This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Is a clear representation of WP:LINKSPAM after De2164 put over 500,000 bytes of ext links. I have put U5 on his sandbox. Edit: here should be more than enough to prove a COI. CTRL + F for "dimenovels" shows 136 results. 108.21.73.223 ( talk) 17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
"unsourced and... includes... links to an external site"Only one of those two claims can be true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I would really like a third opinion on this. 108.21.73.223 ( talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
User Fz5907 has repeatedly added promotional texts that are also copyright violations of an interview Debono gave in 2016. (Published here.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Also see this diff. The account operated for years for what appears to be the main purpose of promoting Wikipedia presence of things related to Breakfast Rescue Mission or Gospel Rescue Missions and there appears to be a COI without any disclosure. Graywalls ( talk) 07:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The editor is making changes to their own bio. They self disclosed on their talk page. I left a cordial message on their talk page. I think it isn't obvious to people who aren't versed in this community that they shouldn't edit articles that they have a close connection to, so I tried to be polite and understanding and gave them a link to our coi policy. I don't know if further steps need to be taken or what should be done. I am simply reporting it here to let experts in this area know what is happening. I don't really think the project is in any great danger but I don't want us to be rude to someone who might think they are being mischaracterized. AdamF in MO ( talk) 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A series of single purpose accounts have been rather insistently keeping a mention of Evangelos Georgiadis and a citation to a paper of this in the lead of this article (a few have branched out to related articles, such as Black–Scholes model This started right around the time the paper was first published. Danielkda is the latest in this line. Something seems off here, but I'm not sure how (or if) this should best be pursued. Some of these accounts are blocked as sockpuppets, but there was no SPI that I could find, and it seems like the gaps between accounts mean they don't interleave all that much anyway. More eyes would be appreciated. MrOllie ( talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
UPE likely but I wasn't able to connect to an existent master.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Given Openthewaygate's contributions, I strongly suspect that they have a COI or have a UPE relationship with the two articles I've linked and/or Alpha Vantage (a startup they've namedropped in the vast majority of their edits). Further, some of the terminology they've used on their talk page (particularly repeatedly referring to things like "organic content" and "brand mentions") really sounds like SEO language, which is always a red flag for me. They deny being compensated for edits and any relationship with Alpha Vantage , but frankly I find that very difficult to believe. To be blunt, I'm just about ready to unilaterally block for UPE and/or undisclosed COI despite their claims otherwise, but I'm bringing this here for review by other editors. Courtesy ping MrOllie, since you interacted with them extensively on their talk page and may have other impressions to share. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
While the username kinda gives us a hint, this SPA has been editing articles about entities of the Voice of Asia Network since 2017 and has never complied with our UPE rules. Now he's done a smarmy bio about his obscure boss. Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to a wider audience a series of ongoing conversations about a number of articles created by the user named above. The author or primary editor of those article identified as social media marketer here. There are conversations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu and his talk page about managing conflicts of interest and required paid editing processes. The editor confirmed having worked commercially for the subject through an agency before. He claims to be making undirected Wikipedia edits on the articles above as he perceives there to be a gap. The articles are all about the business interests of Hamis Kiggundu, his companies or his brother. It has been recommended to the editor to use the AfC process, however article creation continued with Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality. In the meantime, images uploaded at wikimedia commons are evidently used at the copyrighted company website, while being claimed "own work". In any case, they are another sign of closeness to the subject. Any views are much appreciated. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an article which does not have many readers and edits. Suddenly, this user came and added several amounts of information, most of which are either unsourced or use a primary source. He was trying to defend the content that he added, saying that they are sourced. However, his edits were reverted at least twice by Bangabandhu (see this and this). A lot has changed in the article, and much of the new content comes from primary sources. I have not yet seen if copyright violations have been committed. The user is just new and has edited only that article. LSGH ( talk) ( contributions) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LSGH. While I appreciate your concern and sincerely laud your gatekeeping of information, I would like to clarify that my intention is to update the CORE page so that it reflects current information given the COVID-19 pandemic. I plan to update other non-profits as well when I have the time. It's an important time for correct information to be out there, and I want to do my part in any way that I can. Please leave the revisions. I originally did not properly source, which is why Bangabandhu rightfully undid my edit. I apologize for that. But now I have gathered the sources.
There was a server mis-configuration reported on wikitech-l
about 12 hours ago that let some users access other users' accounts. It was corrected by requiring everyone to re-login. ☆
Bri (
talk) 16:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
At 14:49, 17 June 2020, the Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo_Counties, Arizona) page was edited by a user without an account, with the IP address 24.115.226.137. This address leads to PenTeleData, [1] a Pennsylvania-area corporate Internet service provider. [2] The text added violated NPOV standards and contained unverified and disproved information favoring continued mining efforts and attacking the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA). It is possible this was an attempt to discredit the CJA and the associated Black Mesa Water Coalition, who have both fought strip mining in the region. It is possible that Peabody Energy, being the strip mining company which operates in Black Mesa and the 12th highest ranked polluting company in the world by the Guardian [3], has edited the article to defend itself and attack its detractors. In quotes below is the text added on June 14th.
"The alleged 'success' of the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) resulted in the 'benefit' of job loss for Navajo and Hopi citizens. This was caused by the termination of mining activities in the area which then significantly drove up the price of coal due to a lack of availability. As many homes in this region use coal for heating, it placed low-cost heating out of the range of the local inhabitants as this coal would no longer be readily available at low prices. As well as exorbitant heating costs and job loss from the end of mining, the closure of 4 Corners power plant - coal fired - will also result in further job loss and the loss of megawatts of generating capacity that helped support the electrical grid in the region. Groups such as Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) have ignored the low emissions of modern American coal-fired power plants, instead using inaccurate statistics, falsified European Union reports, and constantly changing, fraudulent 'climate change' science promulgated by self-serving researchers who put their junk science ahead of jobs, modern industry, and low-cost power. Unfortunately the Hopi and Navajo are the latest victim of the myth of "green jobs." Although rejected and ostracized for pointing out the 'green jobs' lie and the costs of killing energy industry jobs, the Spanish government and other European governments were finally forced to face the reality of Gabriel Calzadza's research. Those have come to pass here as well: every green job kills 2.2 real jobs. As Calzada explained, 'American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources.' The 2009 Calzada report is 'Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,' Gabriel Calzada, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf"
The aforementioned Gabriel Caldaza is an economics PhD with close ties to the Heartland Institute, [4] an institution which has repeatedly engaged in climate change denial and has received nearly $800,000 from ExxonMobil. [5] [6] [7] 173.2.121.44 ( talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
VineetGupta777 is a relatively new editor who has focused mostly on Indian film and music articles. Their longer edits tend to have grammatical and capitalization issues that are somewhat common from new editors in those areas (see [1] for example). And then the Synergy Pharmaceuticals article is created. Lots of complicated grammar, all pretty well done, no capitalization errors and a really, really promotional tone overall. I also found Plecanatide which had a huge section related to Synergy added by a two-edit editor years ago that I've deleted. I've asked on VineetGupta777's page about paid editing, but this is so obvious and related to a pharmaceutical company I felt raising it here was appropriate. I'll notify VineetGupta777. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:c84a:a401:d479:cd17:7dfc:a4bc ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor above had not declared a previous COI with Newsmax as a freelancer hired by Mr. Ruddy updating facts and figures about its properties and founder/client, but I had reverted their edits several times going back to the end of 2019 because of some WP:PROMO toning and removal of out-of-date information still relevant to the article, unaware of their connection until I left a COI template inquiring about their bonafides. Anarchristian needs help about how to edit the mentioned articles within our bounds and in my eyes seems willing to learn, and as I'm unfamiliar with the COI process, I'm hoping someone sees this and can give them the proper guidance and apply the proper templates to the article talkpages to list them as a declared contributor. Thanks much in advance. Nate • ( chatter) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
If I can't update, I'm ruined. I'm desperate. Please help.must be a difficult position to be in. This will be a continuous problem for anyone who expects their livelihood to be dependent on real-time edits here. Chris' advice is sage. Bri.public ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for getting back to me. I'm sorry Chris Troutman responded so un-Wikipedianly, which moved Elizium23 to interpret CT for me. I wrongly, but innocently, thought that making changes on these sites was as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's "Further Reading" section, things I've done for years. There was no intention to violate the Wikipedia's Foundation's property rights. I assume that the Foundation wants editors to improve articles by updating them when needed. I understand that a suggested update may be deemed promotional, and I'll leave that to the gatekeepers. But sometimes it's honestly informational and comes from an authoritative source. I hope we can go forward in a spirit of cooperation on the talk pages. I've created a user page for Anarchristian.
I've inserted
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Error: No article specified. |
at the top of the empty field. Is that where it goes?
Below that, I listed four Newsmax-related articles for which I will suggest changes on their talk pages in the coming days. I DON'T expect "real-time" edits, but what would be a realistic expectation for a verdict on a given suggestion? (E.g., a few days? A week? A month?) And if a suggested change were to be approved, would I make the edit, or someone else? I'm sorry if my questions annoy you, but unlike me, you're "old hands" at the policy level. Again, thanks for giving me a chance to do things the right way. I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. Anarchristian ( talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy, for clarifying that I won't be making any edits that have a consensus. I spent the day compiling suggested edits for the Ruddy and Newsmax TV articles; I'll check the references before listing the suggestions on their respective Talk pages. Thanks also for adjusting my expectations: I'm not sure what "SLA" means, but I suppose it has to do with how soon a suggested edit might be reviewed. I hope, of course, that these two articles are "widely watched" and therefore will attract oversight. Will I be alerted to verdicts on the Talk pages? FYI, for what it's worth: over the years I made many edits to articles with which I had no CoI, and wasn't aware of the CoI issue when I was asked if I knew how to make edits to Newsmax-related articles. I said, "Sure, I can do that." So I was (naively) surprised when my edits were reverted. As I said earlier, I thought it would be "as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's 'Further Reading' section." That was naive of me. I wasn't cognizant of the issue, and now I am. My awakening was panic-inducing, for now I got on the bad side of two parties: my client and Wikipedia gatekeepers. Thanks again for your help and for listening. Anarchristian ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject ( Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject ( Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong has tagged basically everything Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas) has ever edited with "connected contributor" templates. While I highly object to it being on the page in it's entirety, I am reluctantly willing to allow it be. But what I won't allow is the addition of the "conflict of interest" and "neutral point of view" links within the template. No discussion has taken place about the content of the article itself. So, how can one say if Kayla wrote it in a neutral or non-neutral style. I tried to explain this to Worldbruce, but he didn't seem to interested in carrying on a conversation. Alpha3031, on the other hand, does agree that the COI and NPOV additions should not be there.
I believe we are prematurely and unilaterally declaring this article is something it is not before a proper discussion of the content of the text of the article can begin. So, either here or on the talk page, one should begin. Until then, a different template or none altogether should be used. Thank you... Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
I've read the lengthy discussions on the article talk, and on the user's talk pages. As far as connected contributor goes, which you've disputed many times on both talk pages, the editor is undeniably classed as a paid editor according to Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, your argument that it was written in draft and then moved by you doesn't negate that. Indeed, WP:DISCLOSEPAY is clear about the issue. Your arguments are clearly not neutral, if you're trying to dispute the fact that the individual here is the (Redacted) (as stated on their talk) of both the only major contributions they has made on Wikipedia, or your attempts to compare this to your position in a school system.
The user in this case has still not made the necessary declaration. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.
Given your connection with the individual, it may be prudent that you advise them to do so.
Finally, the policy is clear about the "I moved it to draft so it's OK" argument as well. It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography and
neutral point of view. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 2020-06-19 by Neutralhomer. |
Note: the template has been adjusted by Neutralhomer for the subject in the article, in Special:Diff/964886719. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader: I would like to know why you had your comments from this edit to this edit RevDel'd. They included my response to you and an admin's response. The comments remain on the page. Why the RevDel? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
The draft seems to be subjected to WP:UPE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please read my synopsis of the situation at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#"Digital Finance" article. While the draft has been deleted at the user's request, their message to me on my talk page makes it clear that they are still intent on creating an article about the company. Given the WP:GAMING, COI and SPA I think some administrator action is appropriate. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Repeated reverts against MOS:BOLD and adding links to his YouTube channel against WP:LINKFARM Leijurv ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
On comparing the history of this article and this draft, these appear to be the same person, and both have a history of editing by fly-by-night accounts, most recently User:AmyHarper77, who has not replied to an inquiry about COI. This history of puffery goes back to 2011. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The user downright admits in their edit summaries that they are the owner of Creep Catchers, and is requesting another editor on their talk page to edit for them. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Brax1016 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of them, pretending to be an unaffiliated third party. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies has blocked both accounts making this discussion moot. For the record, I couldn't even find a source that they were purchased by an American company, and that doesn't even seem possible because of how they're made of non-affiliated individuals and groups. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Shameless spamming, often in first person plural, and block evasion. Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing and a conflict of interest. This editor has exclusively edited this one article and almost certainly works in the university's marketing and communication unit. Our policy against outing does not allow me to directly state why I believe this editor works for this university but I am confident that other editors who spend even a few seconds investigating this will come to the same conclusion. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appear to be an undisclosed paid editor repeatedly creating Charlie Buhler and not responding to warnings on their talk page. The draft was declined by Robert McClenon and Sulfurboy and Courtofmiracles98 copy-pasting the same version in main repeatedly. GSS 💬 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The subject author may be promoting the movie Before the Fire. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor has not responded to COI notice on their talk page and gone ahead an removed the COI and other maint tags on the article MB 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Promotional editing to related articles by multiple editors. Both have been warned; mentioning here because I don't know if there are more articles or editors involved. Hoshinoya may be an AFD or G11, searching hits on dozens of hotel booking sites so it's hard to tell what actual coverage there may be. MB 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is at the top of User:Movies Time.
Movies Time is a site that brings you the highlights of Movies from past, present, and future. Movies Time also brings you the highlights for entertainment like music and television.
Okay, so blatant advertising and bad username. So obvious that I deleted the userpage as an ad. But then I looked and that this person has done quite a lot here. So, I'm stumped. The username SEEMS to be an advertisement for the user's YouTube, Instagram, etc., etc. brand name, and the userpage reeks of advertisement.
Advice?
-- Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Glennice.yong did a series of potentially COI edits on the article on 3 July. The edits were reverted and tagged as COI, with the standard COI message left on the user's talk page. Similar edits were made again via IP address on 6 July. Similarly, edits were reverted. – robertsky ( talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This editor has disclosed their paid editor status on their userpage, but has also deviated from best practices by 1) writing an article on his product himself in the main space without using WP:AFC and 2) is in the process of adding wikilinks to that article to several list and comparison articles. Thoughts? MrOllie ( talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly add un-encyclopedic/promotional info. Has not responded on their talk page. MB 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
User Wranxisys is a single-purpose account editing Peter Schwerdtfeger. They say they are " Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself". Their interest in the page is a bit unhealthy, neutrality-wise. Mostly I think they just need to understand that they should leave the page alone and not edit it, at which point the COI template can be removed. The username Paschwer, with 60 edits to the article, has a lot of similarity to the article subject's name. They also uploaded a portrait of the subject, with the caption "One of our staff members in 2014 with my own camera:, which implies they are the article subject.
Pinging @ Melcous: as they also interacted with this user. Given the long-term COI, use of multiple accounts, lack of disclosure and the fact that they have ignored and not repsonded to a COI warning, this seems like a good candidate for a pBlock. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP in discussion on Melcous talk page. thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
User Budke says of the article subject that "I have contacted him and had a long set of discussions with him", and apparently the subject says they won't do it again. The idea that editors are in touch with the article subject is a bit of a bad idea all around. GeneralNotability what do you make of that policy-wise, contacting subjects off-wiki? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Much of user's edits don't make significant contributions to the article prose, but are predominantly pushing/shoehorning their self-created images into articles, and sometimes replacing existing images with their own as a minor with vague comments like "more colours". There might be a conflict of interest of their primary purpose being publicizing their own photographs, which isn't consisting with
WP:GALLERY policy.
Here are some examples of their displacement of existing photos with a vague summary Special:Diff/962550137, Special:Diff/962677089 Graywalls ( talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
SPA not responding to warnings on their talk page and only edits are to create Draft:Deepak Mittal. The draft was declined by multiple users so they choose to post it under Deepak mittal. WP:NOTHERE applies imo. GSS 💬 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's awareness, we worked our way through a pile of possible Bodiadub (long-time UPE) socks in this investigation. I'd appreciate it if folks here could take some time to look through the socks' contributions in case cleanup is required. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article [2]. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Contributions show that the editor has been only active on the article. The editor removed information from the article for "security concerns", giving me the impression that the editor might be working for the Wadhwani family. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
EAschroeder responding again: OK. So I don't violate anything, where/how do I put recommended edits to factual info on Romesh? Noted about "puffery." -- Easchroeder ( talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it, thank you ProcrastinatingReader - Easchroeder
Despite [3] and notices on her talk page, she is continuing to add her current and forthcoming works to articles and to edit her own article, adding quite a bit of unsourced or self-sourced material. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a conflict of interest related to a software company called SocialChorus, so I don't intend to make any direct edits to Wikipedia myself. I have created a draft for you all to review at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandboxB. Could an uninvolved editor review this draft and, so long as it meets your criteria, move it to mainspace? This falls into the category of business software companies along the lines of something like Slack_Technologies so if it would be best to bring this over to an area such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Technology I'd be happy to do so. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA ( talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Both accounts have recently edited Toptal. We could be dealing with SPAs with COI. While their edits are not disruptive in nature, it may be worth having the admins remind them of what they can/cannot add to the page considering their COI.
@ Infogapp1: You need to notify those editors they are under discussion. You can use the template in the red box at the top of this page. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Good day everyone! I recently reverted flagged Sesquipedalian69 for {{ subst:uw-spam1}} after adding a self-promotional external link to the article Naked Elvis. After that, the user dropped by my talk page to demand that I revert my previous revert of his edit, in doing so admitting that he is personally interested in the page, as he himseld played Naked Elvis as seen in this talk page discussion. I came across said edit as I am currently enrolled in the CVUA program and would like to know if the situation is a potential conflict of interest problem.
Gardo Versace ( talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The New York City Police Department has had issues with confirmed COI accounts recently. Today, a freshly created account started a RfC, which leads me to wonder whether COI accounts are allowed to start RfCs, as opposed to making edit requests? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Article
Katey Cattlehand Pluck has been edited by
User:Katey-cattlehand-pluck, including adding herself to the
1993 and
February 3 articles. Editor identifies herself as the subject of the article in
this edit, saying This article is about me, including my childhood memories.
I'm not convinced the article meets WP:GNG, but I'm not going to pursue that until we deal with the potential COI of a person editing her own article. Tarl N. ( discuss) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previous discussion on the Kamala Harris talkpage.
This situation arose because The Intercept wrote a piece called There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, With Unflattering Elements Vanishing on July 2, 2020. Bnguyen1114 was mentioned in the article by his username only. On his talkpage, Bnguyen1114 has stated that he has been doxxed as a result of the article.
Bnguyen1114 himself has said the following about his possible COI on-wiki:
I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates[4]
a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates[5]
I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events[6]
However, the material which cannot be linked here due to WP:OUTING, actually details that he had a far more direct COI while editing the Kamala Harris pages.
WMF CEO Katherine Maher also has commented this issue in Twitter and stated that conflict of interest editing is against Wikipedia policies.
So far Bnguyen1114 has continued to edit the Kamala Harris talkpage. If the nature of his COI is more than "just a constituent" per the information elsewhere, how to proceed? Should functionaries process the private evidence?
In any case, the COI is "apparent" without a doubt. His 200 first edits were adding endorsements to the Kamala Harris campaign.-- Pudeo ( talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, just seven hours after administrator SlimVirgin imposed arbitration-enforcement restrictions on him, Bnguyen1114 has defiantly flouted those restrictions with this edit. By thumbing his nose at our COI process, Bnguyen1114 has earned an indefinite site block. NedFausa ( talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Posting this here as a courtesy; it was originally posted at the Teahouse.
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to report a couple undisclosed editors working for a company called wikiprofessionals inc. They have an online profolio (can't post link because it won't let me due to the filter) and that the page creators from the page creation log does not appear to have disclosed their editing. I also had a live chat with a rep and that they have admitted these accounts, but claim it is allowed. On their FAQ, they say that wp:iarpermits them to do so, except they actually don't. What should I do now? The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 11:21 am, Today (UTC−7) (reply)
We don't have a list of involved editors or an article list to look at; The creeper2007, perhaps you could post below if yoiu know of any involved editors or articles? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@ The creeper2007: Regarding the portfolio of articles, you don't have to paste the whole link. Just remove the part from the beginning through "wikiprofessionalsinc.com" and post the rest. Or you could just paste the list of articles (though this is not as good as having the links to them). —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: Articles believed to have been created by this entity (or otherwise under COI circumstances) are marked [X]. BD2412 T 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Transcript
|
---|
|
Next group:
BD2412 T 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Schwede 66 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Last group:
BD2412 T 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to propose deletion of several under WP:G5 criterion. It might help if we had a formal community ban of this outfit, if there isn't one already. I looked at WP:AN and didn't see one (yet). ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC just ended with a site ban for WikiProfessionals. Plus, anything they created is eligible for deletion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:37, 14 July 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. |
Is a clear representation of WP:LINKSPAM after De2164 put over 500,000 bytes of ext links. I have put U5 on his sandbox. Edit: here should be more than enough to prove a COI. CTRL + F for "dimenovels" shows 136 results. 108.21.73.223 ( talk) 17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
"unsourced and... includes... links to an external site"Only one of those two claims can be true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I would really like a third opinion on this. 108.21.73.223 ( talk) 17:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
User Fz5907 has repeatedly added promotional texts that are also copyright violations of an interview Debono gave in 2016. (Published here.) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Also see this diff. The account operated for years for what appears to be the main purpose of promoting Wikipedia presence of things related to Breakfast Rescue Mission or Gospel Rescue Missions and there appears to be a COI without any disclosure. Graywalls ( talk) 07:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The editor is making changes to their own bio. They self disclosed on their talk page. I left a cordial message on their talk page. I think it isn't obvious to people who aren't versed in this community that they shouldn't edit articles that they have a close connection to, so I tried to be polite and understanding and gave them a link to our coi policy. I don't know if further steps need to be taken or what should be done. I am simply reporting it here to let experts in this area know what is happening. I don't really think the project is in any great danger but I don't want us to be rude to someone who might think they are being mischaracterized. AdamF in MO ( talk) 07:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A series of single purpose accounts have been rather insistently keeping a mention of Evangelos Georgiadis and a citation to a paper of this in the lead of this article (a few have branched out to related articles, such as Black–Scholes model This started right around the time the paper was first published. Danielkda is the latest in this line. Something seems off here, but I'm not sure how (or if) this should best be pursued. Some of these accounts are blocked as sockpuppets, but there was no SPI that I could find, and it seems like the gaps between accounts mean they don't interleave all that much anyway. More eyes would be appreciated. MrOllie ( talk) 19:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
UPE likely but I wasn't able to connect to an existent master.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Given Openthewaygate's contributions, I strongly suspect that they have a COI or have a UPE relationship with the two articles I've linked and/or Alpha Vantage (a startup they've namedropped in the vast majority of their edits). Further, some of the terminology they've used on their talk page (particularly repeatedly referring to things like "organic content" and "brand mentions") really sounds like SEO language, which is always a red flag for me. They deny being compensated for edits and any relationship with Alpha Vantage , but frankly I find that very difficult to believe. To be blunt, I'm just about ready to unilaterally block for UPE and/or undisclosed COI despite their claims otherwise, but I'm bringing this here for review by other editors. Courtesy ping MrOllie, since you interacted with them extensively on their talk page and may have other impressions to share. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
While the username kinda gives us a hint, this SPA has been editing articles about entities of the Voice of Asia Network since 2017 and has never complied with our UPE rules. Now he's done a smarmy bio about his obscure boss. Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to a wider audience a series of ongoing conversations about a number of articles created by the user named above. The author or primary editor of those article identified as social media marketer here. There are conversations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu and his talk page about managing conflicts of interest and required paid editing processes. The editor confirmed having worked commercially for the subject through an agency before. He claims to be making undirected Wikipedia edits on the articles above as he perceives there to be a gap. The articles are all about the business interests of Hamis Kiggundu, his companies or his brother. It has been recommended to the editor to use the AfC process, however article creation continued with Success and Failure Based on Reason and Reality. In the meantime, images uploaded at wikimedia commons are evidently used at the copyrighted company website, while being claimed "own work". In any case, they are another sign of closeness to the subject. Any views are much appreciated. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an article which does not have many readers and edits. Suddenly, this user came and added several amounts of information, most of which are either unsourced or use a primary source. He was trying to defend the content that he added, saying that they are sourced. However, his edits were reverted at least twice by Bangabandhu (see this and this). A lot has changed in the article, and much of the new content comes from primary sources. I have not yet seen if copyright violations have been committed. The user is just new and has edited only that article. LSGH ( talk) ( contributions) 01:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LSGH. While I appreciate your concern and sincerely laud your gatekeeping of information, I would like to clarify that my intention is to update the CORE page so that it reflects current information given the COVID-19 pandemic. I plan to update other non-profits as well when I have the time. It's an important time for correct information to be out there, and I want to do my part in any way that I can. Please leave the revisions. I originally did not properly source, which is why Bangabandhu rightfully undid my edit. I apologize for that. But now I have gathered the sources.
There was a server mis-configuration reported on wikitech-l
about 12 hours ago that let some users access other users' accounts. It was corrected by requiring everyone to re-login. ☆
Bri (
talk) 16:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
At 14:49, 17 June 2020, the Black Mesa (Apache-Navajo_Counties, Arizona) page was edited by a user without an account, with the IP address 24.115.226.137. This address leads to PenTeleData, [1] a Pennsylvania-area corporate Internet service provider. [2] The text added violated NPOV standards and contained unverified and disproved information favoring continued mining efforts and attacking the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA). It is possible this was an attempt to discredit the CJA and the associated Black Mesa Water Coalition, who have both fought strip mining in the region. It is possible that Peabody Energy, being the strip mining company which operates in Black Mesa and the 12th highest ranked polluting company in the world by the Guardian [3], has edited the article to defend itself and attack its detractors. In quotes below is the text added on June 14th.
"The alleged 'success' of the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) resulted in the 'benefit' of job loss for Navajo and Hopi citizens. This was caused by the termination of mining activities in the area which then significantly drove up the price of coal due to a lack of availability. As many homes in this region use coal for heating, it placed low-cost heating out of the range of the local inhabitants as this coal would no longer be readily available at low prices. As well as exorbitant heating costs and job loss from the end of mining, the closure of 4 Corners power plant - coal fired - will also result in further job loss and the loss of megawatts of generating capacity that helped support the electrical grid in the region. Groups such as Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) have ignored the low emissions of modern American coal-fired power plants, instead using inaccurate statistics, falsified European Union reports, and constantly changing, fraudulent 'climate change' science promulgated by self-serving researchers who put their junk science ahead of jobs, modern industry, and low-cost power. Unfortunately the Hopi and Navajo are the latest victim of the myth of "green jobs." Although rejected and ostracized for pointing out the 'green jobs' lie and the costs of killing energy industry jobs, the Spanish government and other European governments were finally forced to face the reality of Gabriel Calzadza's research. Those have come to pass here as well: every green job kills 2.2 real jobs. As Calzada explained, 'American jobs will suffer the same fate if the United States similarly attempts to promote renewable energy at the expense of conventional energy sources.' The 2009 Calzada report is 'Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources,' Gabriel Calzada, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009: http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf"
The aforementioned Gabriel Caldaza is an economics PhD with close ties to the Heartland Institute, [4] an institution which has repeatedly engaged in climate change denial and has received nearly $800,000 from ExxonMobil. [5] [6] [7] 173.2.121.44 ( talk) 22:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
References
VineetGupta777 is a relatively new editor who has focused mostly on Indian film and music articles. Their longer edits tend to have grammatical and capitalization issues that are somewhat common from new editors in those areas (see [1] for example). And then the Synergy Pharmaceuticals article is created. Lots of complicated grammar, all pretty well done, no capitalization errors and a really, really promotional tone overall. I also found Plecanatide which had a huge section related to Synergy added by a two-edit editor years ago that I've deleted. I've asked on VineetGupta777's page about paid editing, but this is so obvious and related to a pharmaceutical company I felt raising it here was appropriate. I'll notify VineetGupta777. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe this user (Kirsh80) to be the individual this page is about (Sam Ayoub), or someone working for them. The page is about a rugby league manager. Every edit made by this user has been to update pages to include hyperlinks to the individuals personal linkedin page and the individuals personal business website. This is clearly promotional. The users most recent edit is predominantly self promotional of Sam Ayoub, and describes the individuals personal business and its practices, while also linking to the personal website again. It provided no citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:c84a:a401:d479:cd17:7dfc:a4bc ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor above had not declared a previous COI with Newsmax as a freelancer hired by Mr. Ruddy updating facts and figures about its properties and founder/client, but I had reverted their edits several times going back to the end of 2019 because of some WP:PROMO toning and removal of out-of-date information still relevant to the article, unaware of their connection until I left a COI template inquiring about their bonafides. Anarchristian needs help about how to edit the mentioned articles within our bounds and in my eyes seems willing to learn, and as I'm unfamiliar with the COI process, I'm hoping someone sees this and can give them the proper guidance and apply the proper templates to the article talkpages to list them as a declared contributor. Thanks much in advance. Nate • ( chatter) 21:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
If I can't update, I'm ruined. I'm desperate. Please help.must be a difficult position to be in. This will be a continuous problem for anyone who expects their livelihood to be dependent on real-time edits here. Chris' advice is sage. Bri.public ( talk) 18:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for getting back to me. I'm sorry Chris Troutman responded so un-Wikipedianly, which moved Elizium23 to interpret CT for me. I wrongly, but innocently, thought that making changes on these sites was as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's "Further Reading" section, things I've done for years. There was no intention to violate the Wikipedia's Foundation's property rights. I assume that the Foundation wants editors to improve articles by updating them when needed. I understand that a suggested update may be deemed promotional, and I'll leave that to the gatekeepers. But sometimes it's honestly informational and comes from an authoritative source. I hope we can go forward in a spirit of cooperation on the talk pages. I've created a user page for Anarchristian.
I've inserted
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Error: No article specified. |
at the top of the empty field. Is that where it goes?
Below that, I listed four Newsmax-related articles for which I will suggest changes on their talk pages in the coming days. I DON'T expect "real-time" edits, but what would be a realistic expectation for a verdict on a given suggestion? (E.g., a few days? A week? A month?) And if a suggested change were to be approved, would I make the edit, or someone else? I'm sorry if my questions annoy you, but unlike me, you're "old hands" at the policy level. Again, thanks for giving me a chance to do things the right way. I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience. Anarchristian ( talk) 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy, for clarifying that I won't be making any edits that have a consensus. I spent the day compiling suggested edits for the Ruddy and Newsmax TV articles; I'll check the references before listing the suggestions on their respective Talk pages. Thanks also for adjusting my expectations: I'm not sure what "SLA" means, but I suppose it has to do with how soon a suggested edit might be reviewed. I hope, of course, that these two articles are "widely watched" and therefore will attract oversight. Will I be alerted to verdicts on the Talk pages? FYI, for what it's worth: over the years I made many edits to articles with which I had no CoI, and wasn't aware of the CoI issue when I was asked if I knew how to make edits to Newsmax-related articles. I said, "Sure, I can do that." So I was (naively) surprised when my edits were reverted. As I said earlier, I thought it would be "as uncomplicated as, say, correcting a date on someone's biography or adding to an article's 'Further Reading' section." That was naive of me. I wasn't cognizant of the issue, and now I am. My awakening was panic-inducing, for now I got on the bad side of two parties: my client and Wikipedia gatekeepers. Thanks again for your help and for listening. Anarchristian ( talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject ( Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It really doesn't take long on Google to establish a very strong COI between this user and the pianist Horacio Guttierez. The editor Maryphillips1952 has contributed 248 edits to Guttierez's article. They have been called out for COI and said they were a "fan", but that was for a different subject ( Stacy Schiff). The edit history and the offsite links (happy to provide to an admin) show that this is just another run of the mill long-term promotional effort. Bringing this here as the user has recently started a thread at WP:AN challenging edits to the page by an actual NPOV editor. There was a previous COIN thread, where I unfortunately did not see the very obvious connection between the editor and the subject. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have provided connection in previous posts, but Graywalls and That MontrealIP have not provided their connect to Horacio Gutierrez. Are they critics, colleagues, or? They, too, need to be transparent. At one time, Graywalls thought i was getting paid to post on various wikis. I do not get paid. It is my hobby. I am a fan of music, musicians, fims, science, and artists. I have many posts, My concern is if there are critics, colleagues, and rivals who are based and delete content or find fault with certain posts (Gutierrez - Hispanic), but not others with similar posts and claims, then, there exists an inherent bias of the so called editors that must be more closely reviewed. I believe unbiased and well supported posts is a must across the the board. Not just some artists. I have not done the research for GrayWalls or ThatMontrealIP and have no numbers or connections to offer about their posts and specific edits. I have edited many Cuban posts (including Gloria Estefan), film, and others. My concern is that there may be music people who are editing and revising or calling into question some posts but not others for similar errors or content. I will have some free time this summer and may follow up on biased reviews and reporting of information. My goal... Let's make excellent a wiki article posts. I am willing to learn and help resolve this issue. But, everyone here needs to be transparent as to their connection and interest in Mr. Gutierrez' post. Please review osts from 2006 by many editors. Thank you and I welcome your help. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As stated previously, I am a fan of classical music and artists. I do not receive payment for posts. As I stated in previous posts. My concern is inherent biases. I will work hard to resolve issues as always. But, it appears there are music critics, colleagues, and others who are biased towards some posts and not others. This is a real issue. Maryphillips1952 ( talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I have recently edited Radha Mohan Singh article, the edit of which has been reverted by 2 IPs. Since religion was removed from Infobox, I thought of removing it from description too. I think the caste info needs to be removed but the IPs are still undoing my edit. Adithyak1997 ( talk) 06:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
This involves extensive, years-long, undisclosed paid editing by a corporation. Please see this page for full account of the problem as I have been able to figure out thus far. I am posting this here because I am unsure how to otherwise address what I believe is a systematic, undisclosed, years-long effort of paid editing by Eurasia Group. There are several other minor accounts and articles involved besides the ones listed above, see the linked page. WhinyTheYounger ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Theroadislong has tagged basically everything Beepbopwhy (formerly User:Kayla kas) has ever edited with "connected contributor" templates. While I highly object to it being on the page in it's entirety, I am reluctantly willing to allow it be. But what I won't allow is the addition of the "conflict of interest" and "neutral point of view" links within the template. No discussion has taken place about the content of the article itself. So, how can one say if Kayla wrote it in a neutral or non-neutral style. I tried to explain this to Worldbruce, but he didn't seem to interested in carrying on a conversation. Alpha3031, on the other hand, does agree that the COI and NPOV additions should not be there.
I believe we are prematurely and unilaterally declaring this article is something it is not before a proper discussion of the content of the text of the article can begin. So, either here or on the talk page, one should begin. Until then, a different template or none altogether should be used. Thank you... Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:57 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
I've read the lengthy discussions on the article talk, and on the user's talk pages. As far as connected contributor goes, which you've disputed many times on both talk pages, the editor is undeniably classed as a paid editor according to Wikipedia's policies. Additionally, your argument that it was written in draft and then moved by you doesn't negate that. Indeed, WP:DISCLOSEPAY is clear about the issue. Your arguments are clearly not neutral, if you're trying to dispute the fact that the individual here is the (Redacted) (as stated on their talk) of both the only major contributions they has made on Wikipedia, or your attempts to compare this to your position in a school system.
The user in this case has still not made the necessary declaration. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.
Given your connection with the individual, it may be prudent that you advise them to do so.
Finally, the policy is clear about the "I moved it to draft so it's OK" argument as well. It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 12:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography and
neutral point of view. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 2020-06-19 by Neutralhomer. |
Note: the template has been adjusted by Neutralhomer for the subject in the article, in Special:Diff/964886719. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader: I would like to know why you had your comments from this edit to this edit RevDel'd. They included my response to you and an admin's response. The comments remain on the page. Why the RevDel? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:55 on June 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
The draft seems to be subjected to WP:UPE and WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please read my synopsis of the situation at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#"Digital Finance" article. While the draft has been deleted at the user's request, their message to me on my talk page makes it clear that they are still intent on creating an article about the company. Given the WP:GAMING, COI and SPA I think some administrator action is appropriate. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Repeated reverts against MOS:BOLD and adding links to his YouTube channel against WP:LINKFARM Leijurv ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
On comparing the history of this article and this draft, these appear to be the same person, and both have a history of editing by fly-by-night accounts, most recently User:AmyHarper77, who has not replied to an inquiry about COI. This history of puffery goes back to 2011. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The user downright admits in their edit summaries that they are the owner of Creep Catchers, and is requesting another editor on their talk page to edit for them. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Brax1016 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of them, pretending to be an unaffiliated third party. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies has blocked both accounts making this discussion moot. For the record, I couldn't even find a source that they were purchased by an American company, and that doesn't even seem possible because of how they're made of non-affiliated individuals and groups. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Shameless spamming, often in first person plural, and block evasion. Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing and a conflict of interest. This editor has exclusively edited this one article and almost certainly works in the university's marketing and communication unit. Our policy against outing does not allow me to directly state why I believe this editor works for this university but I am confident that other editors who spend even a few seconds investigating this will come to the same conclusion. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Appear to be an undisclosed paid editor repeatedly creating Charlie Buhler and not responding to warnings on their talk page. The draft was declined by Robert McClenon and Sulfurboy and Courtofmiracles98 copy-pasting the same version in main repeatedly. GSS 💬 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The subject author may be promoting the movie Before the Fire. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor has not responded to COI notice on their talk page and gone ahead an removed the COI and other maint tags on the article MB 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Promotional editing to related articles by multiple editors. Both have been warned; mentioning here because I don't know if there are more articles or editors involved. Hoshinoya may be an AFD or G11, searching hits on dozens of hotel booking sites so it's hard to tell what actual coverage there may be. MB 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is at the top of User:Movies Time.
Movies Time is a site that brings you the highlights of Movies from past, present, and future. Movies Time also brings you the highlights for entertainment like music and television.
Okay, so blatant advertising and bad username. So obvious that I deleted the userpage as an ad. But then I looked and that this person has done quite a lot here. So, I'm stumped. The username SEEMS to be an advertisement for the user's YouTube, Instagram, etc., etc. brand name, and the userpage reeks of advertisement.
Advice?
-- Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Glennice.yong did a series of potentially COI edits on the article on 3 July. The edits were reverted and tagged as COI, with the standard COI message left on the user's talk page. Similar edits were made again via IP address on 6 July. Similarly, edits were reverted. – robertsky ( talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This editor has disclosed their paid editor status on their userpage, but has also deviated from best practices by 1) writing an article on his product himself in the main space without using WP:AFC and 2) is in the process of adding wikilinks to that article to several list and comparison articles. Thoughts? MrOllie ( talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Editor repeatedly add un-encyclopedic/promotional info. Has not responded on their talk page. MB 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
User Wranxisys is a single-purpose account editing Peter Schwerdtfeger. They say they are " Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself". Their interest in the page is a bit unhealthy, neutrality-wise. Mostly I think they just need to understand that they should leave the page alone and not edit it, at which point the COI template can be removed. The username Paschwer, with 60 edits to the article, has a lot of similarity to the article subject's name. They also uploaded a portrait of the subject, with the caption "One of our staff members in 2014 with my own camera:, which implies they are the article subject.
Pinging @ Melcous: as they also interacted with this user. Given the long-term COI, use of multiple accounts, lack of disclosure and the fact that they have ignored and not repsonded to a COI warning, this seems like a good candidate for a pBlock. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP in discussion on Melcous talk page. thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
User Budke says of the article subject that "I have contacted him and had a long set of discussions with him", and apparently the subject says they won't do it again. The idea that editors are in touch with the article subject is a bit of a bad idea all around. GeneralNotability what do you make of that policy-wise, contacting subjects off-wiki? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Much of user's edits don't make significant contributions to the article prose, but are predominantly pushing/shoehorning their self-created images into articles, and sometimes replacing existing images with their own as a minor with vague comments like "more colours". There might be a conflict of interest of their primary purpose being publicizing their own photographs, which isn't consisting with
WP:GALLERY policy.
Here are some examples of their displacement of existing photos with a vague summary Special:Diff/962550137, Special:Diff/962677089 Graywalls ( talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
SPA not responding to warnings on their talk page and only edits are to create Draft:Deepak Mittal. The draft was declined by multiple users so they choose to post it under Deepak mittal. WP:NOTHERE applies imo. GSS 💬 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
For everyone's awareness, we worked our way through a pile of possible Bodiadub (long-time UPE) socks in this investigation. I'd appreciate it if folks here could take some time to look through the socks' contributions in case cleanup is required. GeneralNotability ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article [2]. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Contributions show that the editor has been only active on the article. The editor removed information from the article for "security concerns", giving me the impression that the editor might be working for the Wadhwani family. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
EAschroeder responding again: OK. So I don't violate anything, where/how do I put recommended edits to factual info on Romesh? Noted about "puffery." -- Easchroeder ( talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Got it, thank you ProcrastinatingReader - Easchroeder
Despite [3] and notices on her talk page, she is continuing to add her current and forthcoming works to articles and to edit her own article, adding quite a bit of unsourced or self-sourced material. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a conflict of interest related to a software company called SocialChorus, so I don't intend to make any direct edits to Wikipedia myself. I have created a draft for you all to review at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandboxB. Could an uninvolved editor review this draft and, so long as it meets your criteria, move it to mainspace? This falls into the category of business software companies along the lines of something like Slack_Technologies so if it would be best to bring this over to an area such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Technology I'd be happy to do so. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA ( talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Both accounts have recently edited Toptal. We could be dealing with SPAs with COI. While their edits are not disruptive in nature, it may be worth having the admins remind them of what they can/cannot add to the page considering their COI.
@ Infogapp1: You need to notify those editors they are under discussion. You can use the template in the red box at the top of this page. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Good day everyone! I recently reverted flagged Sesquipedalian69 for {{ subst:uw-spam1}} after adding a self-promotional external link to the article Naked Elvis. After that, the user dropped by my talk page to demand that I revert my previous revert of his edit, in doing so admitting that he is personally interested in the page, as he himseld played Naked Elvis as seen in this talk page discussion. I came across said edit as I am currently enrolled in the CVUA program and would like to know if the situation is a potential conflict of interest problem.
Gardo Versace ( talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. GeneralNotability ( talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The New York City Police Department has had issues with confirmed COI accounts recently. Today, a freshly created account started a RfC, which leads me to wonder whether COI accounts are allowed to start RfCs, as opposed to making edit requests? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Article
Katey Cattlehand Pluck has been edited by
User:Katey-cattlehand-pluck, including adding herself to the
1993 and
February 3 articles. Editor identifies herself as the subject of the article in
this edit, saying This article is about me, including my childhood memories.
I'm not convinced the article meets WP:GNG, but I'm not going to pursue that until we deal with the potential COI of a person editing her own article. Tarl N. ( discuss) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Previous discussion on the Kamala Harris talkpage.
This situation arose because The Intercept wrote a piece called There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, With Unflattering Elements Vanishing on July 2, 2020. Bnguyen1114 was mentioned in the article by his username only. On his talkpage, Bnguyen1114 has stated that he has been doxxed as a result of the article.
Bnguyen1114 himself has said the following about his possible COI on-wiki:
I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates[4]
a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates[5]
I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events[6]
However, the material which cannot be linked here due to WP:OUTING, actually details that he had a far more direct COI while editing the Kamala Harris pages.
WMF CEO Katherine Maher also has commented this issue in Twitter and stated that conflict of interest editing is against Wikipedia policies.
So far Bnguyen1114 has continued to edit the Kamala Harris talkpage. If the nature of his COI is more than "just a constituent" per the information elsewhere, how to proceed? Should functionaries process the private evidence?
In any case, the COI is "apparent" without a doubt. His 200 first edits were adding endorsements to the Kamala Harris campaign.-- Pudeo ( talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, just seven hours after administrator SlimVirgin imposed arbitration-enforcement restrictions on him, Bnguyen1114 has defiantly flouted those restrictions with this edit. By thumbing his nose at our COI process, Bnguyen1114 has earned an indefinite site block. NedFausa ( talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Posting this here as a courtesy; it was originally posted at the Teahouse.
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to report a couple undisclosed editors working for a company called wikiprofessionals inc. They have an online profolio (can't post link because it won't let me due to the filter) and that the page creators from the page creation log does not appear to have disclosed their editing. I also had a live chat with a rep and that they have admitted these accounts, but claim it is allowed. On their FAQ, they say that wp:iarpermits them to do so, except they actually don't. What should I do now? The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 11:21 am, Today (UTC−7) (reply)
We don't have a list of involved editors or an article list to look at; The creeper2007, perhaps you could post below if yoiu know of any involved editors or articles? ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@ The creeper2007: Regarding the portfolio of articles, you don't have to paste the whole link. Just remove the part from the beginning through "wikiprofessionalsinc.com" and post the rest. Or you could just paste the list of articles (though this is not as good as having the links to them). —[ AlanM1 ( talk)]— 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: Articles believed to have been created by this entity (or otherwise under COI circumstances) are marked [X]. BD2412 T 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Transcript
|
---|
|
Next group:
BD2412 T 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Schwede 66 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Last group:
BD2412 T 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to propose deletion of several under WP:G5 criterion. It might help if we had a formal community ban of this outfit, if there isn't one already. I looked at WP:AN and didn't see one (yet). ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC just ended with a site ban for WikiProfessionals. Plus, anything they created is eligible for deletion. ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)