![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Pinging a few people here who may be able to help: @ DGG, Smartse, TonyBallioni, and Smallbones:. I'm currently speaking with a researcher at a top Computer Science department who specializes in machine learning. He's potentially interested in developing a machine learning solution to identifying paid editors. In the past, he's researched sockpuppetry instead of paid editing because he lacks data on "confirmed" paid editors. Can you develop a list of substantial SPI cases or paid editing cases that included many accounts (say, more than five)? If I can get enough data together for him, the researcher may be able to help us out significantly in tracking and combating paid editing. Feel free to just add to the list below. ~ Rob13 Talk 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Started socking and never looked back. Caught my eye due to advocacy against circumcision. Has written effusively praising articles about how great he is, and all his friends too.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:14, 28 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.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
@ Melcous:@ NatGertler:: Hi, sorry for the trouble. Originally I thought this account Pdyusmep did not deserve a reply, but since now he/she has begun to attack User:NatGertler here and in User talk:Pdyusmep, I'd like to reveal what is really going on.
1) First of all, some brief history. Based on my preliminary review, account User:Pdyusmep is highly likely the resurgence of the blocked account User:RabidMelon, which was affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 socket puppets. Account User:RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year (2017) by administrator "Bbb23", and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, few months ago several New-York-based IP addresses such as 74.108.156.96 User_talk:74.108.156.96 appeared in Wikipedia, displaying almost identical editing behavior and language as that of User:RabidMelon. But the IP was again blocked for disruptive editing by administrator "Drmies". Now it comes this account User:Pdyusmep.
All these accounts and IP addresses are contributing/protecting the page of Columbia University [1], even though account User:Pdyusmep now pretends to be a Harvard graduate student (the User Page is just set up today). These accounts show protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. They appear offensive/aggressive, using insulting words sometimes, when talking to other editors whom he/she does not agree, for recent instances: User talk:Pdyusmep (see section "Your COIN comments"), User_talk:Ber31 (see section "Regarding IP '74.108.156.96'"), and on User_talk:MelanieN#Discoveries_and_Innovation_Section_on_Stanford.
2) Secondly, one of the socket puppets of User:RabidMelon was User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was protecting fiercely Columbia's Nobel laureate count when I first started to restructure the page List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Several unqualified affiliates were excluded from Columbia's count. From then on, User:RabidMelon together with its socket puppet accounts, including today's User:Pdyusmep, had been following my editing, making unreasonable reverting and reporting me from time to time. He/she could use whatever argument he/she thinks of to argue with you. Sorry for the trouble.
3) Thirdly, User:Pdyusmep and its related accounts/IPs has accused that IP 107.77.210.145 is my socket puppet. This is just his/her way of attacking/reporting me. Any administrator is welcomed to prove that I am completely unrelated to IP 107.77.210.145. The false accusations made by User:Pdyusmep are common in his/her editing. Minimumbias ( talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My actions with regard to this user's activity so far:
By the way, Wing Tai Properties Limited owns and manages Winsland House I. Edits to that page (and redirects to it) by A sun beam ( talk · contribs), Richardsng ( talk · contribs), and LPHM ( talk · contribs) suggest that there might be some sock puppetry involved as well.
I'll post a coin-notice on Mingwingko's talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Historical Mensch ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in disruptive COI editing at Ami (magazine) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mishpacha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for examples. Some of those diff links show NatGertler trying to fix the problems. Both NatGertler and I have reverted and taken the matters to the talk page. Historical Mensch simply reverts and does not attempt to discuss. The editor has had multiple warnings on his talk page. And, as the last diff link shows, the editor was also recently reverted by Sir Joseph. The edit histories also indicate that this editor has been editing the articles as an IP. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This article was started by a WP:SPA, Vanrobert99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g. 186.129.165.231 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.1.250.204 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 190.104.232.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.
Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press( [2]) IGI Global.
I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy ( Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Lovingly crafted resume, mainly sourced to subject's own publications. Guy ( Help!) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Found and blocked by NinjaRobotPirate and I. GAB gab 16:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This is in regards to OPNSense being included in the table for completeness. It is an active project, with unique code, and About 485,000 results (0.64 seconds) from Google. Several editors are prohibiting and have locked this page in an effort to censor this open source project from being included on this page and nearly every reference has justified removal as being non-notable. I believe this to be inaccurate and it is largely 3 editors that are prohibiting its inclusion. This in-spite of IPCop being included and being inactive and not updated in over 2 years, while OPNSense is an active project with the most recent update being less than a month old. Several references state that no article exists, yet one did exist and was fought and deleted by some of the following editors, again as non-notable
In the process of finding a firewall solution, I came to Wikipedia in addition to other sources. I was disappointed to learn that TechRadar [1] had an article including OPNSense as one of the 6 best firewalls of 2017, with similar articles elsewhere. [2] only to see it missing from Wikipedia. An article on Techradar with that title, one of the top 1500 worldwide sites and top 1000 in the US, should summarily define OPNSense as notable and end this long-term and unnecessary debate.
One note for removal stated "there is no consensus to add OPNSense, or indeed any entries without Wikipedia articles.", without noting that at one point a page did exist and was deleted as being non-notable. This is a vicious circle that defies the comprehensive compendium that is stated as part of Wikipedia's purpose.
I came across this when attempting to add OPNSense and found this dispute in progress. Over a dozen unique authors, likely more like myself, have attempted to add OPNSense to the table and, almost exclusively, a single editor with a likely COI and definitive bias is reverting them. This seems to have begun Jan 2015 and seems to be actively monitored for the addition of this singular item.
I am seeking restoration of the original OPNSense article, inclusion of OPNSense on this page, and to prevent censorship of a valid project from inclusion because of what I believe is a personal prejudice.
Accounts actively removing and fighting any addition of OPNSense into the table for neutrality and completeness are included only to simplify and expedite the review process:
ComputerRick ( talk) 03:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — ComputerRick ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The Intercept reports in a December 1 story that Koch brothers have been employing a PR firm, New Media Strategies, owned by Meredith Corporation, to wikiwash articles related to themselves. Editors named in the investigation are listed above, include the MBMadmirer sockfarm (from 2011!). Fang alleged that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Fang, initiated by WWB/NMS Bill was retaliatory or something based on his former association with New Media Strategies. Personally, that seems a stretch, but I thought it should be discussed. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
For context, 167.246.61.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago. The following firms give that as their address: Arc, MSL Group, Leo Burnett Chicago, Starcom MediaVest Group, SMG Multicultural. 167.246.62.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 424 2nd Ave. W. Seattle. The following firms give that as their address: Publicis Seattle, Publicis Dialog, Optimedia, MSLGROUP, Razorfish (corroborated here). Most or all of the firms are Publicis subsidiaries.
I think there's a pretty significant problem in a lot of articles related to the firm Publicis and their subs. The accounts listed above are virtual 100% SPAs for the company. Some have edited pretty recently, others not so recently.
Requesting that an admin examine deleted revisions of The Legacy Lab based on this test edit. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the Lion Resources IP address range 67.246.61.0 to 67.246.62.255 has been blocked for 3 years. The COI-declared accounts should still be able to edit when logged in. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Came by this on NPP, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring to COI (I am however a COI newbie). Antenoels is an account with less than 100 edits that is creating well fleshed articles (formatting, references, infoboxes, etc.) on non-notable subjects (to wit - two of which were recreations of deleted, per AFD, articles). Thepeacebone is a 9 edit user whose sole editing is editing an article (one day after) Antenoels created Alana Camille Bunte + added the article to Why Not Model Management and Laguna Beach High School. Antenoels created YapStone (a payment company, probably notable), Tom Villante (YapStone founder, probably not notable), did major work on David Rasnick to refactor so AIDs denial isn't the "main thing" diff, recreated Chinedu Echeruo (was AFDed to redirect, recreated - [7]), major work on Yahu Blackwell (created 30 days previously by user:Roland H Lester (a 16 edit account that created this, did some work Gary Lockett (another boxer) and in 2014 edited Restoration Hardware (to remove/tone down a scandal)), and re-created (deleted in April 2017 AfD) California Closets. Given the subject matter on the one hand, and the seemingly experienced editing on the other - I thought it appropriate to raise here. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Nygiants123 is a new account. I'd like to think that a new editor can learn how to use detailed edit summaries, provide well-formatted references, and work incredibly fast (making 10 substantial additions between 15:06 and 15:59 on 29 November 2017), but this looks more like an experienced editor. However, Nygiants123 has accidenly tagged most of these edits as minor, and has used poor sources all around.
I've reverted 9 of the 10 rapid additions , the exception of the one for Simon Sinek, as being poorly sourced, most overly promotional as well.
There seems to be more going on here. Those 10 rapid additions were to BLPs, many (most? all?) of which have had rather blatant COI editing problems. The subsequent edits are to recreate twice-deleted Joe Vitale (author) BLP, where Nygiants123 has apparently made sure that the new article is different than the previously deleted ones, which Nygiants123 was able to find copies external to Wikipedia.
This looks exactly what I'd expect from a paid editor, so I wanted it to at least be documented here. I'm wondering if someone recognizes this editing behavior as a possible sock? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Jordanyear23 actually returned to make this edit that is blantantly promotional on its own. I don't think an experienced editor would make such a mistake, so I'm guessing this is meatpuppetry. I suppose a SPI is the proper next step. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nygiants123 is back as well. (More to follow when I have time). -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Download has created or been involved in creation of the articles listed above. What brought me here specifically is his creation HUMAN Healthy Vending, a company whose founders went on to do SnackNation and that article was declared paid editing. It isn't beyond comprehension that they might have commissioned both articles, but one of them – the one by Download – was not declared paid.
Some of these are the kinds of companies desperate for good coverage on WP that have gotten editors in trouble before: ASEA, LLC is a multi-level marketing company; Pepperstone is a forex broker; Superfish was an about-to-go-broke Internet advertising company when created; Homejoy, ImLive.com, WebHostingBuzz, and Zady are e-commerce retail/media/service companies.
I'm assuming in good faith that he or she will be able to tell us about this. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Other editors ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't look promising. Took a harder look at some of Download's contributions that weren't full article creations. Found some stuff that looks like straightforward (ref)spam for stuff like Dream Night Limousine Service, Celebrity Cars Blog, Phoenix Appliance Repair, Mosaic Art Source, mosaicio.net (mosaicio.com), realestatelicense.com, binarytrading.com, yourlawyer.com and houseflipmentor.com.
At this time in light of everything here, I'm formally asking an admin to remove advanced permissions from Download, namely pending changes, autopatrolled and rollbacker. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
and Stephen Shih is definitely dodgy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I first encountered an article in a poor state of affairs, suffering from considerable lack of NPOV as caused by a COI editor. I embarked upon a large scale tidy to bring within wiki standards, mindful of excess content that was inappropriate, unencyclopaedic or unreferenced. I shared the rationale on the talk page at the time (Lacks sources for entire sections. The tone of language. The excessive linking to external sites. Overly detailed.) The subject immediately (within 8 hours) resisted the change and reverted. Another editor (AdventurousMe) agreed, and was challenged by the subject (What is your problem about this page? You seem to have a real agenda here which is quite puzzling.). There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that talk page and when I returned to it, I made swingeing cuts from this to this to bring it back to an acceptable standard. Yorkshades and Translated1 are the same person. Unsure why two accounts exist, but they both exclusively edit this account only, having first done so in 2008. They are linked as proven by this edit. I issued standard COI warnings on their talk page (using a template) and was given this response: How dare you accuse me of 'soapboxing', 'promotion' or 'advertising', none of which I have done on the page you mention. How dare you remove so much neutral information from the article too. There's a lot of inappropriateness in this person's behaviour, from 3RR, ignoring request upon request to address the COI policy, refusing to acknowledge NPOV and other key guidelines, whataboutisms and then issuing barely-veiled legal threats such as 'defamation by implication'. BJBeamish, the creator of the article, has weighed in with his opinion too (calling me a troll). Discussion on the talk page has and always will reach an impasse until intervention from another party. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This article should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G5, it was created by a sock of a blocked or banned user. The edit history shows that much of the content is the result of an ill-tempered back and forth between the subject, who has not reacted at all to repeated requests to stop adding promotional content, and one other editor. The subject is contentious, and the edit history is a mess. Much of the grief seems to track back to a lawsuit initiated by the subject against critics of a paper he wrote (see [9]). That's more or less guaranteed to make you no friends in science, I guess.
I think the subject is notable, but the article needs a careful review because it is virtually impossible by now to establish which bits are promotional guff by the subject, what's left over from the original spamming sockpuppet, and what's actually good content that adequately reflects the dominant view independent of the subject. I wonder if I should start by stubbing it? Guy ( Help!) 08:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC).
I'm starting a discussion here based upon User talk:Gibmul#Paid editing, etc. and some comments made at User talk:Drmies#Possible paid editing at Yoshiki (musician). Gibmul is a new account who has stated on their user page that they are a newspaper journalist who occassionally does some paid editing. They have only stated on their user talk that they are being paid to update Yoshiki (musician), but have added {{ Connected contributor (paid)}} to Talk:Silent Siren, Talk:Alex Cubis, Draft talk:Ximble as well as some other userspace drafts they are currenlty working on. The account is only a month old, but so far pretty much every edit seems to be associated with paid editing.
Gibmul also stated in in the aforementioned "Paid editing, etc." thread that they are using the sandboxes as proof pages for others to assess and review. It's not clear, however, who these others are and no indication has been given in any of the "Paid declarations" regarding who Gibmul's employer or employers are. Then, there is this statement about being a working newspaper reporter and used to this type of thing which taken in combination with this major addition made to the "Silent Siren" article (without any apparent article talk page discussion) might actually indicate a lack of familiarity with WP:NOT.
So, I think the community should require Gibmul to clarify who their employer or employers are as well as to require that article talk pages be used per WP:COIADVICE and WP:COIREQ to propose any future major revisions to any article in which they are being paid to update. That way the content can be assessed on Wikipedia by other editors watching the article so that anything too PR-ish or otherwise not compliant with relevant policies and guidelines can be cleaned up as needed. I think it's important that some specific boundaries with respect to COI/PAID editing be established early on if Gibmul is going to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
KAI owns brands Kershaw, Shun, Zero Tolerance Knives. The work by this editor is unusually focused on those brands including many indications of promotion listed at WP:Identifying PR in the Zero Tolerance Knives article.
That article at least needs a thorough scrub for COI. I'm afraid if you take them out, you're left with items in basically a few listings in harwdware compendiums like Gun Digest Book of Tactical Gear.
Also: This appears to have been created as an AfC submission but I don't see any indications that it was approved as such. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, just wanted to start a discussion on a new finding. There's a PR firm for various creatives that lists themselves as representing Food Babe, Marc Eco, Tim Ferriss, Ryan Holiday, Tucker Max, and others since ~2012. The bulk of their business seems to be around printed works especially business related self-improvement. Putting 2 and 2 together leads to at least a few editors. Not ready to name the firm yet; pending discussion with trusted admins about limitations of WP:OUTING. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have a company that will both create you a Wikipedia page after first creating the references required to support said page.
They go through AfD looking for customers. For those with OTRS details are here Ticket:2017120510013262 With respect to the quality of the references used in paid for articles this is not really surprising. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Admin Name: Facilius Inc
- Admin Organization:
- Admin Street: 801 Royals Accord, 14th road, Khar West
- Admin City: Mumbai
- Admin State/Province: Other
- Admin Postal Code: 400052
- Admin Country: IN
- Admin Phone: +91.9167102602
- Admin Phone Ext:
- Admin Fax:
- Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: info@applicationwrite.com
Registrant Name: Karishma Rawtani
, which is consistent with information
on the Facilius website as well as found
a comment by an ex-employee on a blog post which James linked to on
User:Doc James/Paid Editing Companies. Hopefully this helps.
Ben · Salvidrim!
✉ 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
interested in you article creation service" [ sic].... at least a few of the paid articles don't have talk page {{ connected contributor (paid)}} templates and definitely should. Mr RD's relationship with Karishma Rawtani was also discussed in February 2016 with Jytdog here: User talk:Mr RD/Archive 5#Conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
All edits promote either Whelan or Morra. I asked on the 4th if there was any relationship but there have been no edits since. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(See also earlier discussion on this page)
WP:SPA is steadily reinserting resume-padding and WP:PEACOCK into this article after it was pruned back. Guy ( Help!) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Editor is a SPA who only edits articles related to The BMJ. Their very first edit was to request an edit on Talk:The BMJ so they are very aware that they have a COI and shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote their organization and its members. They have created new articles at least one of which, Theodora Bloom, is a WP:COPYVIO. I warned them about COI editing but they continued editing Peter Ashman which they created. All of their edits are completely unreferenced and sometimes they actually delete referenced material to replace it with material pasted from elsewhere. GnomeSweetGnome ( talk) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure if this is the right place to engage, but I need to know where to go from here. Firstly, I have added a COI statement to my own page and identified the pages for which it exists--doing so in the format you suggested. 2 editors here at BMJ have existing pages on Wikipedia which I would like to be able to make uncontentious amendments to. In addition, there are 2 further editors I would like to add to Wikipedia with a new page for each. At the same time, I would like to standardise the entries, making them briefer, and including less personal information, for instance. My completely innocuous edits to the 2 existing pages have been removed--I think because they were made by me, not because of any objection to the content. I have a DOI reference to add to the Peter Ashman page if it can be reinstated. I wish also to assure you that there is no copyright violation in the case of Theodora Bloom's entry. I had never seen the source you mentioned. Perhaps it is in the nature of biographical entries that two people's summary of the same career will be very similar. That said, I am of course happy to try and rewrite it to make it less like the source you quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAllen,TheBMJ ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
NYT corporate IP contribs include a long passage on how great their managing editor is, their new China website, also creating bios of other staff members. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I inquired yesterday as to this account's paid status and received no response. They joined in October and instantly started creating articles on organizations and BLPs that have UPE hallmarks. Bringing this here for review of the articles and also to determine whether a UPE/spam block is warranted.
Thanks to all for their thoughts and help. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Funny how an editor can go straight from asking newb questions at Teahouse to building an entire article about a reputation management firm in a single edit. And of course headshots of corp execs w/o licensing. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I didn't really want to do this, as the editor 204.110.0.1 appears to be cooperative, but I feel like this COI needs to be dealt with by the officials because I don't know much about the policies (they seem a little bit vague and ambiguous).
To the marketing editor, I have no vendetta against you or Kaleida. However, WP:COI mandates that editors connected to a subject disclose their interests, and then follow through on associated actions. Buffaboy talk 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor identifying herself as Meg Maheu has previously been promoting the punk band False Alarm along with associated musicians. Recently she began putting herself forward as a possible writer for The New Yorker and Rolling Stone. [12] (As if applying for the job via Wikipedia would ever work.)
A quick Google search shows Maheu is connected to the band. She is also posting online videos of bandmember interviews.
A week ago, Jauerback blocked one of the IPs, [13] Ferret blocked a couple of them, [14] [15] and Widr blocked another. [16] Rather than playing whack-a-mole, how about a rangeblock? I know that a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B157:E2D5:0:0:0:0/41 would have some collateral damage. Is the disruption from Maheu bad enough for that? Binksternet ( talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I try not to bring edit requests to this forum anymore but this is an unusual case. I opened an edit request for my client, MathWorks, four months ago to the day. It got partially implemented and the request was marked closed, but my replies and revisions were ignored. I reopened the request three months ago to try to get an answer to the remaining items, and the request was closed again today by an editor who briefly looked and believed it was answered already. That editor has now reopened the request, but it is back to the bottom of the queue, which typically means another 2+ months of waiting.
I understand that as a COI editor on Wikipedia, I am relying on the generosity of volunteer editors, and no one owes me their time. However, my client has been patiently waiting for a third of a year for a response to these fairly simple edit requests, and has been under significant internal pressure to make the edits directly despite my advising against it. I humbly ask that, if someone has a moment, they would please take a look at the outstanding items from the original request. The discussion and revisions are marked inline. I've also provided sources for a few items marked with cn tags in a reply on the same thread.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Gaulke ( talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks Drm310 and Jytdog. Agreed we shouldn't discourage paid editors who actually are willing to play by the rules. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury law firm based in Florida, founded by John Morgan and his wife, United For Care is a marijuana legalization campaign in Florida founded supported and run by John M. The top anon ids to the M & M office and has been templated for COI by @ Deli nk: Various templates on all the articles or editors (some removed) as well as AfDs. Just guessing from the name, but Weedtruck might be motivated by an interest in United For Care, but is almost an SPA for the law firm, John Morgan and other lawyers or alumni or the firm, and articles of companies they are suing e.g. [17] minor?. Also this first anon [18] which is just a link to A M&M You Can Sue These Guys ad That strikes me as a new low for paid editing - law firms editing their court opponents' articles. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to opine on anyone's legal ethics on-wiki. However, the Arbitration Committee has repeatedly opined (including in decisions I've written) that "[a]n editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual." With modification the same general principle may be relevant here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I would rather need some help here,
Watkin Tudor Jones and here,
Yolandi Visser.
Allensbacher (
talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Particularly the
Watkin Tudor Jones article is constantly being redesigned by people obviously fascinated with their star [as indicated by their usernames (including codes such as
Zef, designation of the band's background sub-culture movement)].
Allensbacher (
talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, not sure what to do with this information other than to drop it here. This IP editor flagged three articles as having COI issues:
The IP claimed that Maria Goranova wrote all three articles, about herself and her colleagues. Editor Allensbacher echoed similar dissatisfaction here, here and [20]. Pinging Allensbacher in case they wish to express their objections here. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
One other note: The creator of these articles Mlgorano was indeffed in 2014 for copyright infringement, so I don't think pinging them or dropping a COIN notice on their talk page is useful. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
A majority of Tony Many's involve promoting Southbank Investment Research. The two websites listed above, that Tony Many is adding to many articles, are owned by Southbank Investment Research. 108.16.195.87 ( talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Pretty blatant self-publicising here. What should be done with these articles? Guy ( Help!) 14:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles concerning a Korean bank (KaKao Bank) have been popping up recently. The articles are all formatted along similar lines, with similar, promotion-filled sections (such as "Services" and "Advantages") appearing in all three incarnations of the article. A trio of editors have been involved in creating the article(s) in question, indicating to me this could be a case of either undisclosed paid editing, COI editing, or sock puppetry. It is also interesting to note that, per their edit histories, one of the three edits ( [21]) the sandbox of another. Requesting that we watch the subject to see if the article is created again. SamHolt6 ( talk) 05:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest in a long line of people who have showed up to promote this marketing software - used to send mass emails i.e. spam. I asked them about COI and they said no, but their behavior and "arguments" say something else. Just listing here to get more eyes. I do not think we will get a different answer from the person. Jytdog ( talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have engaged with the editor on their talkpage, User_talk:SMasters#World_Branding_Forum, and they state, "No, I have never, ever had any relationships of any kind with any of these people or companies, now or in the past." [the first four articles above] They also state, "For Bryan Loo, it is the same situation as the rest. I get Google alerts on branding stories and I sometimes think they are notable enough and work on them. I have seen the state of the current article and it is nothing like how I first drafted it a long time ago." In my reply, I noted, "As for Bryan Loo, you started it on 8 June 2014, and last edited it on 9 June. However, the article you created is much more promotional than the current version." That version can be seen here, Bryan Loo on 9 June 2014. This is a very experienced editor with an edit count over 50,000 (although they have edited little in recent years), yet many of the articles they have created seem to bear the classic hallmarks of COI/paid editing, especially if one looks at the article versions at the time of their last edits to them. The thoughts of other editors on this matter would be much appreciated. Edwardx ( talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Pinging a few people here who may be able to help: @ DGG, Smartse, TonyBallioni, and Smallbones:. I'm currently speaking with a researcher at a top Computer Science department who specializes in machine learning. He's potentially interested in developing a machine learning solution to identifying paid editors. In the past, he's researched sockpuppetry instead of paid editing because he lacks data on "confirmed" paid editors. Can you develop a list of substantial SPI cases or paid editing cases that included many accounts (say, more than five)? If I can get enough data together for him, the researcher may be able to help us out significantly in tracking and combating paid editing. Feel free to just add to the list below. ~ Rob13 Talk 20:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Started socking and never looked back. Caught my eye due to advocacy against circumcision. Has written effusively praising articles about how great he is, and all his friends too.
Jytdog (
talk) 22:14, 28 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.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
@ Melcous:@ NatGertler:: Hi, sorry for the trouble. Originally I thought this account Pdyusmep did not deserve a reply, but since now he/she has begun to attack User:NatGertler here and in User talk:Pdyusmep, I'd like to reveal what is really going on.
1) First of all, some brief history. Based on my preliminary review, account User:Pdyusmep is highly likely the resurgence of the blocked account User:RabidMelon, which was affiliated with Columbia University and controlled over 10 socket puppets. Account User:RabidMelon had been blocked indefinitely earlier this year (2017) by administrator "Bbb23", and what's more it was first blocked in 2010 (but was somehow unblocked in 2011). However, few months ago several New-York-based IP addresses such as 74.108.156.96 User_talk:74.108.156.96 appeared in Wikipedia, displaying almost identical editing behavior and language as that of User:RabidMelon. But the IP was again blocked for disruptive editing by administrator "Drmies". Now it comes this account User:Pdyusmep.
All these accounts and IP addresses are contributing/protecting the page of Columbia University [1], even though account User:Pdyusmep now pretends to be a Harvard graduate student (the User Page is just set up today). These accounts show protectionism of Columbia University Wiki-page and uses double standards while viewing other universities. Their standard tricks include Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, threatening, bluffing, disrupting, and consistent reverting of other editors' revisions. They appear offensive/aggressive, using insulting words sometimes, when talking to other editors whom he/she does not agree, for recent instances: User talk:Pdyusmep (see section "Your COIN comments"), User_talk:Ber31 (see section "Regarding IP '74.108.156.96'"), and on User_talk:MelanieN#Discoveries_and_Innovation_Section_on_Stanford.
2) Secondly, one of the socket puppets of User:RabidMelon was User:PrincetonNeuroscientist, who was protecting fiercely Columbia's Nobel laureate count when I first started to restructure the page List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Several unqualified affiliates were excluded from Columbia's count. From then on, User:RabidMelon together with its socket puppet accounts, including today's User:Pdyusmep, had been following my editing, making unreasonable reverting and reporting me from time to time. He/she could use whatever argument he/she thinks of to argue with you. Sorry for the trouble.
3) Thirdly, User:Pdyusmep and its related accounts/IPs has accused that IP 107.77.210.145 is my socket puppet. This is just his/her way of attacking/reporting me. Any administrator is welcomed to prove that I am completely unrelated to IP 107.77.210.145. The false accusations made by User:Pdyusmep are common in his/her editing. Minimumbias ( talk) 22:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
My actions with regard to this user's activity so far:
By the way, Wing Tai Properties Limited owns and manages Winsland House I. Edits to that page (and redirects to it) by A sun beam ( talk · contribs), Richardsng ( talk · contribs), and LPHM ( talk · contribs) suggest that there might be some sock puppetry involved as well.
I'll post a coin-notice on Mingwingko's talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 08:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Historical Mensch ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly engaged in disruptive COI editing at Ami (magazine) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mishpacha ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for examples. Some of those diff links show NatGertler trying to fix the problems. Both NatGertler and I have reverted and taken the matters to the talk page. Historical Mensch simply reverts and does not attempt to discuss. The editor has had multiple warnings on his talk page. And, as the last diff link shows, the editor was also recently reverted by Sir Joseph. The edit histories also indicate that this editor has been editing the articles as an IP. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This article was started by a WP:SPA, Vanrobert99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Virtually all substantive edits are by a series of IPs with no history other than this article and adding his books to other articles, e.g. 186.129.165.231 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 181.1.250.204 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 190.104.232.132 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The IPs geolocate to Argentina, where the subject lives.
Most of the references are to his own work, including books published via notorious academic vanity press( [2]) IGI Global.
I would like some support for at least aggressive cleanup if not outright deletion, please. Guy ( Help!) 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Lovingly crafted resume, mainly sourced to subject's own publications. Guy ( Help!) 22:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Found and blocked by NinjaRobotPirate and I. GAB gab 16:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This is in regards to OPNSense being included in the table for completeness. It is an active project, with unique code, and About 485,000 results (0.64 seconds) from Google. Several editors are prohibiting and have locked this page in an effort to censor this open source project from being included on this page and nearly every reference has justified removal as being non-notable. I believe this to be inaccurate and it is largely 3 editors that are prohibiting its inclusion. This in-spite of IPCop being included and being inactive and not updated in over 2 years, while OPNSense is an active project with the most recent update being less than a month old. Several references state that no article exists, yet one did exist and was fought and deleted by some of the following editors, again as non-notable
In the process of finding a firewall solution, I came to Wikipedia in addition to other sources. I was disappointed to learn that TechRadar [1] had an article including OPNSense as one of the 6 best firewalls of 2017, with similar articles elsewhere. [2] only to see it missing from Wikipedia. An article on Techradar with that title, one of the top 1500 worldwide sites and top 1000 in the US, should summarily define OPNSense as notable and end this long-term and unnecessary debate.
One note for removal stated "there is no consensus to add OPNSense, or indeed any entries without Wikipedia articles.", without noting that at one point a page did exist and was deleted as being non-notable. This is a vicious circle that defies the comprehensive compendium that is stated as part of Wikipedia's purpose.
I came across this when attempting to add OPNSense and found this dispute in progress. Over a dozen unique authors, likely more like myself, have attempted to add OPNSense to the table and, almost exclusively, a single editor with a likely COI and definitive bias is reverting them. This seems to have begun Jan 2015 and seems to be actively monitored for the addition of this singular item.
I am seeking restoration of the original OPNSense article, inclusion of OPNSense on this page, and to prevent censorship of a valid project from inclusion because of what I believe is a personal prejudice.
Accounts actively removing and fighting any addition of OPNSense into the table for neutrality and completeness are included only to simplify and expedite the review process:
ComputerRick ( talk) 03:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC) — ComputerRick ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
References
he is editing Malkawi article without reliable resources and it seems that there is an conflict of interest in his contributions because he tried to write it in many languages and were deleted. Please look at talk page. مصعب ( talk) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The Intercept reports in a December 1 story that Koch brothers have been employing a PR firm, New Media Strategies, owned by Meredith Corporation, to wikiwash articles related to themselves. Editors named in the investigation are listed above, include the MBMadmirer sockfarm (from 2011!). Fang alleged that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Fang, initiated by WWB/NMS Bill was retaliatory or something based on his former association with New Media Strategies. Personally, that seems a stretch, but I thought it should be discussed. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
For context, 167.246.61.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago. The following firms give that as their address: Arc, MSL Group, Leo Burnett Chicago, Starcom MediaVest Group, SMG Multicultural. 167.246.62.0/24 reports it belongs to Lion Resources 424 2nd Ave. W. Seattle. The following firms give that as their address: Publicis Seattle, Publicis Dialog, Optimedia, MSLGROUP, Razorfish (corroborated here). Most or all of the firms are Publicis subsidiaries.
I think there's a pretty significant problem in a lot of articles related to the firm Publicis and their subs. The accounts listed above are virtual 100% SPAs for the company. Some have edited pretty recently, others not so recently.
Requesting that an admin examine deleted revisions of The Legacy Lab based on this test edit. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, the Lion Resources IP address range 67.246.61.0 to 67.246.62.255 has been blocked for 3 years. The COI-declared accounts should still be able to edit when logged in. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Came by this on NPP, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring to COI (I am however a COI newbie). Antenoels is an account with less than 100 edits that is creating well fleshed articles (formatting, references, infoboxes, etc.) on non-notable subjects (to wit - two of which were recreations of deleted, per AFD, articles). Thepeacebone is a 9 edit user whose sole editing is editing an article (one day after) Antenoels created Alana Camille Bunte + added the article to Why Not Model Management and Laguna Beach High School. Antenoels created YapStone (a payment company, probably notable), Tom Villante (YapStone founder, probably not notable), did major work on David Rasnick to refactor so AIDs denial isn't the "main thing" diff, recreated Chinedu Echeruo (was AFDed to redirect, recreated - [7]), major work on Yahu Blackwell (created 30 days previously by user:Roland H Lester (a 16 edit account that created this, did some work Gary Lockett (another boxer) and in 2014 edited Restoration Hardware (to remove/tone down a scandal)), and re-created (deleted in April 2017 AfD) California Closets. Given the subject matter on the one hand, and the seemingly experienced editing on the other - I thought it appropriate to raise here. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Nygiants123 is a new account. I'd like to think that a new editor can learn how to use detailed edit summaries, provide well-formatted references, and work incredibly fast (making 10 substantial additions between 15:06 and 15:59 on 29 November 2017), but this looks more like an experienced editor. However, Nygiants123 has accidenly tagged most of these edits as minor, and has used poor sources all around.
I've reverted 9 of the 10 rapid additions , the exception of the one for Simon Sinek, as being poorly sourced, most overly promotional as well.
There seems to be more going on here. Those 10 rapid additions were to BLPs, many (most? all?) of which have had rather blatant COI editing problems. The subsequent edits are to recreate twice-deleted Joe Vitale (author) BLP, where Nygiants123 has apparently made sure that the new article is different than the previously deleted ones, which Nygiants123 was able to find copies external to Wikipedia.
This looks exactly what I'd expect from a paid editor, so I wanted it to at least be documented here. I'm wondering if someone recognizes this editing behavior as a possible sock? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Jordanyear23 actually returned to make this edit that is blantantly promotional on its own. I don't think an experienced editor would make such a mistake, so I'm guessing this is meatpuppetry. I suppose a SPI is the proper next step. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nygiants123 is back as well. (More to follow when I have time). -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Download has created or been involved in creation of the articles listed above. What brought me here specifically is his creation HUMAN Healthy Vending, a company whose founders went on to do SnackNation and that article was declared paid editing. It isn't beyond comprehension that they might have commissioned both articles, but one of them – the one by Download – was not declared paid.
Some of these are the kinds of companies desperate for good coverage on WP that have gotten editors in trouble before: ASEA, LLC is a multi-level marketing company; Pepperstone is a forex broker; Superfish was an about-to-go-broke Internet advertising company when created; Homejoy, ImLive.com, WebHostingBuzz, and Zady are e-commerce retail/media/service companies.
I'm assuming in good faith that he or she will be able to tell us about this. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Other editors ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't look promising. Took a harder look at some of Download's contributions that weren't full article creations. Found some stuff that looks like straightforward (ref)spam for stuff like Dream Night Limousine Service, Celebrity Cars Blog, Phoenix Appliance Repair, Mosaic Art Source, mosaicio.net (mosaicio.com), realestatelicense.com, binarytrading.com, yourlawyer.com and houseflipmentor.com.
At this time in light of everything here, I'm formally asking an admin to remove advanced permissions from Download, namely pending changes, autopatrolled and rollbacker. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
and Stephen Shih is definitely dodgy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I first encountered an article in a poor state of affairs, suffering from considerable lack of NPOV as caused by a COI editor. I embarked upon a large scale tidy to bring within wiki standards, mindful of excess content that was inappropriate, unencyclopaedic or unreferenced. I shared the rationale on the talk page at the time (Lacks sources for entire sections. The tone of language. The excessive linking to external sites. Overly detailed.) The subject immediately (within 8 hours) resisted the change and reverted. Another editor (AdventurousMe) agreed, and was challenged by the subject (What is your problem about this page? You seem to have a real agenda here which is quite puzzling.). There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that talk page and when I returned to it, I made swingeing cuts from this to this to bring it back to an acceptable standard. Yorkshades and Translated1 are the same person. Unsure why two accounts exist, but they both exclusively edit this account only, having first done so in 2008. They are linked as proven by this edit. I issued standard COI warnings on their talk page (using a template) and was given this response: How dare you accuse me of 'soapboxing', 'promotion' or 'advertising', none of which I have done on the page you mention. How dare you remove so much neutral information from the article too. There's a lot of inappropriateness in this person's behaviour, from 3RR, ignoring request upon request to address the COI policy, refusing to acknowledge NPOV and other key guidelines, whataboutisms and then issuing barely-veiled legal threats such as 'defamation by implication'. BJBeamish, the creator of the article, has weighed in with his opinion too (calling me a troll). Discussion on the talk page has and always will reach an impasse until intervention from another party. Rayman60 ( talk) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This article should have been deleted under WP:CSD#G5, it was created by a sock of a blocked or banned user. The edit history shows that much of the content is the result of an ill-tempered back and forth between the subject, who has not reacted at all to repeated requests to stop adding promotional content, and one other editor. The subject is contentious, and the edit history is a mess. Much of the grief seems to track back to a lawsuit initiated by the subject against critics of a paper he wrote (see [9]). That's more or less guaranteed to make you no friends in science, I guess.
I think the subject is notable, but the article needs a careful review because it is virtually impossible by now to establish which bits are promotional guff by the subject, what's left over from the original spamming sockpuppet, and what's actually good content that adequately reflects the dominant view independent of the subject. I wonder if I should start by stubbing it? Guy ( Help!) 08:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC).
I'm starting a discussion here based upon User talk:Gibmul#Paid editing, etc. and some comments made at User talk:Drmies#Possible paid editing at Yoshiki (musician). Gibmul is a new account who has stated on their user page that they are a newspaper journalist who occassionally does some paid editing. They have only stated on their user talk that they are being paid to update Yoshiki (musician), but have added {{ Connected contributor (paid)}} to Talk:Silent Siren, Talk:Alex Cubis, Draft talk:Ximble as well as some other userspace drafts they are currenlty working on. The account is only a month old, but so far pretty much every edit seems to be associated with paid editing.
Gibmul also stated in in the aforementioned "Paid editing, etc." thread that they are using the sandboxes as proof pages for others to assess and review. It's not clear, however, who these others are and no indication has been given in any of the "Paid declarations" regarding who Gibmul's employer or employers are. Then, there is this statement about being a working newspaper reporter and used to this type of thing which taken in combination with this major addition made to the "Silent Siren" article (without any apparent article talk page discussion) might actually indicate a lack of familiarity with WP:NOT.
So, I think the community should require Gibmul to clarify who their employer or employers are as well as to require that article talk pages be used per WP:COIADVICE and WP:COIREQ to propose any future major revisions to any article in which they are being paid to update. That way the content can be assessed on Wikipedia by other editors watching the article so that anything too PR-ish or otherwise not compliant with relevant policies and guidelines can be cleaned up as needed. I think it's important that some specific boundaries with respect to COI/PAID editing be established early on if Gibmul is going to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
KAI owns brands Kershaw, Shun, Zero Tolerance Knives. The work by this editor is unusually focused on those brands including many indications of promotion listed at WP:Identifying PR in the Zero Tolerance Knives article.
That article at least needs a thorough scrub for COI. I'm afraid if you take them out, you're left with items in basically a few listings in harwdware compendiums like Gun Digest Book of Tactical Gear.
Also: This appears to have been created as an AfC submission but I don't see any indications that it was approved as such. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, just wanted to start a discussion on a new finding. There's a PR firm for various creatives that lists themselves as representing Food Babe, Marc Eco, Tim Ferriss, Ryan Holiday, Tucker Max, and others since ~2012. The bulk of their business seems to be around printed works especially business related self-improvement. Putting 2 and 2 together leads to at least a few editors. Not ready to name the firm yet; pending discussion with trusted admins about limitations of WP:OUTING. ☆ Bri ( talk) 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Creator has added a link to his userpage which self-identifies as founder of the firm. I think he best thing to do is draftify Reedsy and let it go through AfC. ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: When you created the article did you not include in the edit summary that it was "copyedited" and preserved references from the old version? This implies that you used the old version for reference does it not? You must attribute such material. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have a company that will both create you a Wikipedia page after first creating the references required to support said page.
They go through AfD looking for customers. For those with OTRS details are here Ticket:2017120510013262 With respect to the quality of the references used in paid for articles this is not really surprising. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Admin Name: Facilius Inc
- Admin Organization:
- Admin Street: 801 Royals Accord, 14th road, Khar West
- Admin City: Mumbai
- Admin State/Province: Other
- Admin Postal Code: 400052
- Admin Country: IN
- Admin Phone: +91.9167102602
- Admin Phone Ext:
- Admin Fax:
- Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: info@applicationwrite.com
Registrant Name: Karishma Rawtani
, which is consistent with information
on the Facilius website as well as found
a comment by an ex-employee on a blog post which James linked to on
User:Doc James/Paid Editing Companies. Hopefully this helps.
Ben · Salvidrim!
✉ 22:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
interested in you article creation service" [ sic].... at least a few of the paid articles don't have talk page {{ connected contributor (paid)}} templates and definitely should. Mr RD's relationship with Karishma Rawtani was also discussed in February 2016 with Jytdog here: User talk:Mr RD/Archive 5#Conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
All edits promote either Whelan or Morra. I asked on the 4th if there was any relationship but there have been no edits since. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
(See also earlier discussion on this page)
WP:SPA is steadily reinserting resume-padding and WP:PEACOCK into this article after it was pruned back. Guy ( Help!) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Editor is a SPA who only edits articles related to The BMJ. Their very first edit was to request an edit on Talk:The BMJ so they are very aware that they have a COI and shouldn't be using Wikipedia to promote their organization and its members. They have created new articles at least one of which, Theodora Bloom, is a WP:COPYVIO. I warned them about COI editing but they continued editing Peter Ashman which they created. All of their edits are completely unreferenced and sometimes they actually delete referenced material to replace it with material pasted from elsewhere. GnomeSweetGnome ( talk) 15:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure if this is the right place to engage, but I need to know where to go from here. Firstly, I have added a COI statement to my own page and identified the pages for which it exists--doing so in the format you suggested. 2 editors here at BMJ have existing pages on Wikipedia which I would like to be able to make uncontentious amendments to. In addition, there are 2 further editors I would like to add to Wikipedia with a new page for each. At the same time, I would like to standardise the entries, making them briefer, and including less personal information, for instance. My completely innocuous edits to the 2 existing pages have been removed--I think because they were made by me, not because of any objection to the content. I have a DOI reference to add to the Peter Ashman page if it can be reinstated. I wish also to assure you that there is no copyright violation in the case of Theodora Bloom's entry. I had never seen the source you mentioned. Perhaps it is in the nature of biographical entries that two people's summary of the same career will be very similar. That said, I am of course happy to try and rewrite it to make it less like the source you quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAllen,TheBMJ ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
NYT corporate IP contribs include a long passage on how great their managing editor is, their new China website, also creating bios of other staff members. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I inquired yesterday as to this account's paid status and received no response. They joined in October and instantly started creating articles on organizations and BLPs that have UPE hallmarks. Bringing this here for review of the articles and also to determine whether a UPE/spam block is warranted.
Thanks to all for their thoughts and help. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Funny how an editor can go straight from asking newb questions at Teahouse to building an entire article about a reputation management firm in a single edit. And of course headshots of corp execs w/o licensing. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I didn't really want to do this, as the editor 204.110.0.1 appears to be cooperative, but I feel like this COI needs to be dealt with by the officials because I don't know much about the policies (they seem a little bit vague and ambiguous).
To the marketing editor, I have no vendetta against you or Kaleida. However, WP:COI mandates that editors connected to a subject disclose their interests, and then follow through on associated actions. Buffaboy talk 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor identifying herself as Meg Maheu has previously been promoting the punk band False Alarm along with associated musicians. Recently she began putting herself forward as a possible writer for The New Yorker and Rolling Stone. [12] (As if applying for the job via Wikipedia would ever work.)
A quick Google search shows Maheu is connected to the band. She is also posting online videos of bandmember interviews.
A week ago, Jauerback blocked one of the IPs, [13] Ferret blocked a couple of them, [14] [15] and Widr blocked another. [16] Rather than playing whack-a-mole, how about a rangeblock? I know that a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B157:E2D5:0:0:0:0/41 would have some collateral damage. Is the disruption from Maheu bad enough for that? Binksternet ( talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I try not to bring edit requests to this forum anymore but this is an unusual case. I opened an edit request for my client, MathWorks, four months ago to the day. It got partially implemented and the request was marked closed, but my replies and revisions were ignored. I reopened the request three months ago to try to get an answer to the remaining items, and the request was closed again today by an editor who briefly looked and believed it was answered already. That editor has now reopened the request, but it is back to the bottom of the queue, which typically means another 2+ months of waiting.
I understand that as a COI editor on Wikipedia, I am relying on the generosity of volunteer editors, and no one owes me their time. However, my client has been patiently waiting for a third of a year for a response to these fairly simple edit requests, and has been under significant internal pressure to make the edits directly despite my advising against it. I humbly ask that, if someone has a moment, they would please take a look at the outstanding items from the original request. The discussion and revisions are marked inline. I've also provided sources for a few items marked with cn tags in a reply on the same thread.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Mary Gaulke ( talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks Drm310 and Jytdog. Agreed we shouldn't discourage paid editors who actually are willing to play by the rules. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury law firm based in Florida, founded by John Morgan and his wife, United For Care is a marijuana legalization campaign in Florida founded supported and run by John M. The top anon ids to the M & M office and has been templated for COI by @ Deli nk: Various templates on all the articles or editors (some removed) as well as AfDs. Just guessing from the name, but Weedtruck might be motivated by an interest in United For Care, but is almost an SPA for the law firm, John Morgan and other lawyers or alumni or the firm, and articles of companies they are suing e.g. [17] minor?. Also this first anon [18] which is just a link to A M&M You Can Sue These Guys ad That strikes me as a new low for paid editing - law firms editing their court opponents' articles. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to opine on anyone's legal ethics on-wiki. However, the Arbitration Committee has repeatedly opined (including in decisions I've written) that "[a]n editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing the biographical article on that individual." With modification the same general principle may be relevant here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I would rather need some help here,
Watkin Tudor Jones and here,
Yolandi Visser.
Allensbacher (
talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Particularly the
Watkin Tudor Jones article is constantly being redesigned by people obviously fascinated with their star [as indicated by their usernames (including codes such as
Zef, designation of the band's background sub-culture movement)].
Allensbacher (
talk) 21:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, not sure what to do with this information other than to drop it here. This IP editor flagged three articles as having COI issues:
The IP claimed that Maria Goranova wrote all three articles, about herself and her colleagues. Editor Allensbacher echoed similar dissatisfaction here, here and [20]. Pinging Allensbacher in case they wish to express their objections here. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
One other note: The creator of these articles Mlgorano was indeffed in 2014 for copyright infringement, so I don't think pinging them or dropping a COIN notice on their talk page is useful. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
A majority of Tony Many's involve promoting Southbank Investment Research. The two websites listed above, that Tony Many is adding to many articles, are owned by Southbank Investment Research. 108.16.195.87 ( talk) 12:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Pretty blatant self-publicising here. What should be done with these articles? Guy ( Help!) 14:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles concerning a Korean bank (KaKao Bank) have been popping up recently. The articles are all formatted along similar lines, with similar, promotion-filled sections (such as "Services" and "Advantages") appearing in all three incarnations of the article. A trio of editors have been involved in creating the article(s) in question, indicating to me this could be a case of either undisclosed paid editing, COI editing, or sock puppetry. It is also interesting to note that, per their edit histories, one of the three edits ( [21]) the sandbox of another. Requesting that we watch the subject to see if the article is created again. SamHolt6 ( talk) 05:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest in a long line of people who have showed up to promote this marketing software - used to send mass emails i.e. spam. I asked them about COI and they said no, but their behavior and "arguments" say something else. Just listing here to get more eyes. I do not think we will get a different answer from the person. Jytdog ( talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I have engaged with the editor on their talkpage, User_talk:SMasters#World_Branding_Forum, and they state, "No, I have never, ever had any relationships of any kind with any of these people or companies, now or in the past." [the first four articles above] They also state, "For Bryan Loo, it is the same situation as the rest. I get Google alerts on branding stories and I sometimes think they are notable enough and work on them. I have seen the state of the current article and it is nothing like how I first drafted it a long time ago." In my reply, I noted, "As for Bryan Loo, you started it on 8 June 2014, and last edited it on 9 June. However, the article you created is much more promotional than the current version." That version can be seen here, Bryan Loo on 9 June 2014. This is a very experienced editor with an edit count over 50,000 (although they have edited little in recent years), yet many of the articles they have created seem to bear the classic hallmarks of COI/paid editing, especially if one looks at the article versions at the time of their last edits to them. The thoughts of other editors on this matter would be much appreciated. Edwardx ( talk) 13:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)