![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've noticed some disturbing irregularities in BeenAroundAWhile's paid editing disclosures. He appears to have begun paid editing in December, 2014, but not all of the articles that look really paid-ish have disclosures. The case of his most recent creation, Sadkhin Complex, is especially perturbing, where he created a disclosure on his userpage, but then deleted the disclosure a little more than a week later. We also have a username change in this case, which isn't wrong but fits a pattern that's been seen at the noticeboard before. Listed above are his creations since December, 2014 and their status near as I can tell.
There's some other funny stuff that's not totally ready for a write-up yet, but Lisa Gale Garrigues, Intervals (software) and Tejon Mountain Village caught my eye. Brianhe ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ BeenAroundAWhile:, your appeal to free enterprise is as irrelevant here as appeals to the First Amendment. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run charity funded project, it is a private, not a public space. What you see as "free enterprise", others see as evil. Making money off the back of volunteer efforts is not noble, is not an exercise of any rights, it is a shitty trick which people can get away with some of the time. You do not get to claim credit for "helping" people with articles out of your "charity", because that is what we all do. All of us here give our time and resources gratis, your making money out of it is the exception not the rule.
You need to be aware that a lot of us do not like what you are doing. Paid editing is evil for two reasons: the paid editor has a disproportionate motive to protect the content, and the burden of checking for neutrality falls on people who are not being paid for their efforts. Not only are you essentially taking money under false pretences, because you have no right to make any warranty of inclusion, but you are also risking your customers' reputation, because as and when it becomes known that their article on Wikipedia is paid advertorial, that can reflect extremely badly on them. Do not underestimate the extent to which some of us despise this kind of thing. Guy ( Help!) 08:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above user appears to be Peebles' sister, and has made an edit to the article about her deceased brother. I question the neutrality of her edit to this page, though since she knew him so well she can hardly be blamed for this. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Got it. At this point, I think we need to let the deletion process run its course. Go Phightins ! 23:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Multiple times now users who are clearly members of the Charlotte Fire Department have made edits to the page in attempts to promote their department. Obviously there is no issue with updating information that is flat out incorrect, but users continue to remove the section about Notable incidents which talk about two fire truck crashes that occurred and made national news.
Edits made today by CharlotteFire ( see this diff), introduced content that was 100% copied and pasted from what appears to be a press release? See this comparison on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Additionally doesnt CharlotteFire violate WP:GROUPNAME?
Please also read this attempted dialogue in which I attempted to counsole and assist Flame37fighter on how to make appropriate edits. I am not sure what the best way to move forward is. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel nauseated bringing this up, but there's a controversy over the creation of Music community, perhaps for pay for a new TLD applicant. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community. The author is a cornerstone of the Wikipedia community but I think in fairness to the process I should at least mention the case here. Brianhe ( talk) 22:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Autobiography by a village-level politician. Initially deleted several times for copyright problems, this seems to have leaped that hurdle. I've prodded it, but wonder if this meets WP:POLITICIAN, and if not, we have an issue with the subject's determination to see himself represented here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ellesmacksongs ( talk · contribs) has openly admitted to being an employee of Shane McAnally and their edit summary strongly smacks of WP:OWN. Their edits in particular seem to be whitewashing any mention of the artist's 1999 debut album and single " Are Your Eyes Still Blue". Could someone please set this user straight? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?)
I came across this due to some cross-involvement with another COI, because an involved user here commented on an AfD I initiated and was watching, probably because it was on the same page as FreeWorldGroup. I should have reported it earlier, but I will indicate that said involved party here took issue with a comment I made in reply, as he apparently feels that AGF is an excuse for not listening to what editors are telling him.
According to the AfD for this article, there seems to be a "we" of new users working on this article, and getting information directly from the company. These are Flobberz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Icamenal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both new users, and both thus far SPA to the FreeWorldGroup Article. Users are three days old, and have editing nothing else.
One unsigned comment from Flobberz on the FreeWorldGroup AfD indicates that he is a moderator on the site and friends with the owner [1], from whom he is getting information. Flobberz then admits the article isn't notable, "because you have to be friends with the owner to get info". but doesn't apparently care: [2]. He also commented on his userpage that he pretty much doesn't wish to follow policy: [3], and every image Flobberz has uploaded has improper licensing.
Icamenal is less argumentative, but is still an SPA at this juncture. The article may or may not be kept (as I'm unfamiliar with notability for Internet sites), so this is an issue that will need to be dealt with if that is the case. MSJapan ( talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
In light of this post an AN which links this user to a group of SEO companies, the long list of AFCs that EBY3221 ( talk · contribs) accepted and which were listed in this previous thread most likely need looking at more closely as none of them recieved much attention last time round. SmartSE ( talk) 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success (3rd nomination)
The Nigerian dot-com startup scene is a fascinating subject documented at Yabacon Valley. Unfortunately, billion-dollar IPOs plus shady business practices equals lots of COI articles on Wikipedia. I've listed here Rocket Internet and several of its creations. The list of SPA editors probably is quite extensive, I've just tapped a few here. @ Garchy: you nominated the executive articles for speedy deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaymu may have been compromised by undisclosed, conflicted editors. @ DGG: you nominated the article for deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Added a new editor and another article in the Rocket Internet group. Brianhe ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a rather large sockfarm has been operating on Foodpanda / hellofood. Master might be User:Mushroom9. Also Carmudi SPAs. One of the more insidious aspects of this case, but what makes it an interesting test case, is the billions of Western dollars (Euros actually) behind the European-based, highly tech savvy corp interests, paired with many willing, and I'm sure disposable to their masters, developing nation editors; this is Rocket Internet's explicit business development model, replacing the word "editors" with "consumers". Question for COIN team. What do we do now? Obviously I've poured some time into this, as it is one of the more egregious cases of probable corporate-sponsored abuse of Wikipedia. Do we have a WP:COVERT case here, and if so what happens as a result? There's one outstanding SPI ( here) but experience tells me the accounts are unlikely to be connected. Blocking accounts on a reactive basis is likely to be a whack-a-mole exercise, but maybe it's a worthwhile gesture. I'll be disappointed if this doesn't move forward, because it seems to be a model case of what we're trying to stop at this noticeboard. We really need to figure out a plan. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor named Cariboukid has started aggressively inserting WP:PROMOTIONAL material in the article Caribou Coffee. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Bfloveless Is making lots of edits to the Bruce Loveless article, including repeatedly removing a paragraph about an incident from 2013 that is sourced. Beach drifter ( talk) 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Texas A&M University is facing a lawsuit over the purchase of the law school from Texas Wesleyan University. The user noted appears to the the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case. I removed a paragraph from the article to the talk page and pinged Jytdog—despite our past differences, he is the best I know in the COI field. I'm out of the matter after this, as I attended TAMU and don't want to have a problem with COI. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maximus is the creator of ConEmu, the article about ConEmu, and the primary contributor to the article. Most of the article content, in fact, can be attributed to him. Many websites or forums that post information or questions about ConEmu are read or answered by Maximus himself. You could say that he is his own publicist ;)
Maybe this utility is very popular among some communities, but the article doesn't really explain much other than features of the software and what it was originally intended for. If anything, this is just advertising the software (which apparently hasn't reached popular tech news outlets yet.. hmm...).
Wikipedia often frowns upon the editing of an article by somebody who is directly related to the subject which the article covers; can this case be strongly considered as COI?
(PS: I am knowingly posting this as unregistered because Maximus might recognize me if I log in as registered, and because my password is 20 characters long and I don't have my offline PW safe on this location.) 97.77.251.242 ( talk) 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of editors above is the confirmed socks from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro. OnceaMetro himself was not confirmed but was discussed here earlier in the Raymond James Financial case and is blocked for advertising and TOU violations.
Notes on this case. A quick check reveals that this sockfarm has worked on many CEO and Hollywood biographies. The name Ogilvy keeps coming up in COIN for some reason, in this case and before. The speed at which the operator of these accounts addressed each subject (usually serially in 1-2 day intervals) indicates to me that there was a worklist coordinated with a PR agency, highly suspect paid editing. This is a characteristic of the Wikipedia editing firms, some of which involved in WP:LTA cases, who "monitor" subjects for a fee. This quantity of stuff is probably at least one person's steady source of income if I understand the going rates correctly.
I'll probably have very little time to develop this today, then will go on a weeklong wikibreak. Brianhe ( talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Kimberlin is going to need its own case. CEO biog., created by one of the above in 2007 and apparently nursed since then by a few SPA editors.
Seyoda's edits are mostly "clean up" type on a similar-looking group, listed at User:Brianhe/COIbox21. Consistent with a portfolio of clients.
SimpleStitch's history is analyzed at user:Brianhe/COIbox20. Just added his top nine articles here, from the contrib surveyor tool. Brianhe ( talk) 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If the list above is too broad, here's a shorter representative list of articles with strings of pretty clear redlink/SPA actors:
This might even be fertile ground for finding more undiscovered socks related to this farm. Interpublic is a doozie, and this edit almost tells you where to go looking next. Maybe the blatantly self-edited advertising/PR agencies Avrett Free Ginsberg ( from corp IP), Campbell Ewald or FCB (advertising agency) for starters.
This might be a non-productive detour, but Monstermike99 turns up in the history of one of the articles in the short list above. He and OnceaMetro (both now indeffed) both appear in a Signpost special report with this comment "The accounts Monstermike99 and OnceaMetro continue to edit Wikipedia, including a number of articles on CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other business and finance executives. According to the editor interaction analyzer tool, articles that both accounts have edited include those on investor Jonathan M. Nelson, Time Warner CEO Steve Ross, and hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen. A former Sony vice president founded an eponymous company in January that refers to itself as "a corporate, crisis and financial communications firm."
A final forensic note, all editors were each highly active between 1200 and 2000 UTC with a combined total of >1000 edits for fairly robust analysis. If US East Coast, they'd be working approximately 7 or 8 AM to 3 or 4 PM. — Brianhe ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Prior discussion is at
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Everymedia.in
Other accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela
Added the following at 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous articles and numerous sockpuppets, the above account and article are the primary, and many of the pages of the clients listed on the website of the company have been targets here. There are at least fifty accounts so far and a similar number of articles. —
Spaceman
Spiff
12:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The subject is clearly notable, but the biography has for years been most carefully maintained by this account, who also adds many external links to related articles, including Mr. Whittington's musical performances and Mr. Whittington's writings, often self-published, which are used as sources as well [9]; [10]; [11]. In short, there appears to be a lot of self-referencing going on. Thoughts by editors with knowledge in this field will be appreciated. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No known NEW articles to link to yet. However, a new SEO firm ad
"We are an SEO firm looking for someone who can publish Wikipedia entries" has been responded to by operator of
Sclarke1129,
MayFlowers2014,
TejaswaChaudhary,
LogAntiLog aka
OWAIS NAEEM,
Worthywords, the former Hilumeoka2000, and others with claimed and documented history of completed Wikipedia SEO/corpspam jobs. Note that OWAIS NAEEM invokes
David Carter (entrepreneur) via his Elance historyportfolio, this article is ripe with more suspicious editors, some of whom have had inconclusive SPIs. Also note that many of these accounts are blocked, so obviously the operators are using, or are prepared to use, sockpuppets to complete the work. —
Brianhe (
talk)
01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just received an invite from this group. And with flattery being a common form of scamming I decided to look into it. Found this [12] [13] [14] which sort of confirmed my suspicions.
I imagine that all pages that include this vanity press are paid for. For example:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm looking for help in reviewing some proposed changes that I have for the MetLife article on behalf of the company. I've suggested creating a new Operations section on the article's talk page to help improve the organization of the article. In each of my posts, I've been careful to identify myself as having a financial COI, as I am currently a paid consultant working for MetLife, on behalf of their PR agency, Burson-Marsteller. For this reason, I have not and will not edit the article myself, and am looking instead for editors to look over my proposed changes. Although I've reached out at a few relevant WikiProjects (the business-related ones tend to be very quiet…), only a small part of the request has been reviewed and completed to date, by an editor who said that they just completed what they had time for. I'm hoping someone on this noticeboard might have some time to review what I've suggested, and—most importantly—will be able to make sure it's appropriate from a neutrality perspective. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{ edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This Perion Network thing smells like paid editing, complete with a press release for one of the citations, and a fawning section on corporate philanthropy. A discussion between DGG and Nmwalsh, where DGG expressed concern about lack of complete disclosure, petered out earlier in August. I think he needs the standard message re TOS client/article disclosure requirements. — Brianhe ( talk) 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor|Nmwalsh|Perion Network|declared=yes|otherlinks=Paid editing: <ins>NameOfSpecificEmployer is my organization, and NameOfSpecificClient which is an</ins> entity connected with the topic of this article, have compensated me financially for my edits.}}
or something like that, placed into
Talk:Perion_Network. Also nice to have 'paid edit' in the summary, but the talkpage-thing is a nice one-liner that covers times when you might forget. Of course, make sure you have just the one username, and don't edit without logging in, so that the talkpage notice stays connected to the edits you make under your
User:Nmwalsh online-persona. Hope this helps,
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been recruited to serve as the technical adviser for a planned edit-a-thon (EAT) sponsored by a local art museum. The salient points are these:
That brings me to my question: Can participants who are regular volunteers at the museum, but not employees, edit the museum's article under my guidance without infringing upon the COI policy? If we get participants who are not regular volunteers I intend to try to get them to agree to work on the museum's article rather than the regular volunteers, but I'd like to know in advance if it's likely that someone will raise an objection if that does not prove to be the case and only regular volunteers are available to work on that article. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, this is a recreated article that was deleted as promo/spam in 2011: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Coast Media Group. You think this is a "lifestyle" magazine company like OCEAN Style, right? Wrong. It's a skin cream company with some connection to Christie Brinkley. Article created by throwaway SPA (Anrd8) and looks well referenced at first glance, until you notice half the cites are to the company itself, and the other half are questionable sources like theiemommy.com or passing mentions in legit media. My notes tell me that the other editor (Bhupesh4381) created a link to this article on April 18, which appears to have been deleted now; maybe an admin can confirm. However, this looks very much like insertion of a SEO link in another article, and this is just old-fashioned linkspam. It appears that he created another advert, Keranique around September, 2014. Atlantic Coast Media Group owns the brand Keranique. Hey look, Keranique was also a recreation of a deleted spamicle created by another SPA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keranique. Brianhe ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, the ACMG article does not mention this 2013 class-action consumer fraud settlement. Brianhe ( talk) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Background: Korean game developer InnoSpark and a title Dragon Friends they've recently raised Series B funding for. Many of the sources are in Korean. However, just looking at it, it's a little iffy. Especially combined with the history of the first attempt at the article, whose creator did this one thing and disappeared. Dragon Friends doesn't make a great claim of notability. The developer corp has also been added to what appears to be the title publisher/distributor, Nexon, whose history has a string of suspect and/or blocked editors (OnceaMetro and a SimpleStitch sock, among others).
Just wanted to bring this up here for evaluation, without naming all the editors at this time. - Brianhe ( talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex and content added by User:Manabeast333. Lots of promotional content with poor refs added such as here [18] Just cleaned up our featured article on keratoconus that contained a lot of promotional material. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Help with Brian Boxer Wachler appreciated.
I have restored it to the prior slightly less spammy version here [19] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have done a search here
But for some strange reason it does not pull up this one [23]
Wondering if people know why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Accounts doing the adding
No other edits Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The first three articles listed could probably be PRODed or maybe even speedied. Andrew Bromberg may be notable (AfD = no consensus), but article needs drastic cleanup. Based on self-certified relation to Phil Vincent we should look extra hard at that article. Brianhe ( talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a pattern here that indicates long-term paid editing somewhere between possible and likely. There are a ton of hit-and-run editors around Aedas, an architecture (maybe property development too) firm but there are also cross-links to editors involved in past paid editing cases.
Notably, Commonplace Book, a sock of The Librarian at Terminus, has edited several of these articles and The Librarian at Terminus has as well. An IP 174.45.140.146 showed up in an earlier COIN case titled Amalto and others also involving these two accounts plus Andrewjohn39, who ended up getting blocked for undisclosed paid editing.
Deevincentday created Aedas in 2008 and made contributions to it through 2011, and has a declared COI as an employee or former employee. Another account described by Deevincentday as an individual personally connected to him/herself !voted keep at the Aedas AfD.
Throwaway accounts used to create corporate articles are starting to look like a red flag for COI, maybe we should think about automated tools to discover this. This set might make a good test case.
— Brianhe ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reopening ( WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#BankBazaar). Activity on BankBazaar has renewed, now adding another SPA. I asked before that Nash2925 be blocked for falsehoods in COI inquiry, and renew that request. Brianhe ( talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is in addition to the separate #Rocket Internet stuff listed above ( diff). The articles listed here are a reverse chronological record of virtually his entire editing history, which is obviously centered on publicity-seeking entities.
Attention is called to extensive editing history on former Ogilvy and Mather (PR) exec M. T. Carney and talent agent Michael Ovitz. The editor has been advised explicitly about our COI policy on 10 February [33] by DissidentAggressor, and reminded/asked with this comment on 8 May and this comment on 9 May, then asked explicitly again by me 6 August [34]. The reply to the last is here. — Brianhe ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe the evidence and pattern of edits is clear and agree it is problematic. I propose a topic ban on this editor for companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The Dissident Aggressor 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I have been away for a while. I reviewed a bunch of this, and from what I can see, no one has asked the direct questions to Wintertanager, nor has he/she directly answered, so please allow me to do that.... Wintertanager:
a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
Please do answer simply and directly. A "yes" on either question would mean you have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently. (to disclose the COI, and to work with a form of peer review) But please do let us know. (if the answer to either is "yes", please do be honest about it - you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent; if the answer is no, then say "no" - I will have some suggestions on how to possibly move forward in that case) Thanks!
Jytdog (
talk)
23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reading that slog and replying and for agreeing to follow the COI guideline and Terms of Use going forward. As I wrote above, from what I can see, the community is pretty close to indeffing you. They may still do. I recommend you post a full disclosure of your paid editing on your userpage sooner rather than later.
With regard to the Lazada article... Part of the picture you may not be seeing yet, is that none of us who work at COIN love going around behind paid editors and cleaning up after them. We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent. I will take up some of my weekend to clean up the article and you will get a sense of what a NPOV view of them actually looks like.
But really, your nod toward understanding what COI says about inherent bias is, to be frank, arrogant baloney. The Lazada article is promotional. I see DissidentAggressor has been over it once and tagged some things - what he doesn't seem to have done is go read about Lazada so he could bring sources to tell the story, warts and all. (the article depicts one glorious rise with no hitches, which seems pretty fake - no company is without failures along the way.) And there is not a word about profits (the reason why a company exists), which if they are anything like Amazon in that regard, they have none of. And... a quick google search for "Lazada profit" brings up the story pretty quickly. Nothing about that in the article. What advocates don't add to articles is often more telling than what they do. I came across an article about a guy who made all his money running porn websites (not Jimbo); the article didn't mention where he got his money. Paid editor wrote that.
Anyway, if you have questions about best practices for following the the COI guideline, feel free to ping me. And again, the community may still indef you. I wouldn't oppose it, based on all of your behavior to date. There is a strong tendency in WP to mercy in order to retain editors, but paid editors strain that. That is all I have to say. Jytdog ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the conversation with Jytdog has wound down. Recommend a topic ban proposed above by DissidentAggressor for unwillingness to comply with TOS by disclosing "employer, client and affiliation", specifically past clients. — Brianhe ( talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Smartse:@ Doc James:Have today's events convinced us this type of ... contributor ... is not needed here? Can we at least get a block while other, stricter options are discussed? — Brianhe ( talk) 07:54, 1 September 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. |
I've noticed some disturbing irregularities in BeenAroundAWhile's paid editing disclosures. He appears to have begun paid editing in December, 2014, but not all of the articles that look really paid-ish have disclosures. The case of his most recent creation, Sadkhin Complex, is especially perturbing, where he created a disclosure on his userpage, but then deleted the disclosure a little more than a week later. We also have a username change in this case, which isn't wrong but fits a pattern that's been seen at the noticeboard before. Listed above are his creations since December, 2014 and their status near as I can tell.
There's some other funny stuff that's not totally ready for a write-up yet, but Lisa Gale Garrigues, Intervals (software) and Tejon Mountain Village caught my eye. Brianhe ( talk) 03:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@ BeenAroundAWhile:, your appeal to free enterprise is as irrelevant here as appeals to the First Amendment. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run charity funded project, it is a private, not a public space. What you see as "free enterprise", others see as evil. Making money off the back of volunteer efforts is not noble, is not an exercise of any rights, it is a shitty trick which people can get away with some of the time. You do not get to claim credit for "helping" people with articles out of your "charity", because that is what we all do. All of us here give our time and resources gratis, your making money out of it is the exception not the rule.
You need to be aware that a lot of us do not like what you are doing. Paid editing is evil for two reasons: the paid editor has a disproportionate motive to protect the content, and the burden of checking for neutrality falls on people who are not being paid for their efforts. Not only are you essentially taking money under false pretences, because you have no right to make any warranty of inclusion, but you are also risking your customers' reputation, because as and when it becomes known that their article on Wikipedia is paid advertorial, that can reflect extremely badly on them. Do not underestimate the extent to which some of us despise this kind of thing. Guy ( Help!) 08:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The above user appears to be Peebles' sister, and has made an edit to the article about her deceased brother. I question the neutrality of her edit to this page, though since she knew him so well she can hardly be blamed for this. Everymorning (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Got it. At this point, I think we need to let the deletion process run its course. Go Phightins ! 23:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Multiple times now users who are clearly members of the Charlotte Fire Department have made edits to the page in attempts to promote their department. Obviously there is no issue with updating information that is flat out incorrect, but users continue to remove the section about Notable incidents which talk about two fire truck crashes that occurred and made national news.
Edits made today by CharlotteFire ( see this diff), introduced content that was 100% copied and pasted from what appears to be a press release? See this comparison on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Additionally doesnt CharlotteFire violate WP:GROUPNAME?
Please also read this attempted dialogue in which I attempted to counsole and assist Flame37fighter on how to make appropriate edits. I am not sure what the best way to move forward is. -- Zackmann08 ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel nauseated bringing this up, but there's a controversy over the creation of Music community, perhaps for pay for a new TLD applicant. You can read about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music community. The author is a cornerstone of the Wikipedia community but I think in fairness to the process I should at least mention the case here. Brianhe ( talk) 22:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Autobiography by a village-level politician. Initially deleted several times for copyright problems, this seems to have leaped that hurdle. I've prodded it, but wonder if this meets WP:POLITICIAN, and if not, we have an issue with the subject's determination to see himself represented here. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F ( talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Ellesmacksongs ( talk · contribs) has openly admitted to being an employee of Shane McAnally and their edit summary strongly smacks of WP:OWN. Their edits in particular seem to be whitewashing any mention of the artist's 1999 debut album and single " Are Your Eyes Still Blue". Could someone please set this user straight? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?)
I came across this due to some cross-involvement with another COI, because an involved user here commented on an AfD I initiated and was watching, probably because it was on the same page as FreeWorldGroup. I should have reported it earlier, but I will indicate that said involved party here took issue with a comment I made in reply, as he apparently feels that AGF is an excuse for not listening to what editors are telling him.
According to the AfD for this article, there seems to be a "we" of new users working on this article, and getting information directly from the company. These are Flobberz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Icamenal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both new users, and both thus far SPA to the FreeWorldGroup Article. Users are three days old, and have editing nothing else.
One unsigned comment from Flobberz on the FreeWorldGroup AfD indicates that he is a moderator on the site and friends with the owner [1], from whom he is getting information. Flobberz then admits the article isn't notable, "because you have to be friends with the owner to get info". but doesn't apparently care: [2]. He also commented on his userpage that he pretty much doesn't wish to follow policy: [3], and every image Flobberz has uploaded has improper licensing.
Icamenal is less argumentative, but is still an SPA at this juncture. The article may or may not be kept (as I'm unfamiliar with notability for Internet sites), so this is an issue that will need to be dealt with if that is the case. MSJapan ( talk) 22:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
In light of this post an AN which links this user to a group of SEO companies, the long list of AFCs that EBY3221 ( talk · contribs) accepted and which were listed in this previous thread most likely need looking at more closely as none of them recieved much attention last time round. SmartSE ( talk) 14:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Society of Leadership and Success (3rd nomination)
The Nigerian dot-com startup scene is a fascinating subject documented at Yabacon Valley. Unfortunately, billion-dollar IPOs plus shady business practices equals lots of COI articles on Wikipedia. I've listed here Rocket Internet and several of its creations. The list of SPA editors probably is quite extensive, I've just tapped a few here. @ Garchy: you nominated the executive articles for speedy deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Addendum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaymu may have been compromised by undisclosed, conflicted editors. @ DGG: you nominated the article for deletion. — Brianhe ( talk) 15:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Added a new editor and another article in the Rocket Internet group. Brianhe ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a rather large sockfarm has been operating on Foodpanda / hellofood. Master might be User:Mushroom9. Also Carmudi SPAs. One of the more insidious aspects of this case, but what makes it an interesting test case, is the billions of Western dollars (Euros actually) behind the European-based, highly tech savvy corp interests, paired with many willing, and I'm sure disposable to their masters, developing nation editors; this is Rocket Internet's explicit business development model, replacing the word "editors" with "consumers". Question for COIN team. What do we do now? Obviously I've poured some time into this, as it is one of the more egregious cases of probable corporate-sponsored abuse of Wikipedia. Do we have a WP:COVERT case here, and if so what happens as a result? There's one outstanding SPI ( here) but experience tells me the accounts are unlikely to be connected. Blocking accounts on a reactive basis is likely to be a whack-a-mole exercise, but maybe it's a worthwhile gesture. I'll be disappointed if this doesn't move forward, because it seems to be a model case of what we're trying to stop at this noticeboard. We really need to figure out a plan. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor named Cariboukid has started aggressively inserting WP:PROMOTIONAL material in the article Caribou Coffee. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Bfloveless Is making lots of edits to the Bruce Loveless article, including repeatedly removing a paragraph about an incident from 2013 that is sourced. Beach drifter ( talk) 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Texas A&M University is facing a lawsuit over the purchase of the law school from Texas Wesleyan University. The user noted appears to the the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case. I removed a paragraph from the article to the talk page and pinged Jytdog—despite our past differences, he is the best I know in the COI field. I'm out of the matter after this, as I attended TAMU and don't want to have a problem with COI. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maximus is the creator of ConEmu, the article about ConEmu, and the primary contributor to the article. Most of the article content, in fact, can be attributed to him. Many websites or forums that post information or questions about ConEmu are read or answered by Maximus himself. You could say that he is his own publicist ;)
Maybe this utility is very popular among some communities, but the article doesn't really explain much other than features of the software and what it was originally intended for. If anything, this is just advertising the software (which apparently hasn't reached popular tech news outlets yet.. hmm...).
Wikipedia often frowns upon the editing of an article by somebody who is directly related to the subject which the article covers; can this case be strongly considered as COI?
(PS: I am knowingly posting this as unregistered because Maximus might recognize me if I log in as registered, and because my password is 20 characters long and I don't have my offline PW safe on this location.) 97.77.251.242 ( talk) 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of editors above is the confirmed socks from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro. OnceaMetro himself was not confirmed but was discussed here earlier in the Raymond James Financial case and is blocked for advertising and TOU violations.
Notes on this case. A quick check reveals that this sockfarm has worked on many CEO and Hollywood biographies. The name Ogilvy keeps coming up in COIN for some reason, in this case and before. The speed at which the operator of these accounts addressed each subject (usually serially in 1-2 day intervals) indicates to me that there was a worklist coordinated with a PR agency, highly suspect paid editing. This is a characteristic of the Wikipedia editing firms, some of which involved in WP:LTA cases, who "monitor" subjects for a fee. This quantity of stuff is probably at least one person's steady source of income if I understand the going rates correctly.
I'll probably have very little time to develop this today, then will go on a weeklong wikibreak. Brianhe ( talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Kimberlin is going to need its own case. CEO biog., created by one of the above in 2007 and apparently nursed since then by a few SPA editors.
Seyoda's edits are mostly "clean up" type on a similar-looking group, listed at User:Brianhe/COIbox21. Consistent with a portfolio of clients.
SimpleStitch's history is analyzed at user:Brianhe/COIbox20. Just added his top nine articles here, from the contrib surveyor tool. Brianhe ( talk) 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If the list above is too broad, here's a shorter representative list of articles with strings of pretty clear redlink/SPA actors:
This might even be fertile ground for finding more undiscovered socks related to this farm. Interpublic is a doozie, and this edit almost tells you where to go looking next. Maybe the blatantly self-edited advertising/PR agencies Avrett Free Ginsberg ( from corp IP), Campbell Ewald or FCB (advertising agency) for starters.
This might be a non-productive detour, but Monstermike99 turns up in the history of one of the articles in the short list above. He and OnceaMetro (both now indeffed) both appear in a Signpost special report with this comment "The accounts Monstermike99 and OnceaMetro continue to edit Wikipedia, including a number of articles on CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other business and finance executives. According to the editor interaction analyzer tool, articles that both accounts have edited include those on investor Jonathan M. Nelson, Time Warner CEO Steve Ross, and hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen. A former Sony vice president founded an eponymous company in January that refers to itself as "a corporate, crisis and financial communications firm."
A final forensic note, all editors were each highly active between 1200 and 2000 UTC with a combined total of >1000 edits for fairly robust analysis. If US East Coast, they'd be working approximately 7 or 8 AM to 3 or 4 PM. — Brianhe ( talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Prior discussion is at
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Everymedia.in
Other accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela
Added the following at 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous articles and numerous sockpuppets, the above account and article are the primary, and many of the pages of the clients listed on the website of the company have been targets here. There are at least fifty accounts so far and a similar number of articles. —
Spaceman
Spiff
12:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The subject is clearly notable, but the biography has for years been most carefully maintained by this account, who also adds many external links to related articles, including Mr. Whittington's musical performances and Mr. Whittington's writings, often self-published, which are used as sources as well [9]; [10]; [11]. In short, there appears to be a lot of self-referencing going on. Thoughts by editors with knowledge in this field will be appreciated. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No known NEW articles to link to yet. However, a new SEO firm ad
"We are an SEO firm looking for someone who can publish Wikipedia entries" has been responded to by operator of
Sclarke1129,
MayFlowers2014,
TejaswaChaudhary,
LogAntiLog aka
OWAIS NAEEM,
Worthywords, the former Hilumeoka2000, and others with claimed and documented history of completed Wikipedia SEO/corpspam jobs. Note that OWAIS NAEEM invokes
David Carter (entrepreneur) via his Elance historyportfolio, this article is ripe with more suspicious editors, some of whom have had inconclusive SPIs. Also note that many of these accounts are blocked, so obviously the operators are using, or are prepared to use, sockpuppets to complete the work. —
Brianhe (
talk)
01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just received an invite from this group. And with flattery being a common form of scamming I decided to look into it. Found this [12] [13] [14] which sort of confirmed my suspicions.
I imagine that all pages that include this vanity press are paid for. For example:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'm looking for help in reviewing some proposed changes that I have for the MetLife article on behalf of the company. I've suggested creating a new Operations section on the article's talk page to help improve the organization of the article. In each of my posts, I've been careful to identify myself as having a financial COI, as I am currently a paid consultant working for MetLife, on behalf of their PR agency, Burson-Marsteller. For this reason, I have not and will not edit the article myself, and am looking instead for editors to look over my proposed changes. Although I've reached out at a few relevant WikiProjects (the business-related ones tend to be very quiet…), only a small part of the request has been reviewed and completed to date, by an editor who said that they just completed what they had time for. I'm hoping someone on this noticeboard might have some time to review what I've suggested, and—most importantly—will be able to make sure it's appropriate from a neutrality perspective. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{ edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This Perion Network thing smells like paid editing, complete with a press release for one of the citations, and a fawning section on corporate philanthropy. A discussion between DGG and Nmwalsh, where DGG expressed concern about lack of complete disclosure, petered out earlier in August. I think he needs the standard message re TOS client/article disclosure requirements. — Brianhe ( talk) 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{Connected contributor|Nmwalsh|Perion Network|declared=yes|otherlinks=Paid editing: <ins>NameOfSpecificEmployer is my organization, and NameOfSpecificClient which is an</ins> entity connected with the topic of this article, have compensated me financially for my edits.}}
or something like that, placed into
Talk:Perion_Network. Also nice to have 'paid edit' in the summary, but the talkpage-thing is a nice one-liner that covers times when you might forget. Of course, make sure you have just the one username, and don't edit without logging in, so that the talkpage notice stays connected to the edits you make under your
User:Nmwalsh online-persona. Hope this helps,
75.108.94.227 (
talk)
16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been recruited to serve as the technical adviser for a planned edit-a-thon (EAT) sponsored by a local art museum. The salient points are these:
That brings me to my question: Can participants who are regular volunteers at the museum, but not employees, edit the museum's article under my guidance without infringing upon the COI policy? If we get participants who are not regular volunteers I intend to try to get them to agree to work on the museum's article rather than the regular volunteers, but I'd like to know in advance if it's likely that someone will raise an objection if that does not prove to be the case and only regular volunteers are available to work on that article. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, this is a recreated article that was deleted as promo/spam in 2011: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Coast Media Group. You think this is a "lifestyle" magazine company like OCEAN Style, right? Wrong. It's a skin cream company with some connection to Christie Brinkley. Article created by throwaway SPA (Anrd8) and looks well referenced at first glance, until you notice half the cites are to the company itself, and the other half are questionable sources like theiemommy.com or passing mentions in legit media. My notes tell me that the other editor (Bhupesh4381) created a link to this article on April 18, which appears to have been deleted now; maybe an admin can confirm. However, this looks very much like insertion of a SEO link in another article, and this is just old-fashioned linkspam. It appears that he created another advert, Keranique around September, 2014. Atlantic Coast Media Group owns the brand Keranique. Hey look, Keranique was also a recreation of a deleted spamicle created by another SPA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keranique. Brianhe ( talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, the ACMG article does not mention this 2013 class-action consumer fraud settlement. Brianhe ( talk) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Background: Korean game developer InnoSpark and a title Dragon Friends they've recently raised Series B funding for. Many of the sources are in Korean. However, just looking at it, it's a little iffy. Especially combined with the history of the first attempt at the article, whose creator did this one thing and disappeared. Dragon Friends doesn't make a great claim of notability. The developer corp has also been added to what appears to be the title publisher/distributor, Nexon, whose history has a string of suspect and/or blocked editors (OnceaMetro and a SimpleStitch sock, among others).
Just wanted to bring this up here for evaluation, without naming all the editors at this time. - Brianhe ( talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex and content added by User:Manabeast333. Lots of promotional content with poor refs added such as here [18] Just cleaned up our featured article on keratoconus that contained a lot of promotional material. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Help with Brian Boxer Wachler appreciated.
I have restored it to the prior slightly less spammy version here [19] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have done a search here
But for some strange reason it does not pull up this one [23]
Wondering if people know why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Accounts doing the adding
No other edits Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The first three articles listed could probably be PRODed or maybe even speedied. Andrew Bromberg may be notable (AfD = no consensus), but article needs drastic cleanup. Based on self-certified relation to Phil Vincent we should look extra hard at that article. Brianhe ( talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there's a pattern here that indicates long-term paid editing somewhere between possible and likely. There are a ton of hit-and-run editors around Aedas, an architecture (maybe property development too) firm but there are also cross-links to editors involved in past paid editing cases.
Notably, Commonplace Book, a sock of The Librarian at Terminus, has edited several of these articles and The Librarian at Terminus has as well. An IP 174.45.140.146 showed up in an earlier COIN case titled Amalto and others also involving these two accounts plus Andrewjohn39, who ended up getting blocked for undisclosed paid editing.
Deevincentday created Aedas in 2008 and made contributions to it through 2011, and has a declared COI as an employee or former employee. Another account described by Deevincentday as an individual personally connected to him/herself !voted keep at the Aedas AfD.
Throwaway accounts used to create corporate articles are starting to look like a red flag for COI, maybe we should think about automated tools to discover this. This set might make a good test case.
— Brianhe ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Reopening ( WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#BankBazaar). Activity on BankBazaar has renewed, now adding another SPA. I asked before that Nash2925 be blocked for falsehoods in COI inquiry, and renew that request. Brianhe ( talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is in addition to the separate #Rocket Internet stuff listed above ( diff). The articles listed here are a reverse chronological record of virtually his entire editing history, which is obviously centered on publicity-seeking entities.
Attention is called to extensive editing history on former Ogilvy and Mather (PR) exec M. T. Carney and talent agent Michael Ovitz. The editor has been advised explicitly about our COI policy on 10 February [33] by DissidentAggressor, and reminded/asked with this comment on 8 May and this comment on 9 May, then asked explicitly again by me 6 August [34]. The reply to the last is here. — Brianhe ( talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe the evidence and pattern of edits is clear and agree it is problematic. I propose a topic ban on this editor for companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The Dissident Aggressor 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I have been away for a while. I reviewed a bunch of this, and from what I can see, no one has asked the direct questions to Wintertanager, nor has he/she directly answered, so please allow me to do that.... Wintertanager:
a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
Please do answer simply and directly. A "yes" on either question would mean you have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently. (to disclose the COI, and to work with a form of peer review) But please do let us know. (if the answer to either is "yes", please do be honest about it - you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent; if the answer is no, then say "no" - I will have some suggestions on how to possibly move forward in that case) Thanks!
Jytdog (
talk)
23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reading that slog and replying and for agreeing to follow the COI guideline and Terms of Use going forward. As I wrote above, from what I can see, the community is pretty close to indeffing you. They may still do. I recommend you post a full disclosure of your paid editing on your userpage sooner rather than later.
With regard to the Lazada article... Part of the picture you may not be seeing yet, is that none of us who work at COIN love going around behind paid editors and cleaning up after them. We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent. I will take up some of my weekend to clean up the article and you will get a sense of what a NPOV view of them actually looks like.
But really, your nod toward understanding what COI says about inherent bias is, to be frank, arrogant baloney. The Lazada article is promotional. I see DissidentAggressor has been over it once and tagged some things - what he doesn't seem to have done is go read about Lazada so he could bring sources to tell the story, warts and all. (the article depicts one glorious rise with no hitches, which seems pretty fake - no company is without failures along the way.) And there is not a word about profits (the reason why a company exists), which if they are anything like Amazon in that regard, they have none of. And... a quick google search for "Lazada profit" brings up the story pretty quickly. Nothing about that in the article. What advocates don't add to articles is often more telling than what they do. I came across an article about a guy who made all his money running porn websites (not Jimbo); the article didn't mention where he got his money. Paid editor wrote that.
Anyway, if you have questions about best practices for following the the COI guideline, feel free to ping me. And again, the community may still indef you. I wouldn't oppose it, based on all of your behavior to date. There is a strong tendency in WP to mercy in order to retain editors, but paid editors strain that. That is all I have to say. Jytdog ( talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the conversation with Jytdog has wound down. Recommend a topic ban proposed above by DissidentAggressor for unwillingness to comply with TOS by disclosing "employer, client and affiliation", specifically past clients. — Brianhe ( talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@ Smartse:@ Doc James:Have today's events convinced us this type of ... contributor ... is not needed here? Can we at least get a block while other, stricter options are discussed? — Brianhe ( talk) 07:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)