Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 151

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (GLAM partnership)

I'm not sure how we got here, but there are multiple editors affiliated with the OBC that are editing Wikipedia under a GLAM partnership. Note that the OBC is a think tank, not a gallery, library, archive or museum. Their editing looks a lot like advertising of their organizations (Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom) as well as advancing their advocacy efforts (Censorship in Serbia, Media freedom in Serbia). Is this something that should be allowed on enwiki? It looks like GLAM being used as a backdoor for advocacy. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

From the lede of our own article on OBC: "Its archives hosts more than 10,000 items... All its contents are available on[sic] Creative Commons licenses.". That places it quite unambiguously in scope for our GLAM partnerships. Have you notified the editors concerned of this discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Please notify (not ping) all of the editors implicated in your OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: Ok. I have notified enwiki editors from OBC, except those who already commented here. --MarioGom (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing: On the scope, note that most well-established think tanks and political parties have some form of internal archive. I doubt that qualifies them for a GLAM partnership. Or does it? I'm not really familiar with the way these partnerships work, honestly. But Wikipedia:GLAM/About states GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote the institution, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public. I don't think the conflict of interest guideline is being followed here. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Niccolò Caranti. I am a Wikipedian since 2006 as Jaqen. I started working with OBCT in 2017 and, in order of having full transparency in a simple way, when I edit Wikimedia projects as a part of my job I use the separate account Niccolò Caranti (OBC). The same good practice has been followed by my colleagues that have edited Wikipedia.
OBCT started working on Wikipedia in 2015, hosting a WIR (which was Davide Denti (OBC), not me) in cooperation with Wikimedia Italia, more information about the cooperation here. I may agree that OBCT is not properly a GLAM, but more generally a cultural institution. The term GLAM is used because the cooperation was modelled on successful GLAM partnerships. In any case, as Andy pointed out, we can contribute with our contents and expertise, just as GLAMs do.
Our purpose on Wikipedia is just to improve the contents of Wikipedia, not to advertise or do advocacy. I, as many wikipedians and Wikimedia organisations, believe that censorship is bad, but when we write an article about (e.g.) censorship in Serbia our purpose is just to describe the topic. If we somewhere failed neutrality please point us where and we try to fix.
As a part of our Wiki4MediaFreedom initiative we have written ourselves article related (broadly) to media freedom, and we have encouraged other wikipedians to do the same, by organising edit-a-thons (in cooperation with several Wikimedia chapters) and contests. Recently we also cooperated with Wikimedia Italy for an education project. Just to avoid any doubts: nearly all the sources used and cited have nothing to do with us.
I am in knowledge of COI policy, and I try as best as I can to respect the letter and the principles of the policy. As an example, recently I realised that the article about OBCT was out of date: before updating it I described in the talk page the edits I intendend to do, and I waited nearly a month before actually doing them. If there is something more we should do in order to have the maximum transparency we will be glad to do it. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Niccolò Caranti (OBC): Note that if you use the {{Edit request}} template, someone will step in to fulfill the request, usually in much less than one month. --MarioGom (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm User:Davide Denti (OBC); I was WiR for OBC at the start of the GLAM partnership in 2015-2016. I am using my personal account since I have not been linked to the organisation since. The GLAM partnership with OBC was set up in cooperation with Wikimedia Italia and has since won several WMF small grants too. The articles linked above are based on reliable third-party sources (inMedia freedom in Serbia, links to articles published by OBC are only 5 out of 82 sources), as all other articles created or modified via the GLAM. This was indeed the point of the GLAM with OBC: rather than gaining access to a specific material archive, Wikipedia gains access to specialist knowledge (as embedded in a cultural organisation which works since 20 years on South East Europe and media freedom topics) and expands Wiki's reach on the issue. I think this was a win-win for all sides. --Dans (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Davide Denti (OBC), Niccolò Caranti (OBC), here is how I see the issue (but other editors might have a different view):
The last point also applies to Poland in the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Diesel emissions scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
On neither of those first two articles' talk pages have you complied with the conditions for using {{COI}}. Further, WP:EXPERT does not say what you appear to think it does; it refers to "information from his or her own publications ", and neither Davide nor Niccolò are (to the best of my knowledge) the authors of what they have cited. WP:CURATOR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: Why do you think so? The articles were created under an actual conflict of interest, rely mainly on non-independent sources and contained a good deal of self-serving PR speech. --MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think so because I've read those conditions, which are highlighted prominently in the template's documentation. Have you? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing: You are right, I often omit the step of opening a discussion in the article talk page since it is, in my view, a quite obvious case, and spans multiple articles. I guess you were referring to that. My bad. I'll open discussions with more detail. --MarioGom (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
About WP:EXPERT, sorry, I was not specific enough. See: Censorship in Serbia#Background, relying on a single source authored by Rossella Vignola (OBC) and hosted on the organization website (diff). --MarioGom (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The paper authored by Rossella was not published by her; it meets WP:EXPERT's requirement of "material [...] published in a reliable source by a third party.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How is OBCT a third-party if she authored it as part of her work at OBCT? Maybe I'm not interpreting third-party correctly in this context. Also I don't think that WP:CURATOR was meant for think tanks, no matter how laudable their mission is. --MarioGom (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:CURATOR is about "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, and similar" It does not - quite deliberately, and quite rightly - restrict itself to certain types of such; nor place limits on where they work. We've already established that OBC has a >10,000-item archive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
MarioGom: Many alleged issues are, imho, non-issues. Talking for example about the links, in Conscientious objection to abortion there are 16 external links: only 3 of them are OBCT or EDJNet. In List of journalists killed in Europe (another article I created) there are 66 external links: only 8 are OBCT or EDJnet. In some cases (such as Poland in the European Union and Diesel emissions scandal) I have added just an image or a sentence with just one source (in those cases it was EDJNet), but in other cases there was not a single link to OBCT or EDJNet or other partners: e.g. José Luis López de Lacalle (which I personally wrote). In Category:Wiki4MediaFreedom articles there are other articles we created, edited, or that were created as a part of our events or contests: overall there are just a few links to our websites. We link them only when we think they improve Wikipedia, in line with WP:CURATOR and other policies.
I'm reading at the top of this page that it "should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue". This was not done here. Sure, there can be some small issues with some articles, but we are ready to fix what has to be fixed, and if someone else wants to fix them we certainly won't get in the way. But to solve those issues we should use the talk pages, not this one. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Niccolò Caranti (OBC): Understood. It seems that I failed to make alleged issues clear here. I'll open discussions for each individual issue in separate discussions in relevant pages. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm following up on user talk pages about disclosure and compliance (1, 2), as well as on article talk pages on specific issues (1, 2). Not doing so upfront was a procedural mistake from my side. Also the question on the limits of GLAM partnerships that I suggested in the initial message is out of scope for COIN. If an uninvolved editor wants to close the discussion, please, do so. Otherwise, I will do it myself in a few days unless there is any opposition. --MarioGom (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick and probably last update form my side on this topic. After following up on the user talk pages and getting the conversation on compliance ongoing, there is really nothing for COIN to act on. I apologize to Niccolò Caranti (OBC), Davide Denti (OBC) as well as to other OBC members on Wikipedia, for the confrontational tone I have used at times here. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MarioGom, I will follow up in the talk pages. --Niccolò "Jaqen" Caranti (OBC) (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sebastian Copeland

The above user has been editing this article since 2014, up until earlier this year with the content of the article bordering on puffery. Almost all the edits to the article have been made by this user. The name Seabass=Sebastian and 1964, which is Sebastian Copeland's birthyear, potentially indicate that the author of the content is the articles subject. Regardless there needs to be discussion about whether the subject of the article passes the BLP:notability guidelines and if it is notable enough to remove puffery to make article encyclopedic.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

When you see puffery, you can just remove it. Hit the edit button and delete it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean like that, it's like the fundamental structure of the article reads like a promotional leaflet, with massive lists of awards and photography exhibitions, it's difficult to know what to delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I gave it a preliminary trim. I agree that Seabass1964 is only here to promote Sebastian Copeland, and has done so single-mindedly for a staggering 7 years or more. If there is an admin reading this, perhaps they can block the user. The user was asked about COI five years ago on their talk page and did not respond.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Shiva0706

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote "Shiva Sharma" and his work. The user was asked to disclose his relationship to the subject, but there is no reply. GSS 💬 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Tyrone DuBose

Both users appear to have COIs and have been warned. Neither did anything about the warnings. One removed the COI tag from the article.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Rob Andrews

Resolved
 – The sockpuppet investigation has been completed. Thanks to all of the editors who helped. — Newslinger talk 21:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinated whitewashing campaign, almost certainly from a network of sockpuppets. Most of the accounts follow a similar username pattern and repeatedly remove mentions of Andrews's resignation (for alleged misuse of funds) from the lead section. I'll open a sockpuppet investigation with a more detailed analysis. — Newslinger talk 08:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sfj340sfeoem71 with extensive documentation of the suspected sockpuppets' editing behavior. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey Newslinger, Please correct you investigation information. You have in your investigation that IMme4u09 delted information, but that is not the case. Never deleted a comment, just moved to related section within page. Happy to chat more if anyone has any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMme4u09 (talk • contribs)

I have strived to make meaningful edits to the over 100 pages I have edited. In the future if you have an issue with me moving something, please feel free to contact me.

This is a biography of a living person and must represent only facts without bias. That is also why there is a talk page. Recently, a user purposely completely deleted the outcome of the event (which was that the FEC dismissed the complaint) and then moved only the mention of the complaint to the heading. That undeniably is very misleading. The facts of the articles are that there was a complaint by a watchdog group. That complaint was dismissed by the FEC. The articles also state that Andrews left office after accepting titular job at a firm. Everything else is speculative. The facts speak for itself, the FEC dismissed the complaint. If you feel that that you would like to remove those facts, please let me know how to file a complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMme4u09 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned at User talk:Newslinger § See talkpage, I wrote: "IMme4u09 removed information on Andrews's resignation from the lead section at Special:Diff/918085868." By moving the information from the lead section of the Rob Andrews article to a less prominent section of the article, you did indeed remove content from the lead section. Regardless of your intentions, sockpuppetry is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 18:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent work @Newslinger:. scope_creepTalk 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Habito

I think this article has a possible COI and notability issue, correct me if I am mistaken. Legend-dary (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not encouraging that a CU-confirmed sock (Virginialdo) is already lurking here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you help with COI sockfarm investigation?

articles (representative)

Evidence (diffs) has been requested at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RadyoUkay819. Looks like a possible paid editing operation; I have seen article creations dealing with models/pageant contestants, and aspiring singers. Bri.public (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I posted some information. Wearing my admin hat, there's enough behavioral evidence to sock-block, but there are possibly more I didn't yet uncover so I also requested CU there that may find more. This is not my topic area, so I can't comment on the COI aspect, just the SOCK aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks DMacks. There's a prior analysis at User:Bri.public/Beauty pageants which might be helpful here, I haven't really cross-checked yet so I don't know. When I put that together in 2015, I wrote "The pageant articles are so bad, it's hard to find a legitimate editor..."; unfortunately, this remains true. Bri.public (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I've nuked about 50 articles under G5. MER-C 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I started looking at the remaining articles. Just noting for now that someone claiming to be a pageant contestant started editing "her" article 48 hours after it was created by the sockmaster. - Bri.public (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Giada Pezzaioli was deleted after my g5 nom, for the third time – previously deleted in 2015 and 2017. - Bri.public (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
There is some evidence of the use of open proxies, so I've asked for a check. - Bri.public (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Random thought (not a serious proposal): would general sanctions help for this topic? MER-C 09:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The dreck continues. Anybody want to add Miss World Philippines 2019 and Michelle Dee to their watchlist?
I've said this before but I'll say it again. There is, in my opinion, a serious risk that nearly the entirety of Wikipedia dealing with attention-seeking subjects could go this way. Certain topics are currently protected by topic-specific, aggressive upholding of standards – such as MEDRS/WP:MED – and can maintain themselves. But will the rest become a moth-eaten COI-authored mess like the pageants and Indian film are today? The jury is still out on whether the sanctions around cryptocurrency are working; it might be the next lost cause. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I applaud the hard work our editors do scrubbing promotional content out. Sadly, until the readers grow sour on the Wikipedia brand due to the corrosive nature of CoI editing, there won't be sufficient article protection and editing prevention to stem the tide. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This piqued my interest and I've filed more stuff to this SPI, withdrawn (but probably viable with more research); and another. Without giving away too many clues for the baddies, I think there's one paid operation in the southeast Asia region, and another in the US Bay Area. Also a bunch of passionate fans who aren't big on reliable sources, so it's hard to sort out the actors. - Bri.public (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DevilBlack69 just turned up positive checkuser results for the following:
I've been whack-a-mole-ing at Miss Earth 2019, Miss Asia Pacific International 2018, Miss Asia Pacific International 2019, Miss World Philippines 2019; others are invited to help. At this point I'm convinced pretty much all the XXX 2019 pageant articles are messed up. The worst of the pervasive issues is the poor sourcing to Instagram, Facebook and YouTube as well as fan(?) blogs like normannorman.com. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, I opened a RSN case on beautypageants.indiatimes.com which itself states that it runs native advertising. I think that there is consensus to remove it everywhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack Peterson (filmmaker)

"Jack Peterson" is someone who was associated with the Incel community. In 2018, an IP editor hijacked teh article "Jack Peterson" which was a redirect to an unrelated person. Later, the page was renamed to "Jack Peterson (activist)]] although I am not sure what he was an activist for, having apparently left the incel community. Today new account Quad11 made substantial edits and moved the page to "Jack Peterson (filmmaker)". The sources used to support the claim that Peterson is now a filmmaker are IMDB, a site called "Reel Romp" and a site called "Film Courage". Reel Romp is a paid review service. Similarly, Film Courage charges $300 for a Q&A interview like the one used as a reference. Jackdiamond2080 has identified himself as "Jack Peterson". Peterson lives in Chicago. Several IP editors who geolocate to Chicago have edited the article. I have listed to recent and relevant ones only. I'm sure that "Jack Peterson is not notable as a filmmaker, but I am more concerned by the COI and bogus sources at this point. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've notified the users above on their talk pages of this discussion, per requirements.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no relation to the subject, but I reversed the changes based on potential lack of notability (?). Hopefully there's no issue now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This report was removed by Quad11, the subject of the report. I have undone their removal. If more evidence was needed that something nefarious was going on, you just got it. Bitter Oil (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a complicated article as it seems to have been mostly edited by the above users to a point where it would be hard to go back to an earlier version. I see you have posted this at ANI, so perhaps some blocks will happen via that forum.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what nefarious means in this context, but I reversed the changes with potentially false references if that was the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for investigating possible cases of conflict of interest. If you are named as one of the editors with a possible conflict of interest, it does seem fairly suspicious when you remove a thread with the argument it's resolved when the wider issue of whether or not you or other editors have a conflict of interest has not been addressed. This is not the reliable sources noticeboard after all so simply removing content sourced to potentially non reliable sources clearly does not solve the problem. Even in that noticeboard, the thread should still be left open in case there needs to be wider discussion over the use of that source. Also in most noticeboards threads should almost never simply be removed. At most, they should be archived. For most noticeboards (highly active ones like the ANs are an exception) it's often better to simply wait for time based archiving rather than selectively archiving threads you feel are resolved even if you are uninvolved in the discussion or dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I see you said "I have no relation to the subject" but this comment could be interpreted in different wayts. Could you comment on whether you have a possible conflict of interest? While you are not required to, you should at least read and try to comply with the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you have a conflict of interest. If your edit without following the guidelines, there's a very good chance your editing will be affected which could lead to blocks etc. Note that whatever the case, you do need to comply with the terms of use for this site and the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions". If you do not do so, you are prohibited from editing. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer, I'm not particularly well-versed in wikipedia editing so I'm just figuring this out as I go along. No, there's no conflict of interest (e.g. I'm not a paid editor or anything like that), I follow many film blogs so I'm interested in creating pages/editing pages based on films and filmmakers. As far as my deletion of the notice, I just wasn't sure how the system worked and was a bit confused, sorry about that.

Let me know if there's anything else I can address, like I said I reversed the changes on the page, and as far as conflict of interest is concerned I'm just a casual follower of film blogs/podcasts etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quad11 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Owen Spencer-Thomas

Every significant edit made by this user for over a decade has added material by Owen Spencer-Thomas, usually referenced to his own websites. Binglee seems to largely do the same. Guy (help!) 10:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

JzG please notified the editors you have named above as required (see the notice in red at the top of this page). Thanks Melcous (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I do not see any coverage on Owen in a search. Does WP:ANYBIO ("received a well-known and significant award or honor") allow his article to be kept, for the MBE medal? Otherwise I would say send to AFD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Ivor seems to be copyvio. User @Diannaa: is extraordiarly good at determining the facts on copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone above. Have nominated it for deletion. Edwardx (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Have started an AfD on Ivor Spencer-Thomas too. Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lee Toong Leon and Christinna Kuan

These five editors have been indef blocked as the result of this investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FishMara. The accounts are single-purpose accounts promoting these two minor Malaysian celebrities. I strongly suspect these accounts represent some kind of PR firm hired for the purpose. What should be done with the articles? Are the subjects notable enough to be kept? Peacock (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I quarantined Christinna Kuan in draftspace. MER-C 16:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Vietnam Friendship Village

Hello, I am seeking help as I have a conflict of interest in regards to the page posted. I am completing a digital rhetoric course and have taken on the Vietnam Friendship Village Wikipedia page as my working project. Its current page is heavily unsourced and features inaccurate information. I have attempted to solve this dilemma in my sandbox. I would love someone to take a look. Thank you. User:TylerBinghamNiagara/sandbox/Vietnam Friendship Village TylerBinghamNiagara (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia Procreative Writers

users

Hey guys, just letting you all know that there is a company called Wikipedia Procreative Writers that is selling Wikipedia entries (so to speak) and they're not disclosing their status on either the talk page or their user page. Pretty much anything written by the authors of any of the articles linked on their site were probably paid for. Their terms and conditions page is a little vague on what is guaranteed. Of note is that there is no mention of what they will do (or not do) if the page is deleted. It also makes it seem like they will post what the customer sends them as opposed to them writing the page. Some of the pages that have been posted are a little dubious as far as quality goes as well. I just wanted to pass this along. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone told them what "procreative" means? Anyway, will dig into this later today. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Even if you don’t meet the notability criteria and still want a wiki page for your brand, we [will do] that too" – indeed ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to call the first three articles listed there (H Collective...Ballard Spahr) as very unlikely paid. From a spot-check, they were all created by longtime editors with edits in multiple topic areas, so either they're really dedicated deep-cover socks or they're just taking credit for articles they haven't touched. Abel Cullum was created by a less-prolific editor (~700 edits), so is a bit more questionable, but they're extremely stale either way. creffett (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. They are advertising their work on their own site. There is no relation between the number of edits nor number of articles created nor the fact they have operated in number of areas that precludes them from being paid. It is also worth looking at User:E.M.Gregory who was recently indeffed blocked for being a sock. Admittedly that editor only signed on in 2014 but turned out to be sock. The editor wrote 624 article, 45k edits, has a GA to their name and operated everywhere, worked on every noticeboard. scope_creepTalk 00:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep, interesting, wasn't aware of that history. I'll concede it's possible that these were created by the company, just keep in mind that it's also possible that the company is claiming articles that it wasn't responsible for. creffett (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Creffett: Certainly, you just don't know. For me its a black box. scope_creepTalk 00:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, we've seen previously some paid editing companies advertise articles they didn't write. But these are still strong cues, last year we spotted two (probably many more) sockfarms when pulling the thread of advertised work. --MarioGom (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not take a look but I know of ample UPE-rings that had advertised articles, for which it were not responsible. Old tactics and most of the ones who are not noobs are very careful to not disclose their articles ..... ∯WBGconverse 15:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

On their website live chat they cited the following pages as examples of their work.

Can't quite tell if they are pages they have created, or they are simply citing random wikipedia pages as examples of their work (particularly in the case of the DJ Shadow page) Dexxtrall (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't dug into DJ Shadow yet (considering that it's from 2003, that's a lot of history), but if they're telling the truth about these, that suggests that Vandieou and Genxer66 are possible members of the farm - they created Linda Cooper and the Kinder pages, respectively, and were the primary contributors. Will add them to the pile. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding The H Collective, there was a WP:AN thread about that article and others. I replied here. Editors are completely welcome to review that article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Subverse Ltd

I noticed that this used have a very specific editing pattern that seem to indicate an association with the subject matter. It covers small edits to s number of articles. // Liftarn (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ch.Davis has only made eight edits in the past year, and they have largely been reverted. I would not worry about it. Good page to watch though.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Huh

Hello COI-people. Today I found the Campaigns and Elections article CAMPAIGNS AND GROUPS IGNORE WIKIPEDIA AT THEIR PERIL, it was quite interesting.

It mentions Draft:ACRONYM, and I quote CaE: "When ACRONYM suggests an edit we make sure to include a citation from a reliable source so that it’ll pass an auditing editor’s scrutiny, and you’d be wise to do the same."

So I looked at the edithistory, and then I looked at that editor's edithistory, and now I wonder: Could this be a part of a reasonably discreet sockfarm? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, are you planning to notify the editor you mentioned? TSventon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Tharnesbarp, that's you, do you wish to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Tharnesbarp pinging right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex Ferrari (filmmaker)

Olimila, who has 3 undeleted edits, updated the Alex Ferrari article with extremely promotional content recently including ® symbols. (Since reverted.) Despite saying [1] "I updated his entire biography and add new credits to better reflect the most updated information available on this entry" (emphasis added) in the edit summary, previously Olimila has signed in their edit summary and comment as Alex Ferrari [2]. Also their earlier comment seems to imply they are the author of content by a Patch user who also identifies as Alex Ferrari. What I also find weird is 2 days before this happened, Quad11 moved the page from Alex Ferrari (director) to Alex Ferrari (filmmaker) [3]. While the move itself is innocuous, the timing seems very suspicious. It's possible the move was noticed by whoever is behind Olimila noticed the move which triggered their edits or that Alex Ferrari is recently in the news somewhere which resulted in Quad11 visiting the article and Olimila. Or very coincidental timing. But particularly with #Jack Peterson (filmmaker) where questions were also asked about Quad11, I do wonder. I've asked Quad11 how they came across the Alex Ferrari article [4] but they haven't replied. Other than 11 minor edits early on, Quad11's other edits, and those mentioned, Quad11 tried moving 2 other articles although nothing happened there other than the moves being overturned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion seems like the quick answer. He does not seem notable, but I did not search in depth.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeffed Olimila. MER-C 16:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

International Council on Large Electric Systems

Melcous's talk page is on my watch list, so I caught this disclosure of paid editing and COI there, by an "official" of the company. Several other accounts have been added as they look suspicious and/or are clearly the organization. The article subject looks like a big deal, but not in terms of Wikipedia notability. I have AfD'd it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

NewtonX, Inc. Afd

An Afd has been held, the second one is weeks. The article references are atrocious. There has been several editors pushing against obvious evidence that the article fails WP:NCORP. This editor user:Carajou, who hasn't edited since last year (about 20 edits) and nothing since 2007 appeared this afternoon and came in at 3.23 to to use the exact argument as the other editors. Curiously he offered a search string https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=NewtonX&FORM=HDRSC6 which looks like a marker tag, possibly, to enable the quick addition of advertising or some article somewhere to support a keep vote in the Afd. Another editor user:Knox490 turned up exactly seven minutes after user:desmay. user:Renzoy16 is the paid editor who wrote the article. It seems to be the same arguments all the time. When I originally looked at the article I thought it was an obvious delete. Could be wrong. scope_creepTalk 21:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

They could be sockpuppets I suppose. Almost the same arguments in every one.scope_creepTalk 21:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Scope creep:, you need to notify users (see top of page) when they are discussed here. I had a look at the AFD and those users sound like they are prime material for an SPI. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I am a long time editor and if you look at my User page, you will see that I got a "Defender of the wiki barnstar". Regardless, I took a quick look at the various AfD votes and saw that the editors above voted differently on various issues and companies when it comes to AfD votes. Since I have been editing, I have never seen someone act as aggressively as User: scope_creep. He comments on everyone's comments in the AfD. I like to assume good faith and perhaps he is just having a bad day. Worst case scenario, he is working for a competing company. In addition, the AfD is pretty much a back to back AfD too which again is very aggressive (only 30 days later).Knox490 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment: The particularly disappointing aspect of Scope Creep's analysis is that there are overviews of the company given in some of those citations and they are from widely known business publications. They are not merely passing mentions. Therefore, the article does meet WP: Coredepth.Knox490 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep, you know that I’ve been around a lot longer than you on Wikipedia (since 2003) and you’re accusing me of sock puppetry and having COI? You do know that was the weekend here and editors can be online at similar times, right? Besides, I’m a regular in the AfD department and if you check our histories, we vote very differently on many AfD entries. What I find really odd is that you renominated this article for deletion one month after it already went through an AfD (something most experienced Wikipedia editors would know not to do). You also are commenting underneath everyone’s vote to push your POV and strong arm deletion for this article (which is quite well sourced). Perhaps you’ve started this discussion in order to conceal what is a very reasonable suspicion that you are being paid by a competitor of NewtonX. If so, you should disclose that now. Yes, I agree with Knox490 on this, not because I have a sockpuppet account, but because your opinion is actually in the minority (I’m sure you’re getting shocked at the idea of you being wrong in general). Accusing other editors who have been long time WikiGnomes of the same is also pretty amateur. Those accounts have been also editing for several years. If you’d like to embarrass yourself nonetheless because you think you’re always right, go ahead and file an SPI. You can enjoy living in an alternate reality for a little bit before the SPI closes. desmay (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I did inform everybody. That was first time I've put an Afd after it was no consensus, as the references were atrocious. This type of article, brochure articles for startups, was the primary reason WP:NCORP was put in place in the first place almost three years ago. If there was any inkling of notability it would have been left. I check all references when at Afd. scope_creepTalk 00:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Re the COIN discussion notifications, I do not see any on their talk pages. But it seems they are all here, which is good. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I missed a notification. Pc went south. scope_creepTalk 01:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
User:scope_creep, I agree that it was reasonable to start another AfD, but if the situation recurs I think it would be helpful to explain why the previous AfD was unsatisfactory in the nomination. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi @TSventon: I will do. That was first time I've ever did it. I always thought it was bad form in most instances to reopen any kind of second afd. But this time I thoughtit was so obvious that it was delete case, I figured by offering an examination of references against policy, everybody would see it was an obvious delete. I think due to the NCORP standards coming in about 2.5/3 years ago, it making these wee startups very aggressive in preserving their marketing on Wikipedia. Its the only explanation I've got. It is worth noting there is no analytics on how paid editors operate on Wikipedia as far as I know. The recent Rfa election has show that coi is continual worry for a large number of Wikipedia editors. scope_creepTalk 15:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I see the same argument of The nominator has set up a straw man used by Bmbaker88 in the Nextiva article, as was used desmay in the Newton X afd. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This needs more eyes - There is something strange going on here. For background, I've seen many of the names on the keep side of that AfD (including others not listed at the top of this thread) pop up in the same discussions, !voting the same way, several times over the past few years. In all other instances, however, it's always clearly been about a particular ideological alignment, and not -- at least that I've seen -- anything to do with paid editing. Made me stop and try to figure out what NewtonX could have to do with creationism, anti-atheism, or some other evangelical Christian cause.

Now that I look for it, though.... this isn't the first time these editors have turned up to do the exact same thing for one of Renzoy16's paid articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (4th nomination). There again are Renzoy16, Knox490, Desmay, 1990'sguy, and Bmbaker88 (the latter two I would add to the list above, and probably would not have included Carajou FWIW). Another time is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (4th nomination). I can't tell if Renzoy16 wrote that, but it's a co-founder of Nextiva, so at minimum there's a COI. In that one again is 1990'sguy, Knox490, Desmay, Renzoy16, Eliko007, and Bmbaker88 (!). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I can't add much here beyond saying that this AfD also made my spidey-senses tingle. @Renzoy16: unless I'm misreading something, I think the COI guidelines require you to disclose your paid editing whenever you discuss content you've been paid to edit. You didn't do that when you participated in this WP:AFD, and I would have missed it completely if it hadn't been pointed out by another editor. Looking at your contribution history, I note that you also didn't do that in this AFD for Nextiva, or this AFD for Tomas Gorny (the founder of Nextiva). These are both quite old, but I also notice that Desmay and Knox490 offered similar keep votes in those AFDs. Regardless of whether or not there's a COI for the other editors, the specious reasoning on !keep votes looks like the sort of thing that makes people think there's something fishy. If you want to avoid raising questions, please don't bombard people with indiscriminate lists of links containing passing mentions of corporations. Nblund talk 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Update AfD was closed as delete. Not sure what, if anything, there is still to do about the apparent COI issues here. @JzG: thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites, I echo Scope_creep's sentiments. I had problems with Carajou and Eliko007 in my own nominated AfD discussions—one or more of which is ongoing. They may or may not be sockpuppets, but are quite likely meatpuppets. One of the articles has since been deleted (Bridgewater Bank), but Shinhan Bank Canada is still open and it'd be helpful if an administrator could strike Carajou's comment from the record. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    That reason that I got was the 4 day attempt for a keep, the dodgy url, which I now know is a bing search url and the last editor who stated Since, *some* people didn't get it the first time; a paid editor watching it unfold over 4 days and coming in to rescue it. The whole pattern at Afd, in this instance is really unusual. scope_creepTalk 23:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    The Nextiva Afd delete sequence is also weird and almost the exactly pattern to try and stop its deletion. It was brought back for some reason after a delete and then the same arguments used used to get to a no-consensus. So it been recreated in Afc, then drafted out in mainspace. Five attempts have been made to delete it, with three delete votes and its still here. There is something weird going on. Here we go, Renzoy16 is recreated the article after deletion in Afc and then its been punted back into mainspace. No wonder it can't stay deleted. Is there some kind of limit to it:Talk:Nextiva. That process breaks the whole Afd and Afc process. scope_creepTalk 00:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yew Kam Keong Renzoy16 built this article, at Afd. Knox490 commenting at the Afd. scope_creepTalk 00:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Pierre Kiandjan

Pierre Kiandjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Howareyoutheyus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one is pretty simple. WP:SPA creates article on Pierre Kiandjan, SPA adds Pierre Kiandjan to as many lists as possible. SPA wastes time of other editors at AFD (see collapsed bits) with IDHT arguments. SPA denies COI. SPA is clearly WP:NOTHERE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Not that simple, actually. What you call "as many list as possible" are lists related to contemporary art that Kiandjan belongs to, regarding contemporary art magazines. What you call "wasting time" is sharing my concern and asking for explanations about the fluctuation and contradictions of opposite arguments while my arguments keep being steady and coherent amongst themselves. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC+1)
@ThatMontrealIP: SPA is blocked as spam-only account. – Athaenara ✉ 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hallelujah and thank you. This item can be closed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

David Sanders (gastroenterologist) + Creative Stream

User blocked as a sockpuppet, article deleted at AfD. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I am a fully disclosed paid editor and as of this morning I am representing the subject of the page. Just to give some background, I was contacted by Ant Clifford from Creative Stream. He has admitted to sockpuppeteering, undisclosed COI and copyvios, he apologises profusely and has agreed not to touch the page again. He contacted me after he attempted to edit the page and got a G12 slapped on the page. I have explained the content policies to him, particularly around copyright and N:POV and he is keen to bring his client's page in line with Wikipedia's content policies in the hope that this might save the page from deletion. Would it be possible for an editor with experience in this area to clean up the page so that it complies WP's content policies and remove the tags and G12 notice? Alternatively, would I be able to rewrite the offending content under the supervision of a more experienced editor? Essayist1 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Two accounts tried to edit the page recently, and one was blocked. Adding Jscreative to the list. Is that also your client? Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, yes I can confirm that Jscreative is my client. I'm not sure if they are the same person but they are from the same organisation. They have promised to cease their undisclosed paid editing, copyvios and sock puppeteering, and have expressed a willingness to play by WP's rules. I will be representing them from here on out. Essayist1 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The article (recently speedy deleted) was copyvio and involved UPE, sockpuppeting and now an above-board paid editor. These are all disruptive to the WP process in different ways. I don't see a reason to assist the (kind) paid editor to recreate it, and there is obvious COI if they Disclosed paid editor does it on their own. So all in all, this issue appears resolved.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually ThatMontrealIP my client acknowledged that they had made a mistake with the sockpuppetry, copyvio and UPE. Yes I am a disclosed paid editor, but to assume that I cannot rewrite the page without including copyvios and puffery is a flagrant breach of Wikipedia's WP:GF guidline. My client understands the value of good netizenship and wants to play by Wikipedia's rules going forward, even if that means having a minimal page which does not promote the subject. Essayist1 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, talk. Just to reiterate, I am a fully disclosed paid editor operating within the guidlines which your community came up with. I created the page in draft and submitted it through the AfC under a conflict of interest disclosure. Now the page is live I will not be editing it directly, I may make suggestions or post edit requests on my client's behalf from the talk occasionally. Your rules permit me to do so.

Also lets be real, the previous article was not a proper Wikipedia page, it was my client's personal website copied and pasted and rewritten in the third person. I don't want to see that crap on here anymore than you do, I don't just use Wikipedia for work, I use it for a lot of things, I want the encyclopaedia to be of the highest quality, so please don't make me out to be the bad guy in all this. I have made it clear to my clients that I am only willing to help them if they play by the rules. When they first fell into my orbit a couple of days ago they were totally clueless about WP, they didn't even know the people scraping their copyvios and sockpuppets off the wall were volunteers. No respectable PR firm wants their client to look like an asshole in one of the world's oldest and largest online community, they simply don't know how to interact on here, and no volunteers are willing to work with them. I don't know why you have taken so much umbridge to my presence here, I am engaging with previously disruptive users so you don't have to. You don't have to thank me but don't go accusing me of wrongdoing when I have complied with the rules that you helped create. Essayist1 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blac Chyna

This was a bad faith accusation made by a sock puppet, who is now blocked. It can be ignored.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Probably a case of undisclosed payments. Tacomanao (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

What? Tacomanao you are accusing a long-term editor of undisclosed paid editing with zero evidence and recent edits to the article that are generally tidying up and reverting vandals. This might be worth a read. Also, you are required to notify editors you name here, see the notice in red letters at the top of the noticeboard. Melcous (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have notified Stream5. Tacomanao, please provide evidence.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The contributions of Steam5 mostly all have a certain resemblance. Months ago I told him about this, and few days ago I also told him about his way of contributing. But, the user deletes the messages from his talk page and ignores them. Apparently he has a keen interest in having his username prevail in the revision history.—  Bradford  (Talk) 15:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Steam’s lack of communication aside, I don’t see how their edits indicate an undisclosed paid connection - just look at the net result of their changes [5]. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If there are problems in that article, they're probably more attributable to me than anyone else. I blanked most of the article in early 2018 and started a rewrite. From what I can tell, there hasn't been a whole lot of progress beyond what I wrote. And I can say that I certainly don't a COI – I never heard of Blac Chyna before I edited the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Listen, I did not make a COI. I was editing carefully and I avoid vandalism for a long time and sometimes I make mistakable reverts. I am extremely sorry. I am solving my own problem. I am 100% positive I did not make a COI. That's all. Steam5 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I already told Bradford and It's just "mistakable reverts" and I'm sorry for being rude to Bradford. I was extremely scared on the "You have new messages" for my disruption. I was scared from users by telling me on my talk page against me for my possible block and I deleted some messages my user's talk page and I was scared at that time. So, I am not ignoring messages until I finally tell the truth. Remember what I say, I am 100% positive that I am not involved with a COI and I avoid vandalism for a long time. Just to be truthful for my response. This my own only username to be honest and I was temporary inactive for small edits. Just to let you know for truthful and honest response. If you can resolve my problem that I am not involved. It will be resolved ASAP. OK? Thanks! Steam5 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Steam5, no need to be scared about anything here! Remember we are all just volunteers behind computer screens. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
This was a bad faith accusation made by a sock puppet, who is now blocked. It can be ignored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Save Ferris

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. – Joe (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user, who claims to be the band's "legal, sole owner" is removing all names of artists previously members or associated with the band. Ifnord (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing the typos, those who are incorrectly listed as “previous members”, as they were not previous members. As you will see, I’ve moved the names into different, more accurate sections, and added more names. So stop lying. Additionally, you caused my edits to be BLOCKED which included the names of more musicians that had a presence in my band. Again, so stop lying. User:NotAtrollLikeYou (talk) 9:57 pm, Today (UTC−4)
While COI editing is reportedly not prohibited it is strongly discouraged and from this point confusion reigns. The third paragraph of the lead states "COI editors should not edit affected articles directly, but should propose changes on article talk pages instead.". It also states editors "are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.", and the apparent owner makes this clear on the vast majority of edits by adding in the edit summary "I am the legal, sole owner of Save Ferris", "I am the owner, historian and only legal member of this band." (seen here). The talk page lists the subjects COI to the article and the subjects user page begins with "I’m the legal, sole owner of Save Ferris, the band, as well as the lead singer.". That page does include "Kindly leave MY band’s wiki page alone." referencing "trolls messing with my page, adding opinions or fake references, while deleting factual information, to satisfy ego-based conflicts of interest."
While COI editing is a concern a double standard should not be enforced by blocks when a COI editor "can edit with restrictions, but actually and likely cannot because they will certainly face blocks. Has there been COI editing that runs afoul of COI editing? Most likely and the editor (subject of this noticeboard and owner of the band) has repeatedly been warned on the talk page concerning COI editing and claiming Wikipedia:Ownership of content. The subject (owner of the band) has been advised on his talk page, under "Managing a conflict of interest", "Given your close connection with the band, you should not be editing the band's page.", thus the catch-22. A COI editor clearly should not edit an article when the edits are controversial such as when reverted or has received comments on the subjects talk page. I am leaving comments on the subjects talk page, directly related to a possible turn of events that results in continued controversial COI edits, even if the "owner of the band" does so in good faith. Otr500 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

George Birnbaum

Self promotion or communication agency . LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Carolyn Maloney

Carolyn Maloney is a member of the US House of Representatives and as such, runs for re-election every year. Holmes TC's editing history suggests there is some undeclared WP:COI happening here. Nearly all of their edits are to that article, are very pro-Maloney and edit in spurts roughly matching the election cycles. I left a COI notice on their talk page today and got a curt "I'm retired" [6] response back, which means nothing. The wonderful political silly season is starting, especially for primary elections, so I'd like to get some extra eyes reviewing this. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure i can parse the additions for correctness, but I do see they have a seven-year interest in editing largely just this article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ravensfire and ThatMontrealIP: SPA blocked. – Athaenara ✉ 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ed Massey

This is new article by a SPA. It was filled with external links in the text which are often found in promotional articles. I removed the ELs and added a possible COI tag. Vestasung removed the COI tag and left a message on the article TP saying they had read 50 articles on the subject and know that their WP article is neutral. MB 01:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What a massive piece of promotional puffery! I have trimmed 9K from the old version, but it needs more trimming. The SPA editor is engaged in a single-minded use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool. The "real name" that the user signs with here connects easily back to Massey's Portraits of Hope project. I note that many sources are reprints hosted on the article subject's press page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, ThatMontrealIP. Trimmed a bit. Still more to be done! Edwardx (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia

Piotrus is trying to remove a news article that thoroughly roasted his editing. 176.221.108.218 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The above is likely a comment by indef banned User:Icewhiz who got himself interviewed and harassed his opponents, even getting the hack who wrote this to include links to Encyclopedia Dramatica with outing and death threats content. Recommend speedy close and block. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You should have been shown the door long ago during EEML. Irrespective of whether the IP is Icewhiz or not (SPI is that-way), you have no business in getting editorially involved in a domain centered around you; that's textbook WP:COI and not very difficult to gauge, I guess. And, the optics of a (probable) second piece describing a Polish professor trying to whitewash his own deeds won't be great, either.[1]∯WBGconverse 15:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Before you accuse me of planning to harass you in RL or whatever, I am just alluding to the line at the introduction of our COI policy that warns of public embarrassment.
So you resort to WP:NPA violations while defending content added by editor who was indef banned for harassment and similar NPA attacks his IP sock (or some other sock). A very well reasoned and convincing argument, color me impressed... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Sir, stop being rude. I am not a smelly sock to put on your foot. Piotrus continues his conflict of interest edits: [7] [8]. Cleaning Wiki of press that is negative of Piotrus. 176.221.108.218 (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Whatever may be the case, Piotrus, the argument is true. You're fighting this story vigorously through the wrong means, and I told you that before. François Robere (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

* Natchez, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has a conflict of interest.

ADVOCACY

The editor is using Wikipedia “to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view.”

PROMOTIONAL EDITING

The editor has “a close personal or financial connection to the subject.”

On the editor’s User page, the editor states: "I am a major contributor to the Manzanar article. I am a member of the Manzanar Committee, and I served as a member of the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission, appointed by the US Secretary of the Interior, from 1994 - 2004." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the user (on their talk page) for you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I did that already; you may not have noticed because I placed my notification in an extant section, "Ownership." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
My user page fully discloses my work/relationship with the Manzanar National Historic Site. My work and scholarship on this article was the primary factor in it gaining Featured Article status (yes, others contributed, which I have noted on the article's talk page, but I did most of the work towards that end). My contributions are fully cited and backed up by a ton of scholarly research. In fact, I cited the article heavily, much more than a lot of articles to compensate for any perceived conflict of interest, and again, I freely admit that yes, I do have a connection to the site and I continue to work with them to this day. However, I deny and resent accusations that what I have written and/or contributed to this article has been anything but factual. It is not intended to promote the Manzanar Committee (this isn't a marketing piece). As for NPOV, this article hasn't changed significantly from when it earned Featured Article status, so I question the motivations of those accusing me of inserting biased material into this article. I'd like to know, specifically, what portions reflect bias/POV so I can respond to the accusations appropriately. Thank you. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I am looking for the community to declare a WP:COI here (or for the editor to so declare) so that the user will comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits to those articles. The editor also has a WP:ownership problem which could be cured by his refraining from making edits within the articles but instead discussing them first on the Talk pages of the articles where a conflict exists. It's not just Manzanar. (I've just added some additional articles at the top.) The user insists on calling these places "concentration camps" and adding adverbs like "unjustly." These are not facts; these are opinions. It wastes time to have to fight battles via WP:Edit summaries. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Looking at some of this independently, there does some to be good editing, but also a certain amount of overkill attributable to COI.` DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the terminology issue, the idea was to counter those who insist that the only concentration camps were the death camps operated by the Nazis. The fact is, as the article previously stated (with citations) that such camps existed long before World War II and after. Frankly, whether intended or not, the current efforts regarding this article, which might be well-intended, are already watering it down and doing a disservice to its readers and its based on the opinions of editors who do not have a sufficient knowledge base on this subject—this is not meant as an insult or to be disrespectful. Rather, I'm stating this because the article is being adversely impacted by those who do not have the expertise or enough knowledge to base their claims and that doesn't do anyone any good. As such, the article's educational value is declining, and it's apparent that this won't end soon. In good conscience, I can no longer be a part of what was a wonderful article. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have to say, bluntly, this is the most idiotic, disgraceful rules-lawyering application of WP:COI I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. By the logic on display here, every member of WP:GLAM should be hauled up for "COI"

Monique Morrow

Edit the article about herself. LaMèreVeille (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo

The user has been editing the article since at least 2010 and judging from user's edits, user has been pushing an anti-church agenda since then. More recently, all of user's edit exclusively focus on controversial aspects of the church. User abuses quotes from sources to circumvent BLP and neutrality policies.[9][10] User has been previously blocked for sock-puppetry related to the article.[11] User has previously disclosed COI (Redacted)

User's own comments in the article talk page[12] prove that user is the same person that made the blog comment. User has a clear bias against the subject of the article and is weaponizing Wikipedia to push user's own agenda. BadHombres (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

BadHombres, Did the user disclose that they wrote that blog somewhere on Wikipedia? You know about our WP:OUTING polcity, right? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I believed the comment did not contain any personally identifiable information. BadHombres (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Bri took care of it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Firstly, I don't have an agenda. To be perfectly honest, I could care less about La Luz del Mundo, and the same is probably true about most editors on Wikipedia. I will say though that if it wasn't for me, this page would be a one-sided, whitewashed account of the history of this organization. I'm not here to sling mud with editors, either. I'm here simply to ensure that no historical account of this organization is missed, and for the past ten years, worshipers of this organization who edit and "protect" their church page on wikipedia have been irked by that, and have repeatedly tried to permanently keep me from editing the page (for the record, I have NEVER vandalized that page, and have edited in good faith). Please stop. If you don't like how I write, you're welcomed to edit and give me some tips, and I'll gladly listen and collaborate. But if you dislike that I'm not promoting the church, then that's an irreconcilable matter of opinion. By the way, everything I've introduced to that article is sourced by dozens of news sources worldwide, especially in regards to the recent arrest of the director Naason Joaquin Garcia (i.e. "the Apostle of God") for 26 felonies including child pornography, human trafficking, and child rape. Google it.
Regarding the sockpuppet claims, I have only used 2 accounts on Wikipedia for the past 10 years, and I've stated that very clearly on my page. I've NEVER been sockpuppetting, I have no need for that, and that was why I appealed that decision because there was no concrete evidence (I asked that they check and compare IP addresses, which they didn't), only an opinion that resulted in a administrator making an ill-advised judgement call. Nevertheless, that was YEARS ago, and I'd like to move on. Badhombres, I also find it so odd that you would pick up on such a fine detail about me in such a quick matter of time.
Anyway, I'm happy to answer any questions and further discuss this new conflict of interest concern.
Respectfully, RidjalAbdullah (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty tired of these antics. I also just read something else, I don't know if it has any relevance, but it might be worth looking into (from WP:COI): "Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline." RidjalAbdullah (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: In spite of this, I wouldn't want any of these people to be banned. I actually enjoy working together, but I just dislike that they keep trying to ban me. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


It was the user who added the megalomaniac quote,[13] and only modified it after I removed the sentence and explained the rationale in the talk page.[14]
User has described their role as some sort of unsung hero exposing this religious organization and fighting against church members. The truth is there has been relatively few edits by obvious church members to the article. Evidence of user's COI can be seen in the user's own quotes:
  • I will say though that if it wasn't for me, this page would be a one-sided, whitewashed account of the history of this organization.[15]
  • The leadership in LLDM wants to appear grandiose, and I'm merely keeping them on check (like the completely spurious notion that SJF is a "doctor" for having received a doctorate degree from CIHCE[16]
  • This subsection deals more with the denial of a public service (a building permit) rather than some controversial topic that the church is trying to keep a tight lid on.[17]
  • I should point out that we should be aware that this page will be subject to vandalism, and that it will manifest itself in its various blatant and discreet forms.[18]
  • there's still plenty more that hasn't been publicized yet, like the special privileges afforded to the royal family descendants, I wont go into detail but it entails exclusion and immunity from the doctrine SJF preaches[19]
  • I wouldn't doubt that someone was formally designated as a Wiki-editor by El Apostol de Dios.[20]
User has repeatedly abused quotes to circumvent Wiki policies and push a highly negative POV. Below are examples of user's edits:
  • The Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra states that the church has "brainwashed" families, and he even hesitates to call La Luz del Mundo "a church".[21]
  • and described Samuel Joaquin as "a megalomaniac."[22]
  • Samuel Joaquin Flores "has been taking his vacations at [this] lavish ranch... built in part on the labor and tithings of his fanatically devoted minions."[23]
  • The church is also planning to build similar "mega cities" in El Salvador and Costa Rica.[24]
  • Researchers assert that "the wealth and publicly known political connections of the sect with Mexico’s most powerful political party help explain the impunity with which this and other alleged human rights violations have occurred for decades."[25]
User has sought to intimidate other editors who don't share user's negative view toward religious organization. This can be shown by the quotes below:
  • I should also state that if anyone tries any of this funny stuff again (i.e. fluffing up the LLDM wiki page with useless information, and using PhD theses to back it up), then you will be banned from editing on wikipedia.[26]
User tried to introduce copyrighted image of organization's leader in inmate jumpsuit to further imply culpability.[27] User has been around long enough to understand copyright policies.
User misrepresented 2008 source to claim that "However, the zoo has never been open to the public, which goes against IRS regulations prohibiting nonprofit organizations from benefitting the personal wealth of anyone."[28] User deliberately fails to mention that the source states that as of 2008 the facility was under construction and would open to the public when completed.
User may argue there were no sockpuppets but fact is user was banned for sockpuppetry pushing a negative POV on the article. A review of user's edits shows that they seem to exclusively focus on the Controversy section. Virtually all of user's edits in new account have focused on pushing a negative POV on the Controversy/Criticism section while undermining the Discrimination/Intolerance section.[29] For someone who claims not to care about the article, user has spent nine years pushing a consistently negative POV of the article's subject. BadHombres (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you've really gone to great lengths to try and ban me. You guys get better and better every time. I think you've made it pretty obvious to everyone that you're either a) a paid editor for the church, or b) a La Luz del Mundo faithful. I have no issue with you helping me improve my editing, and I appreciate that we can collaborate together on the page. I hope we'll be able to get back to balancing the page together.
Respectfully, RidjalAbdullah (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Please let me know if there's any other information you need from me.RidjalAbdullah (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


(*sigh) I'm just going to lay out my point of view even though I'm pretty annoyed at having to do this again and again and again, year after year. Sorry in advance if there are any typos or issues with my editing style in this response.
First off, isn't it odd that Badhombres hasn't disclosed that they are almost exclusively editing on the article in question, save for a few edits on the Jorge Erdely wiki article, Erdely is enemy #1 of the church for being the first to publish about the institutionalized sexual abuse back in the 90's. What is BadHombres's intention?
I'm not dismissing the possibility that this is a bad faith COI claim, and because of patterns in their behavior (not being forthcoming about their intentions on Wikipedia, going to great lengths to conceal or downplay the content in the controversy section and block unfavorable sources, and indefatigable attempts to get the Wikipedia community to block me permanently) that Ajaxfiore[[30]], Fordx12, and Badhombres are sockpuppets of the same person. I've included evidence below.
Let me also preface this all by making my purpose on Wikipedia perfectly clear and as transparent as possible:
The controversy section, of which I was one of the first contributors back in the day, isn't perfect, but it has been a community effort consisting of me writing a lot of the "controversial" content (i.e. reports of sexual abuse, "the Apostle's" lavish living, etc), and members of the Wikipedia community helping me to improve on things like what to include and what not to include, and some syntax and style issues. But never has anyone repeatedly tried to ban me except for Ajaxfiore, Fordx12, and BadHombres.
The controversy section had been improving for quite some time (2010-2012). This changed when these three editors came to the scene, and Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 in particular worked diligently for several years to expand the favorable history of the organization (i.e. "the role of women" where it talked about women potentially gaining some leadership roles within the organization), and at the same time dilute the controversy section, or worse, erase entire swaths of content (i.e. downplay research that the church has for decades systematically abused underage girls, and their elaborate and repeated attempts to block the research of an anthropology professor and her colleague who documented these cases of abuse (notice how one third-party editor gets irked by Ajaxfiore's inability to accept opinions that don't align with his own)
I removed myself for six years (2013-2019), which should have allowed ample time for other folks to chime in, edit, and introduce new content to the controversy section (DEFINITELY not COI on my part). During that time, the controversy subsection should have expanded, but instead it has been systematically obscured beyond recognition by these 3 editors, and abandoned by everyone else in the Wikipedia community (save for vandalism protection). Six years have transpired, and no one on Wikipedia has bothered to curate it, so I brought myself out of retirement. I'm not a hero by any measure, just an editor interested in providing truth and balance to that page. I will reiterate, I am doing the work that no one else wants to do by writing in the controversy section, and again, is not a COI issue simply because I disagree with these three folks. All I intend to do is to help ensure that this minute matter of history is not missed or misconstrued. That is all.
In regards to my counterclaim of bad faith COI and sockpuppetry by BadHombres, Ajaxfiore, and Fordx12, here are some significant diffs (there are more, but I'm just too annoyed to have to go through all of them at this point, but I'm including a few important ones) that demonstrate how the controversy section has been slowly been chipped away at, and its sources misconstrued by these 3 editors. I've had to work carefully to rebalance it:
[1]: On Oct 9, 2019 I changed one of the subtitles in the controversy section from "Status of church leaders" to "Glorification of church leaders" to better match its source's contents, and because as I explained in the diff, the title is too vague! Whoever wrote the "Status of Church Leaders" title was clearly trying to downplay a well sourced fact which sets it apart from many other religions, namely that worshipers of this organization glorify the church directors. Plain and simple. There has been a back and forth between BadHombres's preferred subtitle and mine, but Badhombres was weirdly attached to the more vague version of the subtitle. I invited them to chat, but I assume they felt like they were out of excuses, they never clarified why they thought I was wrong, and instead went off, like Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 use to do back in the day, about why they believed that I had a conflict of interest and attempted to intimidate me and get me banned. I don't know about you, but I don't think this is the most constructive way to collaborative, and it seems rather strange that there is no interest in collaborating, only intent to block me. Just so strange.
[2], here you can see what the section on Silver Wolf Ranch looked like (Silver Wolf is a private exotic zoo that the church director's family owns), and [3] what it looked like after these people tried to censure and obscure the original source by simply "rewriting" its contents without giving a proper explanation. The title was also changed in BadHombres fashion from "Silver Wolf Ranch" to "Wildlife Refuge and Sanctuary" [4]. They essentially swept the main source under the carpet and swapped the point of the story.
Seeing that I was gone and no longer an obstacle, Ajaxfiore deleted it altogether [5].
Five years later, BadHombres strangely brought back a watered down version of that exact same controversy [6], this time titled "Wealth Inequality" (again, vague title, and misconstruing the source that states that the church director's family lived lavishly). By that standard then, can we change the "Rape Accusations" subtitle to "Gender Inequality"?
That's all I've got to say for now. Please let me know if you need more information. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
User continues to peddle conspiracy theory that any editor who does not share their contentious views must be one of the church's "fanatically devoted minions." User failed to mention that I authored the two Controversy section which now user seeks to weaponize.[31][32] I have also authored edits unfavorable to the church.[33][34][35][36] User has demonstrated a sense of ownership of article and continues to wage imaginary war against the church and its host of imaginary editors. Clearly user has a COI against the church which manifests itself in insidious, disruptive editing. BadHombres (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
User also failed to mention initiating a sockpuppet investigation against the two editors mentioned here which was closed due to lack of evidence.[37] Yet user continues to push debunked myths in order to portray themselves as lone warrior saving the world from the church's propaganda. BadHombres (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, BadHombres is now flat out lying about their neutrality. The user calls those diffs "unfavorable" edits? The user was merely reigning in a tiny bit of wild claims circulating in the article (like the fact that, among other things, someone claimed that the church had 7 million members, and the user corrected them by saying that " 7 million is an outlier unsupported even by official church numbers" [see their Diff 46]). That's not unfavorable, that sounds pretty neutral to me.
Secondly, the user is lying about the controversy sections that they claim to have authored. In fact, one of the controversy sections that BadHombres claims to have authored was a miscaracterized version of what I had written years ago, and the other was a vague representation of a controversy titled "Status of Apostles", which I later changed to "Glorification of Apostles", which is more accurate but user refused to collaborate with me in the talk section, and instead opted to try blocking me (see my responses above regarding Diff 1 through Diff 6).
User also keeps bringing up a "fanatically devoted minions" quotation. This a quote from this news article http://www.luz-delmundo.com/news/divine-retreat-light-of-the-world.php, but user keeps attributing it to me to make an ad hominem attack.
It should also be noted that user has proceeded to remove content from the controversy section as we speak. This is yet more counterevidence of bad faith editing, given that if there is an open COI investigation and counterinvestigation, good faith would suggest that there be a moratorium on editing from both sides until this is resolved.
It's pretty evident that user is not being honest, and has no interest in collaborating with me and therefore should be blocked for bad faith COI. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, user should read my entire previous response above (the long one) so that they avoid sounding like a broken record. I would NEVER claim to be some lone warrior. I clearly said "I'm not a hero by any measure, just an editor interested in providing truth and balance to that page. I will reiterate, I am doing the work that no one else wants to do by writing in the controversy section". It's been 6 years since I went on hiatus, and no one else has improved the controversy section, except the two pro-church editors Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 who have quietly proceeded to obscure and eventually delete a huge chunk of it (again, see my diffs in my long response above), which is exactly what you're doing right now [1],[2][3] in an egregious act of bad faith.
And in regards to that closed sockupuppet case with insufficient evidence, that was many many years ago, and I completely forgot about that. Nevertheless, time has given us a good amount of big data on the three editors in question (Ajaxfiore, Fordx12, and BadHombres), enough to see similar patterns, and enough to warrant a new case. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP I know the conversation got sidetracked but I'm convinced user's COI as laid out here is the root of these disputes. I was hoping for a COI determination based on the evidence presented, but if you believe DRN is a better avenue for resolving this matter, then I'll take it there. BadHombres (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
BadHombres, I'll gladly wait for the DRN. ThatMontrealIP, thanks for your time. RidjalAbdullah (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Stalking and ad hominem

User:Bacondrum has repeatedly accused me of being here having an axe to grind. Some of the accusations they used in Talk:Call-out_culture: "grind an axe about feminists or the alt-right", "attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy", " recuse yourself from editing political pages" (nevermind that Call-out culture is not particularly political), "pushing partisan right-wing politics", "[I] post fringe conspiracy guff".

They even stalk me around in Wikipedia, looking at my contributions intent to reverting anything they could find, despite the page not being on their radar (eg: The Manipulated Man).

They first arrived on the scene reverting my change including claims from Jonathan Haidt in Call-out culture, totally disregarding the consensus of its inclusion in the Talk page.

I'm afraid they will continue to harrass me. Not that it would stop me from contributing to Wikipedia. Looking at User_talk:Bacondrum you can see they got recently banned for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Since this user has had a track record of such behaviour, how do you advice that I proceed?

- Sridc (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Administrators Noticeboard - Incidents and open a case there. This user has a long history of behavioral problems that have been met with increasingly lengthy bans. And they mostly arise from the same few articles. DeRossitt (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I posted it there. - Sridc (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

COI Query: Transcribing?

Hello all, I have a question. If this is the wrong place, I apologize. I am working as a paid media consultant (all disclosed, all good) on proposing some edits to an article. When the editors make their decision about what edits are OK, would it be within the rules to offer to pay a Wikipedian to transcribe the approved edits using the appropriate wiki coding? I'm sure you've heard that it's a bit daunting for non-coders to do correctly. No substantive changes at all, simply paying someone for their time in executing the approved edits using the correct codes/style. I would imagine if they disclose "paid" on their talk page it should be cool, but want to make no assumptions. Thanks for your time! CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

@CharlesGlasserEsq: No. That editor would then also be acting as a paid editor and therefore should not edit the article directly. I hope that there are no Wikipedians in good standing who would accept such an offer. – Joe (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Joe (talk) Thanks much for the advice. I would never ever do something like that without checking first and am grateful you cleared it up. Thanks again, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Brindabella Christian College

Blocked. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User seems to be a paid employee representing their own organistation on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6e00:e27:fe00:6099:559f:49e9:220f (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revolve NTNU

User:Tehrafi has twice replaced the entire article Revolve NTNU with unreferenced spam-like content has been warned for COI editing but has so far ignored the warning. Tknifton (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fernando Sulichin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Sulichin

I wrote this page and submitted it with one of my sock puppets.

Look who moved the draft into main space.

Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.251.229 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Manoli Olympitis

I came across the article after discovering suspected paid editing on articles including a now-deleted article about the subject's spouse. Article was created years ago by a WP:SPI; shortly after prodding this, article was edited by an IP and new account with no other edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru and possible anti-tobacco-organization COI

Zero credible evidence presented for claims. Making vague and baseless conflict-of-interest accusations is probably not the best way to resolve a content dispute. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

QuackGuru has violated consensus many times regarding editing in the E-Cig topic area. He aggregates media reports and regularly puts scientific objectivity to the side, preferring emotional anecdotes instead. I have not had as much contact with him as other editors have (who will hopefully chime in), but I feel he clearly is trying to advance an agenda Mfernflower (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Diffs showing the claimed behavior, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Please submit your evidence or withdraw your claim. Bear in mind you have been notified of the sanctions. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There are many issues with this editor (lots of which include rewording prose to appeal to emotion) but one large example is that a image was removed from [article] only to then reappear in a sub article of the main article that it was removed from Mfernflower (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not evidence of a COI. Please strike your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Consistently appealing to emotion and rewording material to push an agenda despite editors warning you not to is warranting of a COI investigation (at least in my eyes) Mfernflower (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mraz

This individual persistently adds content to Wikipedia articles, almost exclusively using the bare pmid citation, always to primary research, and the work cited always includes "Mraz, M" as author. This has been going on since at least 2012 through multiple warnings and blocks. Guy (help!) 10:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Darden Smith

Standard COI issues. Would appreciate more eyes on this, as messages to the user's talk page haven't yet gained traction. 2601:188:180:B8E0:98D5:49D5:77CF:4F59 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Karldmartini

Tumi luggage in aluminium
Dolce & Gabanna Sorrento sneaker animation

Karldmartini keeps inserting images into articles that several editors believe are promoting www.karlmartini.com -- Karldmartini's photography studio. before I take this to ANI, I would like opinions on whether these edits are indeed promotional or whether I and his other detractors are overreacting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I did not realize that self-promotion might be involved although that would explain why someone would go to a lot of trouble to create complex animations. I explained at the user's talk that an animation like DNA has encyclopedic value while a rotating shoe does not. If promotion continues, ANI might be required. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly see the appeal to Karldmartini. He creates an image of a rotating shoe or a rotating suitcase. He tries to sell it to the website that sells the shoes or suitcases. If it sells, he retains the copyright. If it doesn't sell, it has zero commercial value to anyone else so he releases it under a compatible license and puts it on a Wikipedia page. His talk page comments and edit comments make it clear that he thinks he is doing a good thing by giving us these images, and I have no reason to question his motives.
The problem is that the images are inherently commercial and add nothing of value to the pages he adds them to.
What I would love to see is for Karldmartini to create a new image and add it to our Austin transformer page, which lacks any free image of an Austin transformer. Non free images that he could use as models are easy to find: Just Google "Austin ring transformer" and click on the images tab. Now that would be a great addition to the encyclopedia! There are dozens of other articles which could really use his skills. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not seeing COI per se; the choice of brand seems to be fairly random. What I do see are some really irritating images. When place inline in articles, these are very distracting to the main content. The motion does not serve a purpose. I already know what the other side of a suitcase or shoe looks like. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I would also note that he has added his images to the French and German wikipedias[38][39] and that someone else added one to the Japanese wikipedia[40] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Karldmartini, might I suggest a compromise? I propose that you continue to put your images on Commons (other websites use them; look at [41] and [42] and search for "Karldmartini"), that you also post non-animated versions on Commons for people who like the image but not the rotation, and that instead of adding the images to Wikipedia articles you post a notice on the article talk page saying "If anyone is interested, there are animated and static images of Shoe X at [link] and [link]." That way, editors who are not the creators of the images and thus have no possible COI will decide whether to add the images to the articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Karldmartini is a spammer that still doesn't understand after four years?! I don't know why this has been tolerated for so long. I agree with Guy Macon: stop adding images to articles, provide non-animated alternatives, and let people know they're available by commenting on article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Karldmartini's editing history, roughly once per month he logs in, adds a number of his spinning images, then goes away for a month or two -- presumably driven by how many customers decide not to buy his images. Normally I would wait until the person we are discussing replies, but we have already seen on User talk:Karldmartini his reaction to my proposal; agree to do it,[43][44] then continue his behavior as if we never had the discussion.[45][46] Because of this behavior, and because of all of the other warnings by other editors on his talk page that had zero effect, I am now going to take this to WP:ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Karldmartini. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy, You made a compromise offer on Friday and just now revoked it and decided to take it to WP:ANI. I have been away at a wedding all weekend so just seeing this this morning. A few points from myself...I don't have a URL to my website on my profile page. I removed it a long time ago to dissuade the very accusation that I am self-promoting. If I put any animation on wikipedia it is specifically because it was not sold and therefore of no use to me. Guy does have a point though...I did agree to firstly suggest they be added to "proposed changes' and yes, I did break this rule...quite flagrantly it seems! You may not believe me but I completely forgot about it. It was in May. It is now October. Although I did look back and I did ask for an animation to be added to the Brooks Sports page back in May. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brooks_Sports Karldmartini (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that you agree to:
  • Feel free to put your images on Commons if you want to.
  • Agree to also post non-animated versions on Commons for people who like the image but not the rotation.
  • No longer add any images that you have created to Wikipedia articles in any language
  • Instead of adding the images yourself post a notice on the article talk page saying something like "If anyone is interested, I have created animated and static images of X and letting editors who are not the creators of the images and thus have no possible COI will decide whether to add the images to the articles.
?
If you agree to the above, I think we can close this and the related WP:ANI report as being resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Karldmartini is going to get archived with no action taken. If anyone has a problem with this, now is the time to got to ANI and speak up. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Chris.sherlock declaration of interests

Please see the following declaration of interests. It would be nice if there was a central place to register this, but this will have to do. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, What is the COI for? All I see is that you have been editing some fish articles. Do you mention your friend's company int he actual articles?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dee Barnes article

Hello. I noticed a few changes to the article for Dee Barnes by a user called User:Ddbarnes15, who didn't seem to be editing any other articles. The edits were not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy (e.g. putting URLs in the middle of the article). After some edits from other users were reverted very quickly, I decided to raise this topic politely on the user's page. The response states that they are a team who are working with Dee Barnes, which is a conflict of interest. I put the banner on the article for Dee Barnes to say that there is a connected contributor, namely User:Ddbarnes15 and I gave the URL as the talk page where the discussion took place. The user reverted the change straight away. I feel that is crossing the line into manipulation of Wikipedia for personal benefit, so I'm reporting it here. Epa101 (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick action on this. I've noticed that the user made another edit after being told to refrain from editing the page any longer. I've undone that. If Ddbarnes15 does this again, I'll go to the Arbitration page and request a sanction. Epa101 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The user has ignored all instructions, so I have now made an arbitration request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ddbarnes15 Epa101 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Epa101, uh, going to the arbitration committee was a bit much as a first step, and this wasn't really a discretionary sanction issue. Looks like the user in question has been blocked, but next time, go to WP:AN/I, that's a more appropriate venue for this kind of issue. creffett (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why this wasn't a discretionary-sanction issue. It seems like one to me. I'm sorry if I went down the wrong path. To work out what to do, I typed into Ecosia "Wikipedia request a ban" and used the first page that came up. If this happens again, I'll use WP:AN/I. Epa101 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Black Cube

Several editors appear to have been patrolling and manipulating the article for Black Cube, the private intelligence agency known for its work for Harvey Weinstein, among other things. They've all almost exclusively or exclusively made edits related to Black Cube, and glancing through examples, they seem to be trying to whitewash its reputation. I've given them all Template:Uw-paid1 notices and tagged the article for a neutrality review, but I wanted to share here since this seems like a fairly coordinated effort and it's dealing with an entity that has experience manipulating information, so some extra scrutiny is probably warranted. Sdkb (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sdkb, when you mention a user account here, they need to be notified on their talk page, as described at the top of the page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I previously gave them all Template:Uw-paid1 notices and linked from the Black Cube talk page, but I just added COIN notices as well to be safe. So far, it doesn't seem like anyone has taken a stab at addressing the actual issues introduced to the article page. Sdkb (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Besnik Sulaj

User:AnxFab created Besnik Sulaj, a non-notable businessman, a BLP zero effective sources. I reviewed it via NPP and reverted it back to the redirect per policy. Then spoke to the editor and moved it to Draft, which they promtly moved it back into mainspace. The editor seems to be desperate to keep it there. It has been speedied but will be removed. It is promotional. scope_creepTalk 10:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProfessionals Inc

Not sure where to post this, but I recently received SMS spam Interested in a WikiPedia Page? We can help you create one. with a link that ends up on https://wikiprofessionalinc.com/ . (There were additional numbers in the URL path, which I am choosing not to disclose here.) This might herald an increase in paid editing. They claim to be following Wikipedia notability guidelines, but their FAQ answer on Q: Is Wiki Professional Inc. affected by Wikipedia’s policy on paid editing and other related bans? does not inspire confidence.

They list testimonials that apparently correspond to: Kader Abdolah, Sam Alvey, Delyan Peevski, PokerStars, Dechert

Bovlb (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bovlb, thanks for letting us know. I can't find the page right now, but we have a listing somewhere of known organizations like this, and that Q&A about paid editing is identical to a known group. We'll take a look at the articles you linked, but fair warning: we have seen these organizations claim to have worked on articles but we don't see any evidence of them having done so (presumably they're making themselves look good by claiming good Wikipedia articles). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It's WP:PAIDLIST, and this outfit is listed. Thanks for reporting it.
Also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 133#WikiProfessionals, apparently has a superset of this can of spam articles. Bri.public (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Barbara Fredrickson

In 2014, WeijiBaikeBianji added a COI template to the article Barbara Fredrickson based on the editing history by Annfire, the creator of the article and an apparent single-purpose account (see Special:Contributions/Annfire). This year, in May 2019, Annfire returned to the article and removed information about an important academic retraction. --JUN1U5 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits and watched the page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FIDE

Article FIDE is being edited by User:Davidllada. (Redacted) I have no special complaint about the edits he has made, but perhaps some formal acknowledgement should be made that he has a conflict of interest. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Since he has no talk page, is there some way for me to notify him that I have started this discussion? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: I have contacted the editor to notify them of this discussion. Generally, you can create an editor's talk page yourself by clicking on the editor's redlinked (talk) page, just as you would with a redlinked article. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: Hi! Yes, I do work for FIDE, and noticed that this entry was quite outdated, missing a few relevant changes that happened over the past year (like, having a new President after 23 years, or the fact that Agon no longer has rights over the world championship). I was as open as possible: I registered an account under my full name, and I carefully reported all the minor changes I made. I believe they are all informative and not opinative, and I tried to be as accurate as possible. By the way, somebody (I think it is you) keeps changing the name of our organization to "Fédération Internationale des Échecs". I would like to point out that the official name is "International Chess Federation". This was ratified at the Q2 Presidential Board meeting held in Baku, July 2019. Two other people apart from me have already pointed out this. I don't think it is correct that I revert any of your edits (THAT would be a conflict of interest), but I would kindly ask you to revert this one. davidllada (talk)
I have added a "connected contributor" template to the article talkpage. It would be helpful if davidllada could add a "UserboxCOI template" to their talkpage per WP:DISCLOSE. Edwardx (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually I believe that the {{paid}} template is the appropriate choice in this case. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I now see that I should only have used this notice board for "repeated ... over an extended period" problematic edits. I jumped the gun, partly because I had forgotten that I could create that editor's talk page myself.
The editor has ceased editing the article, and I have had a conversation with him, about the article and about COI generally, on his talk page. I do not expect that he will make problematic edits in the future (based on the conversation). Bruce leverett (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moriba Jah

The author of much of the article is clearly Moriba Jah. Twice under his username, and the bulk of the edits under two IP addresses associated with Austin, TX (where Jah resides), which have both only contributed to Jah's page (since 2009). The page itself has many unsourced anecdotes that are inconstant with a wikipedia biography.

I poked around just a little, looked at a couple of references, and some history. I added a PDF reference location identification. I am put-off that the creator removed tags, specifically the COI tag, with the edit summary "removed tags - I created this page and do not know the subject.". The comments above mention the subject of the article and and IP editors and the tag states "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.", not (that I can see) that the creator is the subject of the COI. I stopped looking before identifying if there is inappropriate COI editing by a user with the same name as the subject but the IP's are suspicious. Removing the tag may have been in good faith but it comes across as page protection actions.
The main reason for my pause: In any normal discussions it is important to sign comments. In cases here I should not have to pillage through the edit history in attempts to see where comments originated from. If there are even hints of impropriety, especially accusations towards another, this should be a mandate here and at other Noticeboard reporting. Otr500 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael W. Doyle

The article is essentially the work the single-purpose account Olenajennings and a series of IPs belonging to Columbia University, the subject's employer. Olenajennings appears to have an employer/employee relationship with the subject. Peacock (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Major League Lacrosse

Keeps editing against consensus and sources in a promotional way. Was warned back in June 2019. oknazevad (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Doug Davis (businessman)

This article has been a COI/promo magnet over the years. The latest user, user:ChocolateBabkaGirl, has made 31 edits since 2015 and their only substantive edits have been to this page. The editor has declined to disclose any COI. Loksmythe (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Now adding user:KnittingQueenKY, another editor with sparse edit history who has intervened. Loksmythe (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Also adding the page Jeff Rabhan, which both of these users have edited. Loksmythe (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I have just gave a quick read of the article. As written, it is among the most flowery articles I have seen. Otr500 (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_151&oldid=1065252150"