This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This email was recently sent to UCSF staff.
Extended content
|
---|
Hello, As per latest survey, over 84% of patients search online before selecting a physician and Wikipedia is the most trusted and preferred source of information online. Trusted by millions, Wikipedia has been ranked as 7th most visited website globally. To increase your popularity online, it is recommended to create a Wikipedia page about yourself or your practice and for a new Wikipedia page to go up, there are certain eligibility criteria. That means not everyone is immediately a good candidate to feature on Wikipedia. Get in touch with us to find out if you're eligible to feature on Wikipedia with our Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment Service. A Wikipedia page will also assist you with your overall online reputation management. As it is often the first thing to appear on search engine results, a Wikipedia page will instantly give you and/or your practice more credibility. Get started today by replying to this email with following details and request your Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment. Details Required: First and Last Name: Website URL (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Blog (if any) City or Zip Phone number Achievements to highlight (interviews, press mentions, awards etc, please provide links/URLs) Linkedin Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Facebook Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Business/Practice Name Please note, since this assessment has confidential information, we prefer communicate only with the doctor or practice owner and not anybody else. Warm Regards Thanks Lisa J Henson Manager - Business Development TheWikiExpert.com (646) 712 9858 New York | Singapore | London |
Thus we need to keep our eyes out for this sort of stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Naveed.sukuk has disclosed that he owns the Islamic Finance and Sukuk Company and its domains, Sukuk.com and IslamicFinance.com. He is an WP:EXPERT on islamic finance. All those things are great and we need more experts in this topic. However, the discussion on their Talk page has gone south with regard to his using his two websites as sources in articles. I've been trying to explain that this is something he should avoid, and he is insisting that there is no problem. Besides WP:SELFCITE the other issue is WP:SPS, but we have not reached that far yet. I told Naveed that I would bring this to COIN for the community to discuss with him whether it is appropriate for him to cite his own website or not. I will leave it for you all to discuss with him, and will step away from this now. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Which information about Turkey? This and this both have information about the $1.5 Billion USD issuance. The Turkish government will also have origination documents. Your IMF listing was a reference to a widely available UK parliament bill (available here as well as sukuk site. This was all available just using Google. Now the only site that I would consider more reliable than sukuk.com is the gov.uk site. The other sites seem to be competitors of a sort so they aren't better sources. That's what makes your edit's appear to have COI as I can't distinguish your information from other, similar, aggregator sites. As for non-commercial, I am not sure that has any bearing on COI or even reliability. There are many forms of conflict beyond just profit. Please understand that this is not a criticism of you or your site or the services provided. COI has to do with the relationship between editor and the source. You can certainly put requested edits on the talk page for other editors to view, comment on and implement. -- DHeyward ( talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Regarding Turkey, the first link you provide to cbonds has missing information with regard to coupon rate, maturity date, issue date, the prospectus - access to this is not available (unless a fee paying subscription is taken out) and Sukuk structure information (Ijara) is totally missing. The second link you provide is missing the Sukuk structure, the full name (SPV), the prospectus, arrangers, exchanges, ratings etc...so both examples you provide are not comparable.
2. The Turkish government does have the origination documents somewhere I am sure (can anyone provide the link?), though no link as a source/reference exists with the complete information as available on Sukuk.com, so this also is not comparable.
3. The IMF listing may be a link to a available UK parliament bill, I don't dispute, but the factual point is the IMF author linked to Sukuk.com not the UK Parliament site, perhaps because the Sukuk site provides greater context to the discussion which is about Sukuk.
4. Sukuk.com is not a aggregator site.
5. I restate if better sources exist, then I am OK for them to be used, so far no better sources which provide the complete information free of charge have been provided.
Naveed.sukuk ( talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've started a spam report here. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The single purpose user @ Giorgio.bonuccelli: has a close association with 2X Software, a company which has been acquired by Parallels, Inc.. The user has since transferred their attention to the Parallels article, adding promotional content and recreating content that was previously deleted] as unambiguous promotion under a new name: Parallels Remote Application Server. This user was previously notified here by @ FreeRangeFrog: of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Note that Parallels, Inc. also contains copyright violations from here and perhaps elsewhere. Vrac ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion on article talk page re notability. User has appropriately declared their COI but more input in the discussion would be helpful.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence suggests this was just hired out by XXXX PR to a banned user for "review" and "monitoring". Article is a mess of promotion and directory of locations. I've listed an SPA who uploaded a logo and did some stuff there, they may be with the contracting PR firm, suspect other redlinked usernames in the article history. — Brianhe ( talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of times recently, editors with active issues at this board have requested and gotten account renames. This is problematic for obvious reasons during an investigation and, as it casts further doubt on the intentions of the editor involved, isn't good for them either. Would other COIN folks support a request that admins not move accounts while there are active investigations here? For context, I'm talking specifically about the #Sukuk case active right now and this from June, but I'm sure those aren't the only two examples. — Brianhe ( talk) 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Both these users are the same, BottleRocketStudios softblocked for username. User:BricePraslicka is the "new website and social media manager of Bottle Rocket Studios" [3], but despite the fact I've tried to discuss conflict of interest with them, they've not responded, and are continuing to edit the article. Here they apologised for "blatant disregard of community standards as I attempted to quickly make amendments to the page", but is still blatantly disregarding COI policy, by editing and not interacting with other users. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple issues with this article and at this point I am seeking community input on how to best proceed. There seems to be a conflict of interest at stake, as the subject of the article appears to be editing the article in question for purposes of self-promotion. It is common for the editor to cite one source while adding content which is not corroborated by the sources provided. All 3 of the accounts listed above are similarly named, make promotional edits, and most recently are now editing at the same time, opening up another issue related to sock puppetry and evading community consensus. While some of these issues can be dealt with through the editorial process, I would like to bring this to the attention to WP:COIN for increased visibility. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a long term editor on wikipedia, mostly contributing images, and doing copyedits. I started work for a company called Vestmark last year, but they don't have a Wikipedia page. Is it an automatic conflict of interest if I started an article on Vestmark? I don't want to get in trouble. There's already a red link to it from Managed account. Faolin42 ( talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Kip 78 is a obvious shill. Editing is promotional. Subjects are favourites of paid editors. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Kadar Brock was created by a user who, it was alleged, had a COI. It was later deleted at AfD, and restored after two rather heated discussions at WP:DRV. The COI was a factor in those discussions. Along the way it was edited by several other editors. The article now looks reasonable to me (I have edited it to add additional content and sources). But a COI cleanup tag is still on the article. I am requesting one or more experienced uninvolved editors to review the article and see if any COI effects remain that would prevent removal of the tag. DES (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm coming out of hibernation (my wikibreak) early. The case involving this editor was archived a little more than a month ago, after another editor was blocked, and MiamiDolphins3 gave a commitment to clean up some non-NPOV and/or primary sources in Touch Surgery, Ryze Trampoline Parks, Jenner & Block, and Mile2. This was never done. Plus he's back to work on Jack McCauley this month; it was not listed on the noticeboard previously. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
User:TriJenn has a COI on their userpage saying they "sometimes work on client articles". They've been repeatedly adding unsourced content to
Morgan James Publishing, and adding
Morgan James Publishing as book publishers on the other articles (despite the fact no other book publishers are listed on them). This strongly suggests that
Morgan James Publishing are paying this user to edit/spam, especially as
Morgan James Publishing previously paid
User:BiH to create the article about them. I've asked them about COI and specific disclosure on their talkpage, but they aren't responding, but continue to edit.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
They also previously created
Randy Gage via
WP:AFC, disclosing him as a "previous client" (not an adequate disclosure).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, the issue is that you aren't adding sourced content, you're adding completely unsourced content, as it's not being accompanied by reliable sources- saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Also, you weren't responding to me and were continuing to edit hence my complaint. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
( ←) @ TriJenn: It looks like you found the link to your userpage. However, I think you forgot some folks on your COI declaration. [4] — Brianhe ( talk) 05:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Sharkywoo has been creating a bunch of new promotional articles for people from Studios 301. Working directly with them User talk:Sharkywoo#Image ownership. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that KartRocket which was deleted as a result of action here, is currently up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13. Brianhe ( talk) 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at here that some of the regulars here might be interested in. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I follow the Michael Thibodeau article and a user has attempted to add biographical information about him, which is fine to do, but the user seems to have a COI. An IP user edited the page claiming to be Jim Cyr, Thibodeau's communications director. After being reverted as adding unsourced information, the person edited the page having registered Jimcyr as their username. They have not yet replied to posts on their talk page about their edits, which again, aren't necessarily bad, but they are unsourced which is the primary reason I have reverted the changes. On their last edit they attempted to cite themselves as a source. 331dot ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Today they added a very promotional edit about him(about his 'guiding principle'); they did cite some sort of web page but it wasn't clear what exactly they were citing in the page. 331dot ( talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well gee, now that their edits have hit the Register's news, somebody want to contact PNIstaff ( talk · contribs) about their COI re: PNI Digital Media ? Shenme ( talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Raju Kapuria has made no declarations but apparently is creating paid stuff. The way corp articles come into being complete with infobox company and such is reminiscent of farms we've seen here before. — Brianhe ( talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see this recent advert: Content writer needed to create 2 Wikipedia articles
I thought it might be useful to raise it here for consideration so that we can give Blur Group a clear idea of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Leutha ( talk) 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Something very odd here involving a vanished user. I'm not sure if that's a violation in and of itself, but the occurrence of articles that have already been subject to COIN scrutiny is not encouraging. Note that Vanished user... started editing a few minutes after the IP from a now blocked webhost. Sandbox hijinks going on with Coolguy365. I kind of stopped pulling on the thread after some well-known articles started appearing, so this list is nowhere near comprehensive.
Worth mentioning, User:Arr4 made an odd an unexplained edit here, blanking Tiburon Incorporated; at the time it was Coolguy's sandbox. Possible retaliation for blanking here on another fishy corp article created by Arr4. Arr4 is also mentioned in another active investigation at this noticeboard, to which he/she has not responded, though was actively editing less than 24 hours before was notified. Arr4 was also active on Fleetmatics around the same time as Coolguy, and there appears to be coordinated editing on Be Green Packaging.
There was mutual sandbox editing on something called Culinaire International here.
Vijay Shekhar Sharma (Entrepreneur) is a sneaky recreation of
Vijay Shekhar Sharma. One of the IPs appears to be aware of its existence as shown by
this edit to his alma mater. I have added
User:FreerangingAnik the creator of the new version to this case, but the old version was pretty dirty with COI edits as well created via undisclosed paid editing. —
Brianhe (
talk) 22:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply, I was busy in our Eid-ul-Fitr celebration. Coolguy365 is undoubtedly a paid editor. That blanking by me was only retaliation/biting when I discovered that cool guy is a paid editor. I had bitten many other paid editors in this way to avoid my being caught by COIN. - Arr4 ( talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Nigerian public relations company, its CEO and a possibly related newspaper and its owner. Making inquiries to editors. Brianhe ( talk) 15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Added Nigerian Entertainment Today owned by BHM group, some of the same involved editors. Brianhe ( talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has a confessed COI on their user page related to their "representing" the
Westfield Corporation, a major owner of shopping malls, and was advised about it some years ago. However, their entire spate of recent edits (including to the above article and many other Westfield properties) has inserted clearly promotional language, peacock terms and other clear POV issues, directly against the guidelines they were advised about years ago. I do not believe the user can be trusted at this point.
oknazevad (
talk) 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm done trying to clean these up, every time I touch one of them to remove promotional content or just a redirect/PROD of non-notable spam, @ Jojhutton: reverts it. I guess we should just let the spammers spam instead. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
added two more historical COI editors. Jytdog ( talk) 01:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Lyricsexpress describes self on userpage as "Writer and assistant to other writers and celebrities who require rewrites, interviews and more".
Off-wiki evidence strongly indicates User:Lyricsexpress has a conflict (beyond his declaration on his userpage) about musician-related subjects. On-wiki evidence such as the edit summary on the creation of Marion Rice and uploads of probable family pictures shows User:Riceflan is writing COI about dancer-related subjects. Crossover between the two editors on Eleanor Norcross on 22 September 2010 exists for unknown reasons. Brianhe ( talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
SPA with declared COI: "I work with an agency on behalf of Campari America and want to point out the below facts that are not fully represented on the page as it. Appreciate if an unbiased editor can implement these changes." Ref: Talk:SKYY_vodka#Updates_to_bottling_information.2C_sourcing.2C_awards_.26_current_bottle_shot. They're being careful and haven't done anything bad yet. They just want to put PR-type product info in the article. Please watch. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts by Runningfox34 and IPs over the course of the past week to add unsourced information to this article about a would-be politician. They have ignored warnings to cease and desist ( User talk:Runningfox34, User talk:71.86.217.244). Today the subject of the article made this edit. The changes are mostly unsourced or sourced to the subject's self-published campaign pages. The subject also removed information about an election loss. Given the persistent disruptive editing, I'm requesting some help in dealing with this. 32.218.32.146 ( talk) 18:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A lengthy and badly POV edit to the article [5] was made by a self-declared PUD commissioner and stands since 2012. I'd like to recuse myself from editing this one. Brianhe ( talk) 15:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Aleksandar olic is an employee of the company that sells Active Collab, wrote our article on it, and has been steadily adding wikiliks to it on other pages. No response to the warning I put on his talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to stay as neutral as possible. Would be glad to see someone more experienced edit the Active Collab article. I disclosed that I work there, so it should be edited by someone who doesn't have an affiliation. Any help appreciated. I added "Request edit" but it got removed. -- Aleksandar Olic ( talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm shocked, shocked I say, that books about promoting yourself on the Internet are attracting COI from several SPAs. I've nominated The Next Internet Millionaire for deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Women's fashion is too far outside my expertise to make a good judgement on this, but this person does appear notable, with at least one full NYT story about her. However the article looks heavily non-NPOV and has been maintained by one or more questionable anon editors, and one declared COI editor [no wrongdoing on their part as far as I can tell, just mentioning for completeness]. Also I haven't fully developed this, but I think advert on eLance to create a profile of a new enterprise and its CEO may be related to Busquets. Could some other folks have a look? Brianhe ( talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The article was a direct result of this elance listing. Same client posted this thing about a book they are writing on Woodland Meadows. Same elance contractor features David Carter (entrepreneur) in his portfolio; almost certain socking going on here ... see prior investigations here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog/Archive. — Brianhe ( talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Posted to SPI as a recurrence of User:LogAntiLog. Brianhe ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the controversy, we should give all the affected users' work a once over
These users have also declared employment by Ken Sunshine's Sunshine Sachs :
Blue56349 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Orangegrad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stapler8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A sub-issue:
None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..."
From
the FAQ:
If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.
I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like
this have been insufficient.
Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at
WP:COI --
Elvey(
t•
c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Boniafashion is a WP:SPA, making edits exclusively on Bonia (fashion), unexplained except for one terse edit summary. Clearly seems COI based on WP:DUCK and the promotional tone of the edits, and has not responsed to talk page messages. Instead, there was a recent reintroduction of a promtional timeline [7]. Dl2000 ( talk) 22:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft was created by a SPA, rejected, then article created by another SPA, then edited by the first one. The draft is still there and needs to be histmerged. Brianhe ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Bio of an Internet marketing type, orphan article, created by SPA and rescued from PROD by same. The earliest revision gives you an idea of how badly conflicted this editor is. The text has been whittled away to NPOV, leaving a blurb that basically establishes he's alive and owns an Internet marketing gig called Mequoda Group. They used to issue press releases like Top 100 Media Blogs and were mentioned once two years ago in Adweek [8]. Does somebody want to AfD this? Brianhe ( talk) 14:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It has come to my attention through off-wiki investigation of a COI issue that Comm100 employs one or more people with the title "SEO Engineer" and they are active here. Brianhe ( talk) 20:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
MMSS4S has written nothing but promotion.
Justin Lafazan started Millennial Marketing Strategy and Students4Students College Advisory. MMS and S4S. When put together that makes MMSS4S.
Much of the text of
Justin Lafazan comes from the subjects own website. The image used
[9] comes from Lafazans website and MMSS4S says xe is the copyright holder.
Randy Sutton and
Scott duffy are both fully formed advert obviously created by a shill.
Pics of Scott Duffy and Greg S. Reid
[10] are promo shots with copyright owned by MMSS4S. Both subjects have had previous spam on here from socking shills. The Reid photo comes from the same shoot as a photo on Reid's facebook page. The Duffy photo appears on his copyrighted website and comes from the same shoot as one that may have been on the previous article which was created by a sock of
User:Sibtain 007, this photo
[11].
Lafazan, Sutton and Reid are all connect through The Umbrella Syndicate.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is strong off-wiki evidence that Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards was created by a for-pay Wikipedia editing service. Since then various conflicted editors have been maintaining it. Starting report now, will fill in details later today.
[Later today] Note that Sclarke was developing this page in near-entirety well prior to the creation of the current article, which was posted by meat- or sockpuppet Ikey1206. Did they use Wikipedia sandbox here to sneakily transfer it to the other editor?
Getting into outing territory, but there are notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces (2nd nomination). Finplanwiki is a contributor to CFP and Michael Kitces. Also the only one of these accounts that appears to be editing in 2015.
Added American Academy of Financial Management for involvement of Wealthadvise there. @ Rschen7754: for possible legal ramifications per your edit at Doctorlaw SPI
Finplanwiki seems to have self-identified as Marv Tuttle. This leads to Financial Planning Association and another SPA there, PlanningProf .
Fpresearch ←→ Dave Yeske, FPA president or something. I hope this is not an autobiography but ... this upload of Dave Yeske's portrait is suggestive that he is the same. Brianhe ( talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
On the NeuLion article:
All of these accounts have only edited on the NeuLion article. Davealloway2001, JaredK511, and Wweiss look like names of employees of NeuLion (I can provide internet pages that show this). — George8211 / T 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is doubt, then there is NO doubt. I have no doubt this is undisclosed, paid editing. Top three entries -- CEOs, credit loan companies should be convincing enough. Brianhe ( talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrator note User has rollback, pending changes rights as of now. — Brianhe ( talk) 23:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
NOTICE: I have commented out the following. {{cot|Lengthy denial by EBY3221}} -Elvey
I haven't looked into this in great detail yet, but from the few articles I have looked at I agree with Brianhe that there are reasons to be concerned. Take for example these diffs of my removals of content EBY3221 added: [14] [15] [16]. The sourcing of the content was extremely poor, completely failing WP:V and was also promotional. I've also noticed unsourced BLP content e.g. [17] which also makes me concerned as it raises the question of where the information came from. It's also odd that this image was uploaded only 3 days after it was uploaded to Flickr as it suggests that EBY3221 was in contact with the subject. @ EBY3221: can you please explain these edits? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Could the rollbacker and reviewer rights userboxes be removed from the userpage? Brianhe ( talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..."
From
the FAQ:
If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.
I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like
this have been insufficient.
Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at
WP:COI --
Elvey(
t•
c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
User has declared he is an employee of the Charlotte Fire Department which the article is about in this edit. Appears to be attempting to use the article to promote the department and is removing material that reflects poorly. Should be noted this is the only page the user has edited. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Campaign manager for Canadian politician repeatedly removing a paragraph describing an incident said politician's career ( [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). Did not respond to my message on his talk page concerning reverts ( [26]), and proceeded to re-revert anyway. Also removed several previous warnings and questions about the same behavior on his talk page: [27]. Richard Ye talk 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
G2003 hasn't come clean as a paid editor per agreement at ANI (see archive 859). Background: has been active for years now. Notified of COI in early 2013 and denied in mid 2014 then admitted in late 2014 with a promise to stop. Never explicitly enumerated paid connection(s). My investigation of articles edited shows big discrepancy between declared COI and the remainder. Brianhe ( talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Also useful to note that there are numerous article that G2003 created that were subsequently deleted for failing a range of guidelines and policies (admins can take a look at their long list of deleted contributions). One deleted article was a hoax, although it does appear that G2003 himself was hoaxed (the subject also managed to get similar stuff onto Fox News Asia's site) rather than him having any malicious intent – however it does show the perils of such an approach. Number 5 7 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Cooperation of editors above suggests a commercial connection. One editor's name probably refers to everymedia.in, a marketing company. The other has asked me personally how to write about PrimeFocus Technologies, a perennial COI magnet. A quick perusal of contribs points to extensive COI editing related to Indian cinema. Brianhe ( talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
User claims that he created BankBazaar as some kind of "dummy edit" but he's clearly been nurturing it over a period of time, as well as these other things he's created. There are other active editors with names suggesting a relationship to BankBazaar itself. Also I can't help but think that this is some kind of retaliatory thing. Just as a point of interest, this accidentally logged-out edit was from a Bangalore ISP. Brianhe ( talk) 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Smartse: or other admin: Given the obvious COI nature of his contribs, and bald faced dishonesty in answering questions about it, could we get Nash2925 blocked now? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to find a contributor to this article who is not a redlink SPA or drive-by IP. I will follow up in the next 24 hours with developments. Just listing here now if somebody wants to have a look. Edited further to add following This looks like a good candidate for WP:TNT, does anybody else agree with me? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the archive bot settings seem to be off. At the top of the page it says auto-archive will happen on a thread after 7 days of inactivity. The bot is configured for 14. We're getting a lot of activity here and the page sometimes gets quite long. If there are no objections in the next 8 hours, I will adjust the bot settings to 7 days as advertised. Brianhe ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In going through the Raymond James case, it appears to me that we have done a crummy job of cleaning up after OnceaMetro. Some of his edits were obvious in purpose, some more difficult to discern, so I'm listing everything that smells "off" here. At a glance it looks like there may have been teams involved in some of these, especially Roy Niederhoffer. Metro's edit history goes way back and the list of apparent clients is quite extensive; I've just cherry picked some of the more egregious and/or recently edited. Brianhe ( talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Recommend the following editors to be blocked as non-communicative wrt to simple yes/no question about editing for pay:
It has been more than five days for each of them since I asked on their talkpage.
Blocking seems to be the only way to maintain integrity and enforce the Terms of Service for individuals who don't engage with the community. I recommend this be adopted as a regular procedure after a reasonable period of time, like 5 days, as discussed here ( diff) previously. Brianhe ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a COI that precludes me from making this addition, and would like to request an uninvolved editor consider adding to the list of Notable People for Shenandoah, Pennsylvania the following:
Thanks - LavaBaron ( talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The article reads like an ad, and one can see why after looking at those edits. The COI editing was years ago. There's nobody worth blocking, but some hype has to come out, and there's a lack of criticism in the article. Anyway, please take a look and clean up. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 07:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This email was recently sent to UCSF staff.
Extended content
|
---|
Hello, As per latest survey, over 84% of patients search online before selecting a physician and Wikipedia is the most trusted and preferred source of information online. Trusted by millions, Wikipedia has been ranked as 7th most visited website globally. To increase your popularity online, it is recommended to create a Wikipedia page about yourself or your practice and for a new Wikipedia page to go up, there are certain eligibility criteria. That means not everyone is immediately a good candidate to feature on Wikipedia. Get in touch with us to find out if you're eligible to feature on Wikipedia with our Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment Service. A Wikipedia page will also assist you with your overall online reputation management. As it is often the first thing to appear on search engine results, a Wikipedia page will instantly give you and/or your practice more credibility. Get started today by replying to this email with following details and request your Complimentary Wikipedia Eligibility Assessment. Details Required: First and Last Name: Website URL (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Blog (if any) City or Zip Phone number Achievements to highlight (interviews, press mentions, awards etc, please provide links/URLs) Linkedin Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Facebook Profile (Leave blank, if you do not have one) Business/Practice Name Please note, since this assessment has confidential information, we prefer communicate only with the doctor or practice owner and not anybody else. Warm Regards Thanks Lisa J Henson Manager - Business Development TheWikiExpert.com (646) 712 9858 New York | Singapore | London |
Thus we need to keep our eyes out for this sort of stuff. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Naveed.sukuk has disclosed that he owns the Islamic Finance and Sukuk Company and its domains, Sukuk.com and IslamicFinance.com. He is an WP:EXPERT on islamic finance. All those things are great and we need more experts in this topic. However, the discussion on their Talk page has gone south with regard to his using his two websites as sources in articles. I've been trying to explain that this is something he should avoid, and he is insisting that there is no problem. Besides WP:SELFCITE the other issue is WP:SPS, but we have not reached that far yet. I told Naveed that I would bring this to COIN for the community to discuss with him whether it is appropriate for him to cite his own website or not. I will leave it for you all to discuss with him, and will step away from this now. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Which information about Turkey? This and this both have information about the $1.5 Billion USD issuance. The Turkish government will also have origination documents. Your IMF listing was a reference to a widely available UK parliament bill (available here as well as sukuk site. This was all available just using Google. Now the only site that I would consider more reliable than sukuk.com is the gov.uk site. The other sites seem to be competitors of a sort so they aren't better sources. That's what makes your edit's appear to have COI as I can't distinguish your information from other, similar, aggregator sites. As for non-commercial, I am not sure that has any bearing on COI or even reliability. There are many forms of conflict beyond just profit. Please understand that this is not a criticism of you or your site or the services provided. COI has to do with the relationship between editor and the source. You can certainly put requested edits on the talk page for other editors to view, comment on and implement. -- DHeyward ( talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Regarding Turkey, the first link you provide to cbonds has missing information with regard to coupon rate, maturity date, issue date, the prospectus - access to this is not available (unless a fee paying subscription is taken out) and Sukuk structure information (Ijara) is totally missing. The second link you provide is missing the Sukuk structure, the full name (SPV), the prospectus, arrangers, exchanges, ratings etc...so both examples you provide are not comparable.
2. The Turkish government does have the origination documents somewhere I am sure (can anyone provide the link?), though no link as a source/reference exists with the complete information as available on Sukuk.com, so this also is not comparable.
3. The IMF listing may be a link to a available UK parliament bill, I don't dispute, but the factual point is the IMF author linked to Sukuk.com not the UK Parliament site, perhaps because the Sukuk site provides greater context to the discussion which is about Sukuk.
4. Sukuk.com is not a aggregator site.
5. I restate if better sources exist, then I am OK for them to be used, so far no better sources which provide the complete information free of charge have been provided.
Naveed.sukuk ( talk) 15:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I've started a spam report here. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The single purpose user @ Giorgio.bonuccelli: has a close association with 2X Software, a company which has been acquired by Parallels, Inc.. The user has since transferred their attention to the Parallels article, adding promotional content and recreating content that was previously deleted] as unambiguous promotion under a new name: Parallels Remote Application Server. This user was previously notified here by @ FreeRangeFrog: of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Note that Parallels, Inc. also contains copyright violations from here and perhaps elsewhere. Vrac ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion on article talk page re notability. User has appropriately declared their COI but more input in the discussion would be helpful.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Off-wiki evidence suggests this was just hired out by XXXX PR to a banned user for "review" and "monitoring". Article is a mess of promotion and directory of locations. I've listed an SPA who uploaded a logo and did some stuff there, they may be with the contracting PR firm, suspect other redlinked usernames in the article history. — Brianhe ( talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple of times recently, editors with active issues at this board have requested and gotten account renames. This is problematic for obvious reasons during an investigation and, as it casts further doubt on the intentions of the editor involved, isn't good for them either. Would other COIN folks support a request that admins not move accounts while there are active investigations here? For context, I'm talking specifically about the #Sukuk case active right now and this from June, but I'm sure those aren't the only two examples. — Brianhe ( talk) 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Both these users are the same, BottleRocketStudios softblocked for username. User:BricePraslicka is the "new website and social media manager of Bottle Rocket Studios" [3], but despite the fact I've tried to discuss conflict of interest with them, they've not responded, and are continuing to edit the article. Here they apologised for "blatant disregard of community standards as I attempted to quickly make amendments to the page", but is still blatantly disregarding COI policy, by editing and not interacting with other users. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple issues with this article and at this point I am seeking community input on how to best proceed. There seems to be a conflict of interest at stake, as the subject of the article appears to be editing the article in question for purposes of self-promotion. It is common for the editor to cite one source while adding content which is not corroborated by the sources provided. All 3 of the accounts listed above are similarly named, make promotional edits, and most recently are now editing at the same time, opening up another issue related to sock puppetry and evading community consensus. While some of these issues can be dealt with through the editorial process, I would like to bring this to the attention to WP:COIN for increased visibility. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a long term editor on wikipedia, mostly contributing images, and doing copyedits. I started work for a company called Vestmark last year, but they don't have a Wikipedia page. Is it an automatic conflict of interest if I started an article on Vestmark? I don't want to get in trouble. There's already a red link to it from Managed account. Faolin42 ( talk) 18:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Kip 78 is a obvious shill. Editing is promotional. Subjects are favourites of paid editors. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Kadar Brock was created by a user who, it was alleged, had a COI. It was later deleted at AfD, and restored after two rather heated discussions at WP:DRV. The COI was a factor in those discussions. Along the way it was edited by several other editors. The article now looks reasonable to me (I have edited it to add additional content and sources). But a COI cleanup tag is still on the article. I am requesting one or more experienced uninvolved editors to review the article and see if any COI effects remain that would prevent removal of the tag. DES (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'm coming out of hibernation (my wikibreak) early. The case involving this editor was archived a little more than a month ago, after another editor was blocked, and MiamiDolphins3 gave a commitment to clean up some non-NPOV and/or primary sources in Touch Surgery, Ryze Trampoline Parks, Jenner & Block, and Mile2. This was never done. Plus he's back to work on Jack McCauley this month; it was not listed on the noticeboard previously. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
User:TriJenn has a COI on their userpage saying they "sometimes work on client articles". They've been repeatedly adding unsourced content to
Morgan James Publishing, and adding
Morgan James Publishing as book publishers on the other articles (despite the fact no other book publishers are listed on them). This strongly suggests that
Morgan James Publishing are paying this user to edit/spam, especially as
Morgan James Publishing previously paid
User:BiH to create the article about them. I've asked them about COI and specific disclosure on their talkpage, but they aren't responding, but continue to edit.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
They also previously created
Randy Gage via
WP:AFC, disclosing him as a "previous client" (not an adequate disclosure).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, the issue is that you aren't adding sourced content, you're adding completely unsourced content, as it's not being accompanied by reliable sources- saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Also, you weren't responding to me and were continuing to edit hence my complaint. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
( ←) @ TriJenn: It looks like you found the link to your userpage. However, I think you forgot some folks on your COI declaration. [4] — Brianhe ( talk) 05:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Sharkywoo has been creating a bunch of new promotional articles for people from Studios 301. Working directly with them User talk:Sharkywoo#Image ownership. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention that KartRocket which was deleted as a result of action here, is currently up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 13. Brianhe ( talk) 19:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at here that some of the regulars here might be interested in. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I follow the Michael Thibodeau article and a user has attempted to add biographical information about him, which is fine to do, but the user seems to have a COI. An IP user edited the page claiming to be Jim Cyr, Thibodeau's communications director. After being reverted as adding unsourced information, the person edited the page having registered Jimcyr as their username. They have not yet replied to posts on their talk page about their edits, which again, aren't necessarily bad, but they are unsourced which is the primary reason I have reverted the changes. On their last edit they attempted to cite themselves as a source. 331dot ( talk) 22:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Today they added a very promotional edit about him(about his 'guiding principle'); they did cite some sort of web page but it wasn't clear what exactly they were citing in the page. 331dot ( talk) 15:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Well gee, now that their edits have hit the Register's news, somebody want to contact PNIstaff ( talk · contribs) about their COI re: PNI Digital Media ? Shenme ( talk) 13:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Raju Kapuria has made no declarations but apparently is creating paid stuff. The way corp articles come into being complete with infobox company and such is reminiscent of farms we've seen here before. — Brianhe ( talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see this recent advert: Content writer needed to create 2 Wikipedia articles
I thought it might be useful to raise it here for consideration so that we can give Blur Group a clear idea of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Leutha ( talk) 11:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Something very odd here involving a vanished user. I'm not sure if that's a violation in and of itself, but the occurrence of articles that have already been subject to COIN scrutiny is not encouraging. Note that Vanished user... started editing a few minutes after the IP from a now blocked webhost. Sandbox hijinks going on with Coolguy365. I kind of stopped pulling on the thread after some well-known articles started appearing, so this list is nowhere near comprehensive.
Worth mentioning, User:Arr4 made an odd an unexplained edit here, blanking Tiburon Incorporated; at the time it was Coolguy's sandbox. Possible retaliation for blanking here on another fishy corp article created by Arr4. Arr4 is also mentioned in another active investigation at this noticeboard, to which he/she has not responded, though was actively editing less than 24 hours before was notified. Arr4 was also active on Fleetmatics around the same time as Coolguy, and there appears to be coordinated editing on Be Green Packaging.
There was mutual sandbox editing on something called Culinaire International here.
Vijay Shekhar Sharma (Entrepreneur) is a sneaky recreation of
Vijay Shekhar Sharma. One of the IPs appears to be aware of its existence as shown by
this edit to his alma mater. I have added
User:FreerangingAnik the creator of the new version to this case, but the old version was pretty dirty with COI edits as well created via undisclosed paid editing. —
Brianhe (
talk) 22:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply, I was busy in our Eid-ul-Fitr celebration. Coolguy365 is undoubtedly a paid editor. That blanking by me was only retaliation/biting when I discovered that cool guy is a paid editor. I had bitten many other paid editors in this way to avoid my being caught by COIN. - Arr4 ( talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Nigerian public relations company, its CEO and a possibly related newspaper and its owner. Making inquiries to editors. Brianhe ( talk) 15:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Added Nigerian Entertainment Today owned by BHM group, some of the same involved editors. Brianhe ( talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has a confessed COI on their user page related to their "representing" the
Westfield Corporation, a major owner of shopping malls, and was advised about it some years ago. However, their entire spate of recent edits (including to the above article and many other Westfield properties) has inserted clearly promotional language, peacock terms and other clear POV issues, directly against the guidelines they were advised about years ago. I do not believe the user can be trusted at this point.
oknazevad (
talk) 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm done trying to clean these up, every time I touch one of them to remove promotional content or just a redirect/PROD of non-notable spam, @ Jojhutton: reverts it. I guess we should just let the spammers spam instead. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
added two more historical COI editors. Jytdog ( talk) 01:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Lyricsexpress describes self on userpage as "Writer and assistant to other writers and celebrities who require rewrites, interviews and more".
Off-wiki evidence strongly indicates User:Lyricsexpress has a conflict (beyond his declaration on his userpage) about musician-related subjects. On-wiki evidence such as the edit summary on the creation of Marion Rice and uploads of probable family pictures shows User:Riceflan is writing COI about dancer-related subjects. Crossover between the two editors on Eleanor Norcross on 22 September 2010 exists for unknown reasons. Brianhe ( talk) 21:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
SPA with declared COI: "I work with an agency on behalf of Campari America and want to point out the below facts that are not fully represented on the page as it. Appreciate if an unbiased editor can implement these changes." Ref: Talk:SKYY_vodka#Updates_to_bottling_information.2C_sourcing.2C_awards_.26_current_bottle_shot. They're being careful and haven't done anything bad yet. They just want to put PR-type product info in the article. Please watch. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 06:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts by Runningfox34 and IPs over the course of the past week to add unsourced information to this article about a would-be politician. They have ignored warnings to cease and desist ( User talk:Runningfox34, User talk:71.86.217.244). Today the subject of the article made this edit. The changes are mostly unsourced or sourced to the subject's self-published campaign pages. The subject also removed information about an election loss. Given the persistent disruptive editing, I'm requesting some help in dealing with this. 32.218.32.146 ( talk) 18:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A lengthy and badly POV edit to the article [5] was made by a self-declared PUD commissioner and stands since 2012. I'd like to recuse myself from editing this one. Brianhe ( talk) 15:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Aleksandar olic is an employee of the company that sells Active Collab, wrote our article on it, and has been steadily adding wikiliks to it on other pages. No response to the warning I put on his talk page. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to stay as neutral as possible. Would be glad to see someone more experienced edit the Active Collab article. I disclosed that I work there, so it should be edited by someone who doesn't have an affiliation. Any help appreciated. I added "Request edit" but it got removed. -- Aleksandar Olic ( talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm shocked, shocked I say, that books about promoting yourself on the Internet are attracting COI from several SPAs. I've nominated The Next Internet Millionaire for deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Women's fashion is too far outside my expertise to make a good judgement on this, but this person does appear notable, with at least one full NYT story about her. However the article looks heavily non-NPOV and has been maintained by one or more questionable anon editors, and one declared COI editor [no wrongdoing on their part as far as I can tell, just mentioning for completeness]. Also I haven't fully developed this, but I think advert on eLance to create a profile of a new enterprise and its CEO may be related to Busquets. Could some other folks have a look? Brianhe ( talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The article was a direct result of this elance listing. Same client posted this thing about a book they are writing on Woodland Meadows. Same elance contractor features David Carter (entrepreneur) in his portfolio; almost certain socking going on here ... see prior investigations here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LogAntiLog/Archive. — Brianhe ( talk) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Posted to SPI as a recurrence of User:LogAntiLog. Brianhe ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the controversy, we should give all the affected users' work a once over
These users have also declared employment by Ken Sunshine's Sunshine Sachs :
Blue56349 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Orangegrad ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stapler8 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A sub-issue:
None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..."
From
the FAQ:
If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.
I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like
this have been insufficient.
Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at
WP:COI --
Elvey(
t•
c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Boniafashion is a WP:SPA, making edits exclusively on Bonia (fashion), unexplained except for one terse edit summary. Clearly seems COI based on WP:DUCK and the promotional tone of the edits, and has not responsed to talk page messages. Instead, there was a recent reintroduction of a promtional timeline [7]. Dl2000 ( talk) 22:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft was created by a SPA, rejected, then article created by another SPA, then edited by the first one. The draft is still there and needs to be histmerged. Brianhe ( talk) 01:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Bio of an Internet marketing type, orphan article, created by SPA and rescued from PROD by same. The earliest revision gives you an idea of how badly conflicted this editor is. The text has been whittled away to NPOV, leaving a blurb that basically establishes he's alive and owns an Internet marketing gig called Mequoda Group. They used to issue press releases like Top 100 Media Blogs and were mentioned once two years ago in Adweek [8]. Does somebody want to AfD this? Brianhe ( talk) 14:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It has come to my attention through off-wiki investigation of a COI issue that Comm100 employs one or more people with the title "SEO Engineer" and they are active here. Brianhe ( talk) 20:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
MMSS4S has written nothing but promotion.
Justin Lafazan started Millennial Marketing Strategy and Students4Students College Advisory. MMS and S4S. When put together that makes MMSS4S.
Much of the text of
Justin Lafazan comes from the subjects own website. The image used
[9] comes from Lafazans website and MMSS4S says xe is the copyright holder.
Randy Sutton and
Scott duffy are both fully formed advert obviously created by a shill.
Pics of Scott Duffy and Greg S. Reid
[10] are promo shots with copyright owned by MMSS4S. Both subjects have had previous spam on here from socking shills. The Reid photo comes from the same shoot as a photo on Reid's facebook page. The Duffy photo appears on his copyrighted website and comes from the same shoot as one that may have been on the previous article which was created by a sock of
User:Sibtain 007, this photo
[11].
Lafazan, Sutton and Reid are all connect through The Umbrella Syndicate.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is strong off-wiki evidence that Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards was created by a for-pay Wikipedia editing service. Since then various conflicted editors have been maintaining it. Starting report now, will fill in details later today.
[Later today] Note that Sclarke was developing this page in near-entirety well prior to the creation of the current article, which was posted by meat- or sockpuppet Ikey1206. Did they use Wikipedia sandbox here to sneakily transfer it to the other editor?
Getting into outing territory, but there are notes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kitces (2nd nomination). Finplanwiki is a contributor to CFP and Michael Kitces. Also the only one of these accounts that appears to be editing in 2015.
Added American Academy of Financial Management for involvement of Wealthadvise there. @ Rschen7754: for possible legal ramifications per your edit at Doctorlaw SPI
Finplanwiki seems to have self-identified as Marv Tuttle. This leads to Financial Planning Association and another SPA there, PlanningProf .
Fpresearch ←→ Dave Yeske, FPA president or something. I hope this is not an autobiography but ... this upload of Dave Yeske's portrait is suggestive that he is the same. Brianhe ( talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
On the NeuLion article:
All of these accounts have only edited on the NeuLion article. Davealloway2001, JaredK511, and Wweiss look like names of employees of NeuLion (I can provide internet pages that show this). — George8211 / T 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If there is doubt, then there is NO doubt. I have no doubt this is undisclosed, paid editing. Top three entries -- CEOs, credit loan companies should be convincing enough. Brianhe ( talk) 23:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Administrator note User has rollback, pending changes rights as of now. — Brianhe ( talk) 23:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
NOTICE: I have commented out the following. {{cot|Lengthy denial by EBY3221}} -Elvey
I haven't looked into this in great detail yet, but from the few articles I have looked at I agree with Brianhe that there are reasons to be concerned. Take for example these diffs of my removals of content EBY3221 added: [14] [15] [16]. The sourcing of the content was extremely poor, completely failing WP:V and was also promotional. I've also noticed unsourced BLP content e.g. [17] which also makes me concerned as it raises the question of where the information came from. It's also odd that this image was uploaded only 3 days after it was uploaded to Flickr as it suggests that EBY3221 was in contact with the subject. @ EBY3221: can you please explain these edits? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 16:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Could the rollbacker and reviewer rights userboxes be removed from the userpage? Brianhe ( talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
None of the COI disclosures seem adequate; the ToU require "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive..."
From
the FAQ:
If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm's client.
I request these users be blocked unless or until their disclosures meet this minimum requirement, in order to prevent further damage. Requests/warnings like
this have been insufficient.
Also, perhaps a template is needed, use of which could he suggested at
WP:COI --
Elvey(
t•
c) 23:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
User has declared he is an employee of the Charlotte Fire Department which the article is about in this edit. Appears to be attempting to use the article to promote the department and is removing material that reflects poorly. Should be noted this is the only page the user has edited. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Campaign manager for Canadian politician repeatedly removing a paragraph describing an incident said politician's career ( [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). Did not respond to my message on his talk page concerning reverts ( [26]), and proceeded to re-revert anyway. Also removed several previous warnings and questions about the same behavior on his talk page: [27]. Richard Ye talk 09:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
G2003 hasn't come clean as a paid editor per agreement at ANI (see archive 859). Background: has been active for years now. Notified of COI in early 2013 and denied in mid 2014 then admitted in late 2014 with a promise to stop. Never explicitly enumerated paid connection(s). My investigation of articles edited shows big discrepancy between declared COI and the remainder. Brianhe ( talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Also useful to note that there are numerous article that G2003 created that were subsequently deleted for failing a range of guidelines and policies (admins can take a look at their long list of deleted contributions). One deleted article was a hoax, although it does appear that G2003 himself was hoaxed (the subject also managed to get similar stuff onto Fox News Asia's site) rather than him having any malicious intent – however it does show the perils of such an approach. Number 5 7 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Cooperation of editors above suggests a commercial connection. One editor's name probably refers to everymedia.in, a marketing company. The other has asked me personally how to write about PrimeFocus Technologies, a perennial COI magnet. A quick perusal of contribs points to extensive COI editing related to Indian cinema. Brianhe ( talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
User claims that he created BankBazaar as some kind of "dummy edit" but he's clearly been nurturing it over a period of time, as well as these other things he's created. There are other active editors with names suggesting a relationship to BankBazaar itself. Also I can't help but think that this is some kind of retaliatory thing. Just as a point of interest, this accidentally logged-out edit was from a Bangalore ISP. Brianhe ( talk) 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Smartse: or other admin: Given the obvious COI nature of his contribs, and bald faced dishonesty in answering questions about it, could we get Nash2925 blocked now? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to find a contributor to this article who is not a redlink SPA or drive-by IP. I will follow up in the next 24 hours with developments. Just listing here now if somebody wants to have a look. Edited further to add following This looks like a good candidate for WP:TNT, does anybody else agree with me? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the archive bot settings seem to be off. At the top of the page it says auto-archive will happen on a thread after 7 days of inactivity. The bot is configured for 14. We're getting a lot of activity here and the page sometimes gets quite long. If there are no objections in the next 8 hours, I will adjust the bot settings to 7 days as advertised. Brianhe ( talk) 17:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
In going through the Raymond James case, it appears to me that we have done a crummy job of cleaning up after OnceaMetro. Some of his edits were obvious in purpose, some more difficult to discern, so I'm listing everything that smells "off" here. At a glance it looks like there may have been teams involved in some of these, especially Roy Niederhoffer. Metro's edit history goes way back and the list of apparent clients is quite extensive; I've just cherry picked some of the more egregious and/or recently edited. Brianhe ( talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Recommend the following editors to be blocked as non-communicative wrt to simple yes/no question about editing for pay:
It has been more than five days for each of them since I asked on their talkpage.
Blocking seems to be the only way to maintain integrity and enforce the Terms of Service for individuals who don't engage with the community. I recommend this be adopted as a regular procedure after a reasonable period of time, like 5 days, as discussed here ( diff) previously. Brianhe ( talk) 14:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a COI that precludes me from making this addition, and would like to request an uninvolved editor consider adding to the list of Notable People for Shenandoah, Pennsylvania the following:
Thanks - LavaBaron ( talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The article reads like an ad, and one can see why after looking at those edits. The COI editing was years ago. There's nobody worth blocking, but some hype has to come out, and there's a lack of criticism in the article. Anyway, please take a look and clean up. Thanks. John Nagle ( talk) 07:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)