![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 | → | Archive 175 |
User:Cf2022 has made many many requests where the question is either adding some reliable source or the like or adding a sentence or two. Now, while it technically falls under paid-editing, it isn't as far as I understand editing done to promote or advertise a subject (at least, I haven't come upon such an example so far). The main (if any) problem with their requests is usually minor issues of wording or style, which can get fixed easily enough - not enough, in my opinion, to warrant having each and every one of them go through the process of being delayed for a while while somebody takes the time to clean the backlog of other COI requests. Is there some other suggested solution to this situation (I frankly don't have a problem with just checking each edit manually after it's done if anybody insists: not much different than patrolling recent changes, and also more pleasant since it very likely won't involve silly trolling by the average schoolkid vandal)? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are their requested edits for one day (January 24th):
They also appear to have added directly material by Boston University authors, without going through Requested edits, to Stereotype threat ( diff), Water scarcity ( diff), Son of Sam law ( diff) and Working class ( diff). It's not hard to see that they are here to use Wikipedia to promote the reearch and publications of Boston university law faculty. Possibly ( talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A follow up to this thread on the agency Wikiprofessionals_inc], whose FAQ creatively declares that they avoid paid editing rules via our WP:IAR policy. A claim was made in this ANI thread that the agency had been paid to edit W. Mark Lanier's page. The previous COIN case mentions a number of articles; the testimoney section includes some new ones that may be worthy of scrutiny.
Looking at the first one, Ave Kludze, I see a series of possible COI edits from new user User:Scientisted. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the others yet, but wanted to make a note of this now. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Extra eyes please, perhaps with more COI experience than I have. User:
KesslerRonald had been editing pages such as
Ronald Kessler (author/journalist), this includes
removing content from that talk page, (these are older edits, but the page still needs to be sorted out, and we don't want to see anymore edits like that) and pages
Minuetta Kessler (Ronald Kessler's mother) and
Greg Kessler (another possible relation). He has added content to several articles that includes multiple mentions of "
Ronald Kessler" (I can add diffs if req'd, but virtually every edit he makes seem to all be along the same lines), as well as adding photos of "Ronald Kessler with [article subject]
" (yes, his name is always first -
1,
2,
3,
4 &
5), adding multiple "Ronald Kessler" refs to multiple articles, and (this is what first caught my attention), "updating" some of these sources to include links to Amazom pages where one can purchase the book by "Ronald Kessler" (
1 &
2). These last two edits were made after a
COI notice was placed on this user's talk page. To me there seems to be an on-goign campaign of self-promotion here, but I would be interested to see what others have to say. Thanks -
wolf
03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
RESPONSE: I am mystified by the claim that contributing verified, relevant material based on my journalism or about my relatives who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles is a conflict of interest. All of the material I have contributed over the years is from major publications such as the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews or consists of unique photos of historic interest published in my best selling books. It seems to me that the only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles should be and always has been whether the material is a relevant addition and whether it is verified with a citation, as has always been the case with my contributions. Most of the items mentioned here by Thewolfchild were contributed years ago and were approved multiple times by dozens of Wikipedia editors. If such material cannot now be included based solely on who contributed them rather than the relevance and veracity of the information, it seems to me a large portion of Wikipedia knowledge would have to be deleted, nor could such information be posted in the future. Moreover, if such a rule were to be imposed, any individual could post the same material on behalf of the individual involved and no one would be the wiser. To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love. Note that with the exception of one item decades ago, I have never deleted material posted by others, but rather in a few cases I have replaced items that I or others have written with exactly the same information written better in order to improve clarity.--Ronald Kessler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald ( talk • contribs) 09:52, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
@
KesslerRonald: Jtbc that SELFCITE applies to all articles you may be editing, not just articles about you and your family. There are still issues that are outstanding, that you either don't grasp, or don't wish to grasp, given your statement above; "To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love.
"
Do I really need to point out all the problems with that sentence? There are multiple issues with your edits and the way you seem to be constantly promoting yourself, ie; adding your name multiple times into non-Kessler articles, adding your photos as well, adding links to sell your books, and I supported all this with multiple diffs. Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it, or address how these articles are going to be fixed. - wolf 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues, as you suggested you may be doing. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so the tag can be removed, as you suggested you might do. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)
CORRECTED: Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)
This user seems to be trying to promote this politician. They keep adding a very long list of "awards" received by the city and most of the refs do not even mention the mayor by name. I have removed the list several times to no avail. COI message on user TP ignored. MB 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"I am an employee and was tasked to put the awards on both Wikipedia pages. I am being compensated for my job, not for editing here. I was just tasked to update the Wikipedia every now and then."I can't remember what we do when we catch UPE: we let them continue given proper disclosure, or do they get blocked? Possibly ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing issue with the International Swimming League using Wikipedia pages for self-promotion. There are several instances where there is blatant edits made by employees of the league or its owners, including:
I'm not trying to out anybody in violation of rules, but, in many cases, they have used their names in their usernames. Dellano Silva is the name of someone who works for Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the league, Maike Wellmann is an agent for several pro swimmers and a member of the staff of the New York Breakers, the name of the Toronto Titans' Director of Marketing is Jayne Brintley. The list goes on and exists for most teams.
Rolling off that, there are plenty of other examples of users who have gone through and done the same for other teams.
There are other less obvious examples of this.
One such editor, seemingly clueless to the rules, acknowledged that she was a team manager and that the ISL had instructed teams to update their athletes' pages (MWellmann)
There seems to be a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia with links and team listings for credibility. Is there a way to deal with this on a large scale, or does the discussion need to be had page-by-page? Some have been dealt with, others have not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls ( talk • contribs)
User adds large content in consent with Tom Kirkwood on the article Tom Kirkwood: [1]. The edits are largely unsourced or not sourced to independent and reliable sources (13 out of 18 references where publications by the article's subject). User has been warned by four other users already. NJD-DE ( talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No, friends, not an article name, it's a user name: Varapuzha Former Cathedral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going around and reverting my requested moves, etc. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
He admits to being an agent for all the persons who he has created an article for. That's a clear case of promotion, to create articles for them. Granted a couple of them do pass notability standards , but there is a bit too much COI here. Daiyusha ( talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The user in question has admitted on another website ( RationalWiki, a wiki which has a much more critical article on Kirkegaard) to creating the article in question on behalf of its subject. (Redacted) He admits that his motivation for writing the article was that the RationalWiki article was too critical, meaning the Wikipedia article was intended as a puff piece. It’s perhaps worth noting that the article has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard. I believe it should be deleted again, but I’m unsure if I should make a post in Articles for deletion (and unsure how, given that one already exists) or if this is enough for someone to delete it. Throwaway314 ( talk) 22:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have blocked the above editor for UPE, proved beyond reasonable doubt by the use of fake news black hat SEO sources and spam blacklist evasion on Draft:Craig Davis (entrepreneur) and Draft:Fast Wave Communications. They have over 8500 edits, so other contributions need intense scrutiny. MER-C 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This editor has been editing Luxembourg School of Business since 2018. Their edit summary for their first edit was "We have updated our programs, management and changed some minor details. We have added some new references". Another editor posted Welcome CoI on their Talk page in 2018. I reverted their recent changes to the article today as they sounded promotional and some text - though not a large amount - had been copy/pasted. I warned them about CoI on their Talk page using a template but they have made further changes. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (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.
Fairly confident this user is a paid editor for The Blackstone Group.
Left messages on my talk page pretending to be a neutral party, after repeatedly removing my edits and making accusations of an edit war.
However they exposed themselves when they made a normal PR edit to Blackstone recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Blackstone_Group&oldid=1002112827
Do we want paid editors leaving warnings on other people's talk pages?
I will be honest I was so shocked by how much corruption I came up against on Wikipedia I have almost stopped contributing and had to take some time out.
However on finding out that User:Sdrqaz is a paid editor I am now inclined to come back and do something about this situation as best I can.
This would be the second paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone in the last 6 months or so. Blackstone have a huge PR budget and can afford to bribe top Wikipedia editors. They have done in the past and will do again.
The last one was: /info/en/?search=User:Theoracle102 - there were others involved but we could not prove the others. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly removing [their] edits. I have done so once, when the filing party inserted criticism regarding deforestation into the second sentence of the lead. I did so while citing WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE, and MOS:LEADREL. I am also baffled by how their cited diff is a
normal PR edit.
implor[ing] anyone in Blackstone's PR team to have a good think about which side of history they are on here.
corruptionand being
bribe[d](though I am flattered I am considered a "top" Wikipedia editor), I advise the filer to be more careful before making frivolous complaints.
paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone. Such blanket statements are inadvisable. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.7.239 ( talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. COI on this page is getting out of hand. I am new to dispute resolution and the like, so some guidance would be greatly appreciated.
LinnCDoyle is me, as other users have raised suspicions about me being a COI user. I can understand, given the topic of the article, how editors may assume I am harbouring a negative bias. I am, however, confident my edits are accurate, well sourced and neutral.
Franciskouj declared COI, tendency to WP:PA and disruptive editing. Angling towards WP:LEGAL and WP:OUTING on the talk page, as well as at least attempting to share individuals personal information. I have evidence of what I strongly suspect is this persons identity. Potential undeclared paid editor.
JCAragorn1989 I have evidence of this users identity, though again I am not sure who to divulge this information to in order to avoid WP:OUTING. This users edits have actually not been a problem, however they do have an undeclared COI and author content on behalf of the orginisation described in this article elsewhere on the web.
Petercoyle92 This user has made only one helpful edit but otherwise is still an undeclared COI.
Jadbaz I do not know for sure that this user is an undeclared COI, I have asked, and been told no. However I do have some evidence (though again how is this done to prevent WP:OUTING?) as to what I strongly suspect is their identity. In either eventuality this user has been lobbying for the same edits as known COIs, and has been generally disruptive. Review of editing history is also suspicious.
Sudonymous I am unsure about the COI of this user, I did notice some odd activity and behaviour, though I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes.
Linn C Doyle ( talk) 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A few accounts here, but not really socks, as there is no effort to obscure identity. A descendent of H.J. Whitley (they have disclosed this on several occasions) who has put up a website and written a self published book has been quite active on this article, and in adding mentions of Whitley on other articles about Hollywood. This has been going on for years - here is an RSN discussion about their book from 11 years ago. There are some factual issues (this user often adds text claiming that Whitley named Hollywood, but most sources say it was Daeida Wilcox Beveridge), but the bigger issue seems to be that this user doesn't understand that blogs and self-published books are not reliable sources, and that they shouldn't replace proper newspaper citations with links to scans of the newspapers hosted on their own website. I'm getting back personal attacks and I didn't hear that style comments on the talk page. I think they're frustrated enough with me personally that they aren't really reading my comments any more, and I'll admit I'm getting a bit frustrated as well. More cool heads on Talk:H. J. Whitley would be greatly appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MrOllie: the SPI confirmed that the recently active accounts are the same person. The behavioural seems to indicate that all the accounts are the same person (a relative). I wonder if that information will help the disruption any? Possibly ( talk) 06:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
After removing a good deal of copyvio and inappropriate quotation from Search and rescue dog I happened to glance at the other contributions of King.parker3, which consist almost entirely of edits to John J. Ensminger. I added some maintenance tags to that page, with the edit summary "Added {{ Cleanup rewrite}}, {{ Notability}}, and {{ Autobiography}} tags: notability is very doubtful, he appears to have an h-index of 5 ( https://www.scopus.com/results/authorNamesList.uri?sort=count-f&src=al&sid=5cfc0c262b668a96c0cf4cfc19fbba7b&sot=al&sdt=al&sl=46&s=AUTHLASTNAME%28Ensminger%29+AND+AUTHFIRST%28John+J.%29&st1=Ensminger&st2=John+J.&orcidId=&selectionPageSearch=anl&reselectAuthor=false&activeFlag=true&showDocument=false&resultsPerPage=20&offset=1&jtp=false¤tPage=1 ...)". The excessively long url was a mistake, for which I apologise.
King.parker3 removed those tags, I restored them with the addition of a COI tag. King.parker3 blanked the page, Firefly unblanked it, King.parker3 again removed the tags. Now I read here: "Some serious accusations were posted by user Justlettersandnumbers. I attempted to remove these but Justlettersandnumbers immediately reposted them". Are those tags inappropriate? Or is actually it the article in question that is inappropriate? I'm thinking of taking it to AfD, but thought I'd sound opinion here before doing so. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I am like 75% confident that this user runs the facebook page for
Advanced Technology College Mekelle given their posting this
link which notably ends in ?modal=admin_todo_tour
. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This set of articles was all created nearly simultaneously and seem to have an intent to promote a cause. One version was previously rejected at AFC. MB 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Long term dedication to Mr. Wolk and his related endeavors, often with promotional content. Are separate articles necessary for Wolk Transfer Company and Gorgeous Entertainment? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I interact with the entertainment industry in general, and as such I have some peripheral connectionis too vague. Possibly ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles related:
User:
Other links
User Guestmare was inserting the same citation (with an archive link via copy/paste) into many different artist articles on Wikipedia. The cited website is titled, "The Estate of LG Williams". We had a discussion on their talk page about
WP:RS,
WP:RSPRIMARY,
WP:BLP,
WP:BLPREMOVE but they insist it was okay to use, based on their own invalidation of the existing article citations.
Upon closer look at the LG Williams citation, this website appears to be connected to the user Guestmare, they have a Wikipedia sandbox draft article started for LG Williams the artist that is displayed on the "The Estate of LG Williams" website under the menu item "wiki". I attempted to reach out for clarification and got a simple "no" with no explanations. It appears there is a clear intent to promote a person (LG Williams / Lawrence Graham Williams III) and/or event (2021 art exhibition titled "It’s Better To Be Mediocre"). Jooojay ( talk) 12:09, 13 February 2021 (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.
Struckdheart created an article without a COI disclosure and is now edit warring to include overtly promotional content at
Bishnah. They said we will try to get it approved by some Verified user as i am associated with Sony pictures television. So i am managing the edits and will get it done by the channel media partners.
but are not abiding by good COI/PAID practice, including a proper disclosure missing from their userpage. —
Bilorv (
talk)
19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The subject draft was submitted to AFC repeatedly before its release, and declined each time with instructions to resubmit when released. On 11 February, the draft was resubmitted (prior to release) yet again, with the record of AFC comments and declines removed. The AFC templates state that they should not be removed. The record of declines was restored, and the draft was rejected.
The submitter was then asked on their user talk page whether they have a conflict of interest. The record of the previous AFC submissions has been removed again and the draft has been resubmitted again (appearing to be a new draft), without answering the question about conflict of interest.
The album has now been released as of 12 February 2021, and so may satisfy musical notability, but the question about conflict of interest has not been answered. Neutral point of view is still the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (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.
Newly created SPA JakeRubin7 has added original research , sourced to a press release that did not support the added material, and blanked text in lead despite the two occupations they removed (journalist, musician) being the subject of a NY Times profile. Ken Kurson has been a target of substantial SPA editing in the past. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The user Telmo6T almost focus exclusively on editing this page and has had numerous incidences where they have removed edits claiming for the edits to be vandalism when it is not vandalism. his edits only seem to occur when it is people trying to post journalistic or public criticism of Seth who is the subject of the article. In addition continued whitewashing has taken place over the 2020 and 2021 calendar years in the user edits. it's very suspicious and in addition the user added to their talk page that they are a long time user of Wikipedia in their own words as if that adds credibility. Edee66323 ( talk) 16:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1006791718 shows user with, apparently, a large roster of corporate clients changing the rules around including prices in, for example, pharmaceutical articles, where big pharma generally doesn't want them to be. I'm going to revert this edit, but also posting here as this should be a policy violation, and because I'd like to use COIN for what it's for. 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. Note that it is tagged for paid editing, though I did not place that tag and am unclear as to its basis. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Coretheapple My efforts had nothing to do with IP editing, I have discussed your bias and vandalism against my uncle on social media and on chat rooms. If anyone did anything against wiki rules, it has nothing to do with me.
HershyMarton (
talk)
22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)—
HershyMarton (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
The american greed show is not journalism and is a very poor production. yes, its filled with bias, slander and defamation. I cannot run around all day correcting defamation.
HershyMarton (
talk)
22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Mona1975's very first edits back in 2009 declared,in the edit summary, that she is Thomas Ian Nicholas' mother. Since then they have contributed 45 edits to Thomas Ian Nicholas (10% of the total edits made to the page).
They obviously keenly understand WP:COI, since when Melcous warned them for COI, they said "I ended up watching (themovie) Adverse and I am obsessed with finding out more information about the creative team behind it. In doing research I noticed some things that needed updating on the wiki site. Anyway, liking someones work makes me research them and then want others to know the info that I have found by updating the wiki page. I don't think that it means there is a COI. Please help me get better at this wiki site. It's so very confusing."
They've also made a dozen or so edits to DJ Colette, the spouse of Thomas Ian Nicholas.
So, to sum up: article subject's mother needs WP:PBLOCK on Thomas Ian Nicholas and DJ Colette. Possibly ( talk) 07:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
At [9] he denies having WP:COI. However, his first edit is suspect of COI: [10]. I.e. he tried to pull the wool over our eyes about the true nature of OneCoin. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a promotional article about a software company. I added an "advert" tag (the lead especially is full of buzz-words). The editor removed the tag. I restored it and added a COI notice on their TP. There has been no response, but an IP removed the tag again. MB 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This user has repeatedly added copyrighted photos from the Associated Press and other websites to the article without evidence of permission and made other edits to the BLP. I strongly suspect this user is William Whitmire, a Communications Coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed signs of corporate advocacy/public relations editing on the article Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco and there were signs suggesting it was paid editing, so per the template documentation, I tagged it as UPE. Signs include a single purpose account User:Jay94103 adding huge amount of information, then leaving after they've done this. The article's creator objected and suggested the matter be reported here, so here it is. The creator did voluntarily disclose in the talk page that they were an employee of the organization at the time they created the article. I've also noticed they created pages on organizations closely related to this organization, so listed those as well. The article creator noted in the talk page they've voluntarily contacted the subject organization's executive director and says they were told the ED wasn't aware of "employees" editing. But suppose it was edited by a public relations firm and they still technically wouldn't be an employee. I am not sure what to make of the SPA account Jay94103, so I'll seek input here. Graywalls ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Since 2009, Xylem22 has made over 500 edits and almost every one has been to St. Cloud State University with the other edits being closely related to that one subject. However, he or she has never edited a Talk page or responded to any questions, warnings, or other messages left on his or her Talk page. His or recent edits have been blatant violations of established policy and practice - adding external links to the body of the article - but he or she has persisted in reinserting those links with no regard for other editors or the policies and practices that do not allow them. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This account seems to be related to Anatolia College in an official capacity, or exists solely to promote the school via its WP page. It has only edited the Anatolia College page, and has been warned previously about WP policies relating to promotion of causes, companies, etc. Michail ( blah) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
At what point should a COI template be removed? I trimmed everything from the article but the bare fact of his being a member of the state House of Representatives, and I'm being told the COI template has to remain. I've looked at the template documentation and the help page on maintenance templates and it looks like the COI should be removed now. Am I incorrect? Thanks for any help. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion [German] ( Permalink to current version) I have blocked user:Rjsnf for undeclared paid editing on dewiki. It seems that the enwiki article was mostly written by them as well and still contains some marketing lingo, which is why I am raising this issue here. The undisclosed paid editing was subject of an online article in a German newsletter. Someone from a verified account belonging to Klöckner admitted that they contracted an agency to work on the article supposedly not knowing that they would violate the terms. Count Count ( talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
New to this process, but an admin suggested I submit this here. I noticed this user's edits were very close inline with previous personal efforts by the subject Randall Miller, who previous edited under Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, to scrub relevant information about involvement in an industry accident. In this edit the former IP address makes the claim in the changelog that they are infact Randall Miller.
Although that IP stopped editing in March 2019, its last edit are virtually identical to the latest edits of this account (removing cited material, or adding family references), and the others bare similarity. Further, both IP addresses are within the same Charter Spectrum block and nearly adjacent 138.229.220 - 138.229.231, and both geolocate to Pasadena, CA, the subjects listed home city.
Lately, this user has blanked sections repeatedly, but it's worth noting that after the last revert they have made a couple cited additions. Strangerpete ( talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
User has been persistently reverting others to get the article to read the way they want. The edit pattern seems to show they're likely the subject himself or his agent. Graywalls ( talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Appearance of autobiographical interest, creating both James A. Lee and Southern Reformed College and Seminary, and a tendency to add James A. Lee to related articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8804:65CA:7CE3:366C ( talk) 03:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has been fairly quiet since the elections ended, with the occasional disruptive edit to remove the QAnon language. The past few days, an IP that geolocates to GA began removing large swaths of reliably sourced text that were negative of Stanton-King, while added some unsubstantiated and promotional-sounding language. [16] [17] Today, a newly-registered user with a potentially relevant username reverted back to the IP's preferred version, [18] and then claimed on Peregrine Fisher's talkpage that they are, in fact, the article subject. [19] The claims about defamation, slander, and vandalism are fairly obvious cover for trying to whitewash the page, and I dropped a general COI notice and a DE warning about blanking RS material on their talkpage, but this user and the article may require some additional eyes. Grandpallama ( talk) 22:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been contacted by an editor who wishes to write an article about a notable relative who died nearly 50 years ago. They've written a draft article, which is in good shape, and which I am happy to review and move to mainspace. My query here is whether they need to note a conflict of interest or the article talkpage given the relative is long-deceased. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Suspected public relations, undisclosed for-consideration editing. The editing pattern on the editor on numerous pages appear to be promotional. They created the page on Luke's company and contributed the bulk of contents on Luke Hughes page. A handful of single purpose accounts were used on Luke Hughes page. A different editor also raised COI/UPE concerns on this editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marielle_Legair Graywalls ( talk) 12:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls I can categorically state all my edits are done off my own back with nothing untoward (such as payments - both direct or indirect) as you continue to suggest. You've already been chided by another editor for you over-zealous behaviour so suggest that you calm down and cease the campaign against me. Bamberini8 ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This character is deleting pretty much all of my profiles and engaging other Wikipedia bullies to do so.Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Standard_of_evidence_needed_to_tag_article_for_suspected_UPE Graywalls ( talk) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The title of the draft and the username of the user are clearly the same with little bit difference. The draft was created today. The editor seems to be closely related to the article. I suspect if the editor uses Wikipedia for promotion or advertising.– Kamilalibhat ⟨ talk⟩ 16:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue came to my attention after seeing his user page. He, and his business partner (disclosure made by the COI/U on their own user page) hosts XOXO festival together. I am concerned that he's created and authored significant chunk of his business partner's Wikipedia biography page and that he has been maintaining their business page, XOXO festival in more of a webmaster/curator type role for some length of time. The kind of extensive direct editing that is discouraged even if disclosed. The latest major addition is essentially uncited, and even if properly cited, the encyclopedic value is questionable and my opinion is that the page is serving more as just another social media platform for the festival/conference that chronicles their event/show biz activity than a genuine encyclopedia entry. Additionally, he edited his own biography to change the picture of himself to the version he prefers. I am posting it here for outside opinion on the situation, and to make necessary corrections to ensure they're encyclopedic rather than social media platform on which the article subject exerts considerable control. Graywalls ( talk) 20:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 | → | Archive 175 |
User:Cf2022 has made many many requests where the question is either adding some reliable source or the like or adding a sentence or two. Now, while it technically falls under paid-editing, it isn't as far as I understand editing done to promote or advertise a subject (at least, I haven't come upon such an example so far). The main (if any) problem with their requests is usually minor issues of wording or style, which can get fixed easily enough - not enough, in my opinion, to warrant having each and every one of them go through the process of being delayed for a while while somebody takes the time to clean the backlog of other COI requests. Is there some other suggested solution to this situation (I frankly don't have a problem with just checking each edit manually after it's done if anybody insists: not much different than patrolling recent changes, and also more pleasant since it very likely won't involve silly trolling by the average schoolkid vandal)? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are their requested edits for one day (January 24th):
They also appear to have added directly material by Boston University authors, without going through Requested edits, to Stereotype threat ( diff), Water scarcity ( diff), Son of Sam law ( diff) and Working class ( diff). It's not hard to see that they are here to use Wikipedia to promote the reearch and publications of Boston university law faculty. Possibly ( talk) 03:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A follow up to this thread on the agency Wikiprofessionals_inc], whose FAQ creatively declares that they avoid paid editing rules via our WP:IAR policy. A claim was made in this ANI thread that the agency had been paid to edit W. Mark Lanier's page. The previous COIN case mentions a number of articles; the testimoney section includes some new ones that may be worthy of scrutiny.
Looking at the first one, Ave Kludze, I see a series of possible COI edits from new user User:Scientisted. I haven't had a chance to look closely at the others yet, but wanted to make a note of this now. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Extra eyes please, perhaps with more COI experience than I have. User:
KesslerRonald had been editing pages such as
Ronald Kessler (author/journalist), this includes
removing content from that talk page, (these are older edits, but the page still needs to be sorted out, and we don't want to see anymore edits like that) and pages
Minuetta Kessler (Ronald Kessler's mother) and
Greg Kessler (another possible relation). He has added content to several articles that includes multiple mentions of "
Ronald Kessler" (I can add diffs if req'd, but virtually every edit he makes seem to all be along the same lines), as well as adding photos of "Ronald Kessler with [article subject]
" (yes, his name is always first -
1,
2,
3,
4 &
5), adding multiple "Ronald Kessler" refs to multiple articles, and (this is what first caught my attention), "updating" some of these sources to include links to Amazom pages where one can purchase the book by "Ronald Kessler" (
1 &
2). These last two edits were made after a
COI notice was placed on this user's talk page. To me there seems to be an on-goign campaign of self-promotion here, but I would be interested to see what others have to say. Thanks -
wolf
03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
RESPONSE: I am mystified by the claim that contributing verified, relevant material based on my journalism or about my relatives who are already the subject of Wikipedia articles is a conflict of interest. All of the material I have contributed over the years is from major publications such as the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews or consists of unique photos of historic interest published in my best selling books. It seems to me that the only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles should be and always has been whether the material is a relevant addition and whether it is verified with a citation, as has always been the case with my contributions. Most of the items mentioned here by Thewolfchild were contributed years ago and were approved multiple times by dozens of Wikipedia editors. If such material cannot now be included based solely on who contributed them rather than the relevance and veracity of the information, it seems to me a large portion of Wikipedia knowledge would have to be deleted, nor could such information be posted in the future. Moreover, if such a rule were to be imposed, any individual could post the same material on behalf of the individual involved and no one would be the wiser. To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love. Note that with the exception of one item decades ago, I have never deleted material posted by others, but rather in a few cases I have replaced items that I or others have written with exactly the same information written better in order to improve clarity.--Ronald Kessler — Preceding unsigned comment added by KesslerRonald ( talk • contribs) 09:52, February 1, 2021 (UTC)
@
KesslerRonald: Jtbc that SELFCITE applies to all articles you may be editing, not just articles about you and your family. There are still issues that are outstanding, that you either don't grasp, or don't wish to grasp, given your statement above; "To characterize material quoted from the Washington Post or New York Times or from unique interviews with major historic figures or that consists of unique historic photos as "sales pitches" or "self-promotion" seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the way journalism works and, if adopted as policy, would radically undermine the usefulness of Wikipedia, which we all love.
"
Do I really need to point out all the problems with that sentence? There are multiple issues with your edits and the way you seem to be constantly promoting yourself, ie; adding your name multiple times into non-Kessler articles, adding your photos as well, adding links to sell your books, and I supported all this with multiple diffs. Nothing you've said here seems to acknowledge any of that, or commit to stopping it, or address how these articles are going to be fixed. - wolf 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues, as you suggested you may be doing. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so the tag can be removed, as you suggested you might do. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)
CORRECTED: Now that, as agreed, I will only be submitting proposed possible additions to my Wikipedia article or other articles that cite me on the talk page, I respectfully request that you remove the tag at the top of my article citing possible issues. I now realize that the reason it appeared that I had submitted so many contributions to my own article and other articles is that, given the arcane nature of Wikipedia citations, I have, especially in the past, in some cases submitted as many as 10 or 20 submissions for one contribution until I got it right! In any case, what counts is that each submission has conformed with Wikipedia WP:SELFCITE guidelines, which require that contributions be relevant and based on a solid source. The 63 footnotes in my article all cite major media sources such as the Washington Post and New York Times and have been approved by multiple Wikipedia editors over the years. Moreover, my article now contains a lengthy criticism section. Note also that I have made only a few contributions to my mother Minuetta Kessler’s Wikipedia article, such as a link to her papers at the Boston Public Library. Ninety-nine percent of her article was written by yoninah17@gmail.com, who did prodigious research to compile it. The multiple submissions from me again constitute my failed attempts to get the Wikipedia citations right. Please consider removing the tag on her article as well. As for the separate complaint that citation of material from major media sources constitutes “self-promotion,” most of Wikipedia would be wiped out if this complaint were taken to its logical conclusion. Further, I’m sure a large portion of material on Wikipedia comes from the subject of an article but was submitted by a professional or a friend or family member, so no one knows that it originated with the subject of the article. Again, as requested, in the future I will only propose additions to my article or articles that cite me on the talk page and will not make any changes to my article or other articles that cite me. I believe we have resolved the issues, so I believe the tag can be removed. I appreciate your help and understanding.--Ronald Kessler [KesslerRonald] KesslerRonald (talk • contribs) February 2, 2021 (UTC)
This user seems to be trying to promote this politician. They keep adding a very long list of "awards" received by the city and most of the refs do not even mention the mayor by name. I have removed the list several times to no avail. COI message on user TP ignored. MB 05:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"I am an employee and was tasked to put the awards on both Wikipedia pages. I am being compensated for my job, not for editing here. I was just tasked to update the Wikipedia every now and then."I can't remember what we do when we catch UPE: we let them continue given proper disclosure, or do they get blocked? Possibly ( talk) 05:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing issue with the International Swimming League using Wikipedia pages for self-promotion. There are several instances where there is blatant edits made by employees of the league or its owners, including:
I'm not trying to out anybody in violation of rules, but, in many cases, they have used their names in their usernames. Dellano Silva is the name of someone who works for Konstantin Grigorishin, the founder of the league, Maike Wellmann is an agent for several pro swimmers and a member of the staff of the New York Breakers, the name of the Toronto Titans' Director of Marketing is Jayne Brintley. The list goes on and exists for most teams.
Rolling off that, there are plenty of other examples of users who have gone through and done the same for other teams.
There are other less obvious examples of this.
One such editor, seemingly clueless to the rules, acknowledged that she was a team manager and that the ISL had instructed teams to update their athletes' pages (MWellmann)
There seems to be a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia with links and team listings for credibility. Is there a way to deal with this on a large scale, or does the discussion need to be had page-by-page? Some have been dealt with, others have not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HatBucketBalls ( talk • contribs)
User adds large content in consent with Tom Kirkwood on the article Tom Kirkwood: [1]. The edits are largely unsourced or not sourced to independent and reliable sources (13 out of 18 references where publications by the article's subject). User has been warned by four other users already. NJD-DE ( talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
No, friends, not an article name, it's a user name: Varapuzha Former Cathedral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going around and reverting my requested moves, etc. Elizium23 ( talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
He admits to being an agent for all the persons who he has created an article for. That's a clear case of promotion, to create articles for them. Granted a couple of them do pass notability standards , but there is a bit too much COI here. Daiyusha ( talk) 08:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The user in question has admitted on another website ( RationalWiki, a wiki which has a much more critical article on Kirkegaard) to creating the article in question on behalf of its subject. (Redacted) He admits that his motivation for writing the article was that the RationalWiki article was too critical, meaning the Wikipedia article was intended as a puff piece. It’s perhaps worth noting that the article has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard. I believe it should be deleted again, but I’m unsure if I should make a post in Articles for deletion (and unsure how, given that one already exists) or if this is enough for someone to delete it. Throwaway314 ( talk) 22:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have blocked the above editor for UPE, proved beyond reasonable doubt by the use of fake news black hat SEO sources and spam blacklist evasion on Draft:Craig Davis (entrepreneur) and Draft:Fast Wave Communications. They have over 8500 edits, so other contributions need intense scrutiny. MER-C 13:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This editor has been editing Luxembourg School of Business since 2018. Their edit summary for their first edit was "We have updated our programs, management and changed some minor details. We have added some new references". Another editor posted Welcome CoI on their Talk page in 2018. I reverted their recent changes to the article today as they sounded promotional and some text - though not a large amount - had been copy/pasted. I warned them about CoI on their Talk page using a template but they have made further changes. Tacyarg ( talk) 21:57, 8 February 2021 (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.
Fairly confident this user is a paid editor for The Blackstone Group.
Left messages on my talk page pretending to be a neutral party, after repeatedly removing my edits and making accusations of an edit war.
However they exposed themselves when they made a normal PR edit to Blackstone recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Blackstone_Group&oldid=1002112827
Do we want paid editors leaving warnings on other people's talk pages?
I will be honest I was so shocked by how much corruption I came up against on Wikipedia I have almost stopped contributing and had to take some time out.
However on finding out that User:Sdrqaz is a paid editor I am now inclined to come back and do something about this situation as best I can.
This would be the second paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone in the last 6 months or so. Blackstone have a huge PR budget and can afford to bribe top Wikipedia editors. They have done in the past and will do again.
The last one was: /info/en/?search=User:Theoracle102 - there were others involved but we could not prove the others. Colinmcdermott ( talk) 13:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
repeatedly removing [their] edits. I have done so once, when the filing party inserted criticism regarding deforestation into the second sentence of the lead. I did so while citing WP:PROPORTION, WP:UNDUE, and MOS:LEADREL. I am also baffled by how their cited diff is a
normal PR edit.
implor[ing] anyone in Blackstone's PR team to have a good think about which side of history they are on here.
corruptionand being
bribe[d](though I am flattered I am considered a "top" Wikipedia editor), I advise the filer to be more careful before making frivolous complaints.
paid editor definitively discovered for Blackstone. Such blanket statements are inadvisable. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
paid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.71.7.239 ( talk) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. COI on this page is getting out of hand. I am new to dispute resolution and the like, so some guidance would be greatly appreciated.
LinnCDoyle is me, as other users have raised suspicions about me being a COI user. I can understand, given the topic of the article, how editors may assume I am harbouring a negative bias. I am, however, confident my edits are accurate, well sourced and neutral.
Franciskouj declared COI, tendency to WP:PA and disruptive editing. Angling towards WP:LEGAL and WP:OUTING on the talk page, as well as at least attempting to share individuals personal information. I have evidence of what I strongly suspect is this persons identity. Potential undeclared paid editor.
JCAragorn1989 I have evidence of this users identity, though again I am not sure who to divulge this information to in order to avoid WP:OUTING. This users edits have actually not been a problem, however they do have an undeclared COI and author content on behalf of the orginisation described in this article elsewhere on the web.
Petercoyle92 This user has made only one helpful edit but otherwise is still an undeclared COI.
Jadbaz I do not know for sure that this user is an undeclared COI, I have asked, and been told no. However I do have some evidence (though again how is this done to prevent WP:OUTING?) as to what I strongly suspect is their identity. In either eventuality this user has been lobbying for the same edits as known COIs, and has been generally disruptive. Review of editing history is also suspicious.
Sudonymous I am unsure about the COI of this user, I did notice some odd activity and behaviour, though I may simply be seeing COIs everywhere at this point, so would appreciate a fresh set of eyes.
Linn C Doyle ( talk) 05:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
A few accounts here, but not really socks, as there is no effort to obscure identity. A descendent of H.J. Whitley (they have disclosed this on several occasions) who has put up a website and written a self published book has been quite active on this article, and in adding mentions of Whitley on other articles about Hollywood. This has been going on for years - here is an RSN discussion about their book from 11 years ago. There are some factual issues (this user often adds text claiming that Whitley named Hollywood, but most sources say it was Daeida Wilcox Beveridge), but the bigger issue seems to be that this user doesn't understand that blogs and self-published books are not reliable sources, and that they shouldn't replace proper newspaper citations with links to scans of the newspapers hosted on their own website. I'm getting back personal attacks and I didn't hear that style comments on the talk page. I think they're frustrated enough with me personally that they aren't really reading my comments any more, and I'll admit I'm getting a bit frustrated as well. More cool heads on Talk:H. J. Whitley would be greatly appreciated. - MrOllie ( talk) 21:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@ MrOllie: the SPI confirmed that the recently active accounts are the same person. The behavioural seems to indicate that all the accounts are the same person (a relative). I wonder if that information will help the disruption any? Possibly ( talk) 06:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
After removing a good deal of copyvio and inappropriate quotation from Search and rescue dog I happened to glance at the other contributions of King.parker3, which consist almost entirely of edits to John J. Ensminger. I added some maintenance tags to that page, with the edit summary "Added {{ Cleanup rewrite}}, {{ Notability}}, and {{ Autobiography}} tags: notability is very doubtful, he appears to have an h-index of 5 ( https://www.scopus.com/results/authorNamesList.uri?sort=count-f&src=al&sid=5cfc0c262b668a96c0cf4cfc19fbba7b&sot=al&sdt=al&sl=46&s=AUTHLASTNAME%28Ensminger%29+AND+AUTHFIRST%28John+J.%29&st1=Ensminger&st2=John+J.&orcidId=&selectionPageSearch=anl&reselectAuthor=false&activeFlag=true&showDocument=false&resultsPerPage=20&offset=1&jtp=false¤tPage=1 ...)". The excessively long url was a mistake, for which I apologise.
King.parker3 removed those tags, I restored them with the addition of a COI tag. King.parker3 blanked the page, Firefly unblanked it, King.parker3 again removed the tags. Now I read here: "Some serious accusations were posted by user Justlettersandnumbers. I attempted to remove these but Justlettersandnumbers immediately reposted them". Are those tags inappropriate? Or is actually it the article in question that is inappropriate? I'm thinking of taking it to AfD, but thought I'd sound opinion here before doing so. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I am like 75% confident that this user runs the facebook page for
Advanced Technology College Mekelle given their posting this
link which notably ends in ?modal=admin_todo_tour
. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
20:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This set of articles was all created nearly simultaneously and seem to have an intent to promote a cause. One version was previously rejected at AFC. MB 17:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Long term dedication to Mr. Wolk and his related endeavors, often with promotional content. Are separate articles necessary for Wolk Transfer Company and Gorgeous Entertainment? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I interact with the entertainment industry in general, and as such I have some peripheral connectionis too vague. Possibly ( talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles related:
User:
Other links
User Guestmare was inserting the same citation (with an archive link via copy/paste) into many different artist articles on Wikipedia. The cited website is titled, "The Estate of LG Williams". We had a discussion on their talk page about
WP:RS,
WP:RSPRIMARY,
WP:BLP,
WP:BLPREMOVE but they insist it was okay to use, based on their own invalidation of the existing article citations.
Upon closer look at the LG Williams citation, this website appears to be connected to the user Guestmare, they have a Wikipedia sandbox draft article started for LG Williams the artist that is displayed on the "The Estate of LG Williams" website under the menu item "wiki". I attempted to reach out for clarification and got a simple "no" with no explanations. It appears there is a clear intent to promote a person (LG Williams / Lawrence Graham Williams III) and/or event (2021 art exhibition titled "It’s Better To Be Mediocre"). Jooojay ( talk) 12:09, 13 February 2021 (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.
Struckdheart created an article without a COI disclosure and is now edit warring to include overtly promotional content at
Bishnah. They said we will try to get it approved by some Verified user as i am associated with Sony pictures television. So i am managing the edits and will get it done by the channel media partners.
but are not abiding by good COI/PAID practice, including a proper disclosure missing from their userpage. —
Bilorv (
talk)
19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The subject draft was submitted to AFC repeatedly before its release, and declined each time with instructions to resubmit when released. On 11 February, the draft was resubmitted (prior to release) yet again, with the record of AFC comments and declines removed. The AFC templates state that they should not be removed. The record of declines was restored, and the draft was rejected.
The submitter was then asked on their user talk page whether they have a conflict of interest. The record of the previous AFC submissions has been removed again and the draft has been resubmitted again (appearing to be a new draft), without answering the question about conflict of interest.
The album has now been released as of 12 February 2021, and so may satisfy musical notability, but the question about conflict of interest has not been answered. Neutral point of view is still the second pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (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.
Newly created SPA JakeRubin7 has added original research , sourced to a press release that did not support the added material, and blanked text in lead despite the two occupations they removed (journalist, musician) being the subject of a NY Times profile. Ken Kurson has been a target of substantial SPA editing in the past. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The user Telmo6T almost focus exclusively on editing this page and has had numerous incidences where they have removed edits claiming for the edits to be vandalism when it is not vandalism. his edits only seem to occur when it is people trying to post journalistic or public criticism of Seth who is the subject of the article. In addition continued whitewashing has taken place over the 2020 and 2021 calendar years in the user edits. it's very suspicious and in addition the user added to their talk page that they are a long time user of Wikipedia in their own words as if that adds credibility. Edee66323 ( talk) 16:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1006791718 shows user with, apparently, a large roster of corporate clients changing the rules around including prices in, for example, pharmaceutical articles, where big pharma generally doesn't want them to be. I'm going to revert this edit, but also posting here as this should be a policy violation, and because I'd like to use COIN for what it's for. 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. Note that it is tagged for paid editing, though I did not place that tag and am unclear as to its basis. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Coretheapple My efforts had nothing to do with IP editing, I have discussed your bias and vandalism against my uncle on social media and on chat rooms. If anyone did anything against wiki rules, it has nothing to do with me.
HershyMarton (
talk)
22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)—
HershyMarton (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
The american greed show is not journalism and is a very poor production. yes, its filled with bias, slander and defamation. I cannot run around all day correcting defamation.
HershyMarton (
talk)
22:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Mona1975's very first edits back in 2009 declared,in the edit summary, that she is Thomas Ian Nicholas' mother. Since then they have contributed 45 edits to Thomas Ian Nicholas (10% of the total edits made to the page).
They obviously keenly understand WP:COI, since when Melcous warned them for COI, they said "I ended up watching (themovie) Adverse and I am obsessed with finding out more information about the creative team behind it. In doing research I noticed some things that needed updating on the wiki site. Anyway, liking someones work makes me research them and then want others to know the info that I have found by updating the wiki page. I don't think that it means there is a COI. Please help me get better at this wiki site. It's so very confusing."
They've also made a dozen or so edits to DJ Colette, the spouse of Thomas Ian Nicholas.
So, to sum up: article subject's mother needs WP:PBLOCK on Thomas Ian Nicholas and DJ Colette. Possibly ( talk) 07:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
At [9] he denies having WP:COI. However, his first edit is suspect of COI: [10]. I.e. he tried to pull the wool over our eyes about the true nature of OneCoin. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a promotional article about a software company. I added an "advert" tag (the lead especially is full of buzz-words). The editor removed the tag. I restored it and added a COI notice on their TP. There has been no response, but an IP removed the tag again. MB 16:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This user has repeatedly added copyrighted photos from the Associated Press and other websites to the article without evidence of permission and made other edits to the BLP. I strongly suspect this user is William Whitmire, a Communications Coordinator for the Human Rights Campaign. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I noticed signs of corporate advocacy/public relations editing on the article Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco and there were signs suggesting it was paid editing, so per the template documentation, I tagged it as UPE. Signs include a single purpose account User:Jay94103 adding huge amount of information, then leaving after they've done this. The article's creator objected and suggested the matter be reported here, so here it is. The creator did voluntarily disclose in the talk page that they were an employee of the organization at the time they created the article. I've also noticed they created pages on organizations closely related to this organization, so listed those as well. The article creator noted in the talk page they've voluntarily contacted the subject organization's executive director and says they were told the ED wasn't aware of "employees" editing. But suppose it was edited by a public relations firm and they still technically wouldn't be an employee. I am not sure what to make of the SPA account Jay94103, so I'll seek input here. Graywalls ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Since 2009, Xylem22 has made over 500 edits and almost every one has been to St. Cloud State University with the other edits being closely related to that one subject. However, he or she has never edited a Talk page or responded to any questions, warnings, or other messages left on his or her Talk page. His or recent edits have been blatant violations of established policy and practice - adding external links to the body of the article - but he or she has persisted in reinserting those links with no regard for other editors or the policies and practices that do not allow them. ElKevbo ( talk) 15:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This account seems to be related to Anatolia College in an official capacity, or exists solely to promote the school via its WP page. It has only edited the Anatolia College page, and has been warned previously about WP policies relating to promotion of causes, companies, etc. Michail ( blah) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
At what point should a COI template be removed? I trimmed everything from the article but the bare fact of his being a member of the state House of Representatives, and I'm being told the COI template has to remain. I've looked at the template documentation and the help page on maintenance templates and it looks like the COI should be removed now. Am I incorrect? Thanks for any help. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Following this discussion [German] ( Permalink to current version) I have blocked user:Rjsnf for undeclared paid editing on dewiki. It seems that the enwiki article was mostly written by them as well and still contains some marketing lingo, which is why I am raising this issue here. The undisclosed paid editing was subject of an online article in a German newsletter. Someone from a verified account belonging to Klöckner admitted that they contracted an agency to work on the article supposedly not knowing that they would violate the terms. Count Count ( talk) 15:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
New to this process, but an admin suggested I submit this here. I noticed this user's edits were very close inline with previous personal efforts by the subject Randall Miller, who previous edited under Special:Contributions/138.229.220.3, to scrub relevant information about involvement in an industry accident. In this edit the former IP address makes the claim in the changelog that they are infact Randall Miller.
Although that IP stopped editing in March 2019, its last edit are virtually identical to the latest edits of this account (removing cited material, or adding family references), and the others bare similarity. Further, both IP addresses are within the same Charter Spectrum block and nearly adjacent 138.229.220 - 138.229.231, and both geolocate to Pasadena, CA, the subjects listed home city.
Lately, this user has blanked sections repeatedly, but it's worth noting that after the last revert they have made a couple cited additions. Strangerpete ( talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
User has been persistently reverting others to get the article to read the way they want. The edit pattern seems to show they're likely the subject himself or his agent. Graywalls ( talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Appearance of autobiographical interest, creating both James A. Lee and Southern Reformed College and Seminary, and a tendency to add James A. Lee to related articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8804:65CA:7CE3:366C ( talk) 03:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This article has been fairly quiet since the elections ended, with the occasional disruptive edit to remove the QAnon language. The past few days, an IP that geolocates to GA began removing large swaths of reliably sourced text that were negative of Stanton-King, while added some unsubstantiated and promotional-sounding language. [16] [17] Today, a newly-registered user with a potentially relevant username reverted back to the IP's preferred version, [18] and then claimed on Peregrine Fisher's talkpage that they are, in fact, the article subject. [19] The claims about defamation, slander, and vandalism are fairly obvious cover for trying to whitewash the page, and I dropped a general COI notice and a DE warning about blanking RS material on their talkpage, but this user and the article may require some additional eyes. Grandpallama ( talk) 22:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I've been contacted by an editor who wishes to write an article about a notable relative who died nearly 50 years ago. They've written a draft article, which is in good shape, and which I am happy to review and move to mainspace. My query here is whether they need to note a conflict of interest or the article talkpage given the relative is long-deceased. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Suspected public relations, undisclosed for-consideration editing. The editing pattern on the editor on numerous pages appear to be promotional. They created the page on Luke's company and contributed the bulk of contents on Luke Hughes page. A handful of single purpose accounts were used on Luke Hughes page. A different editor also raised COI/UPE concerns on this editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marielle_Legair Graywalls ( talk) 12:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls I can categorically state all my edits are done off my own back with nothing untoward (such as payments - both direct or indirect) as you continue to suggest. You've already been chided by another editor for you over-zealous behaviour so suggest that you calm down and cease the campaign against me. Bamberini8 ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This character is deleting pretty much all of my profiles and engaging other Wikipedia bullies to do so.Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Standard_of_evidence_needed_to_tag_article_for_suspected_UPE Graywalls ( talk) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The title of the draft and the username of the user are clearly the same with little bit difference. The draft was created today. The editor seems to be closely related to the article. I suspect if the editor uses Wikipedia for promotion or advertising.– Kamilalibhat ⟨ talk⟩ 16:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The issue came to my attention after seeing his user page. He, and his business partner (disclosure made by the COI/U on their own user page) hosts XOXO festival together. I am concerned that he's created and authored significant chunk of his business partner's Wikipedia biography page and that he has been maintaining their business page, XOXO festival in more of a webmaster/curator type role for some length of time. The kind of extensive direct editing that is discouraged even if disclosed. The latest major addition is essentially uncited, and even if properly cited, the encyclopedic value is questionable and my opinion is that the page is serving more as just another social media platform for the festival/conference that chronicles their event/show biz activity than a genuine encyclopedia entry. Additionally, he edited his own biography to change the picture of himself to the version he prefers. I am posting it here for outside opinion on the situation, and to make necessary corrections to ensure they're encyclopedic rather than social media platform on which the article subject exerts considerable control. Graywalls ( talk) 20:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)