![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor is the article subject Declaration. They also contacted OTRS VRTS ticket # 2016080310001511. I also left a COI warning message on their talk page. It also seems that this account Elliot.fletch ( talk · contribs · count) is a sockmaster for the above account. - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to editing the article of her father. Phuzion ( talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has been warned about his or her potential COI instances previously. Their edits solely pertain to software development, including the linked article about a Ukrainian development company. They are attempting to sway the company's AfD on its discussion page. He or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required disclosure WP:PAID. BonkHindrance ( talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
such a declaration is not required(followed by a conditional) can easily be misinterpreted. I'm not required to make a declaration that I do not have a conflict of interest for every article I edit. But when challenged, with {{ uw-paid}} for example, even if I don't have a conflict of interest, I should cease editing until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest. Vexations ( talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please explain the connection."Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Would someone like to take a look at this? There seems to be no way of communicating to User:Flchans that it is not appropriate to continue editing Maryna Tkachuk now that the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. The user wrote here "This is an institutional effort to provide biographical facts about its notable faculty/administration", and was able to predict that OTRS permission would be provided for the text and photograph in the article, so there's no room for doubt about a close connection – it doesn't seem remotely productive to speculate whether it is a paid employee or the subject herself actually making the edits. More eyes please! Oh, I'm far from convinced that she is even notable – her citations on Scholar are remarkably low (this could be because Google doesn't cope well with Ukrainian publications, however). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello guys. How do I best adress this? Straight to the point - I have no personal stake in the article being published or not published here on English Wikipedia. You can even go ahead and outright delete it forever if you beleive this is for the greater good of the Wikipedia. The article is based on the publicly available sources, some of which are related to their subject, and there's been an article in Ukrainian in existince for over a year. Throughout my experience here on English Wikipedia I only face wild assumptions, false claims and what I can perceive as personal attacks. It is amusing to see someone with no knowledge of Ukraine and its language (and probably philosophy as well) seriously discussing notability of the article. My "unbrindled passion" in refuting this claims only comes from my personality - I hate being accused of something I never did.
Way I see it, by now this escalated into an effort to find a "legitimate" way to take action against the article or me, or both. This effort has been generally going in 3 directions: 1) legality/copyright - the battle on this front has already been lost for JLAN, Sulfurboy and the like after the proper declarations were issued; 2) notability - I struggle how people of no knowledge/authority of the matter will decide on a notability on that - but I'd like to refer you here - /info/en/?search=National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy#Reputation ; this article was not created by me so you will probably view it as a good enough source. Now tell me, is the dean of the faculty that is "nationally the strongest in humanities" notable enough to be placed here? I dearly hope so; and finally 3) possible COI, which also finds no proof other than wild assumptions and unbacked claims. I mentioned several times I am not paid for this and such claims unless proves are balderdash. Best. Flchans ( talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There was a article a few days ago titled "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco" ("On Wikipedia, the dreamed lives of Juan Franco"), in Le Figaro on the Juan Branco page. The french community have been discussing that on the talk page of the article among others, and a warning was placed on the english talk page. While self promotion is nothing new, that has been going on since a long time, with sock puppets allegations, repeated edit warring, push to create page since years, and even a story of email to a employer to get a contributor fired. So we figured this would warrant a more visible communication to the community as well, since the english and spanish Wikipedias were also impacted. -- Misc ( talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Copied from VP:M and trimmed - Bri.public ( talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
All edits by this editor and the associated IPs are about Farid Khan and have a strong bias about the subject of the article. These accounts have been added content/references that violate WP:BLP and WP:RS. One of the IPs tried to remove the AfD tag from the article. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, based on their editing patterns, I was suspicious that Ollie Farr might be an undisclosed paid editor. I gave them a paid warning and tagged the article as suspected UPE. They have denied both being paid and having a COI. I'm not entirely convinced, so I'm bringing the discussion here for further review. My suspicion is primarily based on the near-perfect BLP draft being cranked out as edit number 13 and the commonalities of the draft article with previous paid/COI bios. There are a couple other things that tipped me which I'd rather not go into on a public discussion board; I'm willing to disclose them to administrators via email if needed. creffett ( talk) 00:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to deal with this one, but the editor in question seems good faith, though has a clear and strong conflict of interest that is heavily biasing their editing on this topic.
Article: Draft:Aquila Hotels & Resorts
I suspect it is notable, but the derth of refs need to be sorted and paired down (removing all the promo ones), and the content needs to be half nuked to remove all the promotionalism. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a history of apparent promotional editing on behalf of this company going back to 2011. The titles Draft:Pure Planet and Pure Planet have been salted against creation due to previous spamming. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
At this point we can't determine whether there is one human using three accounts or three humans using three accounts with one paymaster, but it probably doesn't matter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
User name is the same as the subject of the above article. The editor has also added this 'office'? to Dukes in the United Kingdom and List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (reverted from latter). Leaving aside the question of whether this Dukedom is real or not, the editor appears to have a conflict of inteest. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPA account, adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content and removing what little is sourced. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Blatantly self-promotional draft article creator, no prima facie COI disclosure. — Jeff G. ツ 12:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly added promotional uncited content to this article. They have responded to a COI notice (and follow-up) on their talkpage with "thank you for this but this is not advertising. Is just reporting right pieces of information about this company. I'll cut all the links to the website, if this is working better." They seem to be ducking the COI issue. Edwardx ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The edit is clearly a WP:SPA single purpose account, only editing about material connected with Stafaan Missinne, the person who allegedly identified an old globe as being by Da Vinci. The article in question had and may still have a lot of material copied from Missinne's book [1] and Talk:Da Vinci Globe. That's not enough evidence to prove a coi of course. But there's the images. File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by David Guam. Looking at some other images uploaded by Guam, the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? I asked Davidguam about any possible relationship but they haven't replied although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:LINKSPAM to the website of chinese NTD Television is added to List of classical music competitions by user NTD-Competition. The user is disguising the spam by giving it english titles and language codes. Username implies a COI connection to the target of the links. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Trishneet wrote on their userpage recently that they work for Rudhra Technologies, a digital marketing company, however despite warnings and requests for disclosure by myself and Discospinster they've failed to follow WP:PAID and do the actual disclosure and have gamed their articles, without AFC review into mainspace. Ashish Rudhra, per their own draft is the owner of Rudhra Technologies and nearly every article they've written is a client, a fact that they are now trying to hide. I suspect the rest are as well. I think after several warnings, this is grounds for a block when combined with the fact that they've now recreated at least four articles by past paid editing farms:
Now they're disruptively removing tags despite the very obvious policy and tou violation and trying to obfuscate their involvement by claiming "it was an accident". Praxidicae ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a paid user i'm just creating article.Let me quote your userpage for you:
I am working in a company, Rudhra Technologies.Even if you "work" for them, for free, they are still clients of your employer and that makes you an editor with a conflict of interest and also paid. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.So the argument that they somehow publicize these subjects on-the-clock but edit Wikipedia off-the-clock doesn't hold water. GMG talk 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a run-of-the-mill Upwork sockfarm. Noting here for the record. Some stuff has been draftified and deleted by the SPI team. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Editor created an autobiographical article. Despite being warned about WP:AUTOBIO, they have edited that article futher. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has explicitly acknowledged working as a "member of the marketing team" for the subject but has not made any other attempt to abide by WP:PAID or WP:COI despite multiple, explicit warnings posted to User Talk. ElKevbo ( talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that I should report this here. On 3 February, FCBlinder submitted Draft:Arash Shakour. I declined it at AFC, and said that it read like a directory entry, and that it would be speedily deleted in article space because it did not make a credible claim of significance. On 1 March, FCBlinder posted a query to my talk page asking why it did not show up on Google search. I saw that they had moved the draft into article space, and it was then deleted by User:Cryptic as A7, no credible claim of significance. Don't say I didn't warn them. This is strongly suggestive that they are being paid for search engine optimization. I replied at User talk:FCBlinder, asking for a conflict of interest declaration, and my post there has been deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"I made changes to this page then i asked him is the page now right and he didn’t respond me so i publish it yes because he didn’t answer me ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
At User:Taylor-winnie-bk, a COI editor apparently associated with blocked User:MC-Brand-Knew disclosed that they were "paid by Brand Knew on behalf of Science of People". However, there are no notices on the page with the related COI edits, Vanessa Van Edwards, or on its talk page. Similarly, User:Taylor-winnie-bk discloses payment "on behalf of It's Over Easy", without any notices at the related COI-edited page Laura Wasser. The disclosed COI editor has been inactive for 7 months. I'd suggest that notices, at least, should be placed on the edited pages, and some of the more promotional COI edits should likely be reverted. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC) rev. 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Autobiographical article written by the article's subject, a single-purpose account. This editor has been warned several times against COI/ WP:AUTO, yet persists in adding content. BonkHindrance ( talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Boomerang: The OP has been topic banned from Indian subjects. Bishonen | tålk 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:
Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Update: @ Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The fact that an editor prefers only one source like NDTV in this case blacking out others is a conflict of interest which is Res ipsa loquitur or apparent itself. It implies that the editor is promoting the source not the information and that is not just conflict of interest but may actually be commercial expoitation. It may be noted that NDTV has lowest readership in TV viewership in India. Check here : https://www.barcindia.co.in/statistic.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor User:Aleaiactm was created in January 2020 and has exclusively edited the Danielle Pletka page. The edits bear all the hallmarks of a COI account: removal of reliably sourced controversial information about the subject, addition of enormous amounts of trivial self-sourced text about the subject, addition of puffery, and changes to the kind of information that only someone with an affiliation to the subject would know (or be likely to care enough about to create a Wikipedia account and make changes). The editor is now edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Aleaiactm, you have made 18 edits up to this moment, all concerned with the article Danielle Pletka. It's quite interesting to see you explain the principles of Wikipedia to an experienced editor like Snooganssnoogans (27,279 edits), who you believe (or say you believe) to be confused about them. [2] Moving to aggression, as you also do here, does not help your case or make your denials more credible. I have blocked you for obvious COI editing. Please note that you can appeal this block by following the instructions I have left on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
Alexkowel (and SanraWinsAgain) are two single purpose accounts who's activity is 100% related to citing and/or promoting soft8soft and their products, mostly Verge3D. Alexkowel states that he is not paid to do any activity on Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe, though I won't go into details. Alexkowel has now twice removed COI/paid cleanup tags from Verge3D. Can I have some more eyes on this? Alex already doesn't like me much, maybe some guidance from someone fresh to the situation will help. MrOllie ( talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Presumably as a result of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we have editors who work for UNESCO adding content from UNESCO reports (published under an open licence) to Wikipedia, including by creating new articles such as Large-scale learning assessments. I wanted to check, should these editors be making declarations of paid editing? Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Theyachtbreak appears to have contributed material associated with this business in good faith to Advance provisioning allowance The Yacht Break and have chosen a username, based on that business. HopsonRoad ( talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
A lot of edits coming from a new username with the same name as the title. Could be benign but wanted to bring up for attention regardless Thepenguin9 ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address has recently started adding potentially promotional material that I had deleted back to the article without posting to the Talk Page. The user appears to only be editing this particular page and does not have a Talk Page of their own. I was not able to post a Conflict of interest notice due to this lack, however, I did provide an internal link to this noticeboard in the article Talk Page, while asking the user to cease and desist. Aleah H. ( talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Not quite sure whether this belongs at COIN or SPI or here, but tl;dr: An American architecture firm has been engaging in promotional editing and probably undisclosed paid editing for the last 13 years under multiple accounts.
Miguel Rosales is an American bridge architect and principal of the firm Rosales + Partners. He probably meets the GNG, but his presence on Wikipedia is far greater than you would expect. His involvement (largely as conceptual architect or lighting designer) is always prominently listed on projects primarily designed by others, rather minor pedestrian bridges that he worked on (ex 1, 2, 3, 4) have extensive articles, and awards for this works are prominently listed.
Almost all of this has been done by eight accounts:
It's obvious that these are either sockpuppets or (more likely) meatpuppets. editor interaction utility should make it clear just how much these accounts overlap. None of the accounts have made any significant edits not related to projects Rosales has been involved in; most also demonstrate immediate proficiency in referencing and infobox creation that is atypical for new users. On two occasions (Wsvan/Nionoodle and Bridge4us/Mwkas), one account has become active within 48 hours of another account making its last edit.
Based on the promotional editing pattern, I believe this is undisclosed paid editing either by Rosales employees or a hired PR firm. The accounts have edited almost entirely Monday-Friday between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC - typical working hours in Boston where the firm is based - whereas most editors tend to be active evenings and weekends. Of the several accounts also active at Commons, Wsvan and Mwkas have used OTRS to provide permission for images owned by the firm. (Mwkas also oddly avoids denying a COI.)
I would appreciate help removing promotional content from affected articles, and for the recently active accounts to be blocked. Given the scale and duration of the promotional editing, is there anything more that should be done to prevent it from continuing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear all, I wasn't aware that I was making such a mistake. Now, I started to read policies that Pi wrote about. How can I fix it all my updates? What are the possible solutions? Should I do cleanup myself? What means cleanup in reality - update all pages? Thank you for your help. Mwkas ( talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. What are the next steps? Could you help me and send me a procedure? Mwkas ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am a volunteer editor. Nobody is paying for my updates. Wikipedia is only for volunteers. I am very sad, because I was not aware that adding award, I will be destroyed someone’s profile. AWARD- someone was working very hard to get an award and it is proofed. I asked you few times how I can do it correct, but you are not answering my questions, but instead you are writing that I support Rosales+. I am a big fun of all bridge architects. By the way, my working hours are not 9-21 I am from different country. Mwkas ( talk) 16:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I created my account at the beginning of 2020 – I think February. I started to do first steps learning Wikipedia. The idea was to update profiles of architects in the US and from Europe. It was complex to do something, but when we started COI discussion, I started to study all documents. For example, the most important is not to publish changes, but use talk page first – that was the mistake. I don’t know other editors or edits. My first name was Bridge4us, but soon I get message from Fredddie™ (02/07/2020): “If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)”, so after that I created Mwkas. I don’t use Bridge4us anymore. Also sockpuppets and meatpuppets was new for me. Know I know what it means. Mwkas ( talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User with very little edit history adding poorly sourced, previously deleted information to the page. GDX420 ( talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
(Cross posted at WT:WikiProject Climate change. The journalist has been looking for clear examples for a couple of weeks.)
I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Petter noca is, by my observations, an undisclosed Paid/COI editor based on the following facts:
I left a note at the user's talk page about COI editing on 6 January, but they did not respond and instead reverted me at Dinesh Raut on 15 January and the 16th... which is what brings me here before I can mount a cleanup at those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As depicted here, they want assurances that their work won't be deleted, which I think brings the article's creator, Dgtrittenwein, into question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to point out an editor most likely working for a marketing agency (already tagged per WP:UAA) edited a client's page, including removing a COI tag. There appear to be other potentially problematic IP edits but those could be unrelated. They're relatively old edits, but it looks like another instance of UPE worthy of note. Best, PK650 ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This account has created the following pages:
All of that seem to be created by the same account/person who is probably the subject of the first page. Could someone please check these pages for consistency with WP:COI and other policies? Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Articles created by people associated with the XMOS company. Henk.muller is the CTO of XMOS, per his talk page. I am not sure that these products are notable enough to each warrant their own article. Additionally, the articles read like a combination of marketing materials and in-depth technical manuals. drt1245 ( talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability?No. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The XCORE processor pages are ridiculous on many levels. I have redirected four of the five to XMOS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 05:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User has long-term history of editing of pages about the band The Slants and related topics. The username suggests this is a corporate account operating on behalf of Populuxe Entertainment, the promotion company founded by The Slants member Simon Tam. Chubbles ( talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I found the above listed articles listed as personal work samples on Olive Writing Hub's website: https://www.olivewritinghub.com/wiki-writing/. I am not entirely sure which users were involved in paid editing, since there are quite a few for each one, so I am not tagging any users here. I leave that to more experienced editors. Additionally, I have placed UDP tags on the articles and the corresponding tag on their talk pages. FelixtheNomad ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked FelixtheNomad, now DoshNomad, for UPE:
I'm going to block them all, but should they be deemed as Japanelemu socks for the purposes of G5? MER-C 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User NYCLion is a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest, promoting the company Lionbridge not only in the company main article but also in multiple other articles. Literally every substantial edit (in Women and video games, Omnichannel, Languages of India, Telephone interpreting, Game testing, Video game localization and Legal translation) from this user adds content that is either directly promoting Lionbridge or is based on a PR publication authored by various Lionbridge employees. Counting 7 articles and the main article this is clearly a systematic campaign to place as many PR sources and other promotional content about Lionbridge as possible into Wikipedia articles.
All of these edits should be reverted, but I have already been accused of trolling after removing phrases like "The company also orchestrates a network of one million passionate experts across more than 5000 cities, partnering with brands to create culturally rich experiences." from Lionbridge's main article. I'd appreciate an uninvolved editor looking into the case - two COI warnings on the user talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
While checking a range for an unrelated case, I came across multiple accounts editing the same articles. Meatpuppetry is possible but all accounts are using the same model device with many on the same IPs at the same time on different occasions on three different mobile ISPs. They do not look like institutional devices since they are mobile. Best case, we have some COI editors possibly with UPE promoting a museum and Rolf Lauter. Worst case, we have some socking going on. I did not file an SPI case but putting this here for more investigation. I recommend reading the userpage for The Lauter first and then looking at the other userpages. Beans. Several of the accounts are inserting references to Rolf Lauter works.
See Commons pages User:R. Lauter and User talk:R. Lauter to see that account's activity there.
Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account
Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see
this. Notice Mazarin account made
this edit.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
15:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum; this noticeboard section is about the accounts and articles listed above. A long wall of unrelated discussion and accusations has been collapsed for now. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Hello Berean Hunter, When looking through your presentation, I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer [ [11]] who advertises extensively for his artists and is leading campaigns against certain people from the culture in Frankfurt and Germany for his own interests and personal reasons. This approach contradicts the values that Wikipedia has set up and is more than questionable. The disrespectful treatment and rejection of historical facts, which in no way have anything to do with the advertising or promotion of an old art historian who has been retired for years, unfortunately shows that some WP authors try to interfere with the privacy of various scientists and their valuable research under constructed circumstances and destroy their historically helpful work for Wikipedia. Another sad chapter in Wikipedia history, as described in the 2015 newspaper article. [ [12]] History and science are above the personal interests of people and must be protected, not undermined by personal interests. Greetings from Germany to America --PH_C 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch
English
Reference Artmax / Slutzky Gallery: Benutzer:Slutzky has been changed by Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax: https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233 References Artmax general contributions for the artists of his gallery in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax Reference Webpage Gallery Artists (selection): Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/ References for artists in Wikipedia (selection): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669 Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=45760515 Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history Thank you for your cooperation and greetings --PH_C 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch II
English III want to make the story as short as possible because I don't want to waste my time discussing while I can write on Wikipedia or on my own texts and books: 1 What does “While checking a range for an unrelated case” mean? Are there administrators in Wikipedia who systematically monitor IP addresses of authors? Where's the data protection and people's privacy? Do we already live in Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley‘s “Brave new World”? There have been many studies on this since 2007. (See 4) 2 Allegations of "socking" are absurd, as students and scientists insert historical content with verifiable sources into Wikipedia on many pages. There is no vandalism, threats, negative claims or other destructive acts. Unfortunately, these come from mentors and administrators. Does Wikipedia want to dictate to the authors which institutional or mobile devices they can work with? All people who use the IP addresses you have given and many more, for whatever reason you hide, pursue scientific goals, which should be clear to everyone when reviewing the text contributions and improvements. The many students and historians, some of whom you have made public, have no family or other relationships, nor is anyone funded by anyone else for their scientific research or work. What you call doctorate is scientific teamwork about historical personalities. And I don't think Wikipedia can tell an author how often he should work on one or more articles! None of the people who are working on the same or similar topics for Wikipedia, who I know or even watch, have never worked disrespectfully, but only constructively. 3 The monitoring and virtual linking of people, IP addresses and devices reminds me of surveillance systems from very dark times in Germany. We are very sensitive to this. And I cannot believe that administrators in the USA randomly check IP addresses of the majority of German scientists. The connections to the origin Artmax are blatant and are already being examined further. 4 Quote «Lack of discussion culture In the study The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a rapid decline in the number of active authors was found after a rapid growth in the number of authors in the English Wikipedia until 2007, particularly as a result of departures among new authors. On the one hand, the terribly complicated Wikipedia rules are one reason why familiarizations by new authors are often reverted due to violations of the rules. On the other hand, a slump in the "welcome culture" is responsible for this. [120] The number of active authors and new authors in the German-language Wikipedia has been falling steadily since 2007. [121] Since then, suggestions for improving the number of authors have been drawn up at the annual WikiCon conference - so far, however, without substantial success. » End of quote [ [15]] And that is exactly the problem of you and other mentors and administrators in Wikipedia, which you did not recognize and understand. Administrators and mentors from Wikipedia have the task and the duty to accompany, support and advise authors and not to monitor, review, question, threaten them or delete their contributions out of their own interests. This applies to Artmax in Wikipedia D and to you as well. In the United States in particular, there have been many reports of data abuse, abuse of power, vandalism and hoaxes, anti-elitarism, distortions inherent in the system, and disrespectful treatment of scientific authors. Articles by authors with specialist knowledge are often processed by Wikipedia employees or long-time authors according to the principle of collectivist majority corrections and a "digital Maoism" to scientifically questionable articles. As in the case of Artmax, this can also have personal reasons that lead to a wealth of information about self-centered information. The causes mentioned lead to a reduction in participation, because honorable specialists and researchers are systematically combated and distributed by semi-scientific people. This is generally a problem of "primitivization and flattening" of historical truths and facts in society and in Wikipedia. 5 And what is completely absurd: What is the comment about the user Zissuu and her personal activities on a public discussion page? “Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. So, see this.” Do you want to out or strain someone anyway? I have no understanding for that. In my opinion, this is a case for data protection. Quote "Data protection The current Wikipedia privacy policy [163] was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and entered into force on June 6, 2014. Accordingly, data such as the correct name, address or date of birth do not have to be given in order to set up a standard account or to contribute content to the Wikimedia pages. Every author has the right to anonymity. [166] Users belonging to the Oversighter [167] user group can hide versions from a version history or the logbook in such a way that administrators can no longer see them if someone reveals a user's identity against their will. » End of quote [ [16]] Many Wikipedians have warned me exactly about the virtual constructions that you have put forward and the edit that Artmax has started many times, but I thought that this could not be in a free and value-based encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is confirmed and it is less and less fun to volunteer for Wikipedia and with a valuable lifetime. --PH_C 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk |
The editor Rrrrevolution made some edits in 2016, but has since March 2020 exclusively edited University of Phoenix, where this editor has removed reliably sourced content that could be construed as negative while adding a bunch of poorly sourced puffery. In 2016, this editor edited the page for an individual, Timothy Slottow who now happens to run the University of Phoenix. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Tim Slottow now works in Hawaii at a different school. I was hoping to udpate his page as well. I used to work at the University with Tim Slottow but no longer. Happy to admit mistakes and fix wherever I can. Hoping to bring neutral point of view to the pages. Apologies for mistakes on my part. Rrrrevolution ( talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrevolution ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits by User:Martin Clintergate to the new article The Eye Wales and Nation.Cymru seem to entirely depend on citations from a fringe blog. It's the first I've ever heard of the website and the articles do not have any notability or credibility. It does have however a very promotional tone for the creator of the website, Phil Parry.
Very recently, some uncanny edits have popped up from User:80.189.151.94 which lead me to question if this is a sockpuppet for Clintergate or another connected figure with The Eye Wales. It particularly likes [ making edits to citations from Phil Parry], who is the operator of The Eye Wales.
The user seems to be making [ a number of deletions] to Nation.Cymru which is coincidentally a larger news website and politically opposing website to The Eye Wales. The article makes a number of [ assertions] to the website's quality and reputation (not based on third party sources but often its own) and seems to generally be a highly promotional, non notable page created by user(s) with a conflict of interest. Llemiles ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m not an administrator, but User talk: Martin Clintergate is not a sockpuppet. They are not involved or indeed have ever met anyone from either Nation Cymru or The Eye Wales according to the sockpuppet investigation. I filed a sockpuppet report to be sure this person is an sockpuppet. Don’t falsely accuse innocent people who are good contributors to Wikipedia. JaneciaTaylor ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not a new user as I joined wiki in 2015. However I only recently got involved again on my retirement from Reuters TV here in Asia. My location however is irrelevant. My main interest is in foreign news sites and Wales comes under that category in my book. Having done a lot of reading on Welsh politics over the last few months it has become apparent to me that there is a small group of Welsh language supporters who would like independence from the UK. There appears to be an element of propaganda in the way they operate. This will be one of my main interests in Wiki in the future.regards Martin Clintergate ( talk) 00:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor is the article subject Declaration. They also contacted OTRS VRTS ticket # 2016080310001511. I also left a COI warning message on their talk page. It also seems that this account Elliot.fletch ( talk · contribs · count) is a sockmaster for the above account. - FlightTime ( open channel) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to editing the article of her father. Phuzion ( talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has been warned about his or her potential COI instances previously. Their edits solely pertain to software development, including the linked article about a Ukrainian development company. They are attempting to sway the company's AfD on its discussion page. He or she has not acknowledged our COI policies or made the required disclosure WP:PAID. BonkHindrance ( talk) 17:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
such a declaration is not required(followed by a conditional) can easily be misinterpreted. I'm not required to make a declaration that I do not have a conflict of interest for every article I edit. But when challenged, with {{ uw-paid}} for example, even if I don't have a conflict of interest, I should cease editing until I have clarified that I do not have a conflict of interest. Vexations ( talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please explain the connection."Tumbleweed... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Would someone like to take a look at this? There seems to be no way of communicating to User:Flchans that it is not appropriate to continue editing Maryna Tkachuk now that the draft has been accepted and moved to mainspace. The user wrote here "This is an institutional effort to provide biographical facts about its notable faculty/administration", and was able to predict that OTRS permission would be provided for the text and photograph in the article, so there's no room for doubt about a close connection – it doesn't seem remotely productive to speculate whether it is a paid employee or the subject herself actually making the edits. More eyes please! Oh, I'm far from convinced that she is even notable – her citations on Scholar are remarkably low (this could be because Google doesn't cope well with Ukrainian publications, however). Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello guys. How do I best adress this? Straight to the point - I have no personal stake in the article being published or not published here on English Wikipedia. You can even go ahead and outright delete it forever if you beleive this is for the greater good of the Wikipedia. The article is based on the publicly available sources, some of which are related to their subject, and there's been an article in Ukrainian in existince for over a year. Throughout my experience here on English Wikipedia I only face wild assumptions, false claims and what I can perceive as personal attacks. It is amusing to see someone with no knowledge of Ukraine and its language (and probably philosophy as well) seriously discussing notability of the article. My "unbrindled passion" in refuting this claims only comes from my personality - I hate being accused of something I never did.
Way I see it, by now this escalated into an effort to find a "legitimate" way to take action against the article or me, or both. This effort has been generally going in 3 directions: 1) legality/copyright - the battle on this front has already been lost for JLAN, Sulfurboy and the like after the proper declarations were issued; 2) notability - I struggle how people of no knowledge/authority of the matter will decide on a notability on that - but I'd like to refer you here - /info/en/?search=National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy#Reputation ; this article was not created by me so you will probably view it as a good enough source. Now tell me, is the dean of the faculty that is "nationally the strongest in humanities" notable enough to be placed here? I dearly hope so; and finally 3) possible COI, which also finds no proof other than wild assumptions and unbacked claims. I mentioned several times I am not paid for this and such claims unless proves are balderdash. Best. Flchans ( talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There was a article a few days ago titled "Sur Wikipédia, les vies rêvées de Juan Branco" ("On Wikipedia, the dreamed lives of Juan Franco"), in Le Figaro on the Juan Branco page. The french community have been discussing that on the talk page of the article among others, and a warning was placed on the english talk page. While self promotion is nothing new, that has been going on since a long time, with sock puppets allegations, repeated edit warring, push to create page since years, and even a story of email to a employer to get a contributor fired. So we figured this would warrant a more visible communication to the community as well, since the english and spanish Wikipedias were also impacted. -- Misc ( talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Copied from VP:M and trimmed - Bri.public ( talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
All edits by this editor and the associated IPs are about Farid Khan and have a strong bias about the subject of the article. These accounts have been added content/references that violate WP:BLP and WP:RS. One of the IPs tried to remove the AfD tag from the article. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, based on their editing patterns, I was suspicious that Ollie Farr might be an undisclosed paid editor. I gave them a paid warning and tagged the article as suspected UPE. They have denied both being paid and having a COI. I'm not entirely convinced, so I'm bringing the discussion here for further review. My suspicion is primarily based on the near-perfect BLP draft being cranked out as edit number 13 and the commonalities of the draft article with previous paid/COI bios. There are a couple other things that tipped me which I'd rather not go into on a public discussion board; I'm willing to disclose them to administrators via email if needed. creffett ( talk) 00:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have the time to deal with this one, but the editor in question seems good faith, though has a clear and strong conflict of interest that is heavily biasing their editing on this topic.
Article: Draft:Aquila Hotels & Resorts
I suspect it is notable, but the derth of refs need to be sorted and paired down (removing all the promo ones), and the content needs to be half nuked to remove all the promotionalism. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here)( click me!) 03:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a history of apparent promotional editing on behalf of this company going back to 2011. The titles Draft:Pure Planet and Pure Planet have been salted against creation due to previous spamming. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
At this point we can't determine whether there is one human using three accounts or three humans using three accounts with one paymaster, but it probably doesn't matter. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
User name is the same as the subject of the above article. The editor has also added this 'office'? to Dukes in the United Kingdom and List of dukes in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (reverted from latter). Leaving aside the question of whether this Dukedom is real or not, the editor appears to have a conflict of inteest. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPA account, adding unsourced, unencyclopedic content and removing what little is sourced. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Blatantly self-promotional draft article creator, no prima facie COI disclosure. — Jeff G. ツ 12:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly added promotional uncited content to this article. They have responded to a COI notice (and follow-up) on their talkpage with "thank you for this but this is not advertising. Is just reporting right pieces of information about this company. I'll cut all the links to the website, if this is working better." They seem to be ducking the COI issue. Edwardx ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The edit is clearly a WP:SPA single purpose account, only editing about material connected with Stafaan Missinne, the person who allegedly identified an old globe as being by Da Vinci. The article in question had and may still have a lot of material copied from Missinne's book [1] and Talk:Da Vinci Globe. That's not enough evidence to prove a coi of course. But there's the images. File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png says ©Stefaan Missinne it also says own work by David Guam. Looking at some other images uploaded by Guam, the CT scan at File:Counterweight Da Vinci Globe.jpg is the scanner's property, isn't it? And that's copyright to Missinne but uploaded by DavidGuam. And how can the photo at File:The Leonardo da Vinci Globe, 1504, Photo by Geert Verhoeven, © Stefaan Missinne 2018.png be copyright to Missinne but Guam's own work? Or File:Schmidt da Vinci Globe.jpg? I asked Davidguam about any possible relationship but they haven't replied although they've edited since. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:LINKSPAM to the website of chinese NTD Television is added to List of classical music competitions by user NTD-Competition. The user is disguising the spam by giving it english titles and language codes. Username implies a COI connection to the target of the links. -- OrestesLebt ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Trishneet wrote on their userpage recently that they work for Rudhra Technologies, a digital marketing company, however despite warnings and requests for disclosure by myself and Discospinster they've failed to follow WP:PAID and do the actual disclosure and have gamed their articles, without AFC review into mainspace. Ashish Rudhra, per their own draft is the owner of Rudhra Technologies and nearly every article they've written is a client, a fact that they are now trying to hide. I suspect the rest are as well. I think after several warnings, this is grounds for a block when combined with the fact that they've now recreated at least four articles by past paid editing farms:
Now they're disruptively removing tags despite the very obvious policy and tou violation and trying to obfuscate their involvement by claiming "it was an accident". Praxidicae ( talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a paid user i'm just creating article.Let me quote your userpage for you:
I am working in a company, Rudhra Technologies.Even if you "work" for them, for free, they are still clients of your employer and that makes you an editor with a conflict of interest and also paid. Praxidicae ( talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia.So the argument that they somehow publicize these subjects on-the-clock but edit Wikipedia off-the-clock doesn't hold water. GMG talk 18:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a run-of-the-mill Upwork sockfarm. Noting here for the record. Some stuff has been draftified and deleted by the SPI team. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Editor created an autobiographical article. Despite being warned about WP:AUTOBIO, they have edited that article futher. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This editor has explicitly acknowledged working as a "member of the marketing team" for the subject but has not made any other attempt to abide by WP:PAID or WP:COI despite multiple, explicit warnings posted to User Talk. ElKevbo ( talk) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that I should report this here. On 3 February, FCBlinder submitted Draft:Arash Shakour. I declined it at AFC, and said that it read like a directory entry, and that it would be speedily deleted in article space because it did not make a credible claim of significance. On 1 March, FCBlinder posted a query to my talk page asking why it did not show up on Google search. I saw that they had moved the draft into article space, and it was then deleted by User:Cryptic as A7, no credible claim of significance. Don't say I didn't warn them. This is strongly suggestive that they are being paid for search engine optimization. I replied at User talk:FCBlinder, asking for a conflict of interest declaration, and my post there has been deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"I made changes to this page then i asked him is the page now right and he didn’t respond me so i publish it yes because he didn’t answer me ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
At User:Taylor-winnie-bk, a COI editor apparently associated with blocked User:MC-Brand-Knew disclosed that they were "paid by Brand Knew on behalf of Science of People". However, there are no notices on the page with the related COI edits, Vanessa Van Edwards, or on its talk page. Similarly, User:Taylor-winnie-bk discloses payment "on behalf of It's Over Easy", without any notices at the related COI-edited page Laura Wasser. The disclosed COI editor has been inactive for 7 months. I'd suggest that notices, at least, should be placed on the edited pages, and some of the more promotional COI edits should likely be reverted. Lwarrenwiki ( talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC) rev. 18:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Autobiographical article written by the article's subject, a single-purpose account. This editor has been warned several times against COI/ WP:AUTO, yet persists in adding content. BonkHindrance ( talk) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Boomerang: The OP has been topic banned from Indian subjects. Bishonen | tålk 11:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Article on the recently reported riots in the national capital of India, Delhi seems to be getting tons of arguments where the involvement of the editors mainly from India and Pakistan having edit-wars which is not only harming the 5 pillars of Wikipedia but also the article seems to be an attempt of whitewash by covering only about a specific political party and the people from a specific religion. Also, the well-cited facts are being ignored on the bases of onesided discussed on the talk page of the article. Where the edits from certain users (included above) seem to be more of conflict of interest which can be seen in their aggressive arguments and cleaning up of the discussions on the talk page of the article and their talk pages. Personally, some of these users left baseless ban notices and warning on my talk pages. Involvement of editors for a specific country in promoting radicalism may have conflict of interest which should be monitored by a neutral editor — Sanskari Hangout 09:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems User:DBigXray have a strong conflict on interest on the topic which can be seen:
Not only his arguments but also the discussion and questions raised from various other editors on the talk page of the article should be examined carefully. — Sanskari Hangout 09:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Update: @ Kautilya3: has raised the concern over deleting the discussion (by archiving and hiding from the main page) on the talk page of the article and over his pointless arguments while repeating the same personal opinions. — Sanskari Hangout 09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The fact that an editor prefers only one source like NDTV in this case blacking out others is a conflict of interest which is Res ipsa loquitur or apparent itself. It implies that the editor is promoting the source not the information and that is not just conflict of interest but may actually be commercial expoitation. It may be noted that NDTV has lowest readership in TV viewership in India. Check here : https://www.barcindia.co.in/statistic.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb ( talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
|
Months of promotional edits here. I've removed a ton of author testimonials, and multiple issues remain. Needs more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 02:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor User:Aleaiactm was created in January 2020 and has exclusively edited the Danielle Pletka page. The edits bear all the hallmarks of a COI account: removal of reliably sourced controversial information about the subject, addition of enormous amounts of trivial self-sourced text about the subject, addition of puffery, and changes to the kind of information that only someone with an affiliation to the subject would know (or be likely to care enough about to create a Wikipedia account and make changes). The editor is now edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Aleaiactm, you have made 18 edits up to this moment, all concerned with the article Danielle Pletka. It's quite interesting to see you explain the principles of Wikipedia to an experienced editor like Snooganssnoogans (27,279 edits), who you believe (or say you believe) to be confused about them. [2] Moving to aggression, as you also do here, does not help your case or make your denials more credible. I have blocked you for obvious COI editing. Please note that you can appeal this block by following the instructions I have left on your page. Bishonen | tålk 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
Alexkowel (and SanraWinsAgain) are two single purpose accounts who's activity is 100% related to citing and/or promoting soft8soft and their products, mostly Verge3D. Alexkowel states that he is not paid to do any activity on Wikipedia. I find this hard to believe, though I won't go into details. Alexkowel has now twice removed COI/paid cleanup tags from Verge3D. Can I have some more eyes on this? Alex already doesn't like me much, maybe some guidance from someone fresh to the situation will help. MrOllie ( talk) 14:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Referring back to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151#Wikipedia_Procreative_Writers. It turns out that at least one article they used as a sample is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MNB9911 – 27 confirmed sockpuppets. Maybe time to compile a list of article creations of this bunch... ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Presumably as a result of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, we have editors who work for UNESCO adding content from UNESCO reports (published under an open licence) to Wikipedia, including by creating new articles such as Large-scale learning assessments. I wanted to check, should these editors be making declarations of paid editing? Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Theyachtbreak appears to have contributed material associated with this business in good faith to Advance provisioning allowance The Yacht Break and have chosen a username, based on that business. HopsonRoad ( talk) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
A lot of edits coming from a new username with the same name as the title. Could be benign but wanted to bring up for attention regardless Thepenguin9 ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address has recently started adding potentially promotional material that I had deleted back to the article without posting to the Talk Page. The user appears to only be editing this particular page and does not have a Talk Page of their own. I was not able to post a Conflict of interest notice due to this lack, however, I did provide an internal link to this noticeboard in the article Talk Page, while asking the user to cease and desist. Aleah H. ( talk) 03:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Not quite sure whether this belongs at COIN or SPI or here, but tl;dr: An American architecture firm has been engaging in promotional editing and probably undisclosed paid editing for the last 13 years under multiple accounts.
Miguel Rosales is an American bridge architect and principal of the firm Rosales + Partners. He probably meets the GNG, but his presence on Wikipedia is far greater than you would expect. His involvement (largely as conceptual architect or lighting designer) is always prominently listed on projects primarily designed by others, rather minor pedestrian bridges that he worked on (ex 1, 2, 3, 4) have extensive articles, and awards for this works are prominently listed.
Almost all of this has been done by eight accounts:
It's obvious that these are either sockpuppets or (more likely) meatpuppets. editor interaction utility should make it clear just how much these accounts overlap. None of the accounts have made any significant edits not related to projects Rosales has been involved in; most also demonstrate immediate proficiency in referencing and infobox creation that is atypical for new users. On two occasions (Wsvan/Nionoodle and Bridge4us/Mwkas), one account has become active within 48 hours of another account making its last edit.
Based on the promotional editing pattern, I believe this is undisclosed paid editing either by Rosales employees or a hired PR firm. The accounts have edited almost entirely Monday-Friday between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC - typical working hours in Boston where the firm is based - whereas most editors tend to be active evenings and weekends. Of the several accounts also active at Commons, Wsvan and Mwkas have used OTRS to provide permission for images owned by the firm. (Mwkas also oddly avoids denying a COI.)
I would appreciate help removing promotional content from affected articles, and for the recently active accounts to be blocked. Given the scale and duration of the promotional editing, is there anything more that should be done to prevent it from continuing? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 08:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear all, I wasn't aware that I was making such a mistake. Now, I started to read policies that Pi wrote about. How can I fix it all my updates? What are the possible solutions? Should I do cleanup myself? What means cleanup in reality - update all pages? Thank you for your help. Mwkas ( talk) 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. What are the next steps? Could you help me and send me a procedure? Mwkas ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I am a volunteer editor. Nobody is paying for my updates. Wikipedia is only for volunteers. I am very sad, because I was not aware that adding award, I will be destroyed someone’s profile. AWARD- someone was working very hard to get an award and it is proofed. I asked you few times how I can do it correct, but you are not answering my questions, but instead you are writing that I support Rosales+. I am a big fun of all bridge architects. By the way, my working hours are not 9-21 I am from different country. Mwkas ( talk) 16:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I created my account at the beginning of 2020 – I think February. I started to do first steps learning Wikipedia. The idea was to update profiles of architects in the US and from Europe. It was complex to do something, but when we started COI discussion, I started to study all documents. For example, the most important is not to publish changes, but use talk page first – that was the mistake. I don’t know other editors or edits. My first name was Bridge4us, but soon I get message from Fredddie™ (02/07/2020): “If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)”, so after that I created Mwkas. I don’t use Bridge4us anymore. Also sockpuppets and meatpuppets was new for me. Know I know what it means. Mwkas ( talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
User with very little edit history adding poorly sourced, previously deleted information to the page. GDX420 ( talk) 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
(Cross posted at WT:WikiProject Climate change. The journalist has been looking for clear examples for a couple of weeks.)
I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Petter noca is, by my observations, an undisclosed Paid/COI editor based on the following facts:
I left a note at the user's talk page about COI editing on 6 January, but they did not respond and instead reverted me at Dinesh Raut on 15 January and the 16th... which is what brings me here before I can mount a cleanup at those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As depicted here, they want assurances that their work won't be deleted, which I think brings the article's creator, Dgtrittenwein, into question. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to point out an editor most likely working for a marketing agency (already tagged per WP:UAA) edited a client's page, including removing a COI tag. There appear to be other potentially problematic IP edits but those could be unrelated. They're relatively old edits, but it looks like another instance of UPE worthy of note. Best, PK650 ( talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
This account has created the following pages:
All of that seem to be created by the same account/person who is probably the subject of the first page. Could someone please check these pages for consistency with WP:COI and other policies? Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Articles created by people associated with the XMOS company. Henk.muller is the CTO of XMOS, per his talk page. I am not sure that these products are notable enough to each warrant their own article. Additionally, the articles read like a combination of marketing materials and in-depth technical manuals. drt1245 ( talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
XCORE XS1-L is a device that is the core of consumer electronics devices used by many people. Would this be a statement of notability?No. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The XCORE processor pages are ridiculous on many levels. I have redirected four of the five to XMOS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 05:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User has long-term history of editing of pages about the band The Slants and related topics. The username suggests this is a corporate account operating on behalf of Populuxe Entertainment, the promotion company founded by The Slants member Simon Tam. Chubbles ( talk) 17:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I found the above listed articles listed as personal work samples on Olive Writing Hub's website: https://www.olivewritinghub.com/wiki-writing/. I am not entirely sure which users were involved in paid editing, since there are quite a few for each one, so I am not tagging any users here. I leave that to more experienced editors. Additionally, I have placed UDP tags on the articles and the corresponding tag on their talk pages. FelixtheNomad ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I have blocked FelixtheNomad, now DoshNomad, for UPE:
I'm going to block them all, but should they be deemed as Japanelemu socks for the purposes of G5? MER-C 19:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
User NYCLion is a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest, promoting the company Lionbridge not only in the company main article but also in multiple other articles. Literally every substantial edit (in Women and video games, Omnichannel, Languages of India, Telephone interpreting, Game testing, Video game localization and Legal translation) from this user adds content that is either directly promoting Lionbridge or is based on a PR publication authored by various Lionbridge employees. Counting 7 articles and the main article this is clearly a systematic campaign to place as many PR sources and other promotional content about Lionbridge as possible into Wikipedia articles.
All of these edits should be reverted, but I have already been accused of trolling after removing phrases like "The company also orchestrates a network of one million passionate experts across more than 5000 cities, partnering with brands to create culturally rich experiences." from Lionbridge's main article. I'd appreciate an uninvolved editor looking into the case - two COI warnings on the user talkpage have been ignored. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
While checking a range for an unrelated case, I came across multiple accounts editing the same articles. Meatpuppetry is possible but all accounts are using the same model device with many on the same IPs at the same time on different occasions on three different mobile ISPs. They do not look like institutional devices since they are mobile. Best case, we have some COI editors possibly with UPE promoting a museum and Rolf Lauter. Worst case, we have some socking going on. I did not file an SPI case but putting this here for more investigation. I recommend reading the userpage for The Lauter first and then looking at the other userpages. Beans. Several of the accounts are inserting references to Rolf Lauter works.
See Commons pages User:R. Lauter and User talk:R. Lauter to see that account's activity there.
Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account
Otgo and may have succeeded. Also, see
this. Notice Mazarin account made
this edit.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
15:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum; this noticeboard section is about the accounts and articles listed above. A long wall of unrelated discussion and accusations has been collapsed for now. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Hello Berean Hunter, When looking through your presentation, I see that you are working on request or instruction from a German art dealer [ [11]] who advertises extensively for his artists and is leading campaigns against certain people from the culture in Frankfurt and Germany for his own interests and personal reasons. This approach contradicts the values that Wikipedia has set up and is more than questionable. The disrespectful treatment and rejection of historical facts, which in no way have anything to do with the advertising or promotion of an old art historian who has been retired for years, unfortunately shows that some WP authors try to interfere with the privacy of various scientists and their valuable research under constructed circumstances and destroy their historically helpful work for Wikipedia. Another sad chapter in Wikipedia history, as described in the 2015 newspaper article. [ [12]] History and science are above the personal interests of people and must be protected, not undermined by personal interests. Greetings from Germany to America --PH_C 12:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch
English
Reference Artmax / Slutzky Gallery: Benutzer:Slutzky has been changed by Benutzer:Raymond als Benutzer:Artmax: https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Benutzer:Artmax&diff=47887284&oldid=47514233 References Artmax general contributions for the artists of his gallery in Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&target=Artmax https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Artmax&dir=prev&offset=20080627102219&target=Artmax Reference Webpage Gallery Artists (selection): Thomas Bayrle, Tobias Rehberger, Gerhard Richter, Walter Stöhrer https://www.galerie-slutzky.de/artists/ References for artists in Wikipedia (selection): Thomas Bayrle (37 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bayrle https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=46093694&oldid=46093626 https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=45759810&oldid=45692914 https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_Bayrle&diff=117916762&oldid=117646669 Tobias Rehberger (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Rehberger https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Tobias_Rehberger&dir=prev&offset=20060727121909&action=history Gerhard Richter (56 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Gerhard_Richter&diff=46430852&oldid=45760515 Walter Stöhrer (20 contributions): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_St%C3%B6hrer https://de.wikipedia.org/?title=Walter_St%C3%B6hrer&offset=20100914161222&action=history Thank you for your cooperation and greetings --PH_C 22:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk
Deutsch II
English III want to make the story as short as possible because I don't want to waste my time discussing while I can write on Wikipedia or on my own texts and books: 1 What does “While checking a range for an unrelated case” mean? Are there administrators in Wikipedia who systematically monitor IP addresses of authors? Where's the data protection and people's privacy? Do we already live in Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley‘s “Brave new World”? There have been many studies on this since 2007. (See 4) 2 Allegations of "socking" are absurd, as students and scientists insert historical content with verifiable sources into Wikipedia on many pages. There is no vandalism, threats, negative claims or other destructive acts. Unfortunately, these come from mentors and administrators. Does Wikipedia want to dictate to the authors which institutional or mobile devices they can work with? All people who use the IP addresses you have given and many more, for whatever reason you hide, pursue scientific goals, which should be clear to everyone when reviewing the text contributions and improvements. The many students and historians, some of whom you have made public, have no family or other relationships, nor is anyone funded by anyone else for their scientific research or work. What you call doctorate is scientific teamwork about historical personalities. And I don't think Wikipedia can tell an author how often he should work on one or more articles! None of the people who are working on the same or similar topics for Wikipedia, who I know or even watch, have never worked disrespectfully, but only constructively. 3 The monitoring and virtual linking of people, IP addresses and devices reminds me of surveillance systems from very dark times in Germany. We are very sensitive to this. And I cannot believe that administrators in the USA randomly check IP addresses of the majority of German scientists. The connections to the origin Artmax are blatant and are already being examined further. 4 Quote «Lack of discussion culture In the study The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System, a rapid decline in the number of active authors was found after a rapid growth in the number of authors in the English Wikipedia until 2007, particularly as a result of departures among new authors. On the one hand, the terribly complicated Wikipedia rules are one reason why familiarizations by new authors are often reverted due to violations of the rules. On the other hand, a slump in the "welcome culture" is responsible for this. [120] The number of active authors and new authors in the German-language Wikipedia has been falling steadily since 2007. [121] Since then, suggestions for improving the number of authors have been drawn up at the annual WikiCon conference - so far, however, without substantial success. » End of quote [ [15]] And that is exactly the problem of you and other mentors and administrators in Wikipedia, which you did not recognize and understand. Administrators and mentors from Wikipedia have the task and the duty to accompany, support and advise authors and not to monitor, review, question, threaten them or delete their contributions out of their own interests. This applies to Artmax in Wikipedia D and to you as well. In the United States in particular, there have been many reports of data abuse, abuse of power, vandalism and hoaxes, anti-elitarism, distortions inherent in the system, and disrespectful treatment of scientific authors. Articles by authors with specialist knowledge are often processed by Wikipedia employees or long-time authors according to the principle of collectivist majority corrections and a "digital Maoism" to scientifically questionable articles. As in the case of Artmax, this can also have personal reasons that lead to a wealth of information about self-centered information. The causes mentioned lead to a reduction in participation, because honorable specialists and researchers are systematically combated and distributed by semi-scientific people. This is generally a problem of "primitivization and flattening" of historical truths and facts in society and in Wikipedia. 5 And what is completely absurd: What is the comment about the user Zissuu and her personal activities on a public discussion page? “Zissuu attempted to reset the password for the account Otgo and may have succeeded. So, see this.” Do you want to out or strain someone anyway? I have no understanding for that. In my opinion, this is a case for data protection. Quote "Data protection The current Wikipedia privacy policy [163] was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and entered into force on June 6, 2014. Accordingly, data such as the correct name, address or date of birth do not have to be given in order to set up a standard account or to contribute content to the Wikimedia pages. Every author has the right to anonymity. [166] Users belonging to the Oversighter [167] user group can hide versions from a version history or the logbook in such a way that administrators can no longer see them if someone reveals a user's identity against their will. » End of quote [ [16]] Many Wikipedians have warned me exactly about the virtual constructions that you have put forward and the edit that Artmax has started many times, but I thought that this could not be in a free and value-based encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this is confirmed and it is less and less fun to volunteer for Wikipedia and with a valuable lifetime. --PH_C 16:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC) PhilCult84 talk |
The editor Rrrrevolution made some edits in 2016, but has since March 2020 exclusively edited University of Phoenix, where this editor has removed reliably sourced content that could be construed as negative while adding a bunch of poorly sourced puffery. In 2016, this editor edited the page for an individual, Timothy Slottow who now happens to run the University of Phoenix. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Tim Slottow now works in Hawaii at a different school. I was hoping to udpate his page as well. I used to work at the University with Tim Slottow but no longer. Happy to admit mistakes and fix wherever I can. Hoping to bring neutral point of view to the pages. Apologies for mistakes on my part. Rrrrevolution ( talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrevolution ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits by User:Martin Clintergate to the new article The Eye Wales and Nation.Cymru seem to entirely depend on citations from a fringe blog. It's the first I've ever heard of the website and the articles do not have any notability or credibility. It does have however a very promotional tone for the creator of the website, Phil Parry.
Very recently, some uncanny edits have popped up from User:80.189.151.94 which lead me to question if this is a sockpuppet for Clintergate or another connected figure with The Eye Wales. It particularly likes [ making edits to citations from Phil Parry], who is the operator of The Eye Wales.
The user seems to be making [ a number of deletions] to Nation.Cymru which is coincidentally a larger news website and politically opposing website to The Eye Wales. The article makes a number of [ assertions] to the website's quality and reputation (not based on third party sources but often its own) and seems to generally be a highly promotional, non notable page created by user(s) with a conflict of interest. Llemiles ( talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m not an administrator, but User talk: Martin Clintergate is not a sockpuppet. They are not involved or indeed have ever met anyone from either Nation Cymru or The Eye Wales according to the sockpuppet investigation. I filed a sockpuppet report to be sure this person is an sockpuppet. Don’t falsely accuse innocent people who are good contributors to Wikipedia. JaneciaTaylor ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not a new user as I joined wiki in 2015. However I only recently got involved again on my retirement from Reuters TV here in Asia. My location however is irrelevant. My main interest is in foreign news sites and Wales comes under that category in my book. Having done a lot of reading on Welsh politics over the last few months it has become apparent to me that there is a small group of Welsh language supporters who would like independence from the UK. There appears to be an element of propaganda in the way they operate. This will be one of my main interests in Wiki in the future.regards Martin Clintergate ( talk) 00:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)