This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Resolved Puppeteer and puppets are gone. Graywalls ( talk) 01:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems like most of Fekner related contents are added by the subject or those related to him through the accounts Daniellasuttoni and Incantation. The activity on those accounts are almost entirely limited to editing the John Fekner article and Fekner's Idioblast album. When they were editing other articles, they're usually related to category spamming with Fekner related contents or Fekner authored photos. example 1, example 2, example 3 Graywalls ( talk) 09:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Fekner seems to say they are the article's subject here, offering to revoke donation of images they uploaded (see File:Fekqueens.jpg & File:FEKMYADwiki.jpg "John Fekner (c) 1980"). Bri.public ( talk) 22:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Everything that I donated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for over a decade was done with the best intentions and free for anyone to use. I worked with numerous editors, Wikipedia authority control for over a decade, Recently, both ThatMontrealIP& Graywalls removed text, research and all the images from the john fekner page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This was the letter that was sent to: ThatMontrealIP For the past thirteen years I've made numerous contribution of images to Wikimedia Commons for free use to everyone using Wikipedia as a resource. As a supporter of Wikipedia, I've made yearly donations. I've worked with Wikipedia editors on both the John Fekner /info/en/?search=John_Fekner and John Fekner City Squad Idioblast /info/en/?search=Idioblast_(album)
Now, I see all the major vicious editing of text and removing of images that both ThatMontrealIPand Graywalls Graywallshave done. It's sad, disheartening, discouraging to power of Wikipedia philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the Huff-Po article and paid editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing. Another was started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing? after-the-fact but now points to the AN discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't like to use external source, but the user keen on maintaining the list of sponsored teams in the sport wear articles to include "current" teams only (removing the expired sponsorship without really providing any reason) and without disclosing his source to verify . Googling his name "Alessio Pasquinelli" in linkedin shown his past position as "SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT", "SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER" and current position as "Pasquinelli Work Advertising". Matthew hk ( talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This is from an ancient SPI from 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West/Archive that was never cleaned up after. I found it today via this post on r/wikipedia (reddit). Most of these articles are films that Scott Shaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had an involvement in that do not appear to meet WP:NFILM. I haven't been able to determine whether Shaw meets WP:CREATIVE.
I'm also concerned that Chinanski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a still-active sock of the same master. The account was created at a similar time and has edited many of the same articles: [1]. SmartSE ( talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User’s only edits were first acquiring Wikipedia experience, then on CCS Group. Now that CCS Group has been acquired by GPV International, their edits are intended to create an article about GPV International. My inquiry about conflict of interest was not answered, but the following inquiry on my talk page is written in the first person plural and is typical of corporate editing: s://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=89 Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/891222663. - Bri.public ( talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a person named Leo Stocco, who is apparently the CTO and Founder of Orbitless_drives, he is also an author of some of the papers mentioned as sources in the article. Now The problem is in the user page of the wiki user, please have a look. Daiyusha ( talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article has completely rewritten it in a non-neutral way. Reverted with explanation and reinstated : Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm requesting independent review of this BLP article, which contains a great deal of apparently unsourced information.
The three SPA editors are all inactive. Together, they've written 90% of the current content. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think User:Blipblip88 is Mathieu himself.
In Aug 2018 Mathieu sanitizes his page under his own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mathieu_Chantelois&type=revision&diff=853283903&oldid=845679634
It's reverted, for COI reasons. Almost immediately after, and then continuously, we see edits from User:Blipblip88 doing nothing but positive edits.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mathieu_Chantelois.jpg is a selfie, uploaded by Blipblip88.
All of his edits are on Mathieu's article. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Blipblip88
Exilewhat ( talk) 03:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Bonzofreak is a single-purpose account, with all 12 years of his edits closely connected to the rock drummer Jonathan Mover. The problem here is that Bonzofreak has been repeatedly adding promotional stuff to the Mover biography, especially stuff about Mover's minor business ventures, about which nothing has been written in the press. [2] [3] [4] Peacock wording is frequently inserted, such as "fantastic bassist" [5] and "drummer extraordinaire". [6] Bonzofreak has been warned repeatedly against such promotion but has never used a talk page, and has never communicated with other editors. Recently he has engaged in a slow motion edit war to keep promotional text in the Mover biography, reverted by myself and Rodericksilly. Something needs to be done to get his attention and stop the disruption. Binksternet ( talk) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I could nominate it for AfD, but there's a concern with the number of obvious company associated accounts used. Significant amount of contents as it remains now originated from the account PNWStaff and the other three are basically single purpose accounts. CLMurphy1 describes himself as an event promoter and the name he provided himself comes back as management staff for the org. Debraporta comes up as executive director in Google. Please see article talk page for details. Following the duck quack I can reasonably suspect Mel45's exclusive participation on this article indicates it too is a related editor. How should it go forward? Graywalls ( talk) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Etherweave is a business offering "services include marketing strategy, Web design and development, copywriting, editorial services, integrated e-mail campaigns and a range of other services" [7]. All of the authors listed above are or were clients of theirs. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor who is currently engaged with editing expressed discontent with the COI tag remaining on the page and wants it gone and he's asking what contents should be changed for the tag to go away. I'm uncertain about the accepted norm here regarding how long they should remain on. I expressed my view that my concern isn't necessarily the sourcing. My concern is that since the article was built from the ground up by someone likely acting on behalf of the organization likely with substantial input and possibly under the direction and supervision of the organization, the outline of categories and contents on which contents are expanded upon may contain deeply entrenched bias that tends to define what contents to include and not include. A comment was inserted by yet another IP editor relating to unionization. This content was removed by an account which I have a good reason to believe it is related to the organization. That account has only been used for edits relating to this organization and the edit summary for removing unionization was that it's "inaccurate". This occurred within the last 6 months. I have researched the contents that was removed and the information appears to be accurate. I believe that current COI still exists after observing that edit on the union matter that seems to indicate PR engagement by organization to manage contents about the organization. I think resolving it is a little more than complicated than simply improving contents. As long as the outline of the original apge creation remains, there's likely an implicit bias that moderates what contents get built up or contents remaining that would not have been entered without any input from involved editors. The COI concern will remain as long as organization continues to monitor and actively engage in contents management. Graywalls ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
As it appears on his talk page: Graywalls ( talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Drm310. Sorry, I'm not sure if I am replying to this correctly. I have not been compensated in any way for the edits I made to the Outside In page nor was I directed to do so by the organization. Thanks. Jay
Despite Orangelioncat has declared conflicts of interests that they are associated with Geng Long Hsu, Orangelioncat has been inserting links to Geng Long Hsu's article on the Encyclopedia of Reproduction into on assertions that are not supported by the sources at all. For example, "Vascular Surgery for Erectile Dysfunction" is cited in Venous leak three times yet none of the assertions can be supported by it. Considering that Orangelioncat has prominently mentioned Hsu's contribution that does not exist in the source (e.g. [8], [9]), I found it difficult to believe that those edits are to "disseminate the verifiable knowledge". Mys_721tx ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The COI has also been noted by User:Flyer22 Reborn in January. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as stated in my conversation with Flyer22 Reborn, I respect the consensus and rules in the Wiki community. It's my pleasure to engage in this discussion. On my part, the extent of COI, although minor, is present, and it's stated at the beginning.
Here, I do try to use as many secondary sources as possible, and that's why the Encyclopedia of Reproduction is applied. Otherwise, there are indeed some news articles that can be used, but some of them need to be translated. The aim is definitely not to spam these articles. Those references, directly or indirectly, serve as support to the statements. In examination over the comments made here, I would re-visit and modify in accordance with what's considered appropriate.
In regard to the questioning over the belief to distribute "verifiable knowledge," I wish to talk a bit more about the images themselves that were used. Of course, I also make edits on other topics, but with respect to GL and penile anatomy, the verifiable knowledge is the presence of more than the DDV between the Buck's and the tunica albuginea, and the elaboration of the 3-D structure of the tunica albuginea.
The associated diagram was published long before the Encyclopedia of Reproduction, although a version of it was shared with the publisher. The right to the images is released by the right-holder to the Wiki Commons, not any other third-party.
Flyer22 Reborn stated prior to my involvement in the project that there's a lack of information on the male reproductive system, and I am glad to have made some contribution.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed some images uploaded by User:Genglonghsu are marked for deletion. For right issue with respect to the images, consider this:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2164/jandrol.109.008532 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289991483_Penile_venous_surgery_for_treating_erectile_dysfunction_Past_present_and_future_perspectives_with_regard_to_new_insights_in_venous_anatomy
Four years ago, the right to a similar version of the image was already released under CC, and even prior to that, the original creator of the image gave permission for publication in a journal. Mys_721tx, anatomical knowledge is verifiable.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 09:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay so we are looking at this edit by User:Orangelioncat. [10]
They cited this source to support the following text:
"Common complaints include a chronic soft erection insufficient for sexual intercourse, position-dependent erectile rigidity, difficulty achieving erections, difficulty maintaining erections without constant manual stimulation, loss of penile length and girth, and a soft glans of the penis during erection that is not fully engorged."
Orange can you provide below the exact text within the publication that you feel supports this? Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, Doc James, Mys_721tx,
I receive no financial or academic benefit from doing all these. Since my first edit's (which was one or two months ago, the issue of COI was already concluded), my edits were reactive in regard to the penile articles and GL. The GL page was inserted with an orphan tag, then considering your comment on the In-Text attribution, I then applied that policy to the article, by making links to that page. Also, the med ref box stated that more reference was needed. Then, I tried to put the the references (although some of them turned out to be inaccurate). Not just GL, I have also made citation on Culley C Carson's prosthesis article.
I will stop my editing on the penile articles for now, but I do demand fairness and respect, especially to those (including myself) new to Wikipedia editing. And Flyer22 Reborn: yes, your in-text attribution came from the issue of the "os analog." Albeit that it really just refers to the hard structure inside the glans, and which contributes to the rigidity and shape of an erect penis. It's not a theory but just a fact. If, like many other literature states, penile erection only relies on only the erectile tissue, sexual intercourse would not have been achieved so easily - the pointed and relatively hard structure/ the end of the distal ligament is important, and that has a great resemblance to the os penis (found in most other species but not us). Why make the conveyance of such a concept so difficult? Putting this consensus thing aside, Flyer22 Reborn, I am contributing to the content in this area, and a lack of that was supposed to be an issue to resolve?
Of the copy-right issue, I am aware that GL has declared on his website that all those images are licensed under CC. Just scroll down to the the very end of the page: [12].
As far as I know, the concept of the erection-related veins was first reported in a world meeting in Japan, and it's done by GL. The identification of those veins was mentioned in an Asian journal that no longer existed (called the New Taipei something), but that journal did not have all those detailed diagrams from GL's website. Also, the corresponding author knew little about the research, and became that because of his position in the institute; which is really not the point here. There was even fabrication on the date of reception.
I do not know if GL and others signed the right-release agreement to that ghost publisher. It's gone now anyway, so who does the right to that knowledge belong? If one can sort this out, I'm sure it'd be easier to know where to ask for permission if we are to disseminate this knowledge. If Hsu Androlgy can put all those images on their website and claims that their rights are released under CC, perhaps they already had it sorted out? If there is any issue, should you not direct the question to them, but not to this meow meow.
The Andrology article is an outcome report on the surgery, but not the anatomical concept, and the later mentioned article is not the original article/speech on the anatomical concept, either. With the open access journal (and for many other journals now), right is not as strict a matter, as sharing can be done when permission is granted, or when significant modification is done on an image.
I will stay away on the penile matter and GL, but keep an eye on how things develop.
Thanks so much.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Please refer to [13] and [14]. This is a recreation of a salted article under a different name. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The user said they had a COI here. They were asked to formally disclose it here. The draft was rejected twice. And the article has now been created twice. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked up the organization giving out these awards, apparently its an anonymous organization that conducts anonymous polls and gives the awards,(stated on their site). There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites . The article was AfD'ed and deleted 3 years ago, the creator of the article or someone related to it was particularly angry about deleting it(mentioned in the afd discussion).
It might be helpful to treat this as possible spamming as well. In that regard, I'll list other editors that have added it as I help with cleanup. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, are "News18 Reel Movie Awards" and "Bollywood Film Journalists Awards" similar? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
To the ip: Please stop wasting our time with personal opinions and worse. Provide independent sources. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 03:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 ( talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here I asked the question "Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?" More input on that question would be welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Existing policy, including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COI are sufficient to handle disruptive editing in this topic(emphasis mine) - so, the closers explicitly accepted that COI policy is relevant in this topic area. They went on to remind editors that
any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.- so, COI may be a particular concern in this area. It is not the case that an acupuncturist will always have a COI with regards to all areas of acupuncture, but it is possible that they may have one in particular areas, and so should be cautious when editing about their field. It seems to me that the COI banner on the talk page is appropriate, in the light of the RfC closure.
"...if your livelihood depends on people trusting in the efficacy of anything, I can't see how you could avoid having a conflict of interest when writing about that efficacy": Of course there's a financial connection (much discussed in the RfC), and it tends to be stronger for alt-med, but is it strong/specific enough to create a COI on WP? Per the RfC it's got to come from something other than simply being a practitioner.
I noticed that the user Redwhiteandboujee was inserting the following (unsourced) sentence into a number of articles: "...works with Allen Blakemore to effectively plan and execute political strategy." See, for example, here and here. When I looked into the user's contribution history, I noticed they had created the article Allen Blakemore (political consultant). This looks like a probable case of self-promotion. Marquardtika ( talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
−
The article was a stub a few days ago when I created it. A very savvy editor with a new account showed up and added many, many refs (in one case they had ten refs in a row). And I just noticed that new savvy editors marks all edits as "m" for minor. Seems like obvious COI and/or UPE editing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The user's talk page calls Sami Yusuf "our artist", evidently the user is one of Yusuf's agents. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Two more of Yusuf's representatives have been added. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This editor has made a large amount of edits to the article in the past months, including adding excessive refs (one sentence has nearly 50). A connection seems likely. I have made no conclusions about the neutrality of the article, but 314 refs in such a short article is certainly suspicious. MB 05:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
These IPs have recently been making several edits to New Zealand and Pacific Island-related pages, mostly to add a reference to a single recently-published book. At first glance (not having read the book), the reference appears to be at least somewhat relevant, but it seems likely that the IP editors are closely associated with the book in some way - e.g., its author or publisher. I have left a note about this on each of the IPs' Talk pages, but they have not responded. Ross Finlayson ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
and... more
118.93.133.160 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
118.93.9.139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Graywalls (
talk)
09:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The username implies that the user works at Guru Studio. If that's true, this is a serious violation of WP:COI. The user edited the Guru Studio article for most times. The user also edited True and the Rainbow Kingdom article (the subject of which was produced by Guru Studio.) two times. The changes made by the user were already reverted. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 08:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the username and the fact this user has been primarly editing this article I suspect the account could be the subject herself. User has not responded to COI warning I placed on the user's talk page and continues editing. I have placed COI templates on article has the account has extensively edited it. funplussmart ( talk) 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Some context: Blues America is a radio series produced and hosted by Drew Verbis. The article Blues America was created on 15 April by User:OU133. It contained sentences such as "richly textured nonfiction narrative that delves deeply into the human experience" and loads of sources that supported very little of the article content. It was deleted yesterday, and just a few hours later, the article Drew Verbis was created by User:DrumSalad. This new article contains a section titled "Blues America" which is basically a copy/paste from the deleted article and loads of sources that support very little of the article content. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I have reason to suspect that Tertulius, a banned user who was the creator of all of the film articles listed above and has been a significant editor (although not the original creator) of the filmmaker's BLP, may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to these topics. The film articles are all basically advertisements rather than encyclopedia articles, and are referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable source media coverage — and the BLP is also referenced much more heavily to his own self-published content about himself rather than to reliable source coverage or analysis, and features significant passages of total flaming incoherence. ("In some way moved by the idea that explains one sentence of Marcel Mauss, a well-known French sociologist and anthropologist, ("There is more poetry in a grain of reality than in the brain of a poet"), certain Portuguese film-makers, especially after the Carnation Revolution, traveled around their country, from one end to another, camera in hand. With state funds or in co-production with the national broadcast TV station, the RTP, some made "engaged films" (cinéma engagé, i.e. political cinema), but never with lack of charm. Others make films in which reality, as an expression of actual events, appears with that poetical charge, as Mauss refers. Films shot with low budgets but in full liberty. Films portraying reality, a genre to which all those productions fit, would last for a few years and would generate important or even remarkable works, some of which were forgotten.")
I can also provide additional evidence — but I want to be careful about the outing rule, so I'll provide it separately and/or privately if needed rather than addressing it directly here.
I can see a plausible basis for notability here, so I don't want to just rush the articles straight to AFD if somebody's willing to work on cleaning them up, but as things stand the articles are too heavily advertorialized, and not reliably sourced nearly well enough, to just ignore — they need to be addressed, and either fixed or deleted, fairly urgently. Bearcat ( talk) 08:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Amandadoyle543, previously known as Birchmierassociates, appears to be an undeclared paid editor. Her articles are pure PR for often non notable subjects. Some come with official photos complete with OTRS permission from the clients supplied by her. They appear ready made adverts bombarded with usually bad sources. They exaggerate minor aspects and are commonly full of info not supported by the sources. Above is just a random sample of her spam.
Some with pics, Amy Dean Hoff [21] [22]m, Hoax (band), Katherine Taylor [23], Richard Ludlow [24], Matthew Carl Earl [25]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Today, User:Jhrastafari moved Arjun Panesar from draft space. It was created on 1 April by User:ContributingWikiUser. It had been deleted in September 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Panesar. Yesterday, User:Jhrastafari created Diabetes Digital Media, the parent company of Diabetes.co.uk, which he created in March 2014. Arjun Panesar is a co-founder of both. Seems reasonable to infer that User:Jhrastafari and User:ContributingWikiUser are the same editor and that there is a conflict of interest. Edwardx ( talk) 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This user's only editing has been to add content from VentureBeat to other articles, usually written in a somewhat promotional style. Have reverted many of the recent additions, but they are extensive, and there may be other accounts involved. Edwardx ( talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
All of this user's edits have centered around a single researcher, and have included references (including a PhD thesis) to that individual. The two articles created by this editor may be original research as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
There's been a number of problematic VPN articles lately. The active AfD on PureVPN seems to be wobbling on whether what I'd consider rather routine reviews constitute good sources or not. If it survives it will definitely need cleanup. Maybe this is of concern for this noticeboard. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As background, please read the note I left on the talk page of Yana Peel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Yana is a friend who very keenly wishes that all proper procedure at Wikipedia be followed, and who is also keen to see some updates to her Wikipedia entry. Her page was tagged a few years ago with a conflict of interest editing tag - I don't have any direct knowledge of whether that was correct, but I think we can assume that it was correct at the time.
It is a common thing that someone edits Wikipedia with a COI, but more or less innocently just trying to help. Even in cases where the edits are a bit too promotional, I believe that this is also often (but not always) "innocent" in the sense that people are naturally prone to speak in a positive way about things they've achieved or done in their lives.
When something like this happens, the result is often an extended "punishment" (although nothing in Wikipedia should ever be punishment!) of a tag on the top of an article which languishes for years.
So here's my inquiry: what is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?
I'm well aware that there are persistently annoying people who exhaust our patience with repeated efforts to "puff" their entries. That's also an interesting case, but it's not the sort of case I'm asking about right now! I'm talking about nice people.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
"persistently annoying people"but not
"nice people". Such value judgments are subjective and suspect. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
People are allowed to have friends. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, thanks for asking the question here. It doesn't seem like you got a succinct reply. I think the answer is "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved...", from Template:COI#When to remove. That textbook answer does seem to be aligned with my experience of how things work. Hope this helps. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The matter of connected and paid editing seems more pervasive than I was expecting. When I discovered connected editing at Outside In (organization), I thought it was a relatively isolated issue. Then, I found the same issue at Pride Northwest involving executive staff editing the page. As I click around categories, pages for my area, pages for local papers referenced within articles and mostly from just poking around, more such issues surfaced. Special interest group and an alternative newspaper publisher Street_Roots was added by the account named with its own own; and that of the executive editor (who is identified within cited sources). Then, I've found edits to an article from an IP originating in the article's company that was helping themselves to the article and adding things into the project list; formatting the layout in the way they want it laid out. That is one of the largest privately held company in Oregon Hoffman Construction Company. Are we to simply neutralize things and let it go on as if nothing happened whenever it happens? On Street Roots, the talk page already had a "connected contributor" tag, but people don't really look there. This is a great example of delayed discovery. I added this template since after reviewing evidence present, I had good faith reason to suspect UDPE. The template was met with resistance from another editor within hours who wanted the article sanitized and wanted the "branding" gone yesterday. Is it the current best practice to just wipe off contentious contents and let the template come down immediately? There seems to be no deterrent to this behavior as promotional contents would stay until caught, and if caught, all they have to do would be remove the contents and any marking of such attempt just vanish into the thin air for all practice purposes as people don't generally bother go digging in the edit history. Graywalls ( talk) 09:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
"Leaving the tag makes the page seem less encyclopedic and more welcoming to COI editors in that we've created a placeholder for them"This is not true; your opinion is wrong. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Might need more eyes on this ... the creator seems to be intent on describing this person in ways consistent with WP:Identifying PR. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This article has existed for about ten years, initially in a poorly written and poorly sourced form that should never have survived basic new pages review. Several years later, however, the subject himself grabbed hold of the article and started trying to advertorialize the hell out of it, turning it very much more into an extension of his own self-published PR rather than a neutral or properly referenced encyclopedia article — and ever since then, the article's been subject to a constant tug of war between established Wikipedia editors trying to neutralize it and mostly anonymous IP numbers (but sometimes Floquirion, an SPA with no history of ever editing any other article but this) trying to readvertorialize it again. This has, most notably, included repeated attempts to add a dedicated "directory of quotations" section to highlight every Deep Thought by Jack Handy thing he ever said in an interview, which myself and other editors have continually reverted but which invariably comes back again in a new format weeks or months later. That's not the only kind of creeping advertorialism that's been happening here, but it is the most common recurring form.
In all this time, however, even the most neutral version of the article has never actually been well-sourced — it cites one deadlinked blog, one Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and the absolute bare minimum (i.e. two pieces) of genuine reliable source coverage necessary to argue that the requirement for "multiple reliable sources" has been passed since two is technically multiple. (GNG, of course, is not actually as simple as "keep anything that meets or exceeds two footnotes", but takes into account additional factors like depth and range and context, and can be flunked by an article with 50 footnotes if they all fail one or more of those tests.)
I'm reluctant to actually take it to AFD, however, as there are plausible notability claims being made in the article — they just aren't being sourced properly, and the article clearly needs to be reviewed and monitored for COI and neutrality issues. But after having been involved in this continual tug of war for almost 3.5 years, I'm tired of it and not dispassionate enough anymore to fix it myself. Is anybody else willing to take a stab at it, and/or take it to AFD if the COI issue is just too incurable? Bearcat ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll come back this evening and put more info here. There's an SPI that hasn't been quite closed yet. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional spammers:
MER-C 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Sockfarm still active. New drawer of socks was just CU confirmed. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Oluwatobi Oyinlola is back, courtesy of Dopedaniel. MER-C 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This article may benefit from a closer look from some of the editors here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Resolved Puppeteer and puppets are gone. Graywalls ( talk) 01:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems like most of Fekner related contents are added by the subject or those related to him through the accounts Daniellasuttoni and Incantation. The activity on those accounts are almost entirely limited to editing the John Fekner article and Fekner's Idioblast album. When they were editing other articles, they're usually related to category spamming with Fekner related contents or Fekner authored photos. example 1, example 2, example 3 Graywalls ( talk) 09:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Fekner seems to say they are the article's subject here, offering to revoke donation of images they uploaded (see File:Fekqueens.jpg & File:FEKMYADwiki.jpg "John Fekner (c) 1980"). Bri.public ( talk) 22:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Everything that I donated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for over a decade was done with the best intentions and free for anyone to use. I worked with numerous editors, Wikipedia authority control for over a decade, Recently, both ThatMontrealIP& Graywalls removed text, research and all the images from the john fekner page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This was the letter that was sent to: ThatMontrealIP For the past thirteen years I've made numerous contribution of images to Wikimedia Commons for free use to everyone using Wikipedia as a resource. As a supporter of Wikipedia, I've made yearly donations. I've worked with Wikipedia editors on both the John Fekner /info/en/?search=John_Fekner and John Fekner City Squad Idioblast /info/en/?search=Idioblast_(album)
Now, I see all the major vicious editing of text and removing of images that both ThatMontrealIPand Graywalls Graywallshave done. It's sad, disheartening, discouraging to power of Wikipedia philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekner ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the Huff-Po article and paid editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing. Another was started at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitewashing? after-the-fact but now points to the AN discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 12:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't like to use external source, but the user keen on maintaining the list of sponsored teams in the sport wear articles to include "current" teams only (removing the expired sponsorship without really providing any reason) and without disclosing his source to verify . Googling his name "Alessio Pasquinelli" in linkedin shown his past position as "SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT", "SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER" and current position as "Pasquinelli Work Advertising". Matthew hk ( talk) 11:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This is from an ancient SPI from 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West/Archive that was never cleaned up after. I found it today via this post on r/wikipedia (reddit). Most of these articles are films that Scott Shaw ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had an involvement in that do not appear to meet WP:NFILM. I haven't been able to determine whether Shaw meets WP:CREATIVE.
I'm also concerned that Chinanski ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a still-active sock of the same master. The account was created at a similar time and has edited many of the same articles: [1]. SmartSE ( talk) 16:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User’s only edits were first acquiring Wikipedia experience, then on CCS Group. Now that CCS Group has been acquired by GPV International, their edits are intended to create an article about GPV International. My inquiry about conflict of interest was not answered, but the following inquiry on my talk page is written in the first person plural and is typical of corporate editing: s://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&type=revision&diff=89 Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/891222663. - Bri.public ( talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a person named Leo Stocco, who is apparently the CTO and Founder of Orbitless_drives, he is also an author of some of the papers mentioned as sources in the article. Now The problem is in the user page of the wiki user, please have a look. Daiyusha ( talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Editor who has stated that he is the subject of the article has completely rewritten it in a non-neutral way. Reverted with explanation and reinstated : Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm requesting independent review of this BLP article, which contains a great deal of apparently unsourced information.
The three SPA editors are all inactive. Together, they've written 90% of the current content. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think User:Blipblip88 is Mathieu himself.
In Aug 2018 Mathieu sanitizes his page under his own name: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mathieu_Chantelois&type=revision&diff=853283903&oldid=845679634
It's reverted, for COI reasons. Almost immediately after, and then continuously, we see edits from User:Blipblip88 doing nothing but positive edits.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mathieu_Chantelois.jpg is a selfie, uploaded by Blipblip88.
All of his edits are on Mathieu's article. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Blipblip88
Exilewhat ( talk) 03:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Bonzofreak is a single-purpose account, with all 12 years of his edits closely connected to the rock drummer Jonathan Mover. The problem here is that Bonzofreak has been repeatedly adding promotional stuff to the Mover biography, especially stuff about Mover's minor business ventures, about which nothing has been written in the press. [2] [3] [4] Peacock wording is frequently inserted, such as "fantastic bassist" [5] and "drummer extraordinaire". [6] Bonzofreak has been warned repeatedly against such promotion but has never used a talk page, and has never communicated with other editors. Recently he has engaged in a slow motion edit war to keep promotional text in the Mover biography, reverted by myself and Rodericksilly. Something needs to be done to get his attention and stop the disruption. Binksternet ( talk) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I could nominate it for AfD, but there's a concern with the number of obvious company associated accounts used. Significant amount of contents as it remains now originated from the account PNWStaff and the other three are basically single purpose accounts. CLMurphy1 describes himself as an event promoter and the name he provided himself comes back as management staff for the org. Debraporta comes up as executive director in Google. Please see article talk page for details. Following the duck quack I can reasonably suspect Mel45's exclusive participation on this article indicates it too is a related editor. How should it go forward? Graywalls ( talk) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Etherweave is a business offering "services include marketing strategy, Web design and development, copywriting, editorial services, integrated e-mail campaigns and a range of other services" [7]. All of the authors listed above are or were clients of theirs. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor who is currently engaged with editing expressed discontent with the COI tag remaining on the page and wants it gone and he's asking what contents should be changed for the tag to go away. I'm uncertain about the accepted norm here regarding how long they should remain on. I expressed my view that my concern isn't necessarily the sourcing. My concern is that since the article was built from the ground up by someone likely acting on behalf of the organization likely with substantial input and possibly under the direction and supervision of the organization, the outline of categories and contents on which contents are expanded upon may contain deeply entrenched bias that tends to define what contents to include and not include. A comment was inserted by yet another IP editor relating to unionization. This content was removed by an account which I have a good reason to believe it is related to the organization. That account has only been used for edits relating to this organization and the edit summary for removing unionization was that it's "inaccurate". This occurred within the last 6 months. I have researched the contents that was removed and the information appears to be accurate. I believe that current COI still exists after observing that edit on the union matter that seems to indicate PR engagement by organization to manage contents about the organization. I think resolving it is a little more than complicated than simply improving contents. As long as the outline of the original apge creation remains, there's likely an implicit bias that moderates what contents get built up or contents remaining that would not have been entered without any input from involved editors. The COI concern will remain as long as organization continues to monitor and actively engage in contents management. Graywalls ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
As it appears on his talk page: Graywalls ( talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Drm310. Sorry, I'm not sure if I am replying to this correctly. I have not been compensated in any way for the edits I made to the Outside In page nor was I directed to do so by the organization. Thanks. Jay
Despite Orangelioncat has declared conflicts of interests that they are associated with Geng Long Hsu, Orangelioncat has been inserting links to Geng Long Hsu's article on the Encyclopedia of Reproduction into on assertions that are not supported by the sources at all. For example, "Vascular Surgery for Erectile Dysfunction" is cited in Venous leak three times yet none of the assertions can be supported by it. Considering that Orangelioncat has prominently mentioned Hsu's contribution that does not exist in the source (e.g. [8], [9]), I found it difficult to believe that those edits are to "disseminate the verifiable knowledge". Mys_721tx ( talk) 04:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The COI has also been noted by User:Flyer22 Reborn in January. - Mys_721tx ( talk) 04:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as stated in my conversation with Flyer22 Reborn, I respect the consensus and rules in the Wiki community. It's my pleasure to engage in this discussion. On my part, the extent of COI, although minor, is present, and it's stated at the beginning.
Here, I do try to use as many secondary sources as possible, and that's why the Encyclopedia of Reproduction is applied. Otherwise, there are indeed some news articles that can be used, but some of them need to be translated. The aim is definitely not to spam these articles. Those references, directly or indirectly, serve as support to the statements. In examination over the comments made here, I would re-visit and modify in accordance with what's considered appropriate.
In regard to the questioning over the belief to distribute "verifiable knowledge," I wish to talk a bit more about the images themselves that were used. Of course, I also make edits on other topics, but with respect to GL and penile anatomy, the verifiable knowledge is the presence of more than the DDV between the Buck's and the tunica albuginea, and the elaboration of the 3-D structure of the tunica albuginea.
The associated diagram was published long before the Encyclopedia of Reproduction, although a version of it was shared with the publisher. The right to the images is released by the right-holder to the Wiki Commons, not any other third-party.
Flyer22 Reborn stated prior to my involvement in the project that there's a lack of information on the male reproductive system, and I am glad to have made some contribution.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 08:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed some images uploaded by User:Genglonghsu are marked for deletion. For right issue with respect to the images, consider this:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2164/jandrol.109.008532 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289991483_Penile_venous_surgery_for_treating_erectile_dysfunction_Past_present_and_future_perspectives_with_regard_to_new_insights_in_venous_anatomy
Four years ago, the right to a similar version of the image was already released under CC, and even prior to that, the original creator of the image gave permission for publication in a journal. Mys_721tx, anatomical knowledge is verifiable.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 09:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay so we are looking at this edit by User:Orangelioncat. [10]
They cited this source to support the following text:
"Common complaints include a chronic soft erection insufficient for sexual intercourse, position-dependent erectile rigidity, difficulty achieving erections, difficulty maintaining erections without constant manual stimulation, loss of penile length and girth, and a soft glans of the penis during erection that is not fully engorged."
Orange can you provide below the exact text within the publication that you feel supports this? Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, Doc James, Mys_721tx,
I receive no financial or academic benefit from doing all these. Since my first edit's (which was one or two months ago, the issue of COI was already concluded), my edits were reactive in regard to the penile articles and GL. The GL page was inserted with an orphan tag, then considering your comment on the In-Text attribution, I then applied that policy to the article, by making links to that page. Also, the med ref box stated that more reference was needed. Then, I tried to put the the references (although some of them turned out to be inaccurate). Not just GL, I have also made citation on Culley C Carson's prosthesis article.
I will stop my editing on the penile articles for now, but I do demand fairness and respect, especially to those (including myself) new to Wikipedia editing. And Flyer22 Reborn: yes, your in-text attribution came from the issue of the "os analog." Albeit that it really just refers to the hard structure inside the glans, and which contributes to the rigidity and shape of an erect penis. It's not a theory but just a fact. If, like many other literature states, penile erection only relies on only the erectile tissue, sexual intercourse would not have been achieved so easily - the pointed and relatively hard structure/ the end of the distal ligament is important, and that has a great resemblance to the os penis (found in most other species but not us). Why make the conveyance of such a concept so difficult? Putting this consensus thing aside, Flyer22 Reborn, I am contributing to the content in this area, and a lack of that was supposed to be an issue to resolve?
Of the copy-right issue, I am aware that GL has declared on his website that all those images are licensed under CC. Just scroll down to the the very end of the page: [12].
As far as I know, the concept of the erection-related veins was first reported in a world meeting in Japan, and it's done by GL. The identification of those veins was mentioned in an Asian journal that no longer existed (called the New Taipei something), but that journal did not have all those detailed diagrams from GL's website. Also, the corresponding author knew little about the research, and became that because of his position in the institute; which is really not the point here. There was even fabrication on the date of reception.
I do not know if GL and others signed the right-release agreement to that ghost publisher. It's gone now anyway, so who does the right to that knowledge belong? If one can sort this out, I'm sure it'd be easier to know where to ask for permission if we are to disseminate this knowledge. If Hsu Androlgy can put all those images on their website and claims that their rights are released under CC, perhaps they already had it sorted out? If there is any issue, should you not direct the question to them, but not to this meow meow.
The Andrology article is an outcome report on the surgery, but not the anatomical concept, and the later mentioned article is not the original article/speech on the anatomical concept, either. With the open access journal (and for many other journals now), right is not as strict a matter, as sharing can be done when permission is granted, or when significant modification is done on an image.
I will stay away on the penile matter and GL, but keep an eye on how things develop.
Thanks so much.
Orangelioncat ( talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Please refer to [13] and [14]. This is a recreation of a salted article under a different name. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. The user said they had a COI here. They were asked to formally disclose it here. The draft was rejected twice. And the article has now been created twice. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I looked up the organization giving out these awards, apparently its an anonymous organization that conducts anonymous polls and gives the awards,(stated on their site). There is almost no mention of the organization at all, except for a few sketchy sites . The article was AfD'ed and deleted 3 years ago, the creator of the article or someone related to it was particularly angry about deleting it(mentioned in the afd discussion).
It might be helpful to treat this as possible spamming as well. In that regard, I'll list other editors that have added it as I help with cleanup. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, are "News18 Reel Movie Awards" and "Bollywood Film Journalists Awards" similar? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
To the ip: Please stop wasting our time with personal opinions and worse. Provide independent sources. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 03:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:a708:7ae6:4051:c28:2e84:7360 ( talk) 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acupuncture: not sure what to do here I asked the question "Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture?" More input on that question would be welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Existing policy, including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:COI are sufficient to handle disruptive editing in this topic(emphasis mine) - so, the closers explicitly accepted that COI policy is relevant in this topic area. They went on to remind editors that
any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.- so, COI may be a particular concern in this area. It is not the case that an acupuncturist will always have a COI with regards to all areas of acupuncture, but it is possible that they may have one in particular areas, and so should be cautious when editing about their field. It seems to me that the COI banner on the talk page is appropriate, in the light of the RfC closure.
"...if your livelihood depends on people trusting in the efficacy of anything, I can't see how you could avoid having a conflict of interest when writing about that efficacy": Of course there's a financial connection (much discussed in the RfC), and it tends to be stronger for alt-med, but is it strong/specific enough to create a COI on WP? Per the RfC it's got to come from something other than simply being a practitioner.
I noticed that the user Redwhiteandboujee was inserting the following (unsourced) sentence into a number of articles: "...works with Allen Blakemore to effectively plan and execute political strategy." See, for example, here and here. When I looked into the user's contribution history, I noticed they had created the article Allen Blakemore (political consultant). This looks like a probable case of self-promotion. Marquardtika ( talk) 19:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
−
The article was a stub a few days ago when I created it. A very savvy editor with a new account showed up and added many, many refs (in one case they had ten refs in a row). And I just noticed that new savvy editors marks all edits as "m" for minor. Seems like obvious COI and/or UPE editing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The user's talk page calls Sami Yusuf "our artist", evidently the user is one of Yusuf's agents. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Two more of Yusuf's representatives have been added. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This editor has made a large amount of edits to the article in the past months, including adding excessive refs (one sentence has nearly 50). A connection seems likely. I have made no conclusions about the neutrality of the article, but 314 refs in such a short article is certainly suspicious. MB 05:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
These IPs have recently been making several edits to New Zealand and Pacific Island-related pages, mostly to add a reference to a single recently-published book. At first glance (not having read the book), the reference appears to be at least somewhat relevant, but it seems likely that the IP editors are closely associated with the book in some way - e.g., its author or publisher. I have left a note about this on each of the IPs' Talk pages, but they have not responded. Ross Finlayson ( talk) 21:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
and... more
118.93.133.160 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
118.93.9.139 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Graywalls (
talk)
09:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The username implies that the user works at Guru Studio. If that's true, this is a serious violation of WP:COI. The user edited the Guru Studio article for most times. The user also edited True and the Rainbow Kingdom article (the subject of which was produced by Guru Studio.) two times. The changes made by the user were already reverted. JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 08:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the username and the fact this user has been primarly editing this article I suspect the account could be the subject herself. User has not responded to COI warning I placed on the user's talk page and continues editing. I have placed COI templates on article has the account has extensively edited it. funplussmart ( talk) 01:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Some context: Blues America is a radio series produced and hosted by Drew Verbis. The article Blues America was created on 15 April by User:OU133. It contained sentences such as "richly textured nonfiction narrative that delves deeply into the human experience" and loads of sources that supported very little of the article content. It was deleted yesterday, and just a few hours later, the article Drew Verbis was created by User:DrumSalad. This new article contains a section titled "Blues America" which is basically a copy/paste from the deleted article and loads of sources that support very little of the article content. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 00:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I have reason to suspect that Tertulius, a banned user who was the creator of all of the film articles listed above and has been a significant editor (although not the original creator) of the filmmaker's BLP, may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to these topics. The film articles are all basically advertisements rather than encyclopedia articles, and are referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable source media coverage — and the BLP is also referenced much more heavily to his own self-published content about himself rather than to reliable source coverage or analysis, and features significant passages of total flaming incoherence. ("In some way moved by the idea that explains one sentence of Marcel Mauss, a well-known French sociologist and anthropologist, ("There is more poetry in a grain of reality than in the brain of a poet"), certain Portuguese film-makers, especially after the Carnation Revolution, traveled around their country, from one end to another, camera in hand. With state funds or in co-production with the national broadcast TV station, the RTP, some made "engaged films" (cinéma engagé, i.e. political cinema), but never with lack of charm. Others make films in which reality, as an expression of actual events, appears with that poetical charge, as Mauss refers. Films shot with low budgets but in full liberty. Films portraying reality, a genre to which all those productions fit, would last for a few years and would generate important or even remarkable works, some of which were forgotten.")
I can also provide additional evidence — but I want to be careful about the outing rule, so I'll provide it separately and/or privately if needed rather than addressing it directly here.
I can see a plausible basis for notability here, so I don't want to just rush the articles straight to AFD if somebody's willing to work on cleaning them up, but as things stand the articles are too heavily advertorialized, and not reliably sourced nearly well enough, to just ignore — they need to be addressed, and either fixed or deleted, fairly urgently. Bearcat ( talk) 08:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Amandadoyle543, previously known as Birchmierassociates, appears to be an undeclared paid editor. Her articles are pure PR for often non notable subjects. Some come with official photos complete with OTRS permission from the clients supplied by her. They appear ready made adverts bombarded with usually bad sources. They exaggerate minor aspects and are commonly full of info not supported by the sources. Above is just a random sample of her spam.
Some with pics, Amy Dean Hoff [21] [22]m, Hoax (band), Katherine Taylor [23], Richard Ludlow [24], Matthew Carl Earl [25]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Today, User:Jhrastafari moved Arjun Panesar from draft space. It was created on 1 April by User:ContributingWikiUser. It had been deleted in September 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Panesar. Yesterday, User:Jhrastafari created Diabetes Digital Media, the parent company of Diabetes.co.uk, which he created in March 2014. Arjun Panesar is a co-founder of both. Seems reasonable to infer that User:Jhrastafari and User:ContributingWikiUser are the same editor and that there is a conflict of interest. Edwardx ( talk) 15:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This user's only editing has been to add content from VentureBeat to other articles, usually written in a somewhat promotional style. Have reverted many of the recent additions, but they are extensive, and there may be other accounts involved. Edwardx ( talk) 12:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
All of this user's edits have centered around a single researcher, and have included references (including a PhD thesis) to that individual. The two articles created by this editor may be original research as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
There's been a number of problematic VPN articles lately. The active AfD on PureVPN seems to be wobbling on whether what I'd consider rather routine reviews constitute good sources or not. If it survives it will definitely need cleanup. Maybe this is of concern for this noticeboard. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
As background, please read the note I left on the talk page of Yana Peel ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Yana is a friend who very keenly wishes that all proper procedure at Wikipedia be followed, and who is also keen to see some updates to her Wikipedia entry. Her page was tagged a few years ago with a conflict of interest editing tag - I don't have any direct knowledge of whether that was correct, but I think we can assume that it was correct at the time.
It is a common thing that someone edits Wikipedia with a COI, but more or less innocently just trying to help. Even in cases where the edits are a bit too promotional, I believe that this is also often (but not always) "innocent" in the sense that people are naturally prone to speak in a positive way about things they've achieved or done in their lives.
When something like this happens, the result is often an extended "punishment" (although nothing in Wikipedia should ever be punishment!) of a tag on the top of an article which languishes for years.
So here's my inquiry: what is best practice for someone who has a COI tag but wants to do the right thing, in terms of getting that tag removed and getting further edits done to an article?
I'm well aware that there are persistently annoying people who exhaust our patience with repeated efforts to "puff" their entries. That's also an interesting case, but it's not the sort of case I'm asking about right now! I'm talking about nice people.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
"persistently annoying people"but not
"nice people". Such value judgments are subjective and suspect. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
People are allowed to have friends. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 08:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, thanks for asking the question here. It doesn't seem like you got a succinct reply. I think the answer is "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved...", from Template:COI#When to remove. That textbook answer does seem to be aligned with my experience of how things work. Hope this helps. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The matter of connected and paid editing seems more pervasive than I was expecting. When I discovered connected editing at Outside In (organization), I thought it was a relatively isolated issue. Then, I found the same issue at Pride Northwest involving executive staff editing the page. As I click around categories, pages for my area, pages for local papers referenced within articles and mostly from just poking around, more such issues surfaced. Special interest group and an alternative newspaper publisher Street_Roots was added by the account named with its own own; and that of the executive editor (who is identified within cited sources). Then, I've found edits to an article from an IP originating in the article's company that was helping themselves to the article and adding things into the project list; formatting the layout in the way they want it laid out. That is one of the largest privately held company in Oregon Hoffman Construction Company. Are we to simply neutralize things and let it go on as if nothing happened whenever it happens? On Street Roots, the talk page already had a "connected contributor" tag, but people don't really look there. This is a great example of delayed discovery. I added this template since after reviewing evidence present, I had good faith reason to suspect UDPE. The template was met with resistance from another editor within hours who wanted the article sanitized and wanted the "branding" gone yesterday. Is it the current best practice to just wipe off contentious contents and let the template come down immediately? There seems to be no deterrent to this behavior as promotional contents would stay until caught, and if caught, all they have to do would be remove the contents and any marking of such attempt just vanish into the thin air for all practice purposes as people don't generally bother go digging in the edit history. Graywalls ( talk) 09:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
"Leaving the tag makes the page seem less encyclopedic and more welcoming to COI editors in that we've created a placeholder for them"This is not true; your opinion is wrong. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Might need more eyes on this ... the creator seems to be intent on describing this person in ways consistent with WP:Identifying PR. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
This article has existed for about ten years, initially in a poorly written and poorly sourced form that should never have survived basic new pages review. Several years later, however, the subject himself grabbed hold of the article and started trying to advertorialize the hell out of it, turning it very much more into an extension of his own self-published PR rather than a neutral or properly referenced encyclopedia article — and ever since then, the article's been subject to a constant tug of war between established Wikipedia editors trying to neutralize it and mostly anonymous IP numbers (but sometimes Floquirion, an SPA with no history of ever editing any other article but this) trying to readvertorialize it again. This has, most notably, included repeated attempts to add a dedicated "directory of quotations" section to highlight every Deep Thought by Jack Handy thing he ever said in an interview, which myself and other editors have continually reverted but which invariably comes back again in a new format weeks or months later. That's not the only kind of creeping advertorialism that's been happening here, but it is the most common recurring form.
In all this time, however, even the most neutral version of the article has never actually been well-sourced — it cites one deadlinked blog, one Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and the absolute bare minimum (i.e. two pieces) of genuine reliable source coverage necessary to argue that the requirement for "multiple reliable sources" has been passed since two is technically multiple. (GNG, of course, is not actually as simple as "keep anything that meets or exceeds two footnotes", but takes into account additional factors like depth and range and context, and can be flunked by an article with 50 footnotes if they all fail one or more of those tests.)
I'm reluctant to actually take it to AFD, however, as there are plausible notability claims being made in the article — they just aren't being sourced properly, and the article clearly needs to be reviewed and monitored for COI and neutrality issues. But after having been involved in this continual tug of war for almost 3.5 years, I'm tired of it and not dispassionate enough anymore to fix it myself. Is anybody else willing to take a stab at it, and/or take it to AFD if the COI issue is just too incurable? Bearcat ( talk) 22:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll come back this evening and put more info here. There's an SPI that hasn't been quite closed yet. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional spammers:
MER-C 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Sockfarm still active. New drawer of socks was just CU confirmed. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Oluwatobi Oyinlola is back, courtesy of Dopedaniel. MER-C 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
This article may benefit from a closer look from some of the editors here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)