This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Very likely an undisclosed paid editor, creating promotional articles, uploading promotional images as his own work using sock accounts and sending fake emails to OTRS for permission and when he was asked about the ownership of those images, he claimed I took their email address from their social accounts and at that email address I asked for their photos.., I looked at almost everyone's social media profiles and none of them has mentioned their email ids so, there is definitely something fishy and needs to be investigated. Begoon do you want to add something? GSS 💬 04:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello dear moderator,
I am a follower of Pakistani hip-hop and have been contributing to the "Pakistani hip hop music" page. There's a user on Wikipedia "Pma94lc" who is reflecting an obvious conflict of interest that I will explain in few simple words. Allow me to enlighten you with a little editing history of this article that had occurred in the recent days, I will be covering only the parts of editing that involves the conflict of interest that I am reporting:
First Edit by me: 00:55, 29 November 2019 Nayabks Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928416587
The article missed 2 of the most important rappers of the industry, Chen-K (the most subscribed Urdu rapper in Pakistan)( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkIiT7UVrf0IJgqLbe8KJGA/videos) and Sunny Khan Durrani (he raps in classic Urdu, if there's an Indian or Pakistani around you, they can verify it by simply listening to his tracks: ( https://www.youtube.com/user/sunnykhandurrani/videos), I gave both of them their due credits.
Later in this edit by "Pma94lc", it was all removed:
Following edit by Pma94lc: 13:01, 30 November 2019 Pma94lc Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928608665
Instead, there was a new name added, of a rapper called "Raamis" who was equalized with Chen-K, who is not notable at all, even in the underground, here's his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYPkdSW9O1yUiZk3_9f0Pcw/videos
Because I am aware of the whole Pakistani rap scene, I know that there was a beef between Chen-K/Sunny Khan Durrani being on one side and Raamis/Talha Younus (From Young Stunners) on the other side, both the group have been continuously dissing each other and the beef is on even right now. Here are some of the diss tracks that have been doing rounds on the internet:
(Sequenced in upload date order) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZeBEM_lX8c (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9es2ruWwlE (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVuD3noLwpA (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaQuZyot6A (Raamis dissing Sunny Khand Durrani) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272B1CesqIw (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K)
Any Pakistani hip hop music fan will be able to point these edits by PMA94lc out as conflict of interest and they will be able to identify this user as either Raamis or one of their relatives, I'm not outing the user, I am simply stating what it looks like. By all aforementioned evidence, it is quite apparent that my edits have been authentic and the edits by PMA94lc are in the interest of Raamis and Young Stunners, for this purpose, I am requesting appropriate action against the violating account. I will be coming back with references to my edits so that they will be locked for future.
Thank you for your time, I truly appreciate the energy you all put in to make this place the abundant source of knowledge and information that it is today.
With sincere regards, Nayabks ( talk) 03:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This page contains promotional language that suggests someone from George Gascon's campaign for LA District Attorney may have been involved in the edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbucchere ( talk • contribs)
User:MicahZoltu has had an account since 2009, but it barely had any edits until September 2019, with someone finally adding a welcome message to their talk page two weeks ago. They started their new editing career on Augur (software) - an ICO crypto-token for prediction markets - with an extensive, barely-sourced explanation of Augur (and those sources literally didn't mention Augur). This ill sourced addition was reverted back in repeatedly. RS-cited claims that were negative to Augur were removed. Admitted unsourced OR was added.
MicahZoltu has since continued to add long contributions with bad sourcing to multiple articles, mostly articles that are under WP:GS/Crypto.
MicahZoltu has posted long and querulous additions to talk pages - e.g., Talk:Augur (software), Talk:Ethereum, my talk page, and in a non-crypto example Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - repeatedly asking the same questions of multiple editors about why their bad sources are good - and why the standard "mainstream third-party RSes" is not enough for them.
As one of the editors MicahZoltu questions in this manner (others include
Jtbobwaysf and
Roxy the dog), I would say there is a bad case of
WP:IDHT and attempting to
personalise basic explanations of sourcing in multiple contentious areas - see
User talk:MicahZoltu for a remarkable list of DS and GS caution notices.
It now turns out that MicahZoltu is or was a consultant for the Foresight Institute - the promoters of the Augur software, its token, and the ICO for the token. [1] MicahZoltu didn't make it clear whether or not they still had a holding of the cryptocurrency token (such a holding also being a specifically listed WP:COI).
This is really seriously dicing with GS/Crypto, but MicahZoltu considers their problems to be due to "wikilawyers", and not e.g. themselves - c.f.
this, a standard
WP:1AM.
MicahZoltu has repeatedly removed
[2]
[3]
[4]the COI notice placed there by me and by
Calton. They said that "I think it would be best if someone who is wholly uninvolved with blockchains and crypto-currencies add one or both of us if they believe that is reasonable", Calton added it back, and MicahZoltu then claimed Calton was clearly "involved", for no apparent reason.
MicahZoltu insists that they will continue to remove the COI notice until
WP:COIN rules they have a COI. I ask editors for their opinions on this matter.
I have not asked for sanctions under
WP:GS/Crypto - and this isn't the venue - in the hope that MicahZoltu will come to a better understanding of Wikipedia sourcing rules. Though others may think such are appropriate. I do think the COI notice needs to go on the talk page, and MicahZoltu needs to be enjoined from touching
Augur (software) -
David Gerard (
talk)
01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
Satdeep first contacted me at Draft talk:Rubina Bajwa two days after when it was draftified. I asked Satdeep to submit the draft for a review since it has language and claims that do not go with the policies and the article was created by a single purpose account in draftspace and moved by Meenaya an undisclosed paid editor. Today after moving the draft back to main he uploaded File:Rubina Bajwa.jpg which he received through email and claimed I was contacted by the copyright holder.. which sound quite hard to digest. There are hundreds of users on Wikipedia so why and how particularly he was contacted by them directly and espacially after the page was removed from the mainspace. He is mostly creating articles about those he possibly know personally and uploading their images that he receives through email such as "Amarjit Chandan" whose three personal images were uploaded by him today on commons. GSS 💬 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yah Rubina Bajwa pulls up a whole group of undisclosed paid for articles.
Etc Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I have off-Wiki evidence that User:Marknamz8931 created the Ben Chase page for money. Ben Chase openly put the job out for tender on Upwork. One only has to read the page and look at User:Marknamz8931's other edits to bare witness to this obvious COI. However, should the UPE police wish to break with tradition and see evidence I am more than happy to provide screen shots via a secure email. 12.202.180.115 ( talk) 13:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
you're trying to harass me Marknamz8931 ( talk) 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I found this one under Euglena Co., Ltd in the new page feed, having been created by User:Simon.mangel. After having found that his Linkedin profile listed him as an intern at the company, I moved it to draft (as paid editors are required to run their articles through AfC). Subsequently, he changed his profile and pretended that I was lying, and then later admitted to it and requested deletion of the draft.
Then, a draft of the same name was created by User:Paul Quinney (in his first edit), then it was moved to main space User:Jean-Baptiste.Ret (a new user with a series of edits that appear to be directly related to the company). I subsequently moved the article to Euglena (company), but it seems cler to me that we are dealing with a series of paid editors working at the company who are determined to create an article in main space without going through the required channels. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the problem users on the Euglena articles were blocked at SPI. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This user is blocked on de.wiki since a few days. It's a paid editor. You can see the de.wiki spi case here
Please block and check the edits of this user.
Truth12356 ( talk) 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this article is essentially the sole product of the company's marketing people. Deli nk ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We are requesting that an independent editor urgently address the issues highlighted two weeks ago under "Controversy" as part of the International Fund for Agricultural Development article. Please refer to the talk page for further information concerning the issues raised as well as identified broken links. [ [5]] Many thanks for your kind action. James at ifad ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeatedly removing sourced material. Not engaging in discussion. The article probably needs more eyes on it. [6] [7] [8] [9] OrionTribute ( talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Still ongoing. [10] OrionTribute ( talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Continuing. [11] Is this an issue for ANI? OrionTribute ( talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There is indeed an edit war going on, and it seems that OrionTribute is the party which keeps reinserting derogatory information for some nefarious purpose. It is getting out of hand, and is reflective of some sort of animus towards Congressman Bates. These sorts of attacks, no matter whom they affect, are unfair and should not use Wikipedia as a base of attack or projectile for personal animus. This sort of vicious activity has taken over the national consciousness, and really must stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Truthbetold ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The user 99Truthbetold is way past 3rr in their ongoing campaign to keep certain well-sourced material out of the article. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The user is a disclosed paid editor for the museum ("Marketing Assistant at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum"). Posting here as I am slightly uncertain of what to think of this or what precise advice to give him/her. The draft article has no independent sources, and stands little chance of being published as is. Something might be salvages from what is there. But it's pure paid promotion basically. Thoughts are welcome. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum was intended to be a subpage to Reynolds-Alberta Museum, similar to the relation between List of surviving Avro Lancasters and Avro Lancaster. As a museum, we frequently get questions about what exactly is in our collection. The list is intended to be for information purposes, and so people doing research anywhere in the world can know the whereabouts of some of the rare artifacts that are in our collection. While I am paid by the Government of Alberta on behalf of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum, my end goal here is not profit. Instead, my goal is to allow a wider audience to access the information that the museum is caretaker of. However, I am very new to Wikipedia, and I am completely open to suggestions on how to attain this goal. Would an external link to a similar list on our website work better ( https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation)? The problem with an external link is that the end viewer would lose the links that I included in Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum that leads to Wikipedia pages that cover the various artifacts and the companies that made them. Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
So, the way I understand it, the best way to end this (and avoid COI) is to post to Talk:Reynolds-Alberta Museum and ask someone to post an external link to https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation. Is this correct? If so, it would be acceptable to me. Afterwards, I will delete my draft, after maybe salvaging the Wikipedia links for the museum's website, as Nat Gertler suggests. Would this satisfy all parties? Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 22:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The user was created only in May and immediately showed high wiki-editing skills. All contribution is solely devoted to documenting paid articles about singer Normani being the greatest, awards, charts and accomplishments. Nothing of what I regard as usual or trivial for a fan-contributing page. -- Маргарита Бабовникова ( talk) 13:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There's something odd going on at Robert Gant. Two accounts, Richierich11 & Freeandaware, are actively turning the article into a resume/CV. Suspect undisclosed paid/COI editing. Could someone with more experience dealing with this have a look? Also, ping for @ Marchjuly. Thanks, FASTILY 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
User is removing sourced controversial details from The Quint page and calling contributors including me as troll. First they did it here, here and again here by calling it bias. Point to be noted that all details are sourced and fake news details are taken from alt news. Same website has been given as citation in various media houses like Republic TV, OpIndia and BLP like Madhu Kishwar. Simply searching user's name google results show digital marketing company's founder. User is not engaging in talk page discussions even and just removing nehative details about this brand. It seems they have some COI with this company. Harshil want to talk? 09:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor is only contributing in this article and adding claims like world-class, worked with 400/500 top companies, eloquent speaker and many more without any source but removing details like legal sues against subject, criticism of his sexist remarks which were sourced. In
this edit, he clearly says that People wants to create the Wikipedia page to showcase their remarkable contributions to the industry, society done by them
and negative things shouldn't mentioned. This person seems to be associated with either his political party or his firm. Definitely
WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --
Harshil
want to talk?
11:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Placed self-promotional material on the subject, use of first-person pronouns in edit summary, and username suggests that user is the subject of the article. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been reported as having a conflict of interest regarding this article but I can't find any report or editors submitting evidence for this. Can this be looked into? Thanks 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 11:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Highly promotional article, CSD'ed by Fastily and Steven (Editor), moved to draft, etc. COI version back in mainspace again. MB 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
An artist who may well be notable; the article reads like an advertorial in a free newspaper. Most of the recent editing has been by just-joined editors who are particuarly interested in this topic, Curlyfries01, Monroeno and Katybugarch; the article was started by a past SPA, Babpacih. I filed this after one of them removed the {{ advert}} and {{ puffery}} notices which the article richly deserved; I've asked Katybugarch to disclose if they're an undeclared paid editor. My psychic powers tell me all these editors are closely linked. The article needs going through with an axe - David Gerard ( talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Likely COI editor, as the editor added a link to the article which linked to a website with the same name as the user. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This could use a look over generally, over recent changes, and in relation to the two specific Talk: topics:
John Hyams claims to be in Haifa (their user page)(Redacted) Together with their editing focus, that's getting to COI problem territory. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject is leader of Hare Krishna Movement and Hyderabad chapter. User is editing only articles related to him and here to promote it. Can someone block them under username policy and COI policy?-- Harshil want to talk? 12:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Primary editor would like to remove COI tagging from the article, but is one of the original authors of the research paper. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
r 2019 (UTC)
I am Scott Mathews, the primary author. I am not much of a Wikipedia writer, and so mostly have to read howto articles. In spite of my caution, I obviously got off on the wrong track because my intention was simply to write an extension to an existing original article that was published by Wikipedia in March, 2012. At that time and until November 2019, there have been no issues with COI. It was only my clumsy attempt to add an extension to the original article (intending to make the subject material more broadly applicable to the general business audience who are knowledgeable in this technical area) that these issues, including COI have been raised. My previous editor has been User:Fintor who is knowledgeable about this financial subject area, but he is on vacation.
I am Scott H. Mathews, the author of the prior research work. The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have reviewed and found interesting and useful. The extensions attempt to make the findings published in the original article more understandable to a broad audience and simpler to apply.
1. The original article (from 2012) was published and no COI was flagged at that time. The article refers to me (Scott H. Mathews) and my collaborator, Dr. Vinay Datar, because we created this work which is owned by my (now) former company. At the time, this work was understood as a new contribution to this technical field of real options. This work is referenced in a number of other Wikipedia articles, for example Black-Scholes Model (
/info/en/?search=Black-Scholes_model).
2. The extension (to the original article) that I wrote (and submitted in November 2019) is my own work and is not owned by any entity. It contains formulas, graphs and images all of which I created myself. The images I created are submitted to WikiCommons.
3. As in the original article, this extension refers to me as being creator of this work. However, the work is equations and algorithms and should not be interpreted as 'personal', but rather as generally enabling for individuals attempting to utilize the work to carry out investigations into external activities, such as the valuation of risky projects. This, of course, was the purpose of the original article.
4. I believe this article and its identification of me as the creator does not qualify as a conflict of interest. Please remove the alert on this web page.
Thank you. MathewsSH ( talk) 22:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews
ThatMontrealIP,
scope_creep, any suggestions on how to scrub this article so it wouldn't have COI?
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
23:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have reviewed and found interesting and usefulsounds a lot like WP:OR, which is I guess what you mean. We need a mathematician for this one. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
MathewsSH ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews
Over this holiday I was able to find (using Google Scholar and other search engines) probably more than 100 references in multiple languages to the original article (Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation). From those I have selected about 20 that are especially relevant and will include many as additional references to the article. I do have a question however: the Datar-Mathews Method was patented (U.S. Patent No. 6,862,579). In the process of issuing a patent the USPTO performs a thorough investigation of similar work with the intent of discerning the unique elements of the patent application. A link to the USPTO easily reveals all the investigation results. Given the uniqueness of the patent finding, help me understand better the Wikipedia COI finding. Will the additional references I intend to place in the article help resolve the COI finding? MathewsSH ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews
As an aside, to ThatMontrealIP, your question of "How was User:Fintor helping you to edit before?" should be easy to answer. When the original article was published (March 2012), there was a series of very expert edits by and helpful exchanges with Fintor. This was recorded in the View History page of the original article. You should be able to review the View History page, which would answer your question. If I remember correctly, I believe there was also a Talk page on which may have contained some of the exchanges I had as I was developing the original article. I have no idea what has happened to that content. MathewsSH ( talk) 23:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews
@ ThatMontrealIP: Thank you for staying involved in this issue. As someone relatively new to Wikipedia, I am still trying to understand how best to comply with Wikipedia standards. In response to several tags that were appended to my extended version of this article, I have now added some 20 additional references that cite the DM Method and ancillary sources providing a relatively well-documented article. In my opinion this adequately addresses several tags, and therefore I removed "excessive ... references to self-published sources" and "establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources".
One tag remains: "close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I am not sure if this is the same as COI. Perhaps you can clarify for me what are the differences. In addition to the 20 additional references, I have also tried to eliminate language that may seem impartial or biased. It appears the resolution of this tag may require a third party, such as yourself, to review whether the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. I would appreciate your input on this subject, and if you believe it complies, then remove the tag. However if in your opinion the article still falls short, please explain how it might be remedied. Again, thank you for your time and attention. MathewsSH ( talk) 23:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews
User is repeatedly recreating draft related to subject even after warning issued by Jimfbleak regarding COI. All details are copied from their website. Can anyone block them for being nothere and coi violation?— Harshil want to talk? 16:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Bond2018 is a single-purpose account; they have only ever edited Ariel S. Leve. All their edits have added promotional language or content to the article. My attempts to address their apparent COI at their talk page have not met with a response; they are either unaware that they have a talk page, or unwilling to engage there. Wham2001 ( talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has made quite a few very promotional articles, including at least three deleted ones: Sergei Savateev, Aliya Prokofyeva, and Kseniya Shoygu. This user is definitely paid to edit, based on the blatantly promotional writing in the articles. See, for example, Andrii Ostapchuk: "In 2009, Ostapchuk studied in Chernivtsi Trade and Economic Institute. He was the only student on the course who got 'excellent' in all subjects. After a year of study, he passed the first session perfectly, decided to leave the Institute and find a job." In Nadiia Shapoval: "The first chapter is a collection of ceramics handmade in Ukraine using traditional craft techniques in collaboration with Kyiv-based artist Masha Reva. With its signature thick black lines and strokes of bold colours, Reva's art brings out the warmth and beauty of Ukrainian pottery, which has been an integral part of family and community for generations." Extremely blatant advertising, this user should be blocked indefinitely for numerous paid articles. DemonDays64 ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have been told that I have a COI in regards to this other Wikipedia user. Is it even possible to have a COI with a user? Elizium23 ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject is the chairman of the organisation namely Andhra Pradesh Zero Budget Natural Farming (APZBNF) organisation of Government of Andhra Pradesh. Can someone block the editor in the violation of Username policy and COI?-- Harshil want to talk? 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
An undisclosed paid (and now blocked) editor, Benetembry, has alluded to the fact that they are one of several individuals who are managers/publicists and actively editing the articles of their clients. They have not (and likely will not) reveal their employer(s). They have reacted very negatively to their block and have announced their intention to pursue legal action.
Searching for the subject of their attempted WP:SOAPBOX article, I found a source listing four management and PR firms: The Bridge Talent Group, Catalyst Talent Management, The Linicomn Agency and Berry Good PR. For two of them, I was able to find their client rosters: https://www.thelinicomnagency.com/, https://www.catalysttcm.com/.
This will be tedious, but it's probably a good idea to go through these client lists, find out which ones have articles here and check for signs of undisclosed paid editing. I'll fill in the list as I find them... would appreciate anyone else's assistance. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This section seems promotional to me, if someone interested in education-topics wants to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The user Wwwhatsup is on the payroll of the Internet Society. They acknowledge being "a vendor of the Internet Society", but says it is not a conflict of interest. I believe it is a conflict of interest. I know that Wwwhatsup is paid to administer at least one social media account (Twitter) for the Internet Society (I am not naming this individual publicly as this could lead to their identification), among other communications tasks. They say they are "not paid to edit Wikipedia", which I am not alleging, but they are paid to perform communications work for this organization, so I do not think they should be editing the page. They have deleted my edits to the page like the section 'Controversies', the intent of which I think is self-evident - they are being a cheerleader for the Internet Society, not an objective, neutral editor. - Ferdeline ( talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This is amazing, given the need for an organization representing the Internet in the arena of international coordination at a time (the early 1990s) when no serious competitors to the Internet Society existed.and
It has consistently struggled for recognition and influence; these are rather problematic statements if not sourced. As mentioned in my declaration of involvement above, you also sourced claims to your own Twitter. You have also repeatedly accused Wwwhatsup of bad faith editing (which is itself a personal attack) and are skirting the outing line right now.
Hello Creffett, thank you for your comments. If I may, I would like to clarify that I only linked to a Twitter post which was a screenshot of the organization's IRS 990 form, as it was not online at the time. It is now online and I subsequently added a link to it in the Wikipedia article (albeit in a different location). I did not cite my own Twitter as a form of self-promotion. In later edits I thought I had added citations to other parts of the article, including the comment about the Internet Society lacking influence and recognition. I acknowledge the other sentence you highlighted was commentary, though I do believe it to be true. I have been very careful not to out Wwwhatsup, by not referencing their gender or other identifiable details. However, Wwwhatsup has named and shamed me on Facebook, part of an attempt to intimidate me. One troll (not Wwwhatsup, just responding to their Facebook post) subsequently wrote that I should delete my Wikipedia account. Ferdeline ( talk) 21:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have asked on the talk page that they specify what exactly is wrong with my edits.Assuming you do work for the Internet Society, WP:COI is what is wrong with your edits. If you are under the pay of the subject, you are not a neutral editor. It sounds like both of you leaving the article to more neutral editors would be a good idea. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is about what could be a notable theatre organization, but plagued for years with COI/undisclosed paid editing. The sources that aren't primary are dead links, and I'm sure an exhaustive list of their production history isn't appropriate. Maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre could help in this case? Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
User:DrLori (presumably Lori Verderame herself, or possibly someone working for her) was blocked after making a series of edits to this page on December 1 (see her talk page). Immediately thereafter edits from 71.185.245.140 came, of the same nature; and subsequently mobile edits have been coming from 92.43.227.92. Consistently the edits have been promotional and have removed well-sourced biographical material, while also correcting mistakes as presumably only Verderame herself would know. Please block both of these. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New user Rohit Jagessar and the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E010:4B70:0:0:0:0/64 have been promoting Rohit Jagessar as a writer and music producer. Jagessar recently self-published a book called Kiss and Breathe, and he lists himself as the winner of various awards. BFI says he released the film Guiana 1838 in 2005 [12] and AllMusic says he served as executive producer on two compilation albums. [13] But the activity of this registered account and the IP range have moved squarely into the realm of promotion. Binksternet ( talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of undesired practises going on with the article Simcoach Games:
1) Employee(s) of the company "Simcoach Games" are making edits. For example, * Mdenton Simcoach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made it clear in their username. 2) The article content is impacted by this COI editor (user mentioned above) to such an extent that talk page resolution isn't suitable.
3) The article shows more signs of COI editing (not just by the above mentioned user) which are for example:
That would mean the article has been created by personnel of the company (Simcoach Games) that the article is about, and later on maintained by personnel of the company (the blatant user Mdenton Simcoach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The COI aspect in most of the significant editors has by now steered the entire article in a way that cannot be easily resolved by editing, and would probably be opposed by those who have created and shaped the article to their desires (the COI writers).
If the noticeboard judges that this notice is valid and my suspicions are right, I propose either of these solutions:
- The article is removed, because the extent of influence by COI writers steered it "beyond repair", as the entire text is heavily oriented towards promotion and portfolio. To be recreated in an appropiate manner. - Neutral editors are given a green light to make the appropiate edits to remove promotion, portfolio and opinionation from the article. To completely counter the influence of staff writers from Simcoach Games, rewriting larger chunks or the entire article might be neccesary. This can be done under a green light, as so to ensure that the COI writers will not interfere with the clean-ups and repairs. This requires some past editors from the article (at least the ones I mentioned) to be flagged as having a COI for said article.
I personally think that the coordinated actions of all of these staff members/promotional/PR writers combined have a combined influence (conflicting with Wikipedia pillars) that would really warrant manually reverting all of such edits, and the wiki articles of both companies. More investigation is needed to identify other tainted edits from users that can be identified as their staff. They are literally putting their company's stamp all over Wikipedia.. -- Blooker ( talk) 03:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this article is more of a resume than a bio. I'm not sure if there is a COI, but neither editor has worked on much else. A COI tag elicited this response on my talk page. I've done some basic cleanup on the article already. More eyes appreciated. MB 00:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
More eyes watching Burford Capital are appreciated. been the target of clear COI editing, at least one is certainly an undeclared paid editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Since December 2017, Artak Hovhannisyan has edited on only two topics here: Ani Petrosyan and Rafo Khachatryan. Those two have been repeatedly created in mainspace, and repeatedly draftified or deleted. Ani Petrosyan has been draftified twice and deleted three times, Rafo Khachatryan deleted three times, once following a draftification, twice (by me) following reversion of a cut-and-paste move: both pages are ec-protected, so the latest attempt is at Rafo Khachatrian instead (that's been tagged for deletion as WP:A7, so may not be around for long either).
The user has apparently taken no notice of the conflict-of-interest notice I left him in July, and indeed has no edits in talk or user talk space. He declares here "I am Manager of Armenian singer Rafo Khachatryan", so it seems pretty certain that this is undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use, and that this is a spam/advertising-only user who should probably be indeffed as such. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A couple of edits by the user that are COI/paid editing in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=931484850&oldid=930080558&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=929939853&oldid=929523725&diffmode=source. Have received emails from user confirming paid relationship. robertsky ( talk) 07:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Two paid editors who have been creating Skoda bus articles in draft, and then moving them out into mainspace without any effective sources. Last night reviewed on NPP Škoda 32Tr SOR, moved back to draft and now back out to mainspace. Several times this has happened with various editors. They seem to be acting in concert. There is more several bus articles, all moved out of draft to mainspace, back to draft by various editors, non-sourced and all in mainspace. scope_creep Talk 11:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New-ish user who has been persistently adding sources written by Markus Heide to above articles. Did not respond on talk page. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Example 5. Example 6. Example 7. I believe there are about 20-30 more instances of them doing this over the past weeks. Adding Heide refs is more or less all they do. I have only listed half of the impacted articles. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The references are to articles I authored or coauthored. I do not do this for self promotion. I published articles on the issues addressed in the entries. I just started doing this and used my own article to learn how it works. My idea was to edit other entries as well and to add more authors and references. In case I should remove the references, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXUPP ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Four accounts, Dhun9265 and IDKANS plus two IP accounts, are the major contributors to BAITSSS. A sockpuppet investigation has been requested with Dhun9265 accused of a conflict of interest based on their username and of switching accounts to evade scrutiny. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on the username, User:Stuart Anderson MP is believed to be the subject of Stuart Anderson (politician). This user has deleted potentially damaging (sourced) content on this article about the subject's collapsed company and controversy, violating WP:NPOV. userdude 07:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not fully understanding how this is done on Wikipedia, but I am trying to report that this article /info/en/?search=Ola_Tunander is being edited by the subject of the article, who has turned it into a hagiography of himself. Tunander also seems to be using several different sock puppet accounts to conceal his identity when editing and debating on the talk page. I am probably not reporting this in the correct way, but I hope the point gets through. More information has been compiled on the talk page of the article. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ola_Tunander#Wikipedia_editors_need_to_intervene. 80.216.1.242 ( talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like 99Truthbetold is back at it (previous COIN discussion is here). Pinging JJMC89, who blocked the user previously. Also ThatMontrealIP and CAPTAIN RAJU. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
IP address with a long history of adding articles by the same authors as citation spam - the two articles here are just the latest examples. Multiple warnings have been issued. No response by the user. OsFish ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
On 13 December, The Wall Street Journal ( RSP entry) published "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online", which contains details on undisclosed paid editing performed under the direction of Status Labs, a reputation management firm connected to the infamous Wiki-PR. (See The Signpost's 9 October 2013 feature for details on Wiki-PR.)
The following is a list of users and articles implicated by the report. Feel free to add more if anything is missing. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
"An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter."
"advertising or self-promotion. Thanks, MER-C!
"Excessive involvement in reviewing articles"by Japanelemu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu/Archive § 08 May 2019 for details.
"Former Bank of America Corp. executive Omeed Malik also received services from Status Labs, according to people familiar with the matter."
"A Wikipedia page about Mr. Malik also became the first result in a Google search of his name, displacing news articles. Following a Journal query, Wikipedia removed Mr. Malik’s page."
"Disgraced blood-testing startup Theranos Inc. also received services from Status Labs, according to former employees. An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter. That account made several favorable edits to Theranos’ Wikipedia page. One edit removed a reference to an article in the Journal reporting Theranos devices often failed accuracy requirements."
"The hedge fund of billionaire Ken Griffin, Citadel LLC, hired Status Labs to edit information on Wikipedia in 2015 about the fund’s investments and Mr. Griffin’s art collection, according to a person familiar with the matter."
Is there anything actionable here? Are there other articles in the editing histories of the listed users that need attention, and are there other users who are potentially connected to this undisclosed paid editing operation? — Newslinger talk 10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
11 articles deleted. Not deleted: Organization of Iranian American Communities (substantial edits by others), Chris Santos (actor) (substantial edits by others), Henri Ben Ezra (survived AFD), R. Scott Oswald (survived AFD). MER-C 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeated introduction of unduly weighted promotional statements after multiple editors' reversions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I have concerns that User:Biografer may be creating aticles in return for payment. I have put a COI advice template on the user page here to which Biografer replied ‘’ {{ping|Velella}} And where did you got the impression that I have COI? I have no COI with anybody. I just write articles on notable individuals, just like you and everybody else here does’’ here.
My concerns stem from the great variety of mainly biographical articles created for mostly non-notable people. Biografer helpfully lists these all here which shows a considerable number having been deleted as not notable.
The issue which focussed my attention was this recent AfD debate in which Biografer argues very strenuously for retention of an article about a New Jersey surgeon despite a patent lack of notability. Subsequently Biografer nominated an article about a Hospital for deletion near to that where Silvia Fresco works.
The range of topics, the high rate of deletions, and the lack of any discernable focus, strongly suggests to me that articles are being written to order and probably for payment. Velella Velella Talk 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have added a dozen or so of Biografer's articles to the list above. The biggest thing I can see is that they are creating articles with very few secondary sources, basing start-class articles on a few primary sources (or in at least one case, no sources). Sometimes it is only one primary source, as in Arthur Steindler. So, instead of the article creator figuring out if the person is notable enough, the article gets created and we are left to wonder, as the sourcing is so poor. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a COI notice on this users talk page from 5 days ago, the day of their first edit. I put one on Pro Music Rights (PMR) today and it was promptly removed, with a note on my talk page claiming no connection with the subject. Furthermore, I moved the article to Pro Music Rights and this user moved it back stating that Pro Music Rights (PMR) is how the company refers to itself in legal documents - suggesting a high familiarity with the company. Beyond that, they asked on the article TP how to protect the article - indicating a high level of ownership. I find it hard to believe there is no COI and suggest this be investigated further. MB 02:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Entire edit history consists of maintaining his autobiographical article since he created it in 2017, in addition to self-promotion in other jazz-related articles. Attempted to remove templates in article regarding this and other issues. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The page Draft:Uppsala Security, created by user Subpark, has been speedily deleted twice for
WP:G11, now the user the IP 58.72.155.170 that has been editing the Korean article started the draft again. The same user User Subpark created the article about the company on the Korean Wikipedia under
w:ko:웁살라시큐리티, and uploaded 3 company logos to Wikimedia as own work, two of which have since been removed. I marked the two previous Uppsala Security drafts for
WP:SPEEDY, put the COI notice and Promotion tag on the article on ko.wikipedia and the Missing Permission Tag on the logo pages on Wikimedia. I'm reporting the COI here and inform the user, and then I'm not going to take further action, since I don't want this to appear as if I have something against the user or the company. --
OrestesLebt (
talk)
07:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This user is obviously just here to create pages for his clients. This edit clearly mentions that the page is created with paid editing and not encyclopedic. This user has created many more such pages. Coderzombie ( talk) 20:04, 27 December 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. |
Very likely an undisclosed paid editor, creating promotional articles, uploading promotional images as his own work using sock accounts and sending fake emails to OTRS for permission and when he was asked about the ownership of those images, he claimed I took their email address from their social accounts and at that email address I asked for their photos.., I looked at almost everyone's social media profiles and none of them has mentioned their email ids so, there is definitely something fishy and needs to be investigated. Begoon do you want to add something? GSS 💬 04:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello dear moderator,
I am a follower of Pakistani hip-hop and have been contributing to the "Pakistani hip hop music" page. There's a user on Wikipedia "Pma94lc" who is reflecting an obvious conflict of interest that I will explain in few simple words. Allow me to enlighten you with a little editing history of this article that had occurred in the recent days, I will be covering only the parts of editing that involves the conflict of interest that I am reporting:
First Edit by me: 00:55, 29 November 2019 Nayabks Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928416587
The article missed 2 of the most important rappers of the industry, Chen-K (the most subscribed Urdu rapper in Pakistan)( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkIiT7UVrf0IJgqLbe8KJGA/videos) and Sunny Khan Durrani (he raps in classic Urdu, if there's an Indian or Pakistani around you, they can verify it by simply listening to his tracks: ( https://www.youtube.com/user/sunnykhandurrani/videos), I gave both of them their due credits.
Later in this edit by "Pma94lc", it was all removed:
Following edit by Pma94lc: 13:01, 30 November 2019 Pma94lc Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pakistani_hip_hop_music&oldid=928608665
Instead, there was a new name added, of a rapper called "Raamis" who was equalized with Chen-K, who is not notable at all, even in the underground, here's his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYPkdSW9O1yUiZk3_9f0Pcw/videos
Because I am aware of the whole Pakistani rap scene, I know that there was a beef between Chen-K/Sunny Khan Durrani being on one side and Raamis/Talha Younus (From Young Stunners) on the other side, both the group have been continuously dissing each other and the beef is on even right now. Here are some of the diss tracks that have been doing rounds on the internet:
(Sequenced in upload date order) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZeBEM_lX8c (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9es2ruWwlE (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVuD3noLwpA (Sunny Khan Durrani dissing Talha Younus on behalf of Chen-K) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaQuZyot6A (Raamis dissing Sunny Khand Durrani) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=272B1CesqIw (Talha Younus dissing Chen-K)
Any Pakistani hip hop music fan will be able to point these edits by PMA94lc out as conflict of interest and they will be able to identify this user as either Raamis or one of their relatives, I'm not outing the user, I am simply stating what it looks like. By all aforementioned evidence, it is quite apparent that my edits have been authentic and the edits by PMA94lc are in the interest of Raamis and Young Stunners, for this purpose, I am requesting appropriate action against the violating account. I will be coming back with references to my edits so that they will be locked for future.
Thank you for your time, I truly appreciate the energy you all put in to make this place the abundant source of knowledge and information that it is today.
With sincere regards, Nayabks ( talk) 03:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This page contains promotional language that suggests someone from George Gascon's campaign for LA District Attorney may have been involved in the edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbucchere ( talk • contribs)
User:MicahZoltu has had an account since 2009, but it barely had any edits until September 2019, with someone finally adding a welcome message to their talk page two weeks ago. They started their new editing career on Augur (software) - an ICO crypto-token for prediction markets - with an extensive, barely-sourced explanation of Augur (and those sources literally didn't mention Augur). This ill sourced addition was reverted back in repeatedly. RS-cited claims that were negative to Augur were removed. Admitted unsourced OR was added.
MicahZoltu has since continued to add long contributions with bad sourcing to multiple articles, mostly articles that are under WP:GS/Crypto.
MicahZoltu has posted long and querulous additions to talk pages - e.g., Talk:Augur (software), Talk:Ethereum, my talk page, and in a non-crypto example Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence - repeatedly asking the same questions of multiple editors about why their bad sources are good - and why the standard "mainstream third-party RSes" is not enough for them.
As one of the editors MicahZoltu questions in this manner (others include
Jtbobwaysf and
Roxy the dog), I would say there is a bad case of
WP:IDHT and attempting to
personalise basic explanations of sourcing in multiple contentious areas - see
User talk:MicahZoltu for a remarkable list of DS and GS caution notices.
It now turns out that MicahZoltu is or was a consultant for the Foresight Institute - the promoters of the Augur software, its token, and the ICO for the token. [1] MicahZoltu didn't make it clear whether or not they still had a holding of the cryptocurrency token (such a holding also being a specifically listed WP:COI).
This is really seriously dicing with GS/Crypto, but MicahZoltu considers their problems to be due to "wikilawyers", and not e.g. themselves - c.f.
this, a standard
WP:1AM.
MicahZoltu has repeatedly removed
[2]
[3]
[4]the COI notice placed there by me and by
Calton. They said that "I think it would be best if someone who is wholly uninvolved with blockchains and crypto-currencies add one or both of us if they believe that is reasonable", Calton added it back, and MicahZoltu then claimed Calton was clearly "involved", for no apparent reason.
MicahZoltu insists that they will continue to remove the COI notice until
WP:COIN rules they have a COI. I ask editors for their opinions on this matter.
I have not asked for sanctions under
WP:GS/Crypto - and this isn't the venue - in the hope that MicahZoltu will come to a better understanding of Wikipedia sourcing rules. Though others may think such are appropriate. I do think the COI notice needs to go on the talk page, and MicahZoltu needs to be enjoined from touching
Augur (software) -
David Gerard (
talk)
01:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:
Satdeep first contacted me at Draft talk:Rubina Bajwa two days after when it was draftified. I asked Satdeep to submit the draft for a review since it has language and claims that do not go with the policies and the article was created by a single purpose account in draftspace and moved by Meenaya an undisclosed paid editor. Today after moving the draft back to main he uploaded File:Rubina Bajwa.jpg which he received through email and claimed I was contacted by the copyright holder.. which sound quite hard to digest. There are hundreds of users on Wikipedia so why and how particularly he was contacted by them directly and espacially after the page was removed from the mainspace. He is mostly creating articles about those he possibly know personally and uploading their images that he receives through email such as "Amarjit Chandan" whose three personal images were uploaded by him today on commons. GSS 💬 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yah Rubina Bajwa pulls up a whole group of undisclosed paid for articles.
Etc Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I have off-Wiki evidence that User:Marknamz8931 created the Ben Chase page for money. Ben Chase openly put the job out for tender on Upwork. One only has to read the page and look at User:Marknamz8931's other edits to bare witness to this obvious COI. However, should the UPE police wish to break with tradition and see evidence I am more than happy to provide screen shots via a secure email. 12.202.180.115 ( talk) 13:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
you're trying to harass me Marknamz8931 ( talk) 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I found this one under Euglena Co., Ltd in the new page feed, having been created by User:Simon.mangel. After having found that his Linkedin profile listed him as an intern at the company, I moved it to draft (as paid editors are required to run their articles through AfC). Subsequently, he changed his profile and pretended that I was lying, and then later admitted to it and requested deletion of the draft.
Then, a draft of the same name was created by User:Paul Quinney (in his first edit), then it was moved to main space User:Jean-Baptiste.Ret (a new user with a series of edits that appear to be directly related to the company). I subsequently moved the article to Euglena (company), but it seems cler to me that we are dealing with a series of paid editors working at the company who are determined to create an article in main space without going through the required channels. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 19:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the problem users on the Euglena articles were blocked at SPI. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This user is blocked on de.wiki since a few days. It's a paid editor. You can see the de.wiki spi case here
Please block and check the edits of this user.
Truth12356 ( talk) 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this article is essentially the sole product of the company's marketing people. Deli nk ( talk) 20:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We are requesting that an independent editor urgently address the issues highlighted two weeks ago under "Controversy" as part of the International Fund for Agricultural Development article. Please refer to the talk page for further information concerning the issues raised as well as identified broken links. [ [5]] Many thanks for your kind action. James at ifad ( talk) 10:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeatedly removing sourced material. Not engaging in discussion. The article probably needs more eyes on it. [6] [7] [8] [9] OrionTribute ( talk) 23:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Still ongoing. [10] OrionTribute ( talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Continuing. [11] Is this an issue for ANI? OrionTribute ( talk) 20:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There is indeed an edit war going on, and it seems that OrionTribute is the party which keeps reinserting derogatory information for some nefarious purpose. It is getting out of hand, and is reflective of some sort of animus towards Congressman Bates. These sorts of attacks, no matter whom they affect, are unfair and should not use Wikipedia as a base of attack or projectile for personal animus. This sort of vicious activity has taken over the national consciousness, and really must stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99Truthbetold ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The user 99Truthbetold is way past 3rr in their ongoing campaign to keep certain well-sourced material out of the article. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The user is a disclosed paid editor for the museum ("Marketing Assistant at the Reynolds-Alberta Museum"). Posting here as I am slightly uncertain of what to think of this or what precise advice to give him/her. The draft article has no independent sources, and stands little chance of being published as is. Something might be salvages from what is there. But it's pure paid promotion basically. Thoughts are welcome. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum was intended to be a subpage to Reynolds-Alberta Museum, similar to the relation between List of surviving Avro Lancasters and Avro Lancaster. As a museum, we frequently get questions about what exactly is in our collection. The list is intended to be for information purposes, and so people doing research anywhere in the world can know the whereabouts of some of the rare artifacts that are in our collection. While I am paid by the Government of Alberta on behalf of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum, my end goal here is not profit. Instead, my goal is to allow a wider audience to access the information that the museum is caretaker of. However, I am very new to Wikipedia, and I am completely open to suggestions on how to attain this goal. Would an external link to a similar list on our website work better ( https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation)? The problem with an external link is that the end viewer would lose the links that I included in Draft:The Transportation Collection of the Reynolds-Alberta Museum that leads to Wikipedia pages that cover the various artifacts and the companies that made them. Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
So, the way I understand it, the best way to end this (and avoid COI) is to post to Talk:Reynolds-Alberta Museum and ask someone to post an external link to https://reynoldsmuseum.ca/land-transportation. Is this correct? If so, it would be acceptable to me. Afterwards, I will delete my draft, after maybe salvaging the Wikipedia links for the museum's website, as Nat Gertler suggests. Would this satisfy all parties? Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 22:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur Tyler at Reynolds Museum ( talk) 23:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The user was created only in May and immediately showed high wiki-editing skills. All contribution is solely devoted to documenting paid articles about singer Normani being the greatest, awards, charts and accomplishments. Nothing of what I regard as usual or trivial for a fan-contributing page. -- Маргарита Бабовникова ( talk) 13:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There's something odd going on at Robert Gant. Two accounts, Richierich11 & Freeandaware, are actively turning the article into a resume/CV. Suspect undisclosed paid/COI editing. Could someone with more experience dealing with this have a look? Also, ping for @ Marchjuly. Thanks, FASTILY 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
User is removing sourced controversial details from The Quint page and calling contributors including me as troll. First they did it here, here and again here by calling it bias. Point to be noted that all details are sourced and fake news details are taken from alt news. Same website has been given as citation in various media houses like Republic TV, OpIndia and BLP like Madhu Kishwar. Simply searching user's name google results show digital marketing company's founder. User is not engaging in talk page discussions even and just removing nehative details about this brand. It seems they have some COI with this company. Harshil want to talk? 09:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor is only contributing in this article and adding claims like world-class, worked with 400/500 top companies, eloquent speaker and many more without any source but removing details like legal sues against subject, criticism of his sexist remarks which were sourced. In
this edit, he clearly says that People wants to create the Wikipedia page to showcase their remarkable contributions to the industry, society done by them
and negative things shouldn't mentioned. This person seems to be associated with either his political party or his firm. Definitely
WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --
Harshil
want to talk?
11:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Placed self-promotional material on the subject, use of first-person pronouns in edit summary, and username suggests that user is the subject of the article. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been reported as having a conflict of interest regarding this article but I can't find any report or editors submitting evidence for this. Can this be looked into? Thanks 83.218.151.178 ( talk) 11:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Highly promotional article, CSD'ed by Fastily and Steven (Editor), moved to draft, etc. COI version back in mainspace again. MB 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
An artist who may well be notable; the article reads like an advertorial in a free newspaper. Most of the recent editing has been by just-joined editors who are particuarly interested in this topic, Curlyfries01, Monroeno and Katybugarch; the article was started by a past SPA, Babpacih. I filed this after one of them removed the {{ advert}} and {{ puffery}} notices which the article richly deserved; I've asked Katybugarch to disclose if they're an undeclared paid editor. My psychic powers tell me all these editors are closely linked. The article needs going through with an axe - David Gerard ( talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Likely COI editor, as the editor added a link to the article which linked to a website with the same name as the user. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This could use a look over generally, over recent changes, and in relation to the two specific Talk: topics:
John Hyams claims to be in Haifa (their user page)(Redacted) Together with their editing focus, that's getting to COI problem territory. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject is leader of Hare Krishna Movement and Hyderabad chapter. User is editing only articles related to him and here to promote it. Can someone block them under username policy and COI policy?-- Harshil want to talk? 12:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Primary editor would like to remove COI tagging from the article, but is one of the original authors of the research paper. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
r 2019 (UTC)
I am Scott Mathews, the primary author. I am not much of a Wikipedia writer, and so mostly have to read howto articles. In spite of my caution, I obviously got off on the wrong track because my intention was simply to write an extension to an existing original article that was published by Wikipedia in March, 2012. At that time and until November 2019, there have been no issues with COI. It was only my clumsy attempt to add an extension to the original article (intending to make the subject material more broadly applicable to the general business audience who are knowledgeable in this technical area) that these issues, including COI have been raised. My previous editor has been User:Fintor who is knowledgeable about this financial subject area, but he is on vacation.
I am Scott H. Mathews, the author of the prior research work. The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have reviewed and found interesting and useful. The extensions attempt to make the findings published in the original article more understandable to a broad audience and simpler to apply.
1. The original article (from 2012) was published and no COI was flagged at that time. The article refers to me (Scott H. Mathews) and my collaborator, Dr. Vinay Datar, because we created this work which is owned by my (now) former company. At the time, this work was understood as a new contribution to this technical field of real options. This work is referenced in a number of other Wikipedia articles, for example Black-Scholes Model (
/info/en/?search=Black-Scholes_model).
2. The extension (to the original article) that I wrote (and submitted in November 2019) is my own work and is not owned by any entity. It contains formulas, graphs and images all of which I created myself. The images I created are submitted to WikiCommons.
3. As in the original article, this extension refers to me as being creator of this work. However, the work is equations and algorithms and should not be interpreted as 'personal', but rather as generally enabling for individuals attempting to utilize the work to carry out investigations into external activities, such as the valuation of risky projects. This, of course, was the purpose of the original article.
4. I believe this article and its identification of me as the creator does not qualify as a conflict of interest. Please remove the alert on this web page.
Thank you. MathewsSH ( talk) 22:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews
ThatMontrealIP,
scope_creep, any suggestions on how to scrub this article so it wouldn't have COI?
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
23:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The extensions I am inserting into the article represent new work entirely of my own and that other SMEs have reviewed and found interesting and usefulsounds a lot like WP:OR, which is I guess what you mean. We need a mathematician for this one. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
MathewsSH ( talk) 20:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Scott Mathews
Over this holiday I was able to find (using Google Scholar and other search engines) probably more than 100 references in multiple languages to the original article (Datar-Mathews method for real option valuation). From those I have selected about 20 that are especially relevant and will include many as additional references to the article. I do have a question however: the Datar-Mathews Method was patented (U.S. Patent No. 6,862,579). In the process of issuing a patent the USPTO performs a thorough investigation of similar work with the intent of discerning the unique elements of the patent application. A link to the USPTO easily reveals all the investigation results. Given the uniqueness of the patent finding, help me understand better the Wikipedia COI finding. Will the additional references I intend to place in the article help resolve the COI finding? MathewsSH ( talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews
As an aside, to ThatMontrealIP, your question of "How was User:Fintor helping you to edit before?" should be easy to answer. When the original article was published (March 2012), there was a series of very expert edits by and helpful exchanges with Fintor. This was recorded in the View History page of the original article. You should be able to review the View History page, which would answer your question. If I remember correctly, I believe there was also a Talk page on which may have contained some of the exchanges I had as I was developing the original article. I have no idea what has happened to that content. MathewsSH ( talk) 23:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Scott Mathews
@ ThatMontrealIP: Thank you for staying involved in this issue. As someone relatively new to Wikipedia, I am still trying to understand how best to comply with Wikipedia standards. In response to several tags that were appended to my extended version of this article, I have now added some 20 additional references that cite the DM Method and ancillary sources providing a relatively well-documented article. In my opinion this adequately addresses several tags, and therefore I removed "excessive ... references to self-published sources" and "establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources".
One tag remains: "close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." I am not sure if this is the same as COI. Perhaps you can clarify for me what are the differences. In addition to the 20 additional references, I have also tried to eliminate language that may seem impartial or biased. It appears the resolution of this tag may require a third party, such as yourself, to review whether the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. I would appreciate your input on this subject, and if you believe it complies, then remove the tag. However if in your opinion the article still falls short, please explain how it might be remedied. Again, thank you for your time and attention. MathewsSH ( talk) 23:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Scott H Mathews
User is repeatedly recreating draft related to subject even after warning issued by Jimfbleak regarding COI. All details are copied from their website. Can anyone block them for being nothere and coi violation?— Harshil want to talk? 16:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Bond2018 is a single-purpose account; they have only ever edited Ariel S. Leve. All their edits have added promotional language or content to the article. My attempts to address their apparent COI at their talk page have not met with a response; they are either unaware that they have a talk page, or unwilling to engage there. Wham2001 ( talk) 18:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This user has made quite a few very promotional articles, including at least three deleted ones: Sergei Savateev, Aliya Prokofyeva, and Kseniya Shoygu. This user is definitely paid to edit, based on the blatantly promotional writing in the articles. See, for example, Andrii Ostapchuk: "In 2009, Ostapchuk studied in Chernivtsi Trade and Economic Institute. He was the only student on the course who got 'excellent' in all subjects. After a year of study, he passed the first session perfectly, decided to leave the Institute and find a job." In Nadiia Shapoval: "The first chapter is a collection of ceramics handmade in Ukraine using traditional craft techniques in collaboration with Kyiv-based artist Masha Reva. With its signature thick black lines and strokes of bold colours, Reva's art brings out the warmth and beauty of Ukrainian pottery, which has been an integral part of family and community for generations." Extremely blatant advertising, this user should be blocked indefinitely for numerous paid articles. DemonDays64 ( talk) 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I have been told that I have a COI in regards to this other Wikipedia user. Is it even possible to have a COI with a user? Elizium23 ( talk) 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject is the chairman of the organisation namely Andhra Pradesh Zero Budget Natural Farming (APZBNF) organisation of Government of Andhra Pradesh. Can someone block the editor in the violation of Username policy and COI?-- Harshil want to talk? 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
An undisclosed paid (and now blocked) editor, Benetembry, has alluded to the fact that they are one of several individuals who are managers/publicists and actively editing the articles of their clients. They have not (and likely will not) reveal their employer(s). They have reacted very negatively to their block and have announced their intention to pursue legal action.
Searching for the subject of their attempted WP:SOAPBOX article, I found a source listing four management and PR firms: The Bridge Talent Group, Catalyst Talent Management, The Linicomn Agency and Berry Good PR. For two of them, I was able to find their client rosters: https://www.thelinicomnagency.com/, https://www.catalysttcm.com/.
This will be tedious, but it's probably a good idea to go through these client lists, find out which ones have articles here and check for signs of undisclosed paid editing. I'll fill in the list as I find them... would appreciate anyone else's assistance. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This section seems promotional to me, if someone interested in education-topics wants to take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The user Wwwhatsup is on the payroll of the Internet Society. They acknowledge being "a vendor of the Internet Society", but says it is not a conflict of interest. I believe it is a conflict of interest. I know that Wwwhatsup is paid to administer at least one social media account (Twitter) for the Internet Society (I am not naming this individual publicly as this could lead to their identification), among other communications tasks. They say they are "not paid to edit Wikipedia", which I am not alleging, but they are paid to perform communications work for this organization, so I do not think they should be editing the page. They have deleted my edits to the page like the section 'Controversies', the intent of which I think is self-evident - they are being a cheerleader for the Internet Society, not an objective, neutral editor. - Ferdeline ( talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This is amazing, given the need for an organization representing the Internet in the arena of international coordination at a time (the early 1990s) when no serious competitors to the Internet Society existed.and
It has consistently struggled for recognition and influence; these are rather problematic statements if not sourced. As mentioned in my declaration of involvement above, you also sourced claims to your own Twitter. You have also repeatedly accused Wwwhatsup of bad faith editing (which is itself a personal attack) and are skirting the outing line right now.
Hello Creffett, thank you for your comments. If I may, I would like to clarify that I only linked to a Twitter post which was a screenshot of the organization's IRS 990 form, as it was not online at the time. It is now online and I subsequently added a link to it in the Wikipedia article (albeit in a different location). I did not cite my own Twitter as a form of self-promotion. In later edits I thought I had added citations to other parts of the article, including the comment about the Internet Society lacking influence and recognition. I acknowledge the other sentence you highlighted was commentary, though I do believe it to be true. I have been very careful not to out Wwwhatsup, by not referencing their gender or other identifiable details. However, Wwwhatsup has named and shamed me on Facebook, part of an attempt to intimidate me. One troll (not Wwwhatsup, just responding to their Facebook post) subsequently wrote that I should delete my Wikipedia account. Ferdeline ( talk) 21:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have asked on the talk page that they specify what exactly is wrong with my edits.Assuming you do work for the Internet Society, WP:COI is what is wrong with your edits. If you are under the pay of the subject, you are not a neutral editor. It sounds like both of you leaving the article to more neutral editors would be a good idea. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is about what could be a notable theatre organization, but plagued for years with COI/undisclosed paid editing. The sources that aren't primary are dead links, and I'm sure an exhaustive list of their production history isn't appropriate. Maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre could help in this case? Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
User:DrLori (presumably Lori Verderame herself, or possibly someone working for her) was blocked after making a series of edits to this page on December 1 (see her talk page). Immediately thereafter edits from 71.185.245.140 came, of the same nature; and subsequently mobile edits have been coming from 92.43.227.92. Consistently the edits have been promotional and have removed well-sourced biographical material, while also correcting mistakes as presumably only Verderame herself would know. Please block both of these. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New user Rohit Jagessar and the IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E010:4B70:0:0:0:0/64 have been promoting Rohit Jagessar as a writer and music producer. Jagessar recently self-published a book called Kiss and Breathe, and he lists himself as the winner of various awards. BFI says he released the film Guiana 1838 in 2005 [12] and AllMusic says he served as executive producer on two compilation albums. [13] But the activity of this registered account and the IP range have moved squarely into the realm of promotion. Binksternet ( talk) 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of undesired practises going on with the article Simcoach Games:
1) Employee(s) of the company "Simcoach Games" are making edits. For example, * Mdenton Simcoach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made it clear in their username. 2) The article content is impacted by this COI editor (user mentioned above) to such an extent that talk page resolution isn't suitable.
3) The article shows more signs of COI editing (not just by the above mentioned user) which are for example:
That would mean the article has been created by personnel of the company (Simcoach Games) that the article is about, and later on maintained by personnel of the company (the blatant user Mdenton Simcoach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The COI aspect in most of the significant editors has by now steered the entire article in a way that cannot be easily resolved by editing, and would probably be opposed by those who have created and shaped the article to their desires (the COI writers).
If the noticeboard judges that this notice is valid and my suspicions are right, I propose either of these solutions:
- The article is removed, because the extent of influence by COI writers steered it "beyond repair", as the entire text is heavily oriented towards promotion and portfolio. To be recreated in an appropiate manner. - Neutral editors are given a green light to make the appropiate edits to remove promotion, portfolio and opinionation from the article. To completely counter the influence of staff writers from Simcoach Games, rewriting larger chunks or the entire article might be neccesary. This can be done under a green light, as so to ensure that the COI writers will not interfere with the clean-ups and repairs. This requires some past editors from the article (at least the ones I mentioned) to be flagged as having a COI for said article.
I personally think that the coordinated actions of all of these staff members/promotional/PR writers combined have a combined influence (conflicting with Wikipedia pillars) that would really warrant manually reverting all of such edits, and the wiki articles of both companies. More investigation is needed to identify other tainted edits from users that can be identified as their staff. They are literally putting their company's stamp all over Wikipedia.. -- Blooker ( talk) 03:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this article is more of a resume than a bio. I'm not sure if there is a COI, but neither editor has worked on much else. A COI tag elicited this response on my talk page. I've done some basic cleanup on the article already. More eyes appreciated. MB 00:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
More eyes watching Burford Capital are appreciated. been the target of clear COI editing, at least one is certainly an undeclared paid editor. ☆ Bri ( talk) 18:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Since December 2017, Artak Hovhannisyan has edited on only two topics here: Ani Petrosyan and Rafo Khachatryan. Those two have been repeatedly created in mainspace, and repeatedly draftified or deleted. Ani Petrosyan has been draftified twice and deleted three times, Rafo Khachatryan deleted three times, once following a draftification, twice (by me) following reversion of a cut-and-paste move: both pages are ec-protected, so the latest attempt is at Rafo Khachatrian instead (that's been tagged for deletion as WP:A7, so may not be around for long either).
The user has apparently taken no notice of the conflict-of-interest notice I left him in July, and indeed has no edits in talk or user talk space. He declares here "I am Manager of Armenian singer Rafo Khachatryan", so it seems pretty certain that this is undisclosed paid editing in violation of our Terms of Use, and that this is a spam/advertising-only user who should probably be indeffed as such. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A couple of edits by the user that are COI/paid editing in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=931484850&oldid=930080558&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Douglas_Gan&diff=929939853&oldid=929523725&diffmode=source. Have received emails from user confirming paid relationship. robertsky ( talk) 07:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Two paid editors who have been creating Skoda bus articles in draft, and then moving them out into mainspace without any effective sources. Last night reviewed on NPP Škoda 32Tr SOR, moved back to draft and now back out to mainspace. Several times this has happened with various editors. They seem to be acting in concert. There is more several bus articles, all moved out of draft to mainspace, back to draft by various editors, non-sourced and all in mainspace. scope_creep Talk 11:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
New-ish user who has been persistently adding sources written by Markus Heide to above articles. Did not respond on talk page. Example 1. Example 2. Example 3. Example 4. Example 5. Example 6. Example 7. I believe there are about 20-30 more instances of them doing this over the past weeks. Adding Heide refs is more or less all they do. I have only listed half of the impacted articles. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The references are to articles I authored or coauthored. I do not do this for self promotion. I published articles on the issues addressed in the entries. I just started doing this and used my own article to learn how it works. My idea was to edit other entries as well and to add more authors and references. In case I should remove the references, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXUPP ( talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Four accounts, Dhun9265 and IDKANS plus two IP accounts, are the major contributors to BAITSSS. A sockpuppet investigation has been requested with Dhun9265 accused of a conflict of interest based on their username and of switching accounts to evade scrutiny. -- Paleorthid ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on the username, User:Stuart Anderson MP is believed to be the subject of Stuart Anderson (politician). This user has deleted potentially damaging (sourced) content on this article about the subject's collapsed company and controversy, violating WP:NPOV. userdude 07:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not fully understanding how this is done on Wikipedia, but I am trying to report that this article /info/en/?search=Ola_Tunander is being edited by the subject of the article, who has turned it into a hagiography of himself. Tunander also seems to be using several different sock puppet accounts to conceal his identity when editing and debating on the talk page. I am probably not reporting this in the correct way, but I hope the point gets through. More information has been compiled on the talk page of the article. /info/en/?search=Talk:Ola_Tunander#Wikipedia_editors_need_to_intervene. 80.216.1.242 ( talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like 99Truthbetold is back at it (previous COIN discussion is here). Pinging JJMC89, who blocked the user previously. Also ThatMontrealIP and CAPTAIN RAJU. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 18:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
IP address with a long history of adding articles by the same authors as citation spam - the two articles here are just the latest examples. Multiple warnings have been issued. No response by the user. OsFish ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
On 13 December, The Wall Street Journal ( RSP entry) published "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online", which contains details on undisclosed paid editing performed under the direction of Status Labs, a reputation management firm connected to the infamous Wiki-PR. (See The Signpost's 9 October 2013 feature for details on Wiki-PR.)
The following is a list of users and articles implicated by the report. Feel free to add more if anything is missing. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
"An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter."
"advertising or self-promotion. Thanks, MER-C!
"Excessive involvement in reviewing articles"by Japanelemu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu/Archive § 08 May 2019 for details.
"Former Bank of America Corp. executive Omeed Malik also received services from Status Labs, according to people familiar with the matter."
"A Wikipedia page about Mr. Malik also became the first result in a Google search of his name, displacing news articles. Following a Journal query, Wikipedia removed Mr. Malik’s page."
"Disgraced blood-testing startup Theranos Inc. also received services from Status Labs, according to former employees. An editing account used by Status Labs was called Jppcap, according to people familiar with the matter. That account made several favorable edits to Theranos’ Wikipedia page. One edit removed a reference to an article in the Journal reporting Theranos devices often failed accuracy requirements."
"The hedge fund of billionaire Ken Griffin, Citadel LLC, hired Status Labs to edit information on Wikipedia in 2015 about the fund’s investments and Mr. Griffin’s art collection, according to a person familiar with the matter."
Is there anything actionable here? Are there other articles in the editing histories of the listed users that need attention, and are there other users who are potentially connected to this undisclosed paid editing operation? — Newslinger talk 10:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
11 articles deleted. Not deleted: Organization of Iranian American Communities (substantial edits by others), Chris Santos (actor) (substantial edits by others), Henri Ben Ezra (survived AFD), R. Scott Oswald (survived AFD). MER-C 19:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeated introduction of unduly weighted promotional statements after multiple editors' reversions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I have concerns that User:Biografer may be creating aticles in return for payment. I have put a COI advice template on the user page here to which Biografer replied ‘’ {{ping|Velella}} And where did you got the impression that I have COI? I have no COI with anybody. I just write articles on notable individuals, just like you and everybody else here does’’ here.
My concerns stem from the great variety of mainly biographical articles created for mostly non-notable people. Biografer helpfully lists these all here which shows a considerable number having been deleted as not notable.
The issue which focussed my attention was this recent AfD debate in which Biografer argues very strenuously for retention of an article about a New Jersey surgeon despite a patent lack of notability. Subsequently Biografer nominated an article about a Hospital for deletion near to that where Silvia Fresco works.
The range of topics, the high rate of deletions, and the lack of any discernable focus, strongly suggests to me that articles are being written to order and probably for payment. Velella Velella Talk 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have added a dozen or so of Biografer's articles to the list above. The biggest thing I can see is that they are creating articles with very few secondary sources, basing start-class articles on a few primary sources (or in at least one case, no sources). Sometimes it is only one primary source, as in Arthur Steindler. So, instead of the article creator figuring out if the person is notable enough, the article gets created and we are left to wonder, as the sourcing is so poor. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
There was a COI notice on this users talk page from 5 days ago, the day of their first edit. I put one on Pro Music Rights (PMR) today and it was promptly removed, with a note on my talk page claiming no connection with the subject. Furthermore, I moved the article to Pro Music Rights and this user moved it back stating that Pro Music Rights (PMR) is how the company refers to itself in legal documents - suggesting a high familiarity with the company. Beyond that, they asked on the article TP how to protect the article - indicating a high level of ownership. I find it hard to believe there is no COI and suggest this be investigated further. MB 02:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Entire edit history consists of maintaining his autobiographical article since he created it in 2017, in addition to self-promotion in other jazz-related articles. Attempted to remove templates in article regarding this and other issues. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The page Draft:Uppsala Security, created by user Subpark, has been speedily deleted twice for
WP:G11, now the user the IP 58.72.155.170 that has been editing the Korean article started the draft again. The same user User Subpark created the article about the company on the Korean Wikipedia under
w:ko:웁살라시큐리티, and uploaded 3 company logos to Wikimedia as own work, two of which have since been removed. I marked the two previous Uppsala Security drafts for
WP:SPEEDY, put the COI notice and Promotion tag on the article on ko.wikipedia and the Missing Permission Tag on the logo pages on Wikimedia. I'm reporting the COI here and inform the user, and then I'm not going to take further action, since I don't want this to appear as if I have something against the user or the company. --
OrestesLebt (
talk)
07:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This user is obviously just here to create pages for his clients. This edit clearly mentions that the page is created with paid editing and not encyclopedic. This user has created many more such pages. Coderzombie ( talk) 20:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)