![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi all
I keep finding very obvious COI edits removing completely or vastly reducing criticism or controversy sections of articles (mainly people and companies) with innocuous edit summaries that get missed by other editors. I've started a discussion about if there could be any technical solutions to mitigating this on the Village pump here. This is just a notification, I'd really appreciate it if you go comment there so we can centralise the discussion.
John Cummings ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Those articles are being edited by an IP whose only edits are to them, The two articles are connected and the IP geolocates to Sacramento. Kevin Dewitt Always ping 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
SPA account created today, added a whole load of business info about Candaner. scope_creep ( talk) 01:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Mrs.write adds a deal of highly promotional text here with the edit summary "Updating info on Andrew Keen, on behalf of the subject, including new books, correct info, new reviews" clearly identifying COI. I posted a COI advice template to the user talk page but except for one small edit, the message is ignored. About 1 hour later User:Digitalmaven adds the same promotional text with no COI declaration on the user page here. However, User:Digitalmaven's user page redirects to User:Maven001. The history here shows that Digitalmaven was renamed Maven001 on 7 July 2016. It would therefore appear that Digitalmaven has signed back in to an abandoned and renamed account to undertake promotional (paid for?) work and is probably the same individual as Mrs.write. The additions have been reverted. Velella Velella Talk 08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
SPA has declared that they are a paid editor but have continued to edit promotionally in relation to their employer and other articles related to their employer. They have created eight drafts where they have a clear COI. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Editor claims to be the subject. Despite attempts to discuss and numerous warnings, he's taking WP:OWNERSHIP, first removing a recording several times because he didn't like his playing, now adding recordings that he's appeared on but don't seem to be notable; in effect, creating his resume here. This has already required multiple reversions by several editors. 73.159.24.89 ( talk) 02:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
User seems to represent or work for this development bank as their username has this bank's acronym in it("sidbi"). Has added an uncited description of this organzation's services to the article, it reads as if it came off their website(I searched and don't think it actually does). Has not responded to messages and simply reverted my removals(which I stopped doing) 331dot ( talk) 11:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
User Gwfm left a message on my talk page stating that he felt he is qualify to edit the article(I reverted an edit by him, as it was not consecutive) because he is the vice president of the museum. . Lakeside Out!- LakesideMiners Click Here To Talk To Me! 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to check the editing of Harvey Newquist II article by Wafflesandpancakes who recently removed COI tag added by me to this article. I noticed that the same author also edited Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II article, in turn, has images uploaded to Commons by this user as own work of Eddie Newquist. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article: Harry Potter: The Exhibition is linked, written by User:Carlydow, who links from her user page to the article, weirdly. I have never see that before. She worked on the Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II was created 4 days ago. scope_creep ( talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I note that Eddie is named in the template added in
this edit. But we only have Wafflesandpancakes' word for that, and even then they may have been dealing with an imposter. Is it right to name a third party in this manner?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
16:17, 16 February 2018 (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.
Nina Teicholz just had a big revision. For background, a sockfarm was recently active here; see COIN archive 117 and #Ratsama on this page. I was tempted to just revert to the prior, but it was tagged as needing more evidence of notability so instead I'm going to ask here if the new rev is an improvement, or just more advocacy editing. The editor, Leslieaun, is a declared paid editor (on their userpage). ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I see that jytdog has just reverted, so I guess my instinct was correct ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is a new probable coi editor insisting on adding very promotional content probably copyvio despite warnings and advice, have used up my 3 reverts, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Uoboman put in a link in the lede: <ref>http://uob.edu.om/AboutUOB/Profile.aspx</ref>, now removed. scope_creep ( talk) 17:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I received a message from the user by e-mail stating that he is employee at the university, and asking me for help since I was in The Welcome Committeemy in ar.Wiki and my signature was in the Newusermessage that he received when he register. he wrote "معك ممثل وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي عن جامعة البريمي، سلطنة عُمان. هل بالإمكان المساعدة في تعديل المحتوى في الرابط التالي" which translate to "I am representative from Al Buraimi University, Sultanate of Oman. I need your help to edit the content in the following link". -- Mojackjutaily ( talk) 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This user has created a lot of articles many of which do not appear to be typical UPE, but the ones I've listed here have some classic signs. I've not gone through the list exhaustively so there are likely to be more that need attention. SmartSE ( talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I am still unconvinced by the explanations above and the history of Lyle Howry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is also extremely suspicious. The subject is far from notable, and a version was G11d in 2016 (clearly the subject wanted an article). Since it was created by Ukpong1, 2 different groups of socks have edited it. All in all, I'm seeing way too many redflags. @ JzG and Doc James: what do you think? SmartSE ( talk) 13:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am a blogger and everyday i stumble on news articles concerning people or companies. Creating articles here is a big deal for me, and i would never risk for any amount of money or favor anyone has to offer the time which i have dedicated to Wikipedia and all what i have done for the past few months. However, this investigation will not hinder me in creating articles i will continue adding more articles until this is over. Zazzysa ( talk) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor made an edit to this article about a new regional political party. The edit summary was "From APO Comms info@ontario-alliance.ca". All of the IP's edits seem to be directly or indirectly related to this political party. There is a neutrality issue with some of the edits. I had previously left a notice for User:Humberland about possible COI issues but I do not know if they are related to this IP. Ironically, I'm only watching this article because of potential COI issues with a different user (who seems to be staying away from this article although they did edit an earlier draft). World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 05:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The party was founded in November 2017. It is so teeny, you can barely see it. scope_creep ( talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple accounts/IPs edit warring at this article, repeatedly removing COI and other cleanup tags. I have indef soft-blocked ECSDEV for the username violation and blocked the other two for 24 hours for the edit warring. Since I have taken administrative action here, it's best for me not to get involved in the editorial concerns. Could someone please have a look to check the article for notability and for promotional content. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Recent disputes have highlighted what seem to me to be a number of systemic issues which need to be addressed, probably in a holistic fashion. In no particular order:
There's an ongoing dispute about what constitutes justification for adding and removing {{ COI}} tags. We probably need to clarify this in template documentation and the COI guidelines. COI is important because it identifies the potential for subtle bias which may well not be apparent in a superficial review. My view, which I think is close to representative but I could be wrong, is this:
Underlying this we have:
My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentaiton for {{ COI}}. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue"
A COI tag lacking a (valid) explanation, on a BLP, does. That is one reason why the documentation of {{
COI}} states (formatting per original):
Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.
I have asked those who nonetheless think it acceptable to tag for COI without stating a justification to state under what circumstances such a justification is not possible, but had no sensible reply. Several times recently, my removal of {{ COI}} tags, citing that clause, has been reverted, with still no such discussion started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Guidance relating to mainspace banner tags such as {{ COI}} and {{ Undisclosed paid}}.
This template has evolved over time. We used to have {{ notable Wikipedian}} but not any more. The same template is used to cover:
I strongly believe that we need to fork this template into at least three:
In the end there should be a sort of traffic-light system. Doc James and Elonka are green: long-term Wikipedians for whom their article is a matter of only accidental interest. Sabbatini and Zogby, int he above examples, are amber: they may edit the article, in which case they's need advice to the contrary, but they may also pop up to flag issues with the article, and we should be on the lookout for cries for help. Red would be the legion of disclosed and undisclosed paid or COI editors: the PR drudges sent to buff up the article, the Mechanical Turks and the like.
My view is that we should for the template as outlined above and add the appropriate guidance to WP:COI and the relevant template documentation. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (WiR). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Editors adding or removing maintenance tags and the like should have clean hands. Guidance on adding and removing tags should counsel editors to default to talk page discussion if there could be any appearance of undue influence. You can be the most honest Wikipedian in the world, but if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person, and they ask you directly to remove a COI tag, and you do so, you risk your reputation and that of the project.
My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentation for {{ COI}}. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of programmes such as Wikipedia-in-residence, GLAM and so on, which can potentially place editors in a grey area for COI. These programmes are blessed at lest semi-officially and are an important part of Wikipedia's outreach. Guidance in this area appears immature and there is no systematic process for handling disputes between good faith editors with differing views on the issue. This has gone well in the past, but has also gone badly (e.g. Gibraltarpedia). Sponsored engagements are likely to fall under the marketing budget for sponsor organisations, and it is very apparent that marketing people can struggle to understand Wikipedia's views on what constitutes neutrality, independence of sources and the threshold of significance for inclusion. Their goals and ours are orthogonal, which puts sponsored engagement editors in a potentially difficult place requiring robust protections and .
Concerns I have seen include:
My view is that we should initiate a centralised discussion on managing sponsored engagements such as WIR, GLAM etc., potentially including class assignments, specifically around the grey areas and potential oversight and dispute resolution, to provide better clarity and protection for the reputation of all concerned. We could also potentially request support from the Foundation in the form of an independent ombudsman. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I find this whole discussion very dispiriting. It seems that this discussion is conflating controversies that have happened associated with people using the term "Wikipedian in Residence" [WiR] - all of which are circumstances where policies and warning templates already exist - with an inherent need to be wary of/warm against WiR projects in general.
The fact that the term WiR is not “accredited” by anyone - and therefore has been used in association with a wide variety of projects have taken many different forms (long/short term, paid/unpaid, professionals/students, article-writing/event-organising, fulltime/partime, oureach-focused/in-house training-focused...) - means that some activities by some people can end up being controversial - for COI or other reasons. But what’s important to remember is that calling yourself a WiR doesn’t bring any special rights or privileges on-wiki. It’s just a way of expressing a proactive, mutually-beneficial, relationship that the editor (and wikimedia) has with an institution (which is often but not always a publicly-funded GLAM). Any and all normal policies about paid editing, NPOV, and CoI all still apply regardless. There’s nothing inherently required to be warned about with WiR projects because the term can be used in many ways.
Some would see that flexibility/looseness as a flaw in the system: I see it as a strength. Rather than needing “permission” from a accreditation body, a Wikipedian can build a relationship with a GLAM that is contextually appropriate to their circumstances, and within all the normal norms of editing behaviour. It’s just a convenient term - both for the institution and for us - to explain that a relationship exists!
And by the way, I find the idea that WiR should be referred to as a "Sponsored engagement" to be very sad - If a museum wishes to build a proactive relationship with us, and there's an editor who wishes to take on that responsibility of being the bridge, this should be celebrated not warned-against. YES all of the usual rules about disclosure of payment, avoiding writing in mainspace about your employer, etc. still stand regardless
And finally: can we please stop with the assumption that all WiR are paid [they aren't, and I certainly wasn't]; and that "being paid" is the most likely/common criteria for whether one has a Conflict of Interest; and furthermore that "being paid" in general equates to being paid to make a specific edit/article on WP.
Witty
lama
13:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an awful lot to parse on a noticeboard not typically used for this. Is there a better approach than trying to discuss it here? - Bilby ( talk) 02:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Singhaniket255 created the article and Afrojack255 made significant edits to the article, and repeatedly removed the COI tag. The reliance on original research and personal pages ( [1], [2]), the addition of own-work personal information ( [3]), and addition of peackock terms ( [4]) and the interaction between User:Afrojack255 and User:Singhaniket255 show that they are closely associated with the topic and have to disclose their COI and preferably not edit biographical articles that relate to their COI. Bright☀ 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed Some references & grammer are not more significant and need to be changed.
Afrojack255 (
talk)
21:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
KSKM is the name of Lapsley's production company. The editor who uses that name varies between "I" and "we" while discussing the fact that they just want to tell the world about what "we" are doing ("we" in this context seems to mean Lapsley and his company). There is much whining about how Wikipedia shouldn't only be for famous people, but I don't know for certain whether that is (in their mind) a tacit admission of non-notability, or merely the usual assertion that 'all famous people write their own articles, so why can't I?'. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Feedvisor is looking for a Marketing Content Writer (NYC). Who is "a whiz at effectively editing Wikipedia or other MediaWiki sites, and you might know your way around HTML, too." Not sure if that's only referring to standalone MediaWiki deployments. — Dispenser 02:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for fun, and just in New York I checked out Zip for other Wikipedia writers-wanted ads. This one is the only serious potential problem I saw. The advertiser does have an article on Wikipedia that has a bushel of press release sources and 2 bushels of self-citations. Other cities may have more WP:COIN candidates. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently is able to use his talkpage to dispute deletions, but has chosen not to answer Jytdog's Feb 1 query about paid editing here. With their large number of quick article creations (about 40 more since Jytdog's unanswered question) and the accompanying large number of deletions posted on their talkpage, this appears disruptive. We also have apparent cut-paste moves from Pinar Yoldas to Pınar Yoldaş (now deleted) and Draft:Nina Teicholz to Nina Teicholz (now histmerged): more disruption. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So I won't put the link in here. If anybody wants 2 links about this please just e-mail me and I'll give them to you.
From a newsish article posted on google news with a South African .ZA address
"Sucuri has reported seeing several new infections of WordPress sites by Minr cryptocurrency-mining malware.
"Minr uses almost all the CPU power of a victim’s PC to mine Monero for the attackers.
"This follows a Wikipedia editor reviewing sources added to a Wikipedia entry which linked to a site infected with the malware at the start of February.
"Sucuri said it is seeing a variety of “creative approaches” by malware authors to infect websites with cryptocurrency mining scripts.
"Examples include CoinHive injections, hidden iframes within public repositories on GitHub, infections in Drupal and Magento, and the use of old infections to distribute mining malware."
There are a couple more paragraphs adverting Sucuri and linking to them. There is another link to our article Feminist views on transgender topics.
I find this quite confusing.
Any advice appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In 2016, User:TF92 posted a link on their userpage to what they called "My very own international relations project" which was to a site called "Visit North Korea". TF92 created an article for Visit North Korea which was deleted as advertising. Visit North Korea is apparently a franchise of Young Pioneer Tours, where TF92 added the link to his site. IP user 192.76.8.88 also recently added the same site as a reference to Tourism in North Korea. T. User:MickeyFinns has only ever edited Lupine Travel and Tourism in North Korea so they may also be connected. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 06:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion I am going to swiftly wrap it up by acknowledging the following:
Cheers- TF92 ( talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess this's a lesson for all COI-editors, spamming our articles.....But, I failed to realize what caused WLC to pursue him so hypera-ctively and dig his own grave! ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes made to my posting and the title of this thread by TF92. He has a conflict of interest, not the username TF92 or whatever username he adopts next. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
U B Prudent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began editing on 2 February. He/she has edited a significant number of articles, adding a significant amount of new content to each – mostly negative content on Iran and North Korea - which includes citations to at least one, and up to six, different articles on https://www.multifest.org/. Note in particular this edit, which changed Religious symbolism from a stub to a substantial (and somewhat strange) article, citing Multifest.org eight times and adding it as an external link. I have never heard of this site before, and googling it gives me no information on it. It appears to be a personal blog by a man calling himself Charles Black. Black's biography can be found on any of the Multifest pages, such as [https://www.multifest.org/religious-symbolism/2018/1/9/the-symbolism-of-fish this one]. He promotes his site as a "multi faith resource", but also expresses very strong opinions on Iran and North Korea (examples [https://www.multifest.org/communitynews/2018/1/2/the-incomplete-history-of-idiocy-in-iran here] and [https://www.multifest.org/communitynews/2018/1/16/north-korea-dreaming-a-guide-to-being-bling-in-the-land-of-starvation here]), which U B Prudent invariably cites in his edits as verifiable fact. After one of those edits was partly reverted, U B Prudent began a heated discussion at Talk:Kangwon Province (North Korea), accusing the editor who reverted him/her of bad faith. I asked U B Prudent straight out whether he/she had a connection with Charles Black or Multifest. In his/her answer, he/she did not say yes or no, but said, "the conflict of interest guidelines only prohibit people and organizations from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. There is no such restriction applied to an editor using his or herself as a source...So, you see, even if I was the founder owner and operator of Multi Fest, Osomite should have never deleted my edit." He/she then went on to say that if somebody suspected a COI, they had the option of airing their suspicion at COIN, so here I am. I believe that all of U B Prudent's edits since registration have been aimed at promoting Charles Black and his blog, rather than at improving the several articles. It looks for all the world like a COI. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:E407:181E:EFE0:D6A2 ( talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
One account and ip that have only edited CzechMate – In Search of Jiří Menzel and Shivendra Singh Dungarpur, who directed the film. Czechmate2018's ( talk) choice of username seems to imply a conflict of interest. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § ToU violation Guy ( Help!) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through and these are the articles needing a look over:
Not sure about a COI on these but they may not be notable.
SmartSE ( talk) 23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think all of the articles have been reviewed now. I am grateful to all the co-editors, seeing the work accomplished is very uplifting after this unpleasant episode. Ariadacapo ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Reference: Undisclosed paid editing by Highbrows Engineering and Technologies (COIN archive 117) and CU confirmed socking in 2012 at probably unrelated case.
Watch this space for new sockfarm → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
An hour or so of programming later, I have some more articles that are behaviorally similar in creation:
Creators listed at SPI:
I haven't been through these thoroughly, but at first glance they are quite likely to be created by other UPE socks. I pulled out a collection of the most obvious quackers and listed them at the SPI. Could someone please double check the rest? MER-C 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Above look like Highbrows' protocols and style (no further details due to BEANS). Not sure about the others. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This one is odd -- has had multiple editors, at least one of whom is in Highbrows sockfarm but also others that look dodgy. Can anybody else have a peek at this? ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Franklin Street Works "is a contemporary art exhibition space and café located in Stamford, Connecticut, featuring 'thought provoking... politically motivated' art." 220.144.184.239 ( talk) 18:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This report concerns more blatant conflict of interest violations stemming from the North Korean tourist industry. The discussion above about myself (which I have admitted to) generated greater scrutiny of articles on this topic, which lead to a number of promotional orientated North Korean tourism articles get nominated for deletion under notability guidelines (with all of them leaning undisputedly towards delete. The article Tongil Tours was subsequently nominated for deletion alongside the rest. However, an anonymous IP address has since attempted to unsuccessfully disrupt the debate and prevent the article from being deleted. This IP address has made no other edits
As per wikipedia policy I cannot name this individual in particular, however I know from substantial off-wiki information that the individual in question is the owner of this company. A quick trace of the IP addresses' location and Internet Service Provider reveals that it is based in Western Australia which is where the company owner lives, with of course Tongil tours being a self-professed Australian company. This information can all be found in the sources he has cited. Previously, the individual created the page under the username "Haksaeng Dongmu", which is reflective of his Korean language background as per stated in all the sources as to which he is keep adding about himself. His ultra-defensive posture concerning the article, combined with the fact he is familiar with me and involved users to the point he has been watching things over a long term basis [8] [9] show decisively he is not a random anonymous editor- Antonian Sapphire ( talk) 13:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a blatant conflict of interest here. Efforts should be stipulated to prevent the IP from interfering in the discussion and also from harassing me (which is a long term modus operandi of this person both on and off wiki)- Antonian Sapphire ( talk) 11:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added some information about BUITEMS land from our official website and about the undergraduate and graduate information from rules book of BUITEMS, I am an authorized employee of the institute and I am assigned the job to update the wikipage. The information I had added has been reverted to which I don't have any other reference. please don't revert my changes. Rabia Qadar ( talk) 08:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi all
I keep finding very obvious COI edits removing completely or vastly reducing criticism or controversy sections of articles (mainly people and companies) with innocuous edit summaries that get missed by other editors. I've started a discussion about if there could be any technical solutions to mitigating this on the Village pump here. This is just a notification, I'd really appreciate it if you go comment there so we can centralise the discussion.
John Cummings ( talk) 13:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Those articles are being edited by an IP whose only edits are to them, The two articles are connected and the IP geolocates to Sacramento. Kevin Dewitt Always ping 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
SPA account created today, added a whole load of business info about Candaner. scope_creep ( talk) 01:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Mrs.write adds a deal of highly promotional text here with the edit summary "Updating info on Andrew Keen, on behalf of the subject, including new books, correct info, new reviews" clearly identifying COI. I posted a COI advice template to the user talk page but except for one small edit, the message is ignored. About 1 hour later User:Digitalmaven adds the same promotional text with no COI declaration on the user page here. However, User:Digitalmaven's user page redirects to User:Maven001. The history here shows that Digitalmaven was renamed Maven001 on 7 July 2016. It would therefore appear that Digitalmaven has signed back in to an abandoned and renamed account to undertake promotional (paid for?) work and is probably the same individual as Mrs.write. The additions have been reverted. Velella Velella Talk 08:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
SPA has declared that they are a paid editor but have continued to edit promotionally in relation to their employer and other articles related to their employer. They have created eight drafts where they have a clear COI. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Editor claims to be the subject. Despite attempts to discuss and numerous warnings, he's taking WP:OWNERSHIP, first removing a recording several times because he didn't like his playing, now adding recordings that he's appeared on but don't seem to be notable; in effect, creating his resume here. This has already required multiple reversions by several editors. 73.159.24.89 ( talk) 02:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
User seems to represent or work for this development bank as their username has this bank's acronym in it("sidbi"). Has added an uncited description of this organzation's services to the article, it reads as if it came off their website(I searched and don't think it actually does). Has not responded to messages and simply reverted my removals(which I stopped doing) 331dot ( talk) 11:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
User Gwfm left a message on my talk page stating that he felt he is qualify to edit the article(I reverted an edit by him, as it was not consecutive) because he is the vice president of the museum. . Lakeside Out!- LakesideMiners Click Here To Talk To Me! 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to check the editing of Harvey Newquist II article by Wafflesandpancakes who recently removed COI tag added by me to this article. I noticed that the same author also edited Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II article, in turn, has images uploaded to Commons by this user as own work of Eddie Newquist. -- Bbarmadillo ( talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This article: Harry Potter: The Exhibition is linked, written by User:Carlydow, who links from her user page to the article, weirdly. I have never see that before. She worked on the Eddie Newquist article. Harvey Newquist II was created 4 days ago. scope_creep ( talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I note that Eddie is named in the template added in
this edit. But we only have Wafflesandpancakes' word for that, and even then they may have been dealing with an imposter. Is it right to name a third party in this manner?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
16:17, 16 February 2018 (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.
Nina Teicholz just had a big revision. For background, a sockfarm was recently active here; see COIN archive 117 and #Ratsama on this page. I was tempted to just revert to the prior, but it was tagged as needing more evidence of notability so instead I'm going to ask here if the new rev is an improvement, or just more advocacy editing. The editor, Leslieaun, is a declared paid editor (on their userpage). ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I see that jytdog has just reverted, so I guess my instinct was correct ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is a new probable coi editor insisting on adding very promotional content probably copyvio despite warnings and advice, have used up my 3 reverts, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Uoboman put in a link in the lede: <ref>http://uob.edu.om/AboutUOB/Profile.aspx</ref>, now removed. scope_creep ( talk) 17:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I received a message from the user by e-mail stating that he is employee at the university, and asking me for help since I was in The Welcome Committeemy in ar.Wiki and my signature was in the Newusermessage that he received when he register. he wrote "معك ممثل وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي عن جامعة البريمي، سلطنة عُمان. هل بالإمكان المساعدة في تعديل المحتوى في الرابط التالي" which translate to "I am representative from Al Buraimi University, Sultanate of Oman. I need your help to edit the content in the following link". -- Mojackjutaily ( talk) 22:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This user has created a lot of articles many of which do not appear to be typical UPE, but the ones I've listed here have some classic signs. I've not gone through the list exhaustively so there are likely to be more that need attention. SmartSE ( talk) 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I am still unconvinced by the explanations above and the history of Lyle Howry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is also extremely suspicious. The subject is far from notable, and a version was G11d in 2016 (clearly the subject wanted an article). Since it was created by Ukpong1, 2 different groups of socks have edited it. All in all, I'm seeing way too many redflags. @ JzG and Doc James: what do you think? SmartSE ( talk) 13:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am a blogger and everyday i stumble on news articles concerning people or companies. Creating articles here is a big deal for me, and i would never risk for any amount of money or favor anyone has to offer the time which i have dedicated to Wikipedia and all what i have done for the past few months. However, this investigation will not hinder me in creating articles i will continue adding more articles until this is over. Zazzysa ( talk) 00:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor made an edit to this article about a new regional political party. The edit summary was "From APO Comms info@ontario-alliance.ca". All of the IP's edits seem to be directly or indirectly related to this political party. There is a neutrality issue with some of the edits. I had previously left a notice for User:Humberland about possible COI issues but I do not know if they are related to this IP. Ironically, I'm only watching this article because of potential COI issues with a different user (who seems to be staying away from this article although they did edit an earlier draft). World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 05:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The party was founded in November 2017. It is so teeny, you can barely see it. scope_creep ( talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple accounts/IPs edit warring at this article, repeatedly removing COI and other cleanup tags. I have indef soft-blocked ECSDEV for the username violation and blocked the other two for 24 hours for the edit warring. Since I have taken administrative action here, it's best for me not to get involved in the editorial concerns. Could someone please have a look to check the article for notability and for promotional content. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Recent disputes have highlighted what seem to me to be a number of systemic issues which need to be addressed, probably in a holistic fashion. In no particular order:
There's an ongoing dispute about what constitutes justification for adding and removing {{ COI}} tags. We probably need to clarify this in template documentation and the COI guidelines. COI is important because it identifies the potential for subtle bias which may well not be apparent in a superficial review. My view, which I think is close to representative but I could be wrong, is this:
Underlying this we have:
My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentaiton for {{ COI}}. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
"A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue"
A COI tag lacking a (valid) explanation, on a BLP, does. That is one reason why the documentation of {{
COI}} states (formatting per original):
Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.
I have asked those who nonetheless think it acceptable to tag for COI without stating a justification to state under what circumstances such a justification is not possible, but had no sensible reply. Several times recently, my removal of {{ COI}} tags, citing that clause, has been reverted, with still no such discussion started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Guidance relating to mainspace banner tags such as {{ COI}} and {{ Undisclosed paid}}.
This template has evolved over time. We used to have {{ notable Wikipedian}} but not any more. The same template is used to cover:
I strongly believe that we need to fork this template into at least three:
In the end there should be a sort of traffic-light system. Doc James and Elonka are green: long-term Wikipedians for whom their article is a matter of only accidental interest. Sabbatini and Zogby, int he above examples, are amber: they may edit the article, in which case they's need advice to the contrary, but they may also pop up to flag issues with the article, and we should be on the lookout for cries for help. Red would be the legion of disclosed and undisclosed paid or COI editors: the PR drudges sent to buff up the article, the Mechanical Turks and the like.
My view is that we should for the template as outlined above and add the appropriate guidance to WP:COI and the relevant template documentation. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (WiR). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Editors adding or removing maintenance tags and the like should have clean hands. Guidance on adding and removing tags should counsel editors to default to talk page discussion if there could be any appearance of undue influence. You can be the most honest Wikipedian in the world, but if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person, and they ask you directly to remove a COI tag, and you do so, you risk your reputation and that of the project.
My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentation for {{ COI}}. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of programmes such as Wikipedia-in-residence, GLAM and so on, which can potentially place editors in a grey area for COI. These programmes are blessed at lest semi-officially and are an important part of Wikipedia's outreach. Guidance in this area appears immature and there is no systematic process for handling disputes between good faith editors with differing views on the issue. This has gone well in the past, but has also gone badly (e.g. Gibraltarpedia). Sponsored engagements are likely to fall under the marketing budget for sponsor organisations, and it is very apparent that marketing people can struggle to understand Wikipedia's views on what constitutes neutrality, independence of sources and the threshold of significance for inclusion. Their goals and ours are orthogonal, which puts sponsored engagement editors in a potentially difficult place requiring robust protections and .
Concerns I have seen include:
My view is that we should initiate a centralised discussion on managing sponsored engagements such as WIR, GLAM etc., potentially including class assignments, specifically around the grey areas and potential oversight and dispute resolution, to provide better clarity and protection for the reputation of all concerned. We could also potentially request support from the Foundation in the form of an independent ombudsman. Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I find this whole discussion very dispiriting. It seems that this discussion is conflating controversies that have happened associated with people using the term "Wikipedian in Residence" [WiR] - all of which are circumstances where policies and warning templates already exist - with an inherent need to be wary of/warm against WiR projects in general.
The fact that the term WiR is not “accredited” by anyone - and therefore has been used in association with a wide variety of projects have taken many different forms (long/short term, paid/unpaid, professionals/students, article-writing/event-organising, fulltime/partime, oureach-focused/in-house training-focused...) - means that some activities by some people can end up being controversial - for COI or other reasons. But what’s important to remember is that calling yourself a WiR doesn’t bring any special rights or privileges on-wiki. It’s just a way of expressing a proactive, mutually-beneficial, relationship that the editor (and wikimedia) has with an institution (which is often but not always a publicly-funded GLAM). Any and all normal policies about paid editing, NPOV, and CoI all still apply regardless. There’s nothing inherently required to be warned about with WiR projects because the term can be used in many ways.
Some would see that flexibility/looseness as a flaw in the system: I see it as a strength. Rather than needing “permission” from a accreditation body, a Wikipedian can build a relationship with a GLAM that is contextually appropriate to their circumstances, and within all the normal norms of editing behaviour. It’s just a convenient term - both for the institution and for us - to explain that a relationship exists!
And by the way, I find the idea that WiR should be referred to as a "Sponsored engagement" to be very sad - If a museum wishes to build a proactive relationship with us, and there's an editor who wishes to take on that responsibility of being the bridge, this should be celebrated not warned-against. YES all of the usual rules about disclosure of payment, avoiding writing in mainspace about your employer, etc. still stand regardless
And finally: can we please stop with the assumption that all WiR are paid [they aren't, and I certainly wasn't]; and that "being paid" is the most likely/common criteria for whether one has a Conflict of Interest; and furthermore that "being paid" in general equates to being paid to make a specific edit/article on WP.
Witty
lama
13:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an awful lot to parse on a noticeboard not typically used for this. Is there a better approach than trying to discuss it here? - Bilby ( talk) 02:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Singhaniket255 created the article and Afrojack255 made significant edits to the article, and repeatedly removed the COI tag. The reliance on original research and personal pages ( [1], [2]), the addition of own-work personal information ( [3]), and addition of peackock terms ( [4]) and the interaction between User:Afrojack255 and User:Singhaniket255 show that they are closely associated with the topic and have to disclose their COI and preferably not edit biographical articles that relate to their COI. Bright☀ 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed Some references & grammer are not more significant and need to be changed.
Afrojack255 (
talk)
21:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
KSKM is the name of Lapsley's production company. The editor who uses that name varies between "I" and "we" while discussing the fact that they just want to tell the world about what "we" are doing ("we" in this context seems to mean Lapsley and his company). There is much whining about how Wikipedia shouldn't only be for famous people, but I don't know for certain whether that is (in their mind) a tacit admission of non-notability, or merely the usual assertion that 'all famous people write their own articles, so why can't I?'. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Feedvisor is looking for a Marketing Content Writer (NYC). Who is "a whiz at effectively editing Wikipedia or other MediaWiki sites, and you might know your way around HTML, too." Not sure if that's only referring to standalone MediaWiki deployments. — Dispenser 02:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for fun, and just in New York I checked out Zip for other Wikipedia writers-wanted ads. This one is the only serious potential problem I saw. The advertiser does have an article on Wikipedia that has a bushel of press release sources and 2 bushels of self-citations. Other cities may have more WP:COIN candidates. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently is able to use his talkpage to dispute deletions, but has chosen not to answer Jytdog's Feb 1 query about paid editing here. With their large number of quick article creations (about 40 more since Jytdog's unanswered question) and the accompanying large number of deletions posted on their talkpage, this appears disruptive. We also have apparent cut-paste moves from Pinar Yoldas to Pınar Yoldaş (now deleted) and Draft:Nina Teicholz to Nina Teicholz (now histmerged): more disruption. ☆ Bri ( talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So I won't put the link in here. If anybody wants 2 links about this please just e-mail me and I'll give them to you.
From a newsish article posted on google news with a South African .ZA address
"Sucuri has reported seeing several new infections of WordPress sites by Minr cryptocurrency-mining malware.
"Minr uses almost all the CPU power of a victim’s PC to mine Monero for the attackers.
"This follows a Wikipedia editor reviewing sources added to a Wikipedia entry which linked to a site infected with the malware at the start of February.
"Sucuri said it is seeing a variety of “creative approaches” by malware authors to infect websites with cryptocurrency mining scripts.
"Examples include CoinHive injections, hidden iframes within public repositories on GitHub, infections in Drupal and Magento, and the use of old infections to distribute mining malware."
There are a couple more paragraphs adverting Sucuri and linking to them. There is another link to our article Feminist views on transgender topics.
I find this quite confusing.
Any advice appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In 2016, User:TF92 posted a link on their userpage to what they called "My very own international relations project" which was to a site called "Visit North Korea". TF92 created an article for Visit North Korea which was deleted as advertising. Visit North Korea is apparently a franchise of Young Pioneer Tours, where TF92 added the link to his site. IP user 192.76.8.88 also recently added the same site as a reference to Tourism in North Korea. T. User:MickeyFinns has only ever edited Lupine Travel and Tourism in North Korea so they may also be connected. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 06:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion I am going to swiftly wrap it up by acknowledging the following:
Cheers- TF92 ( talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess this's a lesson for all COI-editors, spamming our articles.....But, I failed to realize what caused WLC to pursue him so hypera-ctively and dig his own grave! ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes made to my posting and the title of this thread by TF92. He has a conflict of interest, not the username TF92 or whatever username he adopts next. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
U B Prudent ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began editing on 2 February. He/she has edited a significant number of articles, adding a significant amount of new content to each – mostly negative content on Iran and North Korea - which includes citations to at least one, and up to six, different articles on https://www.multifest.org/. Note in particular this edit, which changed Religious symbolism from a stub to a substantial (and somewhat strange) article, citing Multifest.org eight times and adding it as an external link. I have never heard of this site before, and googling it gives me no information on it. It appears to be a personal blog by a man calling himself Charles Black. Black's biography can be found on any of the Multifest pages, such as [https://www.multifest.org/religious-symbolism/2018/1/9/the-symbolism-of-fish this one]. He promotes his site as a "multi faith resource", but also expresses very strong opinions on Iran and North Korea (examples [https://www.multifest.org/communitynews/2018/1/2/the-incomplete-history-of-idiocy-in-iran here] and [https://www.multifest.org/communitynews/2018/1/16/north-korea-dreaming-a-guide-to-being-bling-in-the-land-of-starvation here]), which U B Prudent invariably cites in his edits as verifiable fact. After one of those edits was partly reverted, U B Prudent began a heated discussion at Talk:Kangwon Province (North Korea), accusing the editor who reverted him/her of bad faith. I asked U B Prudent straight out whether he/she had a connection with Charles Black or Multifest. In his/her answer, he/she did not say yes or no, but said, "the conflict of interest guidelines only prohibit people and organizations from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. There is no such restriction applied to an editor using his or herself as a source...So, you see, even if I was the founder owner and operator of Multi Fest, Osomite should have never deleted my edit." He/she then went on to say that if somebody suspected a COI, they had the option of airing their suspicion at COIN, so here I am. I believe that all of U B Prudent's edits since registration have been aimed at promoting Charles Black and his blog, rather than at improving the several articles. It looks for all the world like a COI. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:E407:181E:EFE0:D6A2 ( talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
One account and ip that have only edited CzechMate – In Search of Jiří Menzel and Shivendra Singh Dungarpur, who directed the film. Czechmate2018's ( talk) choice of username seems to imply a conflict of interest. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § ToU violation Guy ( Help!) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I've gone through and these are the articles needing a look over:
Not sure about a COI on these but they may not be notable.
SmartSE ( talk) 23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I think all of the articles have been reviewed now. I am grateful to all the co-editors, seeing the work accomplished is very uplifting after this unpleasant episode. Ariadacapo ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Reference: Undisclosed paid editing by Highbrows Engineering and Technologies (COIN archive 117) and CU confirmed socking in 2012 at probably unrelated case.
Watch this space for new sockfarm → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
An hour or so of programming later, I have some more articles that are behaviorally similar in creation:
Creators listed at SPI:
I haven't been through these thoroughly, but at first glance they are quite likely to be created by other UPE socks. I pulled out a collection of the most obvious quackers and listed them at the SPI. Could someone please double check the rest? MER-C 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Above look like Highbrows' protocols and style (no further details due to BEANS). Not sure about the others. ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This one is odd -- has had multiple editors, at least one of whom is in Highbrows sockfarm but also others that look dodgy. Can anybody else have a peek at this? ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Franklin Street Works "is a contemporary art exhibition space and café located in Stamford, Connecticut, featuring 'thought provoking... politically motivated' art." 220.144.184.239 ( talk) 18:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This report concerns more blatant conflict of interest violations stemming from the North Korean tourist industry. The discussion above about myself (which I have admitted to) generated greater scrutiny of articles on this topic, which lead to a number of promotional orientated North Korean tourism articles get nominated for deletion under notability guidelines (with all of them leaning undisputedly towards delete. The article Tongil Tours was subsequently nominated for deletion alongside the rest. However, an anonymous IP address has since attempted to unsuccessfully disrupt the debate and prevent the article from being deleted. This IP address has made no other edits
As per wikipedia policy I cannot name this individual in particular, however I know from substantial off-wiki information that the individual in question is the owner of this company. A quick trace of the IP addresses' location and Internet Service Provider reveals that it is based in Western Australia which is where the company owner lives, with of course Tongil tours being a self-professed Australian company. This information can all be found in the sources he has cited. Previously, the individual created the page under the username "Haksaeng Dongmu", which is reflective of his Korean language background as per stated in all the sources as to which he is keep adding about himself. His ultra-defensive posture concerning the article, combined with the fact he is familiar with me and involved users to the point he has been watching things over a long term basis [8] [9] show decisively he is not a random anonymous editor- Antonian Sapphire ( talk) 13:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a blatant conflict of interest here. Efforts should be stipulated to prevent the IP from interfering in the discussion and also from harassing me (which is a long term modus operandi of this person both on and off wiki)- Antonian Sapphire ( talk) 11:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added some information about BUITEMS land from our official website and about the undergraduate and graduate information from rules book of BUITEMS, I am an authorized employee of the institute and I am assigned the job to update the wikipage. The information I had added has been reverted to which I don't have any other reference. please don't revert my changes. Rabia Qadar ( talk) 08:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)