![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I noticed a heavy marketing and framing drift in the article on Klaus Schwab as Founder of the World Economic Forum. Critical points have been removed, honours have been highlighted excessively and Schwab's former secretary Hilde, which he married, has been re-labelled "first collaborator" (which has a strong taste of linguistic framing).
There have been overall 37 of such edits by User Petervanham, who happens to be the Head of International Media Council and Chairman’s Communications at World Economic Forum. Petervanham highlights the conflict of interest on his user page but the heavy sugartalking on the Klaus Schwab article through his account especially over the last few weeks is beyond measure.
This would almost be a case for the media (better not the one the WEF "works with throughout the year" but the independent one), as this is depicting a heavy impact on Wikipedia as neutral and independent source of knowledge. Polynesia2024 ( talk) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for flagging this case. As I’ve clearly indicated in my profile, I have a conflict of interest regarding Klaus Schwab, and therefore limit myself to making factual submissions to his page. So, taking these allegations one by one:
Did I remove critical points? No. I flagged fake news and misinformation regarding “The Great Reset” conspiracy theory that is making the rounds on the internet, and linked to articles from sources such as Reuters and AFP which clearly state the nature of this fake news.
Did I excessively highlight awards received by Klaus Schwab? No. When users only mentioned the awards received by Klaus Schwab from China and Israel, selectively deleting those from other countries, I added the awards he received elsewhere, such as the UK, France and Germany. Having given only the info on the awards from China and Israel could have given the impression that Mr. Schwab has a special relationship to these countries and their interests.
Third, was Hilde Schwab his “secretary”, and not his assistant and first collaborator? What is the allegation here? Hilde Schwab as first employee of the World Economic Forum in fact acted more like what a COO today does, taking charge of a wide variety of tasks related to the organization.
In sum, I find the allegations presented here very colored and uncalled for, but mostly I wonder what the reason of Polynesia2024 is to open a case on this page. If anyone has factual corrections regarding edits I have made and that were incorrect regarding Klaus Schwab, they can bring them forward on Klaus Schwab’s page Wikipedia directly and change the edits or flag specific issues, right?
What I’m disheartened by, professional and as a person, is the constant steam of fake news and misinformation that is spread on Klaus Schwab, on a variety of channels. My contribution in keeping Wikipedia and his page here a reliable source, is to flag fake news, and add sources on factual information provided about this person.
It is tiring and discouraging to see how often those with an undisclosed agenda try and manipulate Wikipedia pages, and that goes for the page of Klaus Schwab as well. What is encouraging to see is that many other wiki editors correct such efforts at manipulation.
Note also that my last edit was months ago. I thus do not understand the comment on edits made that would be “beyond measure”, “especially in the last few weeks”.
Do please let me know if I need to take any other steps to address this case. I’m happy to provide any sources for the information I provided here. Thank you. Petervanham — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all my apologies for not having posted the information on the page of Petervanham. There was no intention in bad faith here but I assume the tagging of the user on this page would automatically notify him. In terms of disclosure, he indeed added a conflict of interest badge on your page, as I had indicated in my original text.
But this happened only on 21 June 2021, after having made more than 30 edits to the page since 2020. Notable edits - prior to any disclosure - include:
The bloated honours section led, among others, to a neutrality dispute on the page. Only at that point, the conflict of interest badge had been added. Please do not present yourself as a victim of a misinformation campaign when there is evidence for having written an uncritical marketing text on Klaus Schwab over the last months. -- Polynesia2024 ( talk) 09:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing the discussion here, and for including me in it. I would like to address one more time the accusations levelled against me here. And I would raise the question: what is the allegation, really? That I have made misleading or false edits? Or that I did not disclose my conflict of interest early enough?
If it is about my conflict of interest, I agree I should have done it earlier. I am not an expert contributor, and so it may take me a while to gather experience about best practices. But when I found out it was possible to self-disclose conflicts of interest, I immediately did so. If this means that my prior edits should be revised, I welcome that. My edits have always followed the same principle: they are limited to factual elements and the adding of reliable sources, such as official university pages, or trusted media sources such as Reuters, AFP, etc.
But what I cannot accept, is false accusations. I have not been involved, now or ever, in writing "uncritical marketing" about Klaus Schwab, or to make any non-factual contributions. And the alleged proof that I would have, is simply false. Notably, the text sample Polynesia2024 has included here as "evidence", is one I have nothing to do with:
I deeply resent that these kinds of falsehoods are presented on this page. Any Wiki editor can go back in the edit history of Klaus Schwab or any other page, and verify that truthfulness of my claims, and the falseness of the ones Polynesia2024 levels here against me. I do not accept that someone propagates lies about me.
The same goes for the "bloated honours section" leading to a "neutrality dispute" and my subsequent self-declaration of a conflict of interest. This is a fabricated allegation. My self-declaration of a conflict of interest came when I did additional research on the kind of edits an editor could make, after I spotted the umpteenth attempt to add fake news to Klaus Schwab's page, which led me to want to correct these edits. When it comes to the suggestion that Klaus Schwab's page has a "bloated honours section", what exactly does that even mean? It is a verifiable fact that Klaus Schwab received 17 honorary doctorates from universities around the world, and several national distinctions from P5 and G7 countries. Does mentioning those make his honours section "bloated"?
I would argue there is a danger of misinformation in inconsistency. One Wiki editor deleted many of the verifiable honours uploaded on Klaus Schwab's page, only to leave those from China and Israel. What exactly would be the justifiable basis for that? And why would someone like Polynesia2024 support this action? From a quick search on Klaus Schwab, one would be able to find that one reason for making these one-sided edits, is that it fits in conspiracy theories on Klaus Schwab being a friend of (communist) China, or that he would be involved in a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. It would be deeply regrettable if such misleading edits would be left standing in a neutral platform.
Here is a quote from one article regarding Klaus Schwab, and the way groups like QAnon tie him to perceived communist and Jewish interests: "The Great Reset is a concept floated by Prince Charles and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, which urges a post-pandemic transformation of the world economy to rebalance inequality and climate progress. It was the headline topic at this January’s WEF, held online rather than in its usual Swiss home of Davos. Believers in the Illuminati, New World Order and, of course, QAnon have subsumed the Great Reset into their own conspiracy theories. It appeals to the anti-globalist right and anti-capital left – and often leads adherents down anti-Semitic rabbit holes." <ref>https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/qanon-conspiracy-theory-germany</ref>
Neutrality rules would instead favor consistency: either all academic titles and national distinctions are mentioned, or none. I opted to add all distinctions, provided evidence and sourcing could be added. Subsequent revisions by other users verified this choice as being in line with Wiki policies. If the community of Wiki editors would instead find it better to instead delete all such honours, in all such Person pages, that too could be a defensible choice. But I would be surprised if any seasons Wiki editor would suggest that leaving only the Chinese and Israeli honours would be appropriate.
You see, I do not believe Polynesia2024 is an unbiased or seasoned contributor, and that he created this page in good faith. I suspect that he has an agenda, and that he does not disclose it. I regret the one-sidedness of this discussion, and the false accusations made. So, may I in turn question the reason of Polynesia2024 for levelling allegations against me here? For example, he alleges in his edit of Klaus Schwab's page, without evidence or sourcing, that Hilde Schwab was Klaus Schwab's "secretary" - and not his "assistant" and first collaborator as written there before. What exactly is the point of that change, which again, is not sourced? To me it suggests an undertone of misogeny. And again, what is his reason for preferring a highly selective list of honours with only titles from China and Israel, rather than a full one?
In closing, I have indicated my conflict of interest, and welcome any and all scrutiny of edits I make, and whether they are suitable. If I should take any other approach in my editing, I also welcome suggestions on that. I believe that together, Wiki editors create a "wisdom of the crowd", and that in most cases they are able to crowd out of lies and falsehoods. That is my experience. But I would hope that we do not allow this page, or any other Wiki page, to become a place for one-sided and false allegations, aimed at destroying a contributor's reputation without cause, and let by a "prosecutor" who does not have a credible track record.
Please let me know what the rest of this "proceeding" will look like. Thank you.
@ Scope creep:: Thank you for that judgment call. It seems fair to me. As for your question, my COI is what is disclosed: I work as Head of Communications in the Chairman’s Office of the World Economic Forum. In that role, I consult with Klaus Schwab on matters of public engagement. I did inform him that I have made factual corrections to his page. If you think this is too close of a connection to provide a neutral point of view, I will take that into consideration and request an edit rather than make edits for any material edits that are not strictly about adding sources. Let me know if that sounds like the right course of actio to you, or what would be Peter Vanham 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Petervanham
The article on the World Economic Forum includes more than 50 edits by User:Mikeh101, who served as Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. It is hence a case of paid editing and should be highlighted as such.
This has the touch that the team could see Wikipedia as an extension of their marketing channels, without ever labelling or highlighting the edits made as COI. I am highly concerned.
Is there any way to validate how many further edits have been made by members of the team, given that the team head has made 50+ edits himself alone?
Polynesia2024 ( talk) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
An India-based IP-hopper has, in less than two hours, added 14,000 bytes of poorly and suspiciously sourced "Controversies" to an 8,000-byte article about an American company, BrightStar [1]. The same 14,000-byte mass content was also added to a BLP, Marcelo Claure, by a registered account [2]. The BLP edits were reverted by someone based on WP:ATP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION, but the editor added it back.
Looking at the history of the person that added the BLP content, Centrereded, they have in the past tried to create a BLP with highly biased content at Draft:Hans Georg Näder. They then added identical poorly and suspiciously sourced 14,000-byte attack content as a "Controversies" section to Ottobock, another previously small article about a company [3].
I suspect the IPs adding to BrightStar and the registered account adding to Marcelo Claure are the same person. If anyone feels this warrants a Sockpuppet Investigation, please feel free to move forward with that. Adam.Sudo ( talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Significant edits are made by a user whose handle closely resembles the name of an employee. I don't know if it's appropriate to link the username since this could dox the user in question.
- Article is littered with poor grammar and punctuation. I recognize these particular writing patterns as characteristic of the writing of another close Hondor affiliate.
- "The 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games brought him to America" is misleading and suggests that he competed in the 96 Olympics, which he did not.
- Article puffs up achievements, like mentioning that Emily Vermeule won a national championship at 14 without specifying that it was for the Y14 age group. Likewise "Only club on the North American Continent" to send a girl's epeeist to the YOG is not true because Ariane Léonard represented Canada in that event.
- Overall this serves the purpose of making this whole article into an advertisement for his business.
- I have subject matter knowledge to edit the page but I'm not sure if I should go ahead and do so unilaterally because I know and personally dislike Hondor. I can recognize that I am biased, but I do think that these edits need review and at least partial reversion. While I do not see a notability standard for fencers, by analogy with other sports I think it's arguable that Hondor does not meet the notability standard to have a page at all. ( talk) 22:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. Edwardx ( talk) 12:29, 18 November 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.
A discussion is going on here involving two Pakistani editors and an Indian editor Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Casualties, requesting an impartial conflict resolution. Echo1Charlie ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrator notethis, instead moved on to
WP:ANI, where I have advised the parties that
WP:AE, per
WP:ARBIPA, is the appropriate venue.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The IPv6 range and the IPv4 IP have been editing Albert Bryan (politician) a lot, and in a similar fashion to User:IslandVibez, a user that was blocked for paid editing. I was considering opening an SPI about it, but I'm not really great with SPI cases, so I figured I should have a discussion here first. Invalid OS talk 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Supermann is a editor who from my reading of his history has enthusiasm?/focus? for military film, perhaps sometime to a over-zealous extent that has got him into trouble in the past. Stephen Hogan is a marginal actor with a long career who I think some would argue are borderline for a WikiPedia Article, and Supermann has been zealous in developing Home since this edit Old revision of Stephen Hogan on 18 April 2021. Supermann has doggedly developed the Hogan Article since, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. TheBirdsShedTears has been on Supermann/Hogan's case since before the DRV, but at the DRV has been what I might describe as bordering on Wikipedia:Casting aspersions at UPE/COI editing by Supermann but not bringing the case here, even beyond Supermann denying the association. However following Herostratus contributions BusterD gave an explanation here of Supermann needed scrutiny [4] One key COI/UPE point is the article by Dublin!Live on the notable film Sardar Udham featuring Hogan as an interview ... as brought particularly up at [5]. I am somewhat opined Sardar Udham's distributors or Hogan's agent probably set this up (and a similar interview on the Daily Express) without assistance from Supermann; but I am not prepared to bet my last euro that Supermann was not involved. The question is I guess was simply Supermann zealous, was Supermann an out and out COI/UPE editor on Hogan; or has an some point Supermann transitioned from a zealous editor on a subject to having a COI/UPE? (eg Myself and RPSI). Thankyou, and apologies if I've mis-interpreted anything of the drama; the DRV's just gone too far without coming here. 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
[Out of chronology edit to add the section title immediately above retroactively] Herostratus ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to add a thought. Getting back purely to the covert-paid-agent thing... Grift is terrible. All grift it terrible. I detest it and tried to start a project against it. BUT, of all grift, this'd be the least bad. My number 1 concern is like BP and Cracker Barrel etc. hiring clever professional PR flacks to spin their articles. My other number 1 concern is people running corrupt schemes -- protection racket, whatever. My number 3 concern is people writing, or hiring someone to write, a one-off hagiography about themselves or their company, particularly if they're not wikinotable. Supermann doesn't fit in any of these categories, as:
If he's a grifter, he's about the most harmless one I've seen. Just pointing this out as a data point is all, take it as you will. Herostratus ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Both Griegtupi404 and Bbrown91 are/were 2021 SPAs to establish new articles within a remakably-narrow topic area (no edits outside of St Helena). IP is IPs are likewise single-topic.
Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) appears to be heavily supported by new media based on recent press releases, using images submitted by the subject of the article. The author appears to be conversant with formatting and moreover knows the exact birth details of 15 October 1991 which does not appear publicly (example: deleted from prose in this change, but was left in infobox).
Griegtupi404 was left a standard CoI templated message on 25 October, has edited since but no response at Talk. Bbrown91 has only just been messaged, as just now been found.---- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've given 91.232.192.0/18 a brief holiday from Wikipedia; unless I messed it up (which is pretty likely), that covers all the IPs mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer created Frederick D. Sulcer. On the talk page, Tomwsulcer wrote "This is an article about my late father". According to the infobox in that article, Ginna Sulcer Marston is Frederick Sulcer's child. Tomwsulcer created Ginna Marston. Quinn Marston is Frederick Sulcer's grandchild. Tomwsulcer created Quinn Marston. Another article created by Tomwsulcer is Elizabeth Sulcer a fashion stylist who shares the Sulcer name. For some reason, Tomwsulcer chose to give her undue prominence in the article on wardrobe stylists.
In the biography about New Jersey piano teacher Capitola Dickerson, Tomwsulcer has included 18 images, which is clearly excessive. One of the images is captioned "Dickerson with one of her pupils, Samuel Sulcer". One of the sources used by Tomwsulcer is an article in a community newspaper which starts "Community members -- including Thomas Sulcer, Kathy Lucas, Penny and Frank Bolden, and Pamela Paskowitz, Ph.D. -- gathered for a reception...". Tomwsulcer wrote that Dickerson "he was friends with renowned jazz singer Bill Robinson". Tomwsulcer created the article Bill Robinson (jazz singer). All sources appear to be either passing mentions or coverage in local papers, which is not what one would expect for a renowned jazz singer.
Tomwsulcer appears to have used a piece that he wrote for a local paper as a source in Homelessness. I suspect that despite his many years here, Tomwsulcer may not be familiar with policies on conflict of interest. Please sign my guestbook ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: On Commons, you wrote "I wrote the article about Charlie van Over. He's a notable chef. He's the husband of a friend of mine". Indeed, you created both Charlie van Over and Priscilla Martel. Do you understand why you should not be creating articles about your family, your friends, or your business associates? Do you understand our principles on neutrality and why writing about people you know may lead to articles that are neither neutral nor encyclopedic? What do you think Wikipedia would look like if everyone did what you are doing? Please sign my guestbook ( talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Tom hasn't edited since the 2nd (according to his attempt to speedy delete his talk page, he might be gone for good).
I actually doubt the notability of these pages he's created, a block and/or a cleanup of his edits and at least a few AfDs are needed here. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the substance; just noting, since it doesn't look like anyone has, that this well-formed COIN thread was created by a brand new user as their second edit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for more eyes on Emunah La-Paz. I have substantially shortened the article in the last few days, removing first a paid-editor screed, and then a good deal of unsourced or ill-sourced content. It was then nominated for deletion by Timtrent, whose opinion on notability I had sought (my talk, diff on request). It appears that Vhubbard (a) has a very close connection to the subject of the article and (b) is fairly thoroughly incensed at the idea that the page might be deleted. Would some kind person like to try to pour a little oil on the waters? – I don't that would come well from me at this point. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
( talk
There have been several extensive edits for Børge Brende, who serves as President of the World Economic Forum, by Mikeh101. This user, according to his own Wikipedia wall, was Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. He was hence a paid marketing & communications employee of Brende and his team.
While probably unrelated, there seem to have further sock puppet accounts such as WhatsUpWorld that had an additional material impact on the article. It would make sense to take a look at this as we just had a severe case of unhighlighted paid editing for the article of Klaus Schwab as CEO of the World Economic Forum by another member of their Communications team. Polynesia2024 ( talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A new editor, Jaiden4, has majored on creating and/or moving numerous articles and/or drafts on the ABU TV Song Festioval to main space. Many, perhaps all, are unreferenced and ought not to remain in main space, certainly until referenced. Some have been draftified already and have been moved back. This is either a case of over-enthusiasm or is a case of COI, perhaps Paid editing. There are so many of these that any action is likelhy to require admin attention with some sort of bulk edit response.
So why have I not gone to ANI?
Because ANI can result in blocks, and blocks are unlikely to be appropriate. Perhaps I should have gone there. It has been a conscious choice to try to handle this more kindly, and I think, hope, this venue will achieve that. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:54, 20 November 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.
Long term promotional editing by IPs. Recently nominated for deletion, two new accounts have shown up to vote keep. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The two users above appear to be working together to write about a business and one of it's founders. The usernames seem to be real names in Armenian; searching on the surname along with Galaxy Group, one can find an apparent connection with a company executive. It should also be noted that the draft article Draft:Galaxy Group of Companies was declined, and Draft:Gurgen Khachatryan (entrepreneur) was deleted; but despite this, Հայկուհի Կարապետյան created Gurgen Khachatryan in the mainspace anyway, and also moved a user subpage of Արմենուհի Կարապետյան ( User:Արմենուհի Կարապետյան/Galaxy Group of Companies) to the mainspace as Galaxy Group of Companies.
This plus similar activity from these editors on the Armenian and Russian Wikipedias leads me to suspect COI and possibly WP:PAID editing. Neither editor has responded to COI notices left on their talk pages. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have very good reason to believe that Lightburst has a personal relationship with these musicians he has created articles for. I have no desire to reveal Lightbursts real name here, but he has outed himself on other Wikimedia sites, which makes clear that he has a personal relationship with these musicians. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
::@
Lightburst: Can you please address the questions asked above? Thank you.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A review of Lightburst's editing history shows that from January 2018 to January 2019 his editing is almost exclusively about Greg Koch or topics directly related to Greg Koch. During that time period, Lightburst created
Greg Koch (musician),
Guy King (a musician who plays with Koch sometimes),
Toby Lee Marshall (in a band with Koch),
Koch Marshall Trio (the band),
Dylan Koch (deleted article about third member of trio),
Toby Arrives (Koch album),
Truth (Guy King album), and
Plays Well with Others (Greg Koch album). Those are the first eight articles Lightburst created. The pattern is clear even if the intent is open to interpretation.
I do not wish to run afoul of
WP:OUTING here, but as others have already stated, Lightburst has identified himself on other Wikimedia projects. It is therefore very easy to determine that Lightburst does have a conflict of interest here. Lightburst has said "I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them". On Lightburst's personal website he writes "Greg Koch is a friend and lives right here in Wisconsin". In some YouTube videos posted by Greg Koch, he calls Lightburst "a buddy". I believe in giving people a chance to own up to their mistakes and move on, but if Lightburst does not return here to address the questions posed to him, I believe a block is in order.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.
What, exactly, caused you to crawl through another Wikipedian's online identity, website, social media, etc.? I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content, etc., and only an argument that one of them is not notable (it has been nominated for deletion accordingly). I would certainly hope there's some terrible, egregious violation on-wiki that would justify creeping around a user's real-life identity, whether or not that was incidentally revealed on some other project. As an aside, it's pretty common for anyone interested in their local music scene to be acquainted with local musicians, who in turn might thank a fan. It should not be any great shock that articles on music, movies, etc. on Wikipedia are written by fans -- even hard core fans who might live near the subject or who have met that subject. Presumably the accusation is that LB is super-secret-BFFs with this musician such that it makes him unable to write neutrally and justifies some light stalking, but this thread doesn't appear to identify any such pattern of non-neutral editing ... and unless we're talking about paid editing, that comes first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content:
- [9] Levivich 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)“I believe Greg Koch is pound for pound the best guitar player in the world today. His, tone, feel and style are unrivaled in today’s guitar playing community. He is scary good. It was a true honor to do shows with him.” Joe Bonamassa[16]
:::
The first studio album by the Koch Marshall Trio has received high praise. Pendragon's review of the album borders on hyperbole: "‘Toby Arrives’ is the sort of album you could stack alongside a Thelonius Monk record, a Jeff Beck record or a Mike Landau record. If you went for one of the other three and got this by mistake your day wouldn’t be ruined."
(still there) I think there may be a small issue of neutrality.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
21:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.
User User:Tydelorean is repeatedly editing the section of John DeLorean's page about a Ty DeLorean claiming to be John DeLorean's illegitimate son. I've warned him several times to go through the talk page and he has not responded. @ Starbug22: has been reverting his edits. The overall slant of his edits has been to reinforce Ty DeLorean's claim. Rusalkii ( talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved from my previous post at ANI, I realized after the fact that it may better fit here.
(Self-described?) media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq keeps trying to change his article photo, however they are ignoring COI, paid editing, image sourcing requirements and are ban evading to do this.
Accounts in question include User:Khattab Lord, and now User:Khattab F. Al-Dhafiri. In the edit history for Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, they repeatedly claim to be the media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq, who apparently has requested his article image be changed.
I'm not going to lie, the previous image is pretty bad, and I can understand why the Prime Minister wants it changed (although obviously that's not really how things work around here). I don't think that changing the photograph would be a bad change to the article in principle; however, the user in question is failing to abide by COI declarations/procedure, has ban evaded, and is adding photographs to the article that do not have a clear copyright license attached to them (screenshots and the like).
Honestly the best thing here might be if another editor sources a usable alternative photo and adds it themselves, although of course the media spokesman still needs to declare COI and paid editing, and start requesting changes via talk pages, I would imagine. BlackholeWA ( talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
# | Page title | Date | Original size | Current size | Assessment | Links | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Satish Chandra (state commissioner) | 2021-11-20 10:29 | 6,902 | 7,766 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | In AfD heading for Delete outcome. Non notable person |
2 | Fashinza (Company) · (Deleted) | 2021-11-08 05:48 | 6,384 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Unambiguous promo for a company |
3 | Fashinza · (Deleted) | 2021-10-25 12:24 | 7,166 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Unambiguous promo for a company |
4 | The Chocolate Room (cafe) | 2021-10-20 11:05 | 3,922 | 6,316 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | For a company |
5 | Hybiz Tv | 2021-10-07 07:54 | 3,507 | 4,240 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | for a company |
6 | Aashutosh Srivastava | 2021-10-01 05:38 | 5,763 | 12,027 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | suspected promo BLP of non notable person. At Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashutosh Srivastava |
7 | Rajeev Baid · (Deleted) | 2021-08-31 14:14 | 3,651 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo BLP |
8 | Himayat Ali Mirza | 2021-08-04 09:09 | 4,852 | 2,968 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Suspected promo BLP of non notable person |
9 | National Integrated Health Wellness Care Network · (Deleted) | 2021-06-14 08:14 | 4,060 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of company |
10 | India Herald · (Deleted) | 2021-06-01 06:48 | 2,118 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | |
11 | Pinnacle Blooms Network · (Deleted) | 2021-03-14 18:21 | 9,462 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of company |
12 | Pinnacle Blooms · (Deleted) | 2021-03-10 06:27 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of Company | |
13 | Narappa | 2020-02-03 10:10 | 3,129 | 31,720 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Created in March 3 months in advance for an upcoming film |
14 | Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma | 2020-01-29 08:11 | 6,179 | 5,792 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Suspected UPE Promo BLP of non notable person. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma |
I saw this article in AfD and I suspect that the article Satish Chandra (state commissioner) and others are created for undisclosed paymemt. I cannot imagine anyone creating such articles that got deleted some of them for being unambiguous promotional. After an article is deleted, it is recreated with unwanted disambiguation added to evade scrutiny.
In addition to the ones already deleted, I can see that Aashutosh Srivastava, Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma, Himayat Ali Mirza are non notable and clearly promotional biography of living persons that should not have been created. The user was blocked in past for using wikipedia for promotion. These are the reasons behind my suspicion. Venkat TL ( talk) 08:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
More opinions sought for at Talk:Florine_Stettheimer#WP:CITESELF_etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There is reason to believe that DiDoo1 is Zeena Schreck herself or someone very close to her due to the content that the user has been editing and creating since their membership as well as the user's consistent removal of Zeena's son's (Stanton LaVey) name from the information table. The user's reason is a personal one rather than a factual one and therefore does not comply with the guidelines of neutrality. The user's reason is that Stanton was adopted by his grandmother (Diane Hagerty) in 1996 which is information that is not publicly known nor negates that Zeena gave birth to him in 1978 and raised him until 1990. Moreover, it is publicly known that Zeena hated her son, attempted to kill him and disowned him. It would be no surprise that Zeena would not want his name on her Wikipedia page. For these reasons, one would conclude that Didoo1 is Zeena Schreck and violating the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy. I ask that this matter be investigated to help ensure that Wikipedia stays neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
UpsidedownVal ( talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
user:Jwittkamper appears to be connected to Jonah Wittkamper, the subject of Jonah Wittkamper. User is an WP:SPA on the subject of Jonah Wittkamper and nonprofit organizations associated with Wittkamper. In more than seven years the user has made no edits that were not related to Wittkamper and the non profits he is associated with. It has been almost three months since the user was informed of COI concerns, but has not responded, so I'm opening this COIN.
As an aside, there seems to be a significant history of suspicious editing on this cluster of articles, with several SPA named accounts and IPs, promotional usernames, and at least one sock/suspected paid editor.
Meters ( talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm really staggered that I need to write this but I feel it is vital for transparency that it is documented and discussed. Today, the CEO of WMUK (LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)) decided to update the article to add a highly promotional summary of the organisation's work, remove a summary of various controversies in the lead and also add other unsourced updates. A note was left on the talk page justifying it and declaring a "potential" COI. My revert was then undone by Johnbod who is a member of WMUK with the justification that because the COI was declared, the edit is fine. Further investigations revealed that WMUK trustee Rodw recently created Monisha Shah who was recently appointed as the Chair of the Board at WMUK. I've sent that to AFD it is clear that WP:BIO is a long way from being met and most of the sourcing is terrible. A note was also left declaring the COI. This seems to be a perfect example of why WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a COI from editing articles directly and I find it astonishing that these users have ignored the advice that we routinely give to other editors and introduced poorly sourced BLP content and promotional organisational content into the project. Disclosure of a COI is not a carte blanche to do whatever afterwards, it is the start of the process. It is extremely hypocritical and the optics are terrible. SmartSE ( talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
a governance problem" is probably the understatement of the year - there is, and I say this with all due respect and entirely mindful of "comment on content, not editors", a serious competence issue at WMUK. Least of all are these ill-advised edits. Perhaps WMUK should take a step back from editing their own articles and instead focus on upgrading their MediaWiki installation to something that isn't EOL and vulnerable. sigh. ~ TheresNoTime ( to explain!) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
create changes in policy and practice that enable open knowledge to flourishis LinkedIn prose that does not belong in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Kind of depressing that an organization that, by it's very nature, is supposed to be closely aligned with the goals of this project should have such a poor understanding of those goals. I guess that donor money outweighs the neutrality of the project. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
In days gone by I would have asked my very good friend Jytdog to advise me on this, but alas ...
DanMor806 works for SA in some capacity, recognises his COI and does not wish to edit the page, but asked for help on the talk page to bring the page a little more up to date. They have provided an initial suggestion to update the History section, and I have let the whole thing fall off my watchlist and promptly forgotten about it.
I have also realised that I am so used to hostile true believers in something, that dealing with a co-operative person who is happy to be schooled and supported, is stretching my collegiate abilities - I think hope that wise heads here might have a look at the Talk page, and help guide me. Thanks. -
Roxy the dog.
wooF
19:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Lamb_(software_developer)#Conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrezling ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The user created the draft above, which has a declined submission. They had previously added the draft subject's election predictions to 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election and 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election, while undoing other users' reverts due to concerns of not meeting notability. After that, they have done little else than adding the predictions to 2022 gubernatorial and House election articles, while also undoing other users' reverts without any efforts of communicating; most recently, they have spent 7 minutes performing >20 reverts of other editors removing their predictions. — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 00:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
User has created this article, only other edits are adding links to it in other articles. They have removed a COI template multiple times. Obvious COI according to the infobox. MB 15:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Mr._North_Florida Has been editing this article for years. His edits always remove critical information. He just removed something that only a staff member would know about and that is the school losing/canceling its ABHE membership. I could find no mention anywhere in online sources and then its was removed from the Association of Biblical Higer Education membership directory. I have attempted to speak to the user but he has not responded to me. Super ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I noticed a heavy marketing and framing drift in the article on Klaus Schwab as Founder of the World Economic Forum. Critical points have been removed, honours have been highlighted excessively and Schwab's former secretary Hilde, which he married, has been re-labelled "first collaborator" (which has a strong taste of linguistic framing).
There have been overall 37 of such edits by User Petervanham, who happens to be the Head of International Media Council and Chairman’s Communications at World Economic Forum. Petervanham highlights the conflict of interest on his user page but the heavy sugartalking on the Klaus Schwab article through his account especially over the last few weeks is beyond measure.
This would almost be a case for the media (better not the one the WEF "works with throughout the year" but the independent one), as this is depicting a heavy impact on Wikipedia as neutral and independent source of knowledge. Polynesia2024 ( talk) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for flagging this case. As I’ve clearly indicated in my profile, I have a conflict of interest regarding Klaus Schwab, and therefore limit myself to making factual submissions to his page. So, taking these allegations one by one:
Did I remove critical points? No. I flagged fake news and misinformation regarding “The Great Reset” conspiracy theory that is making the rounds on the internet, and linked to articles from sources such as Reuters and AFP which clearly state the nature of this fake news.
Did I excessively highlight awards received by Klaus Schwab? No. When users only mentioned the awards received by Klaus Schwab from China and Israel, selectively deleting those from other countries, I added the awards he received elsewhere, such as the UK, France and Germany. Having given only the info on the awards from China and Israel could have given the impression that Mr. Schwab has a special relationship to these countries and their interests.
Third, was Hilde Schwab his “secretary”, and not his assistant and first collaborator? What is the allegation here? Hilde Schwab as first employee of the World Economic Forum in fact acted more like what a COO today does, taking charge of a wide variety of tasks related to the organization.
In sum, I find the allegations presented here very colored and uncalled for, but mostly I wonder what the reason of Polynesia2024 is to open a case on this page. If anyone has factual corrections regarding edits I have made and that were incorrect regarding Klaus Schwab, they can bring them forward on Klaus Schwab’s page Wikipedia directly and change the edits or flag specific issues, right?
What I’m disheartened by, professional and as a person, is the constant steam of fake news and misinformation that is spread on Klaus Schwab, on a variety of channels. My contribution in keeping Wikipedia and his page here a reliable source, is to flag fake news, and add sources on factual information provided about this person.
It is tiring and discouraging to see how often those with an undisclosed agenda try and manipulate Wikipedia pages, and that goes for the page of Klaus Schwab as well. What is encouraging to see is that many other wiki editors correct such efforts at manipulation.
Note also that my last edit was months ago. I thus do not understand the comment on edits made that would be “beyond measure”, “especially in the last few weeks”.
Do please let me know if I need to take any other steps to address this case. I’m happy to provide any sources for the information I provided here. Thank you. Petervanham — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
First of all my apologies for not having posted the information on the page of Petervanham. There was no intention in bad faith here but I assume the tagging of the user on this page would automatically notify him. In terms of disclosure, he indeed added a conflict of interest badge on your page, as I had indicated in my original text.
But this happened only on 21 June 2021, after having made more than 30 edits to the page since 2020. Notable edits - prior to any disclosure - include:
The bloated honours section led, among others, to a neutrality dispute on the page. Only at that point, the conflict of interest badge had been added. Please do not present yourself as a victim of a misinformation campaign when there is evidence for having written an uncritical marketing text on Klaus Schwab over the last months. -- Polynesia2024 ( talk) 09:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing the discussion here, and for including me in it. I would like to address one more time the accusations levelled against me here. And I would raise the question: what is the allegation, really? That I have made misleading or false edits? Or that I did not disclose my conflict of interest early enough?
If it is about my conflict of interest, I agree I should have done it earlier. I am not an expert contributor, and so it may take me a while to gather experience about best practices. But when I found out it was possible to self-disclose conflicts of interest, I immediately did so. If this means that my prior edits should be revised, I welcome that. My edits have always followed the same principle: they are limited to factual elements and the adding of reliable sources, such as official university pages, or trusted media sources such as Reuters, AFP, etc.
But what I cannot accept, is false accusations. I have not been involved, now or ever, in writing "uncritical marketing" about Klaus Schwab, or to make any non-factual contributions. And the alleged proof that I would have, is simply false. Notably, the text sample Polynesia2024 has included here as "evidence", is one I have nothing to do with:
I deeply resent that these kinds of falsehoods are presented on this page. Any Wiki editor can go back in the edit history of Klaus Schwab or any other page, and verify that truthfulness of my claims, and the falseness of the ones Polynesia2024 levels here against me. I do not accept that someone propagates lies about me.
The same goes for the "bloated honours section" leading to a "neutrality dispute" and my subsequent self-declaration of a conflict of interest. This is a fabricated allegation. My self-declaration of a conflict of interest came when I did additional research on the kind of edits an editor could make, after I spotted the umpteenth attempt to add fake news to Klaus Schwab's page, which led me to want to correct these edits. When it comes to the suggestion that Klaus Schwab's page has a "bloated honours section", what exactly does that even mean? It is a verifiable fact that Klaus Schwab received 17 honorary doctorates from universities around the world, and several national distinctions from P5 and G7 countries. Does mentioning those make his honours section "bloated"?
I would argue there is a danger of misinformation in inconsistency. One Wiki editor deleted many of the verifiable honours uploaded on Klaus Schwab's page, only to leave those from China and Israel. What exactly would be the justifiable basis for that? And why would someone like Polynesia2024 support this action? From a quick search on Klaus Schwab, one would be able to find that one reason for making these one-sided edits, is that it fits in conspiracy theories on Klaus Schwab being a friend of (communist) China, or that he would be involved in a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. It would be deeply regrettable if such misleading edits would be left standing in a neutral platform.
Here is a quote from one article regarding Klaus Schwab, and the way groups like QAnon tie him to perceived communist and Jewish interests: "The Great Reset is a concept floated by Prince Charles and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, which urges a post-pandemic transformation of the world economy to rebalance inequality and climate progress. It was the headline topic at this January’s WEF, held online rather than in its usual Swiss home of Davos. Believers in the Illuminati, New World Order and, of course, QAnon have subsumed the Great Reset into their own conspiracy theories. It appeals to the anti-globalist right and anti-capital left – and often leads adherents down anti-Semitic rabbit holes." <ref>https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/qanon-conspiracy-theory-germany</ref>
Neutrality rules would instead favor consistency: either all academic titles and national distinctions are mentioned, or none. I opted to add all distinctions, provided evidence and sourcing could be added. Subsequent revisions by other users verified this choice as being in line with Wiki policies. If the community of Wiki editors would instead find it better to instead delete all such honours, in all such Person pages, that too could be a defensible choice. But I would be surprised if any seasons Wiki editor would suggest that leaving only the Chinese and Israeli honours would be appropriate.
You see, I do not believe Polynesia2024 is an unbiased or seasoned contributor, and that he created this page in good faith. I suspect that he has an agenda, and that he does not disclose it. I regret the one-sidedness of this discussion, and the false accusations made. So, may I in turn question the reason of Polynesia2024 for levelling allegations against me here? For example, he alleges in his edit of Klaus Schwab's page, without evidence or sourcing, that Hilde Schwab was Klaus Schwab's "secretary" - and not his "assistant" and first collaborator as written there before. What exactly is the point of that change, which again, is not sourced? To me it suggests an undertone of misogeny. And again, what is his reason for preferring a highly selective list of honours with only titles from China and Israel, rather than a full one?
In closing, I have indicated my conflict of interest, and welcome any and all scrutiny of edits I make, and whether they are suitable. If I should take any other approach in my editing, I also welcome suggestions on that. I believe that together, Wiki editors create a "wisdom of the crowd", and that in most cases they are able to crowd out of lies and falsehoods. That is my experience. But I would hope that we do not allow this page, or any other Wiki page, to become a place for one-sided and false allegations, aimed at destroying a contributor's reputation without cause, and let by a "prosecutor" who does not have a credible track record.
Please let me know what the rest of this "proceeding" will look like. Thank you.
@ Scope creep:: Thank you for that judgment call. It seems fair to me. As for your question, my COI is what is disclosed: I work as Head of Communications in the Chairman’s Office of the World Economic Forum. In that role, I consult with Klaus Schwab on matters of public engagement. I did inform him that I have made factual corrections to his page. If you think this is too close of a connection to provide a neutral point of view, I will take that into consideration and request an edit rather than make edits for any material edits that are not strictly about adding sources. Let me know if that sounds like the right course of actio to you, or what would be Peter Vanham 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Petervanham
The article on the World Economic Forum includes more than 50 edits by User:Mikeh101, who served as Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. It is hence a case of paid editing and should be highlighted as such.
This has the touch that the team could see Wikipedia as an extension of their marketing channels, without ever labelling or highlighting the edits made as COI. I am highly concerned.
Is there any way to validate how many further edits have been made by members of the team, given that the team head has made 50+ edits himself alone?
Polynesia2024 ( talk) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
An India-based IP-hopper has, in less than two hours, added 14,000 bytes of poorly and suspiciously sourced "Controversies" to an 8,000-byte article about an American company, BrightStar [1]. The same 14,000-byte mass content was also added to a BLP, Marcelo Claure, by a registered account [2]. The BLP edits were reverted by someone based on WP:ATP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION, but the editor added it back.
Looking at the history of the person that added the BLP content, Centrereded, they have in the past tried to create a BLP with highly biased content at Draft:Hans Georg Näder. They then added identical poorly and suspiciously sourced 14,000-byte attack content as a "Controversies" section to Ottobock, another previously small article about a company [3].
I suspect the IPs adding to BrightStar and the registered account adding to Marcelo Claure are the same person. If anyone feels this warrants a Sockpuppet Investigation, please feel free to move forward with that. Adam.Sudo ( talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Significant edits are made by a user whose handle closely resembles the name of an employee. I don't know if it's appropriate to link the username since this could dox the user in question.
- Article is littered with poor grammar and punctuation. I recognize these particular writing patterns as characteristic of the writing of another close Hondor affiliate.
- "The 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games brought him to America" is misleading and suggests that he competed in the 96 Olympics, which he did not.
- Article puffs up achievements, like mentioning that Emily Vermeule won a national championship at 14 without specifying that it was for the Y14 age group. Likewise "Only club on the North American Continent" to send a girl's epeeist to the YOG is not true because Ariane Léonard represented Canada in that event.
- Overall this serves the purpose of making this whole article into an advertisement for his business.
- I have subject matter knowledge to edit the page but I'm not sure if I should go ahead and do so unilaterally because I know and personally dislike Hondor. I can recognize that I am biased, but I do think that these edits need review and at least partial reversion. While I do not see a notability standard for fencers, by analogy with other sports I think it's arguable that Hondor does not meet the notability standard to have a page at all. ( talk) 22:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. Edwardx ( talk) 12:29, 18 November 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.
A discussion is going on here involving two Pakistani editors and an Indian editor Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Casualties, requesting an impartial conflict resolution. Echo1Charlie ( talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Administrator notethis, instead moved on to
WP:ANI, where I have advised the parties that
WP:AE, per
WP:ARBIPA, is the appropriate venue.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The IPv6 range and the IPv4 IP have been editing Albert Bryan (politician) a lot, and in a similar fashion to User:IslandVibez, a user that was blocked for paid editing. I was considering opening an SPI about it, but I'm not really great with SPI cases, so I figured I should have a discussion here first. Invalid OS talk 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Supermann is a editor who from my reading of his history has enthusiasm?/focus? for military film, perhaps sometime to a over-zealous extent that has got him into trouble in the past. Stephen Hogan is a marginal actor with a long career who I think some would argue are borderline for a WikiPedia Article, and Supermann has been zealous in developing Home since this edit Old revision of Stephen Hogan on 18 April 2021. Supermann has doggedly developed the Hogan Article since, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. TheBirdsShedTears has been on Supermann/Hogan's case since before the DRV, but at the DRV has been what I might describe as bordering on Wikipedia:Casting aspersions at UPE/COI editing by Supermann but not bringing the case here, even beyond Supermann denying the association. However following Herostratus contributions BusterD gave an explanation here of Supermann needed scrutiny [4] One key COI/UPE point is the article by Dublin!Live on the notable film Sardar Udham featuring Hogan as an interview ... as brought particularly up at [5]. I am somewhat opined Sardar Udham's distributors or Hogan's agent probably set this up (and a similar interview on the Daily Express) without assistance from Supermann; but I am not prepared to bet my last euro that Supermann was not involved. The question is I guess was simply Supermann zealous, was Supermann an out and out COI/UPE editor on Hogan; or has an some point Supermann transitioned from a zealous editor on a subject to having a COI/UPE? (eg Myself and RPSI). Thankyou, and apologies if I've mis-interpreted anything of the drama; the DRV's just gone too far without coming here. 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark ( talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
[Out of chronology edit to add the section title immediately above retroactively] Herostratus ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Just wanted to add a thought. Getting back purely to the covert-paid-agent thing... Grift is terrible. All grift it terrible. I detest it and tried to start a project against it. BUT, of all grift, this'd be the least bad. My number 1 concern is like BP and Cracker Barrel etc. hiring clever professional PR flacks to spin their articles. My other number 1 concern is people running corrupt schemes -- protection racket, whatever. My number 3 concern is people writing, or hiring someone to write, a one-off hagiography about themselves or their company, particularly if they're not wikinotable. Supermann doesn't fit in any of these categories, as:
If he's a grifter, he's about the most harmless one I've seen. Just pointing this out as a data point is all, take it as you will. Herostratus ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Both Griegtupi404 and Bbrown91 are/were 2021 SPAs to establish new articles within a remakably-narrow topic area (no edits outside of St Helena). IP is IPs are likewise single-topic.
Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) appears to be heavily supported by new media based on recent press releases, using images submitted by the subject of the article. The author appears to be conversant with formatting and moreover knows the exact birth details of 15 October 1991 which does not appear publicly (example: deleted from prose in this change, but was left in infobox).
Griegtupi404 was left a standard CoI templated message on 25 October, has edited since but no response at Talk. Bbrown91 has only just been messaged, as just now been found.---- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I've given 91.232.192.0/18 a brief holiday from Wikipedia; unless I messed it up (which is pretty likely), that covers all the IPs mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer created Frederick D. Sulcer. On the talk page, Tomwsulcer wrote "This is an article about my late father". According to the infobox in that article, Ginna Sulcer Marston is Frederick Sulcer's child. Tomwsulcer created Ginna Marston. Quinn Marston is Frederick Sulcer's grandchild. Tomwsulcer created Quinn Marston. Another article created by Tomwsulcer is Elizabeth Sulcer a fashion stylist who shares the Sulcer name. For some reason, Tomwsulcer chose to give her undue prominence in the article on wardrobe stylists.
In the biography about New Jersey piano teacher Capitola Dickerson, Tomwsulcer has included 18 images, which is clearly excessive. One of the images is captioned "Dickerson with one of her pupils, Samuel Sulcer". One of the sources used by Tomwsulcer is an article in a community newspaper which starts "Community members -- including Thomas Sulcer, Kathy Lucas, Penny and Frank Bolden, and Pamela Paskowitz, Ph.D. -- gathered for a reception...". Tomwsulcer wrote that Dickerson "he was friends with renowned jazz singer Bill Robinson". Tomwsulcer created the article Bill Robinson (jazz singer). All sources appear to be either passing mentions or coverage in local papers, which is not what one would expect for a renowned jazz singer.
Tomwsulcer appears to have used a piece that he wrote for a local paper as a source in Homelessness. I suspect that despite his many years here, Tomwsulcer may not be familiar with policies on conflict of interest. Please sign my guestbook ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Tomwsulcer: On Commons, you wrote "I wrote the article about Charlie van Over. He's a notable chef. He's the husband of a friend of mine". Indeed, you created both Charlie van Over and Priscilla Martel. Do you understand why you should not be creating articles about your family, your friends, or your business associates? Do you understand our principles on neutrality and why writing about people you know may lead to articles that are neither neutral nor encyclopedic? What do you think Wikipedia would look like if everyone did what you are doing? Please sign my guestbook ( talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Tom hasn't edited since the 2nd (according to his attempt to speedy delete his talk page, he might be gone for good).
I actually doubt the notability of these pages he's created, a block and/or a cleanup of his edits and at least a few AfDs are needed here. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the substance; just noting, since it doesn't look like anyone has, that this well-formed COIN thread was created by a brand new user as their second edit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd be grateful for more eyes on Emunah La-Paz. I have substantially shortened the article in the last few days, removing first a paid-editor screed, and then a good deal of unsourced or ill-sourced content. It was then nominated for deletion by Timtrent, whose opinion on notability I had sought (my talk, diff on request). It appears that Vhubbard (a) has a very close connection to the subject of the article and (b) is fairly thoroughly incensed at the idea that the page might be deleted. Would some kind person like to try to pour a little oil on the waters? – I don't that would come well from me at this point. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
( talk
There have been several extensive edits for Børge Brende, who serves as President of the World Economic Forum, by Mikeh101. This user, according to his own Wikipedia wall, was Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. He was hence a paid marketing & communications employee of Brende and his team.
While probably unrelated, there seem to have further sock puppet accounts such as WhatsUpWorld that had an additional material impact on the article. It would make sense to take a look at this as we just had a severe case of unhighlighted paid editing for the article of Klaus Schwab as CEO of the World Economic Forum by another member of their Communications team. Polynesia2024 ( talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
A new editor, Jaiden4, has majored on creating and/or moving numerous articles and/or drafts on the ABU TV Song Festioval to main space. Many, perhaps all, are unreferenced and ought not to remain in main space, certainly until referenced. Some have been draftified already and have been moved back. This is either a case of over-enthusiasm or is a case of COI, perhaps Paid editing. There are so many of these that any action is likelhy to require admin attention with some sort of bulk edit response.
So why have I not gone to ANI?
Because ANI can result in blocks, and blocks are unlikely to be appropriate. Perhaps I should have gone there. It has been a conscious choice to try to handle this more kindly, and I think, hope, this venue will achieve that. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:54, 20 November 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.
Long term promotional editing by IPs. Recently nominated for deletion, two new accounts have shown up to vote keep. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 07:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The two users above appear to be working together to write about a business and one of it's founders. The usernames seem to be real names in Armenian; searching on the surname along with Galaxy Group, one can find an apparent connection with a company executive. It should also be noted that the draft article Draft:Galaxy Group of Companies was declined, and Draft:Gurgen Khachatryan (entrepreneur) was deleted; but despite this, Հայկուհի Կարապետյան created Gurgen Khachatryan in the mainspace anyway, and also moved a user subpage of Արմենուհի Կարապետյան ( User:Արմենուհի Կարապետյան/Galaxy Group of Companies) to the mainspace as Galaxy Group of Companies.
This plus similar activity from these editors on the Armenian and Russian Wikipedias leads me to suspect COI and possibly WP:PAID editing. Neither editor has responded to COI notices left on their talk pages. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have very good reason to believe that Lightburst has a personal relationship with these musicians he has created articles for. I have no desire to reveal Lightbursts real name here, but he has outed himself on other Wikimedia sites, which makes clear that he has a personal relationship with these musicians. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
::@
Lightburst: Can you please address the questions asked above? Thank you.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A review of Lightburst's editing history shows that from January 2018 to January 2019 his editing is almost exclusively about Greg Koch or topics directly related to Greg Koch. During that time period, Lightburst created
Greg Koch (musician),
Guy King (a musician who plays with Koch sometimes),
Toby Lee Marshall (in a band with Koch),
Koch Marshall Trio (the band),
Dylan Koch (deleted article about third member of trio),
Toby Arrives (Koch album),
Truth (Guy King album), and
Plays Well with Others (Greg Koch album). Those are the first eight articles Lightburst created. The pattern is clear even if the intent is open to interpretation.
I do not wish to run afoul of
WP:OUTING here, but as others have already stated, Lightburst has identified himself on other Wikimedia projects. It is therefore very easy to determine that Lightburst does have a conflict of interest here. Lightburst has said "I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them". On Lightburst's personal website he writes "Greg Koch is a friend and lives right here in Wisconsin". In some YouTube videos posted by Greg Koch, he calls Lightburst "a buddy". I believe in giving people a chance to own up to their mistakes and move on, but if Lightburst does not return here to address the questions posed to him, I believe a block is in order.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.
What, exactly, caused you to crawl through another Wikipedian's online identity, website, social media, etc.? I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content, etc., and only an argument that one of them is not notable (it has been nominated for deletion accordingly). I would certainly hope there's some terrible, egregious violation on-wiki that would justify creeping around a user's real-life identity, whether or not that was incidentally revealed on some other project. As an aside, it's pretty common for anyone interested in their local music scene to be acquainted with local musicians, who in turn might thank a fan. It should not be any great shock that articles on music, movies, etc. on Wikipedia are written by fans -- even hard core fans who might live near the subject or who have met that subject. Presumably the accusation is that LB is super-secret-BFFs with this musician such that it makes him unable to write neutrally and justifies some light stalking, but this thread doesn't appear to identify any such pattern of non-neutral editing ... and unless we're talking about paid editing, that comes first. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content:
- [9] Levivich 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)“I believe Greg Koch is pound for pound the best guitar player in the world today. His, tone, feel and style are unrivaled in today’s guitar playing community. He is scary good. It was a true honor to do shows with him.” Joe Bonamassa[16]
:::
The first studio album by the Koch Marshall Trio has received high praise. Pendragon's review of the album borders on hyperbole: "‘Toby Arrives’ is the sort of album you could stack alongside a Thelonius Monk record, a Jeff Beck record or a Mike Landau record. If you went for one of the other three and got this by mistake your day wouldn’t be ruined."
(still there) I think there may be a small issue of neutrality.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk)
21:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.
User User:Tydelorean is repeatedly editing the section of John DeLorean's page about a Ty DeLorean claiming to be John DeLorean's illegitimate son. I've warned him several times to go through the talk page and he has not responded. @ Starbug22: has been reverting his edits. The overall slant of his edits has been to reinforce Ty DeLorean's claim. Rusalkii ( talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved from my previous post at ANI, I realized after the fact that it may better fit here.
(Self-described?) media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq keeps trying to change his article photo, however they are ignoring COI, paid editing, image sourcing requirements and are ban evading to do this.
Accounts in question include User:Khattab Lord, and now User:Khattab F. Al-Dhafiri. In the edit history for Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, they repeatedly claim to be the media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq, who apparently has requested his article image be changed.
I'm not going to lie, the previous image is pretty bad, and I can understand why the Prime Minister wants it changed (although obviously that's not really how things work around here). I don't think that changing the photograph would be a bad change to the article in principle; however, the user in question is failing to abide by COI declarations/procedure, has ban evaded, and is adding photographs to the article that do not have a clear copyright license attached to them (screenshots and the like).
Honestly the best thing here might be if another editor sources a usable alternative photo and adds it themselves, although of course the media spokesman still needs to declare COI and paid editing, and start requesting changes via talk pages, I would imagine. BlackholeWA ( talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
# | Page title | Date | Original size | Current size | Assessment | Links | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Satish Chandra (state commissioner) | 2021-11-20 10:29 | 6,902 | 7,766 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | In AfD heading for Delete outcome. Non notable person |
2 | Fashinza (Company) · (Deleted) | 2021-11-08 05:48 | 6,384 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Unambiguous promo for a company |
3 | Fashinza · (Deleted) | 2021-10-25 12:24 | 7,166 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Unambiguous promo for a company |
4 | The Chocolate Room (cafe) | 2021-10-20 11:05 | 3,922 | 6,316 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | For a company |
5 | Hybiz Tv | 2021-10-07 07:54 | 3,507 | 4,240 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | for a company |
6 | Aashutosh Srivastava | 2021-10-01 05:38 | 5,763 | 12,027 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | suspected promo BLP of non notable person. At Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashutosh Srivastava |
7 | Rajeev Baid · (Deleted) | 2021-08-31 14:14 | 3,651 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo BLP |
8 | Himayat Ali Mirza | 2021-08-04 09:09 | 4,852 | 2,968 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Suspected promo BLP of non notable person |
9 | National Integrated Health Wellness Care Network · (Deleted) | 2021-06-14 08:14 | 4,060 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of company |
10 | India Herald · (Deleted) | 2021-06-01 06:48 | 2,118 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | |
11 | Pinnacle Blooms Network · (Deleted) | 2021-03-14 18:21 | 9,462 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of company |
12 | Pinnacle Blooms · (Deleted) | 2021-03-10 06:27 | N/A |
![]() |
Log | Promo of Company | |
13 | Narappa | 2020-02-03 10:10 | 3,129 | 31,720 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Created in March 3 months in advance for an upcoming film |
14 | Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma | 2020-01-29 08:11 | 6,179 | 5,792 |
![]() |
Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews | Suspected UPE Promo BLP of non notable person. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma |
I saw this article in AfD and I suspect that the article Satish Chandra (state commissioner) and others are created for undisclosed paymemt. I cannot imagine anyone creating such articles that got deleted some of them for being unambiguous promotional. After an article is deleted, it is recreated with unwanted disambiguation added to evade scrutiny.
In addition to the ones already deleted, I can see that Aashutosh Srivastava, Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma, Himayat Ali Mirza are non notable and clearly promotional biography of living persons that should not have been created. The user was blocked in past for using wikipedia for promotion. These are the reasons behind my suspicion. Venkat TL ( talk) 08:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
More opinions sought for at Talk:Florine_Stettheimer#WP:CITESELF_etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
There is reason to believe that DiDoo1 is Zeena Schreck herself or someone very close to her due to the content that the user has been editing and creating since their membership as well as the user's consistent removal of Zeena's son's (Stanton LaVey) name from the information table. The user's reason is a personal one rather than a factual one and therefore does not comply with the guidelines of neutrality. The user's reason is that Stanton was adopted by his grandmother (Diane Hagerty) in 1996 which is information that is not publicly known nor negates that Zeena gave birth to him in 1978 and raised him until 1990. Moreover, it is publicly known that Zeena hated her son, attempted to kill him and disowned him. It would be no surprise that Zeena would not want his name on her Wikipedia page. For these reasons, one would conclude that Didoo1 is Zeena Schreck and violating the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy. I ask that this matter be investigated to help ensure that Wikipedia stays neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
UpsidedownVal ( talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
user:Jwittkamper appears to be connected to Jonah Wittkamper, the subject of Jonah Wittkamper. User is an WP:SPA on the subject of Jonah Wittkamper and nonprofit organizations associated with Wittkamper. In more than seven years the user has made no edits that were not related to Wittkamper and the non profits he is associated with. It has been almost three months since the user was informed of COI concerns, but has not responded, so I'm opening this COIN.
As an aside, there seems to be a significant history of suspicious editing on this cluster of articles, with several SPA named accounts and IPs, promotional usernames, and at least one sock/suspected paid editor.
Meters ( talk) 21:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm really staggered that I need to write this but I feel it is vital for transparency that it is documented and discussed. Today, the CEO of WMUK (LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)) decided to update the article to add a highly promotional summary of the organisation's work, remove a summary of various controversies in the lead and also add other unsourced updates. A note was left on the talk page justifying it and declaring a "potential" COI. My revert was then undone by Johnbod who is a member of WMUK with the justification that because the COI was declared, the edit is fine. Further investigations revealed that WMUK trustee Rodw recently created Monisha Shah who was recently appointed as the Chair of the Board at WMUK. I've sent that to AFD it is clear that WP:BIO is a long way from being met and most of the sourcing is terrible. A note was also left declaring the COI. This seems to be a perfect example of why WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a COI from editing articles directly and I find it astonishing that these users have ignored the advice that we routinely give to other editors and introduced poorly sourced BLP content and promotional organisational content into the project. Disclosure of a COI is not a carte blanche to do whatever afterwards, it is the start of the process. It is extremely hypocritical and the optics are terrible. SmartSE ( talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
a governance problem" is probably the understatement of the year - there is, and I say this with all due respect and entirely mindful of "comment on content, not editors", a serious competence issue at WMUK. Least of all are these ill-advised edits. Perhaps WMUK should take a step back from editing their own articles and instead focus on upgrading their MediaWiki installation to something that isn't EOL and vulnerable. sigh. ~ TheresNoTime ( to explain!) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
create changes in policy and practice that enable open knowledge to flourishis LinkedIn prose that does not belong in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Kind of depressing that an organization that, by it's very nature, is supposed to be closely aligned with the goals of this project should have such a poor understanding of those goals. I guess that donor money outweighs the neutrality of the project. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
In days gone by I would have asked my very good friend Jytdog to advise me on this, but alas ...
DanMor806 works for SA in some capacity, recognises his COI and does not wish to edit the page, but asked for help on the talk page to bring the page a little more up to date. They have provided an initial suggestion to update the History section, and I have let the whole thing fall off my watchlist and promptly forgotten about it.
I have also realised that I am so used to hostile true believers in something, that dealing with a co-operative person who is happy to be schooled and supported, is stretching my collegiate abilities - I think hope that wise heads here might have a look at the Talk page, and help guide me. Thanks. -
Roxy the dog.
wooF
19:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Lamb_(software_developer)#Conflict_of_interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrezling ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The user created the draft above, which has a declined submission. They had previously added the draft subject's election predictions to 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election and 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election, while undoing other users' reverts due to concerns of not meeting notability. After that, they have done little else than adding the predictions to 2022 gubernatorial and House election articles, while also undoing other users' reverts without any efforts of communicating; most recently, they have spent 7 minutes performing >20 reverts of other editors removing their predictions. — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 00:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
User has created this article, only other edits are adding links to it in other articles. They have removed a COI template multiple times. Obvious COI according to the infobox. MB 15:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Mr._North_Florida Has been editing this article for years. His edits always remove critical information. He just removed something that only a staff member would know about and that is the school losing/canceling its ABHE membership. I could find no mention anywhere in online sources and then its was removed from the Association of Biblical Higer Education membership directory. I have attempted to speak to the user but he has not responded to me. Super ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)