiating the discussion
The reason why this rally started is because of a Bitcoin Talk forums post (site blocked, see link included inside next reddit post) talking about how the article was slowly reduced as an act of hidden vandalism. This was caught up and posted in this reddit thread. This stretched out into multiple threads with a small part of the community (community is split up over IRC, Slack, Telegram, Reddit, ...) rallying to revert the edits as a counter to "the possible shill or organization".
At least in a good news, one of the core developers of this cryptocurrency did write a new Reddit post defending Jytdog's point to be legitimate edits and not an action of vandalism.
I hope that I wasn't too much of a burden as I do value the integrity of Wikipedia and in no way wanted to do bad-doing. After reading up I first thought that it was really a matter of slowly blanking the article as it is after all a financial matter and people would prefer to spread FUD and potentially rally up. In no way was it intended that I look like a sockpuppet account.
TimeWalk ( talk) 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a helpful response here. Jytdog ( talk) 17:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I note also cryptocurrency blog The Merkle has weighed in calling Jytdog a vandal, expect more advocates and holders along in due course; more eyes on the article would probably be welcome - David Gerard ( talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrei Popescu (businessman)

Almost certainly paid editing. ~ Rob13 Talk 21:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing useful in either of the deleted pages. MER-C 06:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Scandinavian sockfarm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ruudtelemark. I've blocked the first three. GAB gab 20:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald H. Winston

This is an odd case, in that the author is using the name of the subject of the biography of a living person, but has stated that they are not the person. They first stated that they are an employee (and are using the name of the person based on the occasional error that one account should correspond to one article as its maintainer), and have subsequently stated that they think that the deletion of the article was an injustice. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Damian Mingle

This looks promotional to me. The author's other contributions also suggest possible paid editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.88.44 ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur and also noticed that Sumitk c ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously created Flyrobe. SmartSE ( talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tove Lill Løyte

User continually adds unsourced information to the article despite despite multiple warnings. Claims to be the manager of the article's subject. Continues to edit despite COI warning. Bakilas ( talk) 06:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Cpicciolini

Editor (apparently the subject) continues to make edits after having been warned. Anyone with an article about them sees it as a promotional tool to be controlled. I warned the editor almost a year ago but the behavior continues. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome article — longstanding editor Sciencewatcher has a potential COI

Inappropriate forum: WP:COINOTBIAS ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wikipedia article on the disease myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has for many years been an area for edit disputes, due to the controversial nature and circumstances of this disease. Given the controversy, one would consider it prudent to check whether any of the regular editors might have conflicts of interest. Thus on the article talk page (where COIs are usually discussed), I asked two of the longstanding regular editors of the ME/CFS article whether they have any potential conflicts of interest, which is a legitimate and important question. The text of the ensuing discussion on the ME/CFS talk page can be found here. This link is a diff link ( sciencewatcher has deleted one of my comments on the talk page, but the diff link contains all the comments).

Note that I am not a Wikipedia editor and I am not involved with the editing of the ME/CFS article, but thought it would be a good idea to ask the regular editors of the ME/CFS article (those who have been editing it for many years) whether they might have a COI.

One regular editor ( Doc James) was happy to provide a clear statement that he has no COI, which settled that matter simply and easily. However, the other regular editor ( sciencewatcher) refused to provide any statement regarding possible COIs, even though he was asked several times. This raised some suspicion, and so I made some background checks, and found that sciencewatcher does indeed possess potential COIs: sciencewatcher has a published academic study (as a single independent researcher), a published book (available to buy on Amazon) and a website which all clearly advocate what is termed the psychogenic view of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The heart of the controversy about ME/CFS are the two competing views of the aetiology this disease: the view that ME/CFS is a psychogenic "all in the mind" condition versus the view that ME/CFS is a biologically-caused organic disease. Thus the fact that sciencewatcher has something of an external career as a promotor of the psychogenic view, and is selling a book expounding and advocating this psychogenic view, would appear to introduce a potential COI, especially in an area like ME/CFS which is surrounded by controversy.

When I put it to sciencewatcher that he has a book for sale on Amazon advocating the psychogenic view of ME/CFS, he completely denied this. But I know for fact that he does have such a book for sale, and can provide a weblink to it. So he appears to be trying to cover up this potential COI on the talk pages.

In order not to reveal identity, I will not post here any weblinks to his academic study, his book for sale on Amazon, and his website, but I will send those links, as well as the real life identity of sciencewatcher, to you by email if required.

Thus this is a request for COIN to look into this case, and consider whether these circumstances surrounding sciencewatcher represent a COI. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to have provided any evidence here, just your own bad-faith ( WP:AGF) speculation. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by evidence? I can provide links to his book, website etc, on request.
Good faith was indeed assumed, and any statement by sciencewatcher declaring no COIs would have been accepted on good faith. However, sciencewatcher repeatedly refused to provide such a statement. Since it is simple and straightforward to make such a COI statement, and would have settled the matter there and then, it was perplexing that sciencewatcher should refuse to give one. On investigation, I discovered he had written a book which is for sale that expounds the same psychogenic views that he advocates on the Wikipedia chronic fatigue syndrome article (as well as several other Wikipedia articles in which the same psychogenic vs organic controversy exists), which may in itself constitute a COI. sciencewatcher then lied about not having such a book (which does make one wonder whether good faith is appropriate in this case), and he has still not been courteous enough to volunteer a statement regarding whether he has COIs or not. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Twelve pings to science watcher in two posts seems like wp:badgering and wp:harrassment to me. You've had your answer at the talk page, and still provided no evidence. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What is a "ping"?
Roxy, Zalophus californianus. you don't seem that experienced in these COIN cases, judging by the absence of your username in the history page, so it would be nice to hear from people who are more experienced, who might also be kind enough to answer my question regarding what is evidence, which you didn't. At the top of this page, is says "Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality." That is my concern, and the reason I posted here. So I am asking the more experienced people here to look into whether sciencewatcher may be using Wikipedia to promote his own interests at the expense of neutrality. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 17:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
A ping is what you did to me above, causing me to be notified at the top of any page I visit on the project that somebody has mentioned me. You dont get pings because you dont use an account. you sent twelve pings to sciencewatcher. Hint:- count the number of times you linked sciencewatcher's name in your two posts above. as to the rest of your bad faith comments. Aha haha, hahaha. - Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You should probably AGF and assume the ip doesn't know that linking a username pings a person rather than assuming that they're trying to badger Sciencewatcher. (after all, it isn't exactly obvious that even linking someone's name pings them) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a COI matter?

46.208, I think you are mistaking COI for WP:Expert. Knowledge of a subject matter area does not imply any conflict of interest. The conflict comes in when one expects to gain something by editing here, or has "divided loyalties" as an editor wrt Wikipedia's mission to be an accurate and unbiased source of information. Asserting (without evidence) that an editor has written a book in no ways establishes COI. I'm concerned that this noticeboard may be misused as a bludgeon to "win" a content dispute by silencing other editors: WP:COINOTBIAS. That's not its purpose. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank your for your response, Bri. Just to clarify: are you saying that (1) the issue here is that I have not provided evidence that that sciencewatcher has actually published a book? The reason I have not posted links to this book, website and paper is because at the top of this COIN page it says "Be careful not to out other editors. ... If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email."
Or are you saying that (2) even if sciencewatcher has published a book, that alone is not sufficient evidence for a COI? It is the "divided loyalties" issue that I think could be a COI problem with sciencewatcher: when reading his book, website and published academic paper it is clear he is a strong proponent of one side of the chronic fatigue syndrome controversy (the so-called psychogenic view of ME/CFS), and is strongly against the other side of the controversy (the view that ME/CFS is a biologically caused disease). Thus outside of Wikipedia, sciencewatcher appears committed to one side of this polarized controversy. So this is where it seems that a COI may arise. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 19:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It is good to avoid WP:OUTING and I don't have a great answer as to what do do with that information other than to read the OUTING link. I don't think e.g. the functionaries mail list is appropriate under to the circumstances. What I see you describing, again just above, "a strong proponent of one side" is definitionally a (potential) bias, not a conflict of interest. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Bri, for clarifying the issues. 46.208.234.40 ( talk) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Insistence on the term "myalgic encephalomyelitis" automatically marks you out as one of the warring parties. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a 100% medically accurate and value-neutral term, unless you are entirely devoted to the belief that it is encepathomyelitis and cannot possibly be anything else, in which case you are not basing your belief on the evidence. I am not aware of any evidence that this is objectively proven to be a form of encephalomyelitis (feel free to fill a gap in my knowledge there). The use of pejoratives like "all in the mind" and "psychogenic" is profoundly unhelpful. I don't know anyone who believes that. All we know is that (a) nobody actually knows what the actual aetiology is and (b) some CBT techniques appear to help. That's not a surprise: self-reinforcing cycles are a problem in any disorder that either causes or is caused or is exacerbated by mental state. I've had PTSD, I have experienced this first hand. Oh, we know one more thing: there are some people, a minority, for whom the mere suggestion that the condition has any psychological component whatsoever is utterly unacceptable, to the point that they will attack anybody who even thinks about trying CBT as part of palliative treatment. I trust you are not one of those people. Fellow admins can look at the deleted history of Simon Wessely (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see what I mean. Guy ( Help!) 22:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Christ! I just found out that we had forgotten to revdel the worst of it. Fixed now. Admins, take a look at this to see what I mean. Probably the worst BLP violation I have ever seen. Guy ( Help!) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

SEO and PR on hotels articles

For more context see

Fairmont, Raffles and Swisshotel have apparently hired SEO and/or PR firms to buff up their articles here. I'll add some more comments anon. One of the actors is Blueberry Hill, formerly named 3Q Digital Harte Hanks (the name of a SEO/SEM firm). I've added them to the Barbequeue sockpuppet investigation. Qwacker isn't yet named in any investigation I know of, and has been active editing today, so I'm inviting him now to comment on all of this.

One of the more nauseating aspects of all this is an apparent retaliatory set of complaints lodged against Beyond My Ken which asserted that the articles were so well written they were beyond reproach and any attempted cleanup was focused on the declared-paid status of the editors. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, of course I will comment on this. No I am not some SEO or PR agency. I don't think what I edited was SEO-focused (just refs and 2 external links max). I am not a PR agency looking to ameliorate some brand's page either, I just pick up topics and search them exhaustively because that's the kick I get out of it. I liked editing those hotels' pages because they own or manage crazy buildings, and with my "slight" paranoia on free-masonry, I just dove in. Please do reproach things to my edits, I myself do not believe they are perfect, far (far) from it. I don't mind the mandatory investigation on my profile as I am not related to the other user you mention above, and I do not have other accounts on Wikipedia. I am available to answer more questions if you have any. -- Qwacker ( talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Your article creations and contributions mirror those of someone representing organizations and individuals who want to control their public image. The trade association Airlines for Europe, the Russian company Novaport, the Fairmont/ Raffles chain and associated people, Régis Schultz a European corp executive, Sok Kong a Cambodian executive. More exec/philanthropist stuff, resorts, all this about a whiskey company, etc. -- you do realize your edits are public here? Nothing to say about that? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes those are pages I edited (among many others). I like to surf through Wk's categories, I discover all those economy-related topics I didn't know. A lot of the pages I edited were almost empty before I found them. I feel like I am enriching Wikipedia on topics I like and for which most users show little interest in. But again, I am not related to the companies or the people of the pages I edit, nor am I a professional writer in any way (you can delete them all, ok by me). -- Qwacker ( talk) 18:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
So you are saying that it is just serendipity that in your surfing through categories a large number of your edits happen to be to articles about hotels and other travel industry-related (not "economy-related") subjects? I suppose it's also a coincidence that your user name "Qwacker" might be an informal description of a duck, and that the "duck test" is a method of determining whether two accounts are WP:SOCKPUPPETS? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's probably also one of those coincidences that Blueberry Hill stopped editing in January 2016 [3], while you -- although you had 17 edits before January 2016 -- didn't start editing for real until then [4]? The coincidences start to accumulate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Biomedical Engineering

The editor has acknowledged that he is Miller (see here for example) and has in the past contributed positively to articles on which he has expertise. However more recently he has re-written the article on the department he heads and begun creating multiple redirects and articles for his colleagues (some of which have already been deleted as either copyright violations or non-notable). There are thus clear WP:COI concerns. In a recent comment on my talk page he says "My staff and I spend hours putting that material together", so I am also asking if this suggests WP:PAID concerns. Melcous ( talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you for the consideration and effort. Originally the article had a list of the faculty of the department, this was prepared as part all of the information we have for the strategic review and a new department director. The original history of the department had only been in a series of IEEE Historical interview of department directors.
Everything on the page is absolutely historically accurate. The category of difficulty was originally called "faculty" not "noteable faculty". The page was modelled after the page of Oxford Department of Computer Science which is one of the most highly ranked departments in the world in computer science. BME department at JHU is highly ranked as well. Under "faculty" all faculty were listed, with no distinction (not called noteable). Rather, for the "noteable category" only National Academy award members were originally listed in page, only the 4-6 faculty were listed with National Academy under noteable.
Also all of the areas of the discipline that BME faculty engage and teach classes were listed-These were part of the strategic vision taken from a report based on Nature Biomedical Engineering with a citation, as those became the areas that the strategic vision organizes around. The editor trying to make the article better changed the title of faculty to "noteable faculty" and removed all of the names, and as well all of the topics. Is it not possible to continue to have a BME webpage which emulates the Oxford Computer Science page with all faculty listed in a tenure category different from "noteable"?
Thank-you for your consideration and deliberations. Respectfully Mim.cis ( talk) 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Mim.cis this is not the place to discuss specific edits to the article - that's what the talk page is for. This noticeboard is for discussing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is whether you have understood them and are abiding by them. Melcous ( talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with conflict of interest, is that the person with the COI is not a suitable person to judge what should be included in the article. In my experience with academics here writing about themselves or their projects, about half of them try to say too much, and about half too little. It is appropriate for you to add the information to WP, but according to our current practice, you should write additional articles about faculty in the department using the Article Wizard in Draft space, and suggest additions and changes on the article talk pages. If you wan to write about specific subjects in the field, I think you can do it directly and we're glad to have you, but be sure you do not write them to emphasize JHU people. Incidentally, according to our WP:PROF guidelines, there may be more notable faculty in your department than you think--in addition to members of the National Academies, very highly cited researchers also meet WP:PROF, and I would be surprised if this did not apply to at least all the full professors in your department. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of UPE from Investigator87


I did a quick cleanup at Oliver Isaacs but I could only take so much. Honestly it would be a good WP:TNT. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It has been proposed by another editor at Talk:Oliver Isaacs to WP:TNT the article due to unfixable copyvio issues. Other thoughts are welcome ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some sock/meat activity at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs. At least two WP:SPAs have appeared to register Keep votes, and two others that left comments were blocked by Berean Hunter from a CU investigation. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 14:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
SPI open now here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditions -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

On the same AFD we have:

whose set of oddball promotional article creations reek of UPE. I've already declined an unblock request from this user for a very suspect mistake so I'll hold off blocking for now. MER-C 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I concur that ( Richardaldinho is likely a paid editor given the history of the articles. DGG had tagged some of them for G5, and I deleted one, but it was raised to me by Sro23 they are technically on a 2 week CU block for vote staking, not for UPE, so I've sent one of them to AfD currently. All of these articles meet the signs of UPE: [5], [6], [7] and in terms of article style remind me a bit of this group, but that could simply be the likely UPE. Regardless, I would support a UPE block based on spamming, but won't do it myself given that I deleted and then restored a G5. TonyBallioni ( talk) 04:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Richardaldinho creations and cleanup includes stuff listed above. I'm a bit confused -- can we g5 these or not? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The G5 has been contested by an SPI clerk as he is only blocked now for vote staking. That might change depending on the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vierouchka. We can either wait to see how that SPI plays out, or PROD/AfD when necessary. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:BLG Logistics

I wrote a draft of an article about BLG Logistics. This is Paid Edit and also a translation from the de.wikipedia.org. The appropriate information/tags I have already attached.

The draft is not promotional in my opinion. It has a detailed section about the company's history. In addition, the company’s present is shown. Figures are, unless otherwise possible, substantiated by the Annual Report or the Financial Report. This information is subject to financial supervision, misrepresentations would be punishable. Sometimes such corporate sources are only a supplement, because there are corresponding press articles, which are also indicated.

About a feedback, what is ok and what should be changed if necessary, I would be glad. Atomiccocktail ( talk) 10:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recommend waiting for AfC feedback and going from there. Please do not edit this article in mainspace. Have you read WP:Identifying PR to make sure you avoid common issues? ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Jama masjid chalakpur

I can see a clear conflict of interest in this user. This user has been persistently creating pages related to himself. For example: this user has created Jama masjid chalakpur which this user's username. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The Software Toolworks

I have, and have declared, a COI for these articles, having been the founder of Toolworks, although not associated with it or any software company since 1994.

Is it permissible for me to make minor changes to this article, such as adding a lead section, references or graphics? What about clarifications that do not substantially change the meaning? I would like to polish it without burdening volunteer editors, but not at the risk of my reputation or the article's. Bilofsky ( talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It is advisable that substantive changes, such as adding text, references, and graphics, should be proposed by you on the relevant article's talk page. Editing the article directly for anything bigger than fixing a typo puts you in a minefield that you really don't want to be in. Thank you for doing this the right way. If you have trouble finding other editors to review things you put on the talk page, talk to me and I'll do it. Cheers, Tazerdadog ( talk) 00:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Abraham Zangen

Appear to be paid editing. Refs added as an afterthought.

The prior version of this Brainsway had issues.

Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we have seen several things here lately driven by transcranial magnetic stimulation devices and technologies. Yes? ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sport 360

Pages
Editors
Websites


All of the articles listed above, which appear to me to be non-notable events and organizations, were created by the account Events360 who appears to be an undisclosed paid editor focusing on subjects closely related to Sport 360. I have proposed deletion for a couple of the articles, but would like to have others have a look and see if prod or AFD would be appropriat for any of the others. Peacock ( talk) 13:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Kuo-Chen Chou

May be salvageable, but this looks like autobiography to me. Guy ( Help!) 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hungarians in the United Kingdom

User:Gabor Bartos has added himself as a "Famous Hungarian immigrants and Britons of Hungarian origin". I've had some email correspondence with him, where he admits he is the man concerned, but he is quite determined to have himself mentioned. Nigej ( talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

He'll have to understand that people don't get mentioned on Wikipedia simply because they want it. If he's notable enough to meet WP:NPOL, then someone not connected to him can write an article. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444

Several experienced editors have had a look and didn't see undeclared paid editing. Another Arbcom case will answer some questions about use of tools in a position of trust. ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:12, 22 November 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.

KDS4444 has been community banned for leveraging OTRS access into solicitation of paid editing. Concerns were brought up during that discussion that undeclared paid editing may have occurred. We probably should have some due diligence in checking over at least his most recent contributions. I've listed three creations just to kick off a discussion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Is there any evidence that I missed? KDS444 was very open about the articles they had been paid to edit. Of the list above, they specifically denied being paid to edit the now deleted Conso International Corporation article, and acknowledged payment for Tom Paradise. - Bilby ( talk) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You are right, Paradise was declared. I have not done a significant look yet and just came across another editor's concern at AN. The specific comment was "how certain are you that all paid edits have been declared? I strongly suspect they have not." BTW I was not involved with the KDS matter at that time, and did not contribute there. So this is kind of fresh for me and unresearched. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I haven't seen any evidence to support the claim that there was undisclosed paid editing going on, and I'm left thinking that if there was KDS4444 would have declared it as they declared other articles which would not have otherwise been identified. Part of the problem is that we can never be sure that an article wasn't paid for, but similarly if there isn't anything to go by - such as a job ad, articles created by users who should not have had that much skill on their first edits, or self disclosure - it is almost impossible to tell if it is the case. Thus I tend to fall back on simply general principles - if it is overly promotional or of questionable notability, we should address the articles under those terms, but otherwise just go with what works best for the project. - Bilby ( talk) 03:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. I haven't wrapped my head around this yet, it is such an egregious abuse of a position of trust. Which is why I felt it must be brought up at the one noticeboard created explicitly for such abuses. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The actions on OTRS were abysmal. My difficulty here is that there no evidence of undisclosed paid editing, and no method of determining if it did occur. So I'm not sure of how this can proceed. - Bilby ( talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Heads-up: I'm planning to write up this case and probably the Mister Wiki case as a news item for upcoming Signpost. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--I will agree with Bilby on the point that KDS444 did not seem to have indulged in any UPE. Winged Blades Godric 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • comment. I think KDS4444 had pretty low standards for N and for sourcing anyway, which makes it very hard to distinguish his normal editing from paid editing. I think this is part of what made it so confusing for him that his paid edits were not received so well. Jytdog ( talk) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Kent Tate

Problem article was draftified ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The entire five-year edit history of user account centers only on Kent Tate, suggesting that she is connected to subject in some manner. The article itself is promotional in tone, including an upload of an excessive number of images to Commons. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The user does seem to be able to use talkpages in the past, and I've politely (non-template) invited comment here. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I constructed this article and have been the primary contributor. I have made efforts to add content that is in compliance. If you can help me to resolve the problems on this page I would be very grateful. Cheri Brown ( talk) 17:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Article has been draftified. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

More spam socks

The above accounts got CU blocked for spamming using a VPN. I've seen this abuse pattern before -- one or two spamlinks interspersed with lots of potentially legit edits (I didn't waste my time on detailed checks, I just blanket reverted them). After a semi-automated search through the domains they have added, I make the following observations:

These domains were probably spammed and/or are used in other likely UPE "articles" (view said additions via the COIBot links):

The following domains were almost certainly spammed:

Thoughts on what to do with these? MER-C 08:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A sample of the fake news sites took me to the articles & creators listed above. Definitely looks like PR, needs deeper look. ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Come to think about it, there was at least one more fake news site:
The list of filtered (less than 20 live links) domains is here, starting with hydrocarbonengineering.com. MER-C 11:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This one is more of the same, including some of the same articles, which is what drew my attention here. Grayfell ( talk) 04:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like they've found a new webhost. Forgot to mention
got CU blocked by being on the same VPN as these spammers. MER-C 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ENKWMS

This is a very infrequent editor, who began editing in 2013. On his talk page he describes himself as a music enthusiast.

In 2014, ENKWMS left the following message here on an editor's talk page: "I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I was asked to make edits on this article by representatives of this person. The information that I am submitting is factual and significant."

This editor created two draft articles, the first about a band called "Live Footage" ( [8]) in 2013/2014, and the second about the musician Hill Kourkoutis ( [9]), on July 6, 2016. Interestingly, Live Footage (band) was successfully created on July 19, 2014, and Hill Kourkoutis was successfully created on July 5, 2016 by a single-purpose editor.

The concern about paid editing began following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadeus (record producer). ENKWMS began leaving messages on user talk pages--in one instance leaving his personal email address--inquiring about how to restore the deleted Amadeus article (see [10] [11] [12] [13]). A caution about COI/paid editing was left for this editor here on Nov. 12, 2017. This editor denied any COI/paid editing here. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting second opinion/more eyes on this set of related articles. I think the artist has notability (hard to tease out from the incestuous media relationships) but maybe one or more redirects are in order? ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Urban informatics

Call me a nasty suspicious bastard, but this article is flagged COI and the WP:SPA user is very keen to include a book published by notorious vanity press IGI Global -to the point of rapidly reverting removal despite not having any actual activity on Wikipedia (example: [14] reverting in less than two hours, despite the user's last edit to Wikipedia being weeks before). [15] also adds an IGI published book. I smell a COI, and at the very least a massive dose of WP:OWN. Guy ( Help!) 13:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Will be indulging in a massive cleanup/CE soon. Winged Blades Godric 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Proware

Observe the ancient paid editor in its natural habitat. Keep quiet, it frightens easily. This is paid editing from back in 2006 and could use a look. I doubt it meets notability. ~ Rob13 Talk 15:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nimir

He has admitted to his closeness to the production team of this film, through this edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Username is the name of their website designer/host; automatic WP:CORPNAME block. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wessex Institute of Technology

Bluntly, I think this article is a scam. I am unable to trace any good evidence that this is an actual degree-granting institution, it's "WIT Press" is listed by Beall as predatory, its conferences flag up hundreds of disparaging comments on the interwebs, and virtually the entire article is the wok of two WP:SPAs. Guy ( Help!) 01:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is wondrous, including three (3) pictures of the building and such essential academic facts as "local commoners have the right to graze their ponies" in the adjacent national park. I cut out the travel brochure stuff and a bunch of other badly sourced or unnecessary material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Wessex"? Sounds fictional. :-) XOR'easter ( talk) 04:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

I removed some predatory journals fomr this article two days ago. Up pops WikiJonathanpeter, who has not edited since March, to revert. I reverted, and in comes Ipadmasterman, with his grand total of four previous edits, all back in July, to revert again. I smell socks. Oh, note that WikiJonathanpeter's few other article edits are all to biblical topics. McIntosh is notorious as a creationist. Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you think of the guy or the credibility of the source is irreverent. The source was written by the guy and expresses his view. This is the best evidence you'll get for ones view. Whatever you think of the guy, please be humble and let his views be expressed WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 23:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
What I think is, actually, relevant, because unlike you I am independent of the subject. This is now at WP:ANI. Guy ( Help!) 23:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The article was created as a Coatrack a while ago. I and another guy set out to change it. Unfortunately, there are those who would want to get back the article to how it use to be. WikiJonathanpeter ( talk) 00:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Just noting that User:WikiJonathanpeter has been blocked for socking, but not User:Ipadmasterman Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Socking is not what is going on here. User:WikiJonathanpeter is a separate entity that I have no connection with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadmasterman ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It might seem good, but it still lists one publication in a predatory journal. We should not be driving traffic to these abusive firms. Guy ( Help!) 10:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

DeviceLock

I've cleaned up all the articles in mainspace from this person's spamming. Obviously here to promote the company. I have tried to open a discussion, but crickets so far.

I've nominated devicelock.com for the spamblacklist but until that goes through I don't want to get into edit warring with this person. Jytdog ( talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be keeping my watch on the user'd contributions.No worries:) Winged Blades Godric 09:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Anybody who reads Russian might like to check out ru:DeviceLock to see if that is spam or otherwise bad.

I have already put their logo up for deletion on the Commons due to its implausible claim to be licensed for unlimted reuse and modification. Surely no company would be that silly? The user who uploaded it is not the user above. He has uploaded similar logos for the same company and had them deleted before. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The ru:DeviceLock article is very well written. It is extremely comprehensive without being a hard sell. Obviously written by someone with an extremely intimate knowledge of the product, probably company director Ashot_Oganesyan ( see him here), who supplied the very similar advertorial that is used in all the sources. If the company needs a text for a product brochure, this would be it. It's clearly part of an organised marketing campaign. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw Records

Wikidocs appears to be here to promote Jigsaw Records and those associated with it. Wikidocs hijacked the original Jigsaw Records article (now Jigsaw Records (US company)) to replace it with what is now Jigsaw Records (UK company). The history was split by Dlohcierekim. (FYI: Justlettersandnumbers, Marchjuly, and Theroadislong) —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As I’ve told Theroadislong, my interest is in Gregor Coleman as a fan. I am therefore naturally curious of the label to which he is signed and the manager under which he is associated. I do not know why you have removed the page for Chris Percival, given multiple editors had already established its suitability. I have put a lot of time and effort into researching all of this. I am unconnected to these entities aside from being a fan of Gregor. You will also note that I have also edited other pages on Wiki. Wikidocs ( talk) 08:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the "you" is in "you have removed the page for Chris Percival", but Chris Percival (Entrepreneur) was speedily deleted by Premeditated Chaos on November 22 per WP:G11. Moreover, if this is about this same Chris Percival, then that article was previously deleted four times and the title is now WP:SALTed because someone kept trying to recreate it. My suggestion is that, even if you don't have a COI, you work on a draft for the article and submit it to WP:AfC for review so that any issues found can be addressed accordingly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for the reminder to SALT Chris Percival (Entrepreneur). It was indeed quite promotional; one reviewer noted on the now-deleted talk page that it read almost exactly like everything at WP:Identifying PR. I can't help but agree. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, almost done, thanks all round. I've filed an SPI, as I don't think there's much doubt that this is another sock. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Which I now see was not necessary, as Yunshui had already reached the same conclusion and tagged the account accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Nowt wrong with being thorough, mind. Yunshui  雲 水 16:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Knanaya Catholics

I was discussing the recently created article Knanaya Catholics with its creator, but figured I better bring it here before proceeding. The editor appears to state that they're editing on behalf of the community in question to create the article, as they don't like what the main Knanaya article says. [16] Knanaya is rigorously sourced to high quality academic sources, but is regularly challenged by IPs and sockpuppets who dislike the material (it's been hit by both supporters and antagonists of the community). Unfortunately a lot of the material in the new article is dubious and appears not to be based on reliable sources. Can someone with more experience in these matters have a look? Cúchullain t/ c 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This wouldn't be COI. Would probably be NPOV or whatever. To be honest, I can't exactly tell what is going on here, and we don't really have that many very active editors who edit in Eastern Catholicism. Sitush, you might have thoughts on this. Since religion can often be used as a substitute for race or ethnicity in many areas involving Eastern Christianity, this subject is likely to be highly contentious. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"Knanaya" stands for an ethnic community that might include people of different religions including Catholics, Orthodox, other religions or even non-believers. All cannot be contained in one article. And there can be different and opposing views. Knanaya Catholics are the majority of Knanaya and remain separate from other factions of Knanaya. So better allow a page for "Knanaya Catholics." This page will not be opposing any other factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobbijo1 ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Leeds Adel Carnegie Hockey Club

Promotional account editing only on this article, including adding unsourced content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 15:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User spamublocked
-- Alexf (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

One America News Network ‎

Editor is a WP:SPA in regards to these two articles about companies owned by Herring Networks. They have only used talk pages twice, once several years ago to tell an IP never to edit the AWE article after the IP had reinstated some critical material [17] and once to reply to my question on conflict of interest on their talk page. Their answer their was unsatisfactory. As you can see on their talk page, I'd asked a general question about the text in WP:PAID that says "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." The response, in the section above my question, was "Freemediatv is NOT related to Herring Networks or any of its holdings." I have two problems with this. One is that "Freemediatv" could be the name of a website [18] and my question was about the editor using the name. Secondly of course is that the answer doesn't rule out getting some form of compensation. I asked a second time and got no response. The editor has also recently edit-warred suggesting they feel some form of ownership of these articles. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At what point are we justified in adding Template:UPE to articles like this? Aside from the current activity OANN was originally created by a SPA who never edited on any topic other than OANN and AWE. Likewise there has been at least one SPA active at AWE. (I strongly suspect those two accounts are/were operated by the same person.) It's seems clear what's going on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Noting 24 hour block handed out at 3RRN. Block has expired. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I blocked Freemediatv as a spam-only account. The user is not listening. Guy ( Help!) 22:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Nea Anna Simone

Promotion of a barely-notable author, including using Amazon as a source and having taken the photograph in the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm..Will be prob. dragging to AfD. Winged Blades Godric 08:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

X-Socks

I believe this user is editing without declaring a COI and possibly without declaring a paid editing relationship. Their usernames emphasizes the "X" and they created X-Socks, Draft:X-Technology Swiss research and development AG, and Timo Bracht(a company, one of its products, and an athlete who probably uses said product). They don't seem to have responded to my messages. 331dot ( talk) 09:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Luke Harding

I note that the user DinaNagapetyants who removed the section about the proven plagiarism by the professional anti-Russian journalist Luke Harding, a plagiarism that was admitted and apologised for by the Guardian, where the plagiarised material was published, is herself a writer for the Guardian who co-wrote an anti-Russia article with Mr Harding.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/20/natalia-potanina-vladimir-potanin-ex-wife-russia-richest-men-divorce

Surely this conflict of interest should have been declared at the very least? It's a clear abuse in my opinion: censorship of an embarrassing but obviously notable fact - because proven and well-sourced (see the talk page) plagiarism by a notable journalist is always notable - by a person who 1) professionally collaborates with the article's subject in his explicitly partisan (in Mr Harding's case, anti-Russian) journalistic discourse, 2) by co-writing articles for the same employer who 3) published the plagiarism and apologised for it, and 4) without this clear non-neutrality being disclosed.

To be clear, Dina Nagapetyants has two undisclosed conflicts here, her relationship with the Guardian and her relationship with Mr Harding.

Consider this a complaint against Dina Nagapetyants as well as a request for the reinstatement of the suppressed material in some form. I think Dina Nagapetyants should also disclose if she discussed her edits of Mr Harding's page with Mr Harding.

Dina Nagapetyants has also made her pro-Harding bias clear on her talk page /info/en/?search=User_talk:DinaNagapetyants where she rejects criticism (not from me) of her evident bias on the Luke Harding article. For example: "for his recent book Mr. Harding has received universal acclaim" - an egregiously sycophantic claim that is factually false - no partisan work receives universal acclaim.

121.72.181.139 ( talk) 03:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:DinaNagapetyants made only about 50 edits from June 6 - June 15, 2016 and hasn't edited since. I doubt we can do anything that addresses your complaint against her. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, but the section about plagiarism was removed and never replaced. Not brilliant sourcing, but evidently two sources - Private Eye and Newsweek have noted plagiarism. SmartSE ( talk) 13:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Right, I see that now: every single one of her edits was to the Luke Harding article where she had this undisclosed conflict of interest or to her talk page defending those edits, with the single exception of her own one-line user page. Can she just be locked out of editing this particular article? That would solve the problem, and it's worth doing because her inactivity could well end if changes are made to the page about her friend that is her sole focus on Wikipedia. I would also like to see the plagiarism section restored; I read SmartSE's comment as justifying this. I'd do it myself but I'm just a humble IP address and loath to enter a potential edit war with Mr Harding's friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.181.139 ( talk) 06:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I can see that I am perhaps wasting my time here, because Harding's sockpuppet wasn't working alone but with a senior Wikipedia editor, Philip Cross, who is an anti-Russian British activist with a deeply antagonistic attitude to various British left wing writers and a protective one to British right wing and anti-Russian journalists.

It's very obvious (and notorious) that Mr Cross is either the British anti-Russian journalist Oliver Kamm or a meatpuppet for Kamm. The evidence for this online is overwhelming. (see links below)

After conflict between Kamm and British journalist Neil Clark (who writes for RT) and between Kamm and Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and left wing whistle-blower, Mr Cross immediately stepped in with hostile activity on Wikipedia against Clark and Murray. Mr Cross shows an unmistakable pattern of deep hostility towards Mr Kamm's British left wing bêtes noires and strong protectiveness and personal warmth towards the British anti-Russia journalist fraternity of which Mr Harding is a member, especially towards Mr Kamm (and members of his family).

There is plenty of evidence for the above online:

http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.nz/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-vendettas-of.html https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/03/the-astonishing-case-of-the-doppelganger/ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=147079088662589&story_fbid=545726222131205 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-left-vs-the-liberal-media/comment-page-1/

Alongside Mr Harding's sockpuppet Dina Nagapetyants, Mr Cross has also intervened to remove the plagiarism reference in Mr Harding's article and in general to remove anything in it critical of Mr Harding, a pattern repeated whenever Mr Cross works on a page relating to British right wing journalists and inverted into promoting critical material in the cases of British left wing journalists.

I can only assume that since none of this information is new, and since nothing has been done to prevent Mr Cross from pursuing his political agenda through Wikipedia, this kind of political control is acceptable to Wikipedia. If not, I ask that this matter be fully investigated and dealt with by Wikipedia administrators not including Mr Cross and that he be prevented from working on articles to which his egregious personal political agenda pertains. And that the plagiarism reference in Mr Harding's article be restored in an appropriate form.

As for me, I know better than to get into a bureaucratic dispute with a vindictive person in a milieu where they have the advantage of institutional knowledge and authority, while relying on an arbitration/control mechanism that I can already see has conspicuously failed to correct an abuse. Especially since I have nothing at stake personally and only got involved because I noticed some sockpuppetry, and also because I have now learned that Mr Kamm is well-known for his on-line stalking and harrassment of persons he dislikes (documented exhaustively in the links above) and I don't want to be targetted.

So I'll stick with being an anonymous IP address and probably sign off this case right here as unfixable given how Wikipedia works (or doesn't work).

But I will point out that this case of blatant partisan sockpuppets controlling the discourse around a particular milieu - UK political journalism in this case - highlights a definite problem with Wikipedia's model: that a person who works their way up the Wikipedia hierarchy by diligently editing then becomes able to pursue their personal and political loves and hatreds encyclopedically. Mr Cross has given Wikipedia a particular, non-neutral point of view regarding Mr Kamm's particular British journalistic milieu, and that is the right wing, strongly anti-Russian point of view of Mr Cross/Mr Kamm.

As Craig Murray put it in the entry I linked to above:

... a very serious point indeed about Wikipedia. “Philip Cross” is not just anybody who can, like you and me, make edits on Wikipedia. He is a senior editor with special administrative privileges. He uses this access on a continued basis to repeatedly and in enormous detail denigrate any individuals who hold anti-establishment views. Equally sinister, he bigs up and protects the reputation of those who promote the corporate media agenda. “Philip Cross” has not just edited, but according to Wikipedia “predominantly written” the hagiographic entries of

James Harding, Former Editor of the Times, now Head of BBC News Katherine Viner, Editor of the Guardian Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail Amol Rajan, Editor of the Independent and numerous other corporate media journalists.

Philip Cross may be Oliver Kamm. Or he may be someone who shares his views closely and echoes them in a synchronised way. Or he may be an identity which cloaks the activities of a group of people. But it is absolutely plain that “Philip Cross” is used systematically to attack the Wikipedia entries of prominent anti-establishment figures, and simultaneously to bolster the image of the corporate media. The purpose of “Philip Cross” is to ensure that an anti-establishment narrative does not take hold on Wikipedia. The burning question is this. “Philip Cross'” activities and purpose are blindingly obvious. Actions such as the hundred edits to my page and removal of my photo, or the continued war on John Pilger’s entry, are completely unjustifiable. Why then does Wikipedia continue to tolerate “Philip Cross” and grant him administrator privileges?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.178.149 ( talk) 04:13, 24 November 2017‎ (UTC)

This edit on May 1, 2014 about Harding's reputed plagiarism seems to be the one in contention. I removed the passage, for the reason I explained in the edit summary: "section has no third-party source & none traced; notability therefore questionable". I counted the Russian website "The Exile", which is now behind a sign-in page, as having a vested interest in propagating accusations against Luke Harding, and thus not properly third-party. Private Eye is not normally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Although Newsweek is normally perfectly acceptable, this Newsweek article by Julian Assange dated April 20, 2015, which has been cited and removed by other editors, is perhaps an exception.
The accusation I am Oliver Kamm, or his meat puppet, continues to amuse me. In truth, I have very limited online contact with Mr Kamm and have never met him. I edit according to my own preferences and inclinations, and not under direction from other people. I can assure IP user 121.72.178.149, that my own IP address demonstrates that I could not possibly be Oliver Kamm. Incidentally, I am not an administrator and have no wish to be one. The article about Neil Clark (writer) was deleted over eight years ago on the grounds of his (supposed) lack of notability. Philip Cross ( talk) 10:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

SaskTel Centre

While I do not disagree with the edit they made to the article about the arena, as the venue has not been renamed only the carpet that the Saskatchewan Rush uses has had a corporate name attached. This is clearly someone who works at Sasktel Centre editing, as noted by the edit summary stating "Removed an incorrect statement about [b]our[/b] venue." I believe this would be an obvious violation of the COI rule and it appears they have made previous edits to the arena's page as well and no other edits. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 09:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Shootmaster 44 This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. I mean why you can't just simply first ask them to change their name as it violates WP:UP (if their contributions are promotional, which their previous edits somewhat look like, they can be reported to WP:UAA for blocking)? And then give them an COI notice and tell them to disclose their COI. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter Is this page not for conflicts of interest? Which this is correct? I took this page to mean when an editor is editing pages that fall within a conflict of interest (i.e. editing their own page). If I am using the wrong notification that is fine. But a conflict of interest is when a user is editing their own page right? Which it clearly is in this case. If it should be reported elsewhere instead, I will do so. But that is how I interpreted the reason behind the COI rule. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 10:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Shootmaster 44 This is for conflicts of interest, but only when you can't resolve it yourself - it isn't obvious or the person is refusing to stop etc. Though maybe other people here might say something else, not an expert. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 10:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Galobtter I am not sure how I can resolve this myself. Upon what authority do I have to tell them they cannot edit their own page? I took these pages as like filing a report with the police. Yes I can tell someone to stop stealing clothes, but I have no judicial authority to punish them for it. Ergo, I raise it with them. Similarly, if the conflict of interest rules state you cannot edit your own page, I should report it to the COI page. If I should have filed a report on a different page, that is a different matter. But as far as I can tell I am filing it with the right Wikipedia governing body. If I am wrong and others feel differently on this that is fine. But reading the other reports above, it seems like the same issue. (shrugs) Anyhow, as you say others can weight in as well. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 10:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Shootmaster 44: Just some general comments. COI edting is not something expressly prohibitted by Wikipedia, and there are many editors with COIs who are able to contribute positively to building the encyclopedia by complying with relevant policies and guidelines. The reason that COI editing is highly discouraged is because it does often lead to more serious problems, and it is these problems which often require administrator intervention. If this user's username is a problem, you can add Template:uw-username to their user talk page, so that they are aware of the issue. If you don't like using templates, you can post a short message explaining the issue with a suggestion on how it might be resolved. The same goes for any other issues you notice with their editing. There are various user warning templates (see WP:UW for some examples) you can use to let another editor know that something they are doing might be a problem. You can even revert edits which you feel do not comply with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, but you should leave a clear edit sum explaining why and possibly even follow up with a post on the article's talk page to try and encourage further discussion. If the edit has problems that you yourself can fix, then WP:FIXIT may be a better option that reverting. Try and encourage the editor to discuss things per WP:DR. Just remember to keep your comments WP:CIVIL and try not to WP:BITE the other editor if they are new to Wikipedia; if they ignore you or engage in edit warring, then you can seek out an administrator.
You are correct that we as editors cannot prevent others from editing. However, if their editing or behavior becomes too disruptive, then there are various adminstrator noticeboards where you can seek assistance, and an administrator can issue WP:BLOCKs if necessary. In almost every case, however, you need to at least make an attempt to explain the situation to the other person. Once they are aware of the problem, the ball's in their court so to speak and it's up to them to seek further clarification or amend their behavior/editing accordingly. If they don't, they won't be long for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 10:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Getting back to the matter at hand, I reported the account to WP:UAA and it will be blocked outright for the obvious WP:CORPNAME violation. Why that wasn't pursued when the account first appeared last year, who knows... it may have gone unnoticed. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 18:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Account has been soft blocked for a username violation. FWIW, I tried to clean up the disputed edit a bit and also added some notification/warning templates to the user's talk page. So, if they decide to come back to edit again, they will at least knowthey are things they should be careful about when it comes to editing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep a watch on it and engage any editors that resume this behaviour. Since I happen to live in the same city as this place, they might be more inclined to listen to a "local". -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Young Mahasi

Rap artist has created his own autobiography. I have been trying to copyedit the article to clean it up to standards, but the author keeps adding back old errors. Could a few of you here keep eyes on the article. He has ignored COI messages and continues to edit the article disruptively. Thanks. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been rightly despatched to AfD and will meet it's inevitable fate.I will be keeping a watch on the user. Winged Blades Godric 08:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I also gave the user the hard truth about notability and autobiographies. We'll see if it makes a difference. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Lacypaperclip ( talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Rubén Darío Salas

I suspect the user has some relation to Rubén Darío Salas since its only contributions are about the biography and has uploaded two pictures of him similar from each other in Commons. In the first image they also stated that it is its original work, suggesting that they were the photographer. This is the first time I suspect of a COI, I feel the article currently has independent sources as well as adequate coverage, but I'm not sure how to notify about a possible conflict. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 14:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done.For such purposes of enquiry, type out the following template:--

{{subst:Uw-coi|Article name}} on the talkpage of the user.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Production car speed record

User 212.31.164.79 is an SPA and has declared a COI on this article as an employee of Koenigsegg Automotive, the company making the Koenigsegg car he is interested in adding to the list. See content [20] with manual sig as "Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)". The IP has recently made four significant edits to this article, two of them [21] [22] before declaring the COI and two afterwards [23] [24] (both restoring the full content of the twoprevious edits). The IP also previously made edits to articles concerning Koenigsegg in 2012 and 2014. The static IP geolocates to Ängelholm, Sweden. the location of the headquarters of Koenigsegg Automotive.

User StevenWade is an SPA and has declared a COI on this article as an employee of Koenigsegg Automotive, the company making the Koenigsegg car he is interested in adding to the list. See [25] with manual sig as "Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)" and full mention here [26]. This user further confirmed the COI in a talk page thread [27] and claimed to have never edited the article made. This is not correct. StevenWade has made one substantial edit to the article (an acceptable removal but incorrectly marked as minor) but the the user had previously (and recently) made four significant edits using the IP address.

Koenigsegg Automotive has a Communications and Copywriter employee named Steven Wade ( https://www.facebook.com/KoenigseggAutomotiveAB/posts/1296057017118884) who has written extensively about Koenigsegg cars on the company webpage and the company facebook page. (See http://www.koenigsegg.com/author/steven/ and https://www.facebook.com/KoenigseggAutomotiveAB/posts/1157818937609360 for example}. User StevenWade confims he is this employee but does not believe he is a paid editor [28] [29].

Is a company writer who writes about their cars on the company website and facebook page a WP:PAID editor when he writes about the cars on Wikipedia? Note that Koenigsegg Automotive material repeatedly added to the article by other users has been sourced to nothing but the online material on the Koenigsegg Automotive blog written by Steven Wade (although independent sources have now been provided on the talk page). Meters ( talk) 23:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I note that at the top of this page it says "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Interesting.
I have been exceedingly transparent insofar as my connection to the company is concerned. Any errors that Mr Meters has picked up in terms of typical Wikipedia protocol are down to the fact that I am new to this. They are not malicious.
I have been accused by Meters on my profile's talk page of being a paid editor. I am not. I am a passionate and interested employee giving input to this page on my own time. I have been accused by Meters both privately and publicly of not being an independent reliable source. One could say I am not independent but I am certainly not unreliable. Nothing I have written on the page has been false, nor has it been pure advocacy. It has been measured, verifiable and logical.
I would have thought that input from within an industry would have been of some value on an industry-based page. Meters seems to disagree. In justifying himself on my private talk page, he said "It does not matter if the information is correct." That seems to be a strange attitude for an encyclopedia. Pages like this rely on industry-based information all the time. How do you think the moderators of that page know that there were 30 Bugatti Veyron Super Sports made? Because Bugatti put it in a press release. The only difference here is that moderators can actually ask a question directly to an industry source.
None of the participants on the page have had a problem with my contributions except for Meters. Read through the Talk page and you'll see that I've made reasonable, truthful and logical contributions. The page is incomplete and has errors and misunderstandings all over the place. I was trying to help. And I was presenting a reasonable case for the car made by my employer because the notion that it belongs there is the truth.
Finally, with regard to harrassment.... I have been called all these things I listed above, both privately and publicly. My last conversation with Meters prior to this COI report was 4 days ago, when he made a veilied threat that "If you continue to claim that you are not (a paid editor) then we can take this to the COI board and see what the community thinks." I made one short response to Meters shortly thereafter where I told him (again) that I was being transparent and honest. I made NO further contributions to the page in those four days, and I still haven't. And yet despite this lack of activity, he's reported me for COI anyway.
I respect the mission of Wikipedia and the others on this page have proven themselves to be reasonable and respectful. Meters - who I note only first made a contribution to this page on November 13 and prior to that, has had no interest in it, nor in any other automotive pages (according to his admirable and legthy to-do-list) - seems to think it's OK for him to be judge, jury, and excutioner. I don't believe that's fair, nor right.
I have been transparent. I have been honest. I have made a meaningful contribution based on facts and logic. If I've made errors of judgement or protocol, they were not malicious and I resent being depicted as duplicitous or devious. StevenWade ( talk) 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I further note at the top of this page that is says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period."
Meters has used my Talk page to raise his concerns - briefly - but no such effort has been made on the page in question's talk page. Furthermore, I have not added problematic material at all, let alone over an extended period. On the contrary, as noted above, I have made measured, transparent and logical contributions to the Talk page for the article. And I note again that this COI has been made after a threat being made to do it, and after 4 days of silence on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no outing by me. As my diffs clearly show, you stated that you were the company employee named Steven Wade, and you identified your IP .
I have not accused you of being "duplicitous or devious". I merely pointed out on your page, with diffs to prove it, that your claims "My only contributions since then [the COI] have been to the discussion" and that you had never incorrectly marked an edit as minor were incorrect. In fact, since you also made substantial edits to the article with your IP after declaring your COI your claim that you never did so is even further from correct.
There has been no private communication. All communication has been on talk pages. These are public pages that can be read by any editor.
I have not accused you of not being reliable. I simply said that a company blog is not an independent reliable source. Don't take it personally. A company blog is not an acceptable source for a claim of a new records regardless of who has written it. As I said on the article's talk page, I don't dispute the claims, and if we reach consensus that the car meets out criteria as a production car then the information can be added, sourced to the independent sources you have now provided.
There were no threats. I said that I thought that you were a paid editor. You disagreed, twice. I said that we could take it to the COI board so that the community could decide. I'm not being a " judge, jury, and executioner"". I'm bringing it to the appropriate board after attempting to discuss the issue with you on your talk page. That's as it should be. There is no requirement to discuss the possibility that you are a paid editor on the article's talk page, and I don't think such a discussion belongs there. It belongs on your talk page, and here. I simply added the connected contributor tag ton the article talk page for you and your IP so that other editors will be aware of your COI when reading talk page..
As for the extended period, well, you've been editing the talk page since Nov 13, and adding mention of your company's cars to the article since Nov 1. I notice that your first edit to the page was to restore mention of the Koenigsegg CCR, which your IP added in 2012, and which was immediately removed. Meters ( talk) 08:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going through the t/p and may chime in there but on first glances, it's very clear that Stephen, you not only do have a strong COI on the topic but also your heavy association(s) with the company as a paid employer are more or less sufficient for us to categorize your edits to be heavily prone and susceptible to perception-bias, even if I choose to believe that you are not paid for promotion of the company etc.In that case, it's mandatory that you completely refrain from editing the concerned articles directly and instead propose edit on the article talk-page to get them vetted by neutral eyes.In case you disagree with individual opinions, you may approach DRN followed by launching a RFC et al.Also, I believe that the concerns of outing dodon't stand, since you have already sufficiently outed yourselves. Furthermore, please have a go through WP:RS to find out more about what constitutes a rel. source and what not.Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the comment that I said "It does not matter if the information is correct" on the user's talk page is taken out of context. I was discussing why the company blog written by Steven Wade is not an acceptable source. The full quote is I simply pointed out that a company blog is not an acceptable source. It's not independent. It does not matter if the information is correct. There are other reliable sources available but someone keeps re-adding the one that you wrote as a company employee. Meters ( talk) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

James F. Reynolds (mixer)

Edit history previously consisted of namedropping himself in certain articles. Has returned seven years later to post unsourced content in James F. Reynolds (mixer). sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This is at least the third SPA with a name indicating connection to the subject, virtually none of the article is written by anyone else. The only actual claim to notability is a baronetcy. I suggest WP:TNT. Guy ( Help!) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I've added the two other users above for completeness, even though the accounts are stale. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 17:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_122&oldid=1138418365"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE