→Abdulhaseebatd: Added my comment |
→Abdulhaseebatd: removed signatures, to avoid any confusion. Plus rep to billed mammal |
||
Line 605: | Line 605: | ||
:: {{Ping|BilledMammal}} Please clarify which image you're talking about? Up to date I've uploaded 4 images, all downloaded from internet, I can search and provide links of all images as well. [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|Abdulhaseebatd]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 10:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
:: {{Ping|BilledMammal}} Please clarify which image you're talking about? Up to date I've uploaded 4 images, all downloaded from internet, I can search and provide links of all images as well. [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|Abdulhaseebatd]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 10:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Apologies, I was mistaken. I thought it was you who uploaded that image, when it was a another user, who is likely the same user who added it to the article as an IP. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
:::Apologies, I was mistaken. I thought it was you who uploaded that image, when it was a another user, who is likely the same user who added it to the article as an IP. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 11:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::No problem man, we all humans make mistakes. This isn't something strange to us 🙂. Have a good day. [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|☢️ Radioactive 🎃]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*Earlier creations of [[Zaid Ali]] were done by {{noping|Umais Bin Sajjad}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umais_Bin_Sajjad&diff=808039272&oldid=805369690] and {{noping|SheryOfficial}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=857031802&oldid=855841619] both users are blocked for socking + undisclosed COI. SheryOfficial also uploaded image "[[File:Shaveer Jafry's Photo.jpg.]]"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=prev&oldid=855841619] while Abdulhaseebatd uploaded [[File:Shahveer Jafry.jpg]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abdulhaseebatd&diff=1031268307&oldid=1030891377] Just like SheryOfficial,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=855737868&oldid=855080118] Abdulhaseebatd also worked to promote [[Shaveer Jafry]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1030642645] This user seems to be a part of paid editing sock farm. [[User:Editorkamran|Editorkamran]] ([[User talk:Editorkamran|talk]]) 04:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
*Earlier creations of [[Zaid Ali]] were done by {{noping|Umais Bin Sajjad}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umais_Bin_Sajjad&diff=808039272&oldid=805369690] and {{noping|SheryOfficial}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=857031802&oldid=855841619] both users are blocked for socking + undisclosed COI. SheryOfficial also uploaded image "[[File:Shaveer Jafry's Photo.jpg.]]"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=prev&oldid=855841619] while Abdulhaseebatd uploaded [[File:Shahveer Jafry.jpg]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abdulhaseebatd&diff=1031268307&oldid=1030891377] Just like SheryOfficial,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SheryOfficial&diff=855737868&oldid=855080118] Abdulhaseebatd also worked to promote [[Shaveer Jafry]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1030642645] This user seems to be a part of paid editing sock farm. [[User:Editorkamran|Editorkamran]] ([[User talk:Editorkamran|talk]]) 04:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
*This is really disgusting. How improving a draft, when someone asks you to do so, is [[WP:MEAT]]? Technically one can say that I tried to get around the salting of [[Zaid Ali]] but at that time, being new user, it was hard for me to understand why i wasn't able to move [[Draft:Zaid Ali]] to [[Zaid Ali]] as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zaid_Ali&diff=1027185314&oldid=1027184456 I stated in my move as well]. But in case of [[Sham Idrees]] it was just a spelling mistake which I didn't correct all by myself due to ongoing AfD but mentioned that in AfD (Anyone having access to see all of my edits can independently interpret this claim). [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|Abdulhaseebatd]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
*This is really disgusting. How improving a draft, when someone asks you to do so, is [[WP:MEAT]]? Technically one can say that I tried to get around the salting of [[Zaid Ali]] but at that time, being new user, it was hard for me to understand why i wasn't able to move [[Draft:Zaid Ali]] to [[Zaid Ali]] as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zaid_Ali&diff=1027185314&oldid=1027184456 I stated in my move as well]. But in case of [[Sham Idrees]] it was just a spelling mistake which I didn't correct all by myself due to ongoing AfD but mentioned that in AfD (Anyone having access to see all of my edits can independently interpret this claim). [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|Abdulhaseebatd]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' about '''''Suspicious reporter''''', isn't it suspicious, this account has been reactivated to report me on notice board. {{U|Editorkamran}} became inactive in August 2020 with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=prev&oldid=974895139 this last edit] and reactivated his/her account after a year (and a month) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1043435340 directly report me here]. There [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Editorkamran no edit in between her/his last edit and this notice board edit]. Any experienced editor should look into this matter. Thankew [[User:Abdulhaseebatd| |
*'''Comment''' about '''''Suspicious reporter''''', isn't it suspicious, this account has been reactivated to report me on notice board. {{U|Editorkamran}} became inactive in August 2020 with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=prev&oldid=974895139 this last edit] and reactivated his/her account after a year (and a month) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1043435340 directly report me here]. There [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Editorkamran no edit in between her/his last edit and this notice board edit]. Any experienced editor should look into this matter. Thankew [[User:Abdulhaseebatd|Abdulhaseebatd]] ([[User talk:Abdulhaseebatd|talk]]) 11:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:46, 10 September 2021
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
User creating articles about himself and others indicating COI
- Bayer Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- No Lye: An American Beauty Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bayer Mack film)
- The Czar of Black Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bayer Mack film)
- Profiles of African-American Success (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bayer Mack film)
- Block Starz Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bayer Mack record company)
- Black Seeds: The History of Africans in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bayer Mack film)
- In the Hour of Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(Bayer Mack film)
- Lega-C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Block Starz Music client)
- Macklevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KoraResearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor, Macklevine, created an article about himself with this edit over three years ago, and since has created several more that indicate a COI problem. Carlstak (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Black Seeds: The History of Africans in America went through AFC, as is proper, and then Mackelvine added a few innocuous edits...
- On the other hand, for about the past ten years they have been ceaselessly and shamelessly adding links to their work all over Wikipedia, without any disclosure that hey are self-promoting.
- Example from a few days ago: "Bayer Mack's award-winning 2021 documentary Black Seeds: The History of Africans in America gives a detailed account of the development of slavery in Virginia."
- "On January 19, 2021, Block Starz Music founder and documentary filmmaker Bayer Mack re-launched Negro Digest as an online magazine for black men in America." This one is impressive as they manage to plug two projects in one sentence.
- "The history of the conk is featured in Bayer Mack's 2019 documentary, No Lye: An American Beauty Story"
- Writing about a Mack film: "Critics have praised the documentary's research and accuracy." (also sourced that one to medium.com).
- In the article Black is Beautiful: "The "Black is Beautiful" movement is featured in Bayer Mack's 2019 documentary, No Lye: An American Beauty Story"...
- In the article African-American hair: "Filmmaker Bayer Mack looks at the history of African-American hair care in his 2019 documentary, No Lye: An American Beauty Story".
- In the article Jheri curl, "The creation and marketing of the jheri curl is featured in Bayer Mack's 2019 documentary, No Lye: An American Beauty Story"...
- In the article Barney Ford: "Mr. Ford is featured in Bayer Mack's 2019 documentary, No Lye: An American Beauty Story"
- at Cathy Hughes, the edit promotes another Mack film, "Ms. Hughes life story is featured on the documentary series Profiles of African-American Success."
- And to the list of notable people on Murfreesboro, Tennessee, "Bayer Mack (born 1972), award-nominated filmmaker, journalist and founder of Block Starz Music.", which they later changed to "award-winning".
- Company updates are also part of Mackelvine's repertoire, on Block Starz Music: "On December 24, the label announced that its German chief executive officer, Kai Denninger, would no longer be with the company and that the label's founder and president, Bayer Mack, would take over Denninger's duties, effective immediately. “Kai Denninger will no longer be with the company,” Mack said in a brief statement posted to his personal LinkedIn profile on Christmas Eve." This is essentially using WP as a press release service.
- There are literally hundreds of these self-promotion edits, dating back to 2012, which means we are coming up on ten years of great publicity. Block, anyone? --- Possibly ☎ 05:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes this is pretty blatant. I have gone and removed from a whole bunch of articles the exact same paragraph that was copied and pasted pretty much advertising his own work, as well as put notices on connected articles. Melcous (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Macklevine (talk · contribs) logged in again, just to remove the COI or paid editing templates from five pages. No answer about COI Query. --- Possibly ☎ 06:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Macklevine (talk · contribs) has added a statement to their user page that says, essentially, that they have been doing this for a long time. It would be good to hear them explain the connection to the articles they edit, even though this is obvious at this point. --- Possibly ☎ 07:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now they are edit warring over the COI tags. On the upside they have disclosed as a paid editor, but have not listed the involved articles. @Macklevine:, can you explain which articles you are connected to? You are making things reply difficult by not engaging in discussion on talk pages. --- Possibly ☎ 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- He's been doing this for about ten years? This guy has some nerve—blatantly ignoring WP policy all that time (and somehow getting away with it), and then making threats when called out on it, like the one he's left on my talk page with the heading "Conflict of Interest/Malicious Editing": "I believe your edits are possibly politically-motivated in nature. I'm not sure what I can do about it or who to report your behavior to, but when I have time I intend to look more into it. I would prefer an impartial third-party to review this issue because I lack faith in your objectivity and professionalism as an editor." Politically motivated my ass—I've gotten death threats from white supremacists for writing that the Civil War was fought by the Confederacy to uphold slavery. I don't see how such editing can be considered as done in good faith. Carlstak (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes this is pretty blatant. I have gone and removed from a whole bunch of articles the exact same paragraph that was copied and pasted pretty much advertising his own work, as well as put notices on connected articles. Melcous (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on the comment left at User_talk:KoraResearch [1], stating that Macklevine (talk · contribs) has asked others to edit the articles they're associated with, semi-protection of the articles concerned may be required? -- Longhair\talk 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- The crowd-sourcing they mention (afrocrowd.org) says it is a Wikimedia project, but I cannot find a page on Wiki. is On a more general level, I'm sure Macklevine will be back for years to come, given the long history of using WP for promotion. Regarding that diff and Macklevine's concern that there are not enough African-American editors on WP (probably true, but who knows), does he have some kind of special technology for seeing the race of other editors? Thanks for the SPI, where Macklevine & KoraResearch were ultimately blocked for socking. --- Possibly ☎ 17:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Detention of Alek Sigley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alek Sigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article Detention of Alek Sigley is openly being edited by its subject matter who claims it is misrepresenting him. Alek is a notable former Australian detainee in North Korea, but the article currently contains sourced content (a book) regarding recreational activities of a potentially defamatory nature, as well as news articles which claim he violated the terms of his scholarship in the DPRK. He disputes this and claims in an account under his own name, that he is being misrepresented. He has reverted these claims several times although has not provided specific insight into why the well cited material is false. WP:BLP is to be taken into consideration of course, but nor is wikipedia censored- ThePatentsInspector (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @ThePatentsInspector:, you need to notify anyone you mention here. See the top of this page. I have done it for you. You should also have started a conversation with Sigley before coming here. I removed one of the things Sigley was trying to remove ("In his youth Sigley enjoyed video games, death metal, and recreational drug use"), as, for one, it is not particularly relevant to the article. --- Possibly ☎ 04:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can look at "Sigley was not supposed to enter North Korea before 2019, a condition of an academic scholarship he had received from the Australian and South Korean governments.", which is the only remaining item that Sigley seems to say is inaccurate. User:Alek Sigley has been really up front about his identity and his COI on both his user page and the article talk page, where he started a discussion to discuss his edits. --- Possibly ☎ 05:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Miraboi, 2018 to present
I came across this article after nominating related article 10K Naira for AfD. A constant stream of SPAs appear to be getting to this article. The creator (Vibes670 (talk · contribs)) was blocked as part of a probable UPE sockfarm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226) and since then others have taken over (see the history). Attempts to reach the most active account (Hyttgf975 (talk · contribs)) do not appear to have been successful. Several IPs involved also appear to fall into 105.112.0.0/16, which was given a CU-block at about the same time as the SPI was filed. Pahunkat (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes there are indeed numerous COI looking edits but unfortunately @Pahunkat, I do not see anything happening here, the article creator has been indef blocked and yes the most recent contributor you named above does indeed have questionable edits and was already on my watchlist meaning I had encountered them sometime in the past. In any case If it doesn’t satisfy GNG or the relevant SNG then the article should be sent to AFD, it can’t be drafitified either as it is too late for that now. Another way is by affixing relevant tags to the article. Unfortunately that’s really all there is to it. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Organization COI
- Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- We Are Not Numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ramy Abdu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wiki Enriching (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- SarahMaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MahaHussaini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anassjerjawi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Emad Shehda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Salsabeel Zeineddin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- NaraForRefugees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nesmajaber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 31.9.218.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe I've stumbled across a large number of COI's related to the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, starting at the end of 2015 and continuing until today, peaking in 2016 and 2019
The behaviour takes one of two forms:
- Developing pages related to the organization, its projects, or its key individuals (see pages above),
- Referencing relevant work done by the organization on various pages (diffs for many of these can be provided)
Originally, I believed there was a single, semi-declared conflict of interest by Anassjerjawi, but a recent edit on the page by Emad Shehda, a new editor with three edits, made me wonder. I investigated further, and believe I can connect that individual holds a position within EMHRM, but I won't provide the details as I'm not sure whether WP:OUTING covers information publicly available on the internet, discoverable with information provided on Wikipedia.
I am reasonable confident that the following seven individuals have a COI related to the organization; two have posted information to that effect on wikipedia, though they have not properly declared their COI. Two more I have discovered other information that connects them to the organization, and the final three are merely connected based on their editing pattern.
I also believe there are individuals beyond these seven that I have been unable to discover; as part of a broader post, User:Thomas.W posted the following on Anassjerjawi's page Rules that have been explained to other people in your organisation multiple times, and should come as no surprise to you
, and I've only been able to find one of those explanations.
Wikipedian | EMHRM Edits | Total Edits | First Edit | Last Edit | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wiki Enriching | 7 | 8 | 19 July 2019 | 24 August 2019 | 8th edit bluelinking a word in an unrelated article |
SarahMaro | 4 | 4 | 20 September 2019 | 6 January 2020 | N/A |
MahaHussaini | 23 | 29 | 9 July 2019 | 15 July 2019 | Very strong evidence exists that they have a conflict of interest beyond editing pattern; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns |
Anassjerjawi | ? | 129 | 18 October 2015 | 16 August 2021 | Mentions they have a COI in relation to a warning for previous recreation of the EMHRM article, and off-site evidence also exists; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns. In the absence of that comment or evidence, I would not have included them in this list; there are other editors with a similar editing pattern that I dismissed as their focus wasn't sufficiently on EMHRM. Was warned about COI editing on the 17th of October, 2016. |
Emad Shehda | 4 | 4 | 17 August 2021 | 1 September 2021 | Evidence exists that they have a conflict of interest beyond editing pattern; not posting due to WP:OUTING concerns. Was partially warned about COI editing on the 21st of August, 2021 |
Salsabeel Zeineddin | 20 | 25 | 18 October 2015 | 25 September 2016 | Other 5 edits in user-space, mentions having a relation with EUHRM on their user page, was warned about COI editing on the 26th of October, 2015 |
NaraForRefugees | 5 | 7 | 14 May 2016 | 14 July 2016 | Other edits not in article-space |
Nesmajaber | 3 | 3 | 7 September 2021 | 7 September 2021 | Edits involve a project that was a cooperation between EUHRM and ImpACT International. Off wiki evidence strongly suggests they have a paid COI with ImpACT, while their collaboration with EUHRM suggests they have a COI there. This possibility of a COI is enhanced by editor MahaHussaini working for both ImpACT and EUHRM. |
31.9.218.220 | 2 | 2 | 3 September 2021 | 3 September 2021 | Removed various article cleanup tags |
I left a note about COI editing on Emad Shehda's page, but have not done so with the rest of the editors after discovering the extent of the issue; after a brief discussion with a more experienced editor, I was pointed here as the most appropriate venue to address this. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you suspect sockpuppetry, you should report it at WP:SPI, where the clerk is able to carry out IP checks and can receive outing information through private emails. Otherwise you should not present accusations without any evidence. Before reporting any editor to SPI you need to provide edit differences. I suggest you close this thread and move it there. TFD (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I wasn't clear. I don't suspect sock-puppetry; I have connected three of the editors to their off-wiki identities, and have no reason to believe the remaining four are sock puppets. Instead, I believe it to be a group of editors with a common purpose and COI, based on their affiliation/employment by the mentioned organization; I believe this is the correct place to raise such concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Meat-puppetry, maybe, but I don't think this is one person. It certainly looks like a concerted effort by a group of individuals to promote this organisation, and associated people. If nothing else, we're talking about a group of single-purpose accounts with no interests beyond this particular organisation. St★lwart111 06:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- To hopefully clarify further: I have connected three wikipedians (Anassjerjawi, MahaHussaini, and Emad Shehda) with distinct off-wiki individuals with paid COI's (making them WP:UPE), and can email details of them to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org if requested. I also have no reason to believe that the remaining four are not in the same situation as the first three. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've updated Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor to list six of them under {{connected contributor}}
. The remaining one - Salsabeel Zeineddin - I've listed as a disclosed WP:PAID editor as there is sufficient self-disclosure (and off-wiki evidence) to confirm it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that; I didn't think to search for them. Based on that, I've emailed off-wiki evidence for the other three to paid-en-wp for review; hopefully this was the appropriate course of action. BilledMammal (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've updated the table, as a new SPA turned up. While editing it, I've also added an IP address who recently edited the primary page, and whose only edits anywhere are to remove clean-up tags from said page. Finally, Emad Shehda turned up to do another edit on the 1st of September, so I updated that line. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- COI is obvious. Paid disclosure requirements probably apply. I see some accounts have been warned in the past. Did any of them communicate at all? If they don't, I think active accounts that can be obviously linked to employees and board members should be blocked. MarioGom (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Anassjerjawi does communicate a bit, though only in defence of the existence of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article (and, weirdly, to request extended-confirmed permissions early). Salsabeel Zeineddin did as well, though again only in defence of the existence of said article. The rest don't. BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nesmajaber just edited again, so I put one of those PCOI notices that you put on Anassjerjawi and MahaHussaini on their page; we'll see if they are interested in communicating. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've found off-wiki evidence that Nesmajaber is an UPE; emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Savannah Bananas
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.
- Savannah Bananas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Karaheater1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bananaskara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kara Heater is the team's Marketing Director according to its own website. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Glennice.yong
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.
- Funding Societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Glennice.yong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Glennice.yong return after a year to do a potential COI edit with no other contribution history of editing anywhere else on Wikipedia. Previous COIN report was left unhandled. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- They have had three coi notices over last 13 months, and not answered one of them, while they have continued to edit. Looks like a UPE. scope_creepTalk 09:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Physicians for Patient Protection
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.
- Physicians for Patient Protection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- ReasonAndScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ABS2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bonafidemd79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- DiamondInTheRug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2601:483:4A80:59D0:A528:9D00:4DBE:5F17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Something very fishy is going on here. The new Physicians for Patient Protection article is crawling with brand new and dormant accounts. The article was initially created by CoffeeNJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of Iheartwikiedits (talk · contribs), who seems to have an anti-PPP agenda. After this, there has been a significant pro PPP editing by half a dozen different users, who were either brand new or made a handful of edits years or months prior. with the vast majority of edits coming from ReasonAndScience. Prior to their extensive editing of the PPP article, they had only made a handful of edits to Jay Webber and 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election in 2018. I asked RAS on their talkpage if they had any connection to the PPP or the other accounts. They said no. However, there are too many SPAs for me to be convincted there isn't something suspicious going on, and there may need to be a sockpuppet investigation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Inexpiable: had accused DiamondInTheRug of sockpuppetry for his edits to Dustin Higgs back in January, though I am not sure the accounts they had in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- EntmootOpening has stated that they were notified by an article in a newsletter which apparently reported the article had been "vandalised" [3] I have asked them for clarification on what newsletter it is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: Where on earth do you get the idea that EntmootOpening's contribs indicate COI? Unless I am missing something, I think you should probably apologize for the suggestion. --- Possibly ☎ 01:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why should I apologise? I have never accused EntmootOpening of any wrongdoing, it was simply that Entmoot has very few on-Wiki contributons, but in retrospect I see that their edits are only minor changes. I would just like to know where these accounts are being notified from, as there appears to be no mention on the clearnet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: Where on earth do you get the idea that EntmootOpening's contribs indicate COI? Unless I am missing something, I think you should probably apologize for the suggestion. --- Possibly ☎ 01:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: Regardless of any advocacy/edit warring, I don't even think PPP meets WP:NORG and have opened a deletion discussion @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physicians for Patient Protection. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 06:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment/support investigation @Hemiauchenia: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Yes highly suspicious account, I remember him well. He had a pro death penalty/pro Trump vibe about him and was called out for being a single purpose account by not just me but another long time editor as well. I've looked at the evidence in this case. All the accounts in question are either, new accounts with no edits until the 22nd, or, have made very few edits at all, such as Diamond. Every one of them edited the article around the same time of day, using similar language in each edit description. Prior to those edits on the 22nd the article was averaging less than 10 views a day... Yes they need to be investigated, 100% support, regardless of whether the article survives Afd. I was going to alert an admin about Diamond back in January because he was not only fishy but very abusive with an apparent pro Trump agenda, but I let it slide, very fishy accounts. Inexpiable (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also Diamond had surprisingly good knowledge of what a sock puppet account even was despite him only creating the account just hours before being called out for it. Inexpiable (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've alerted an admin to look into this. Inexpiable (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet investigation has come back as unlikely based on technical evidence. An off-wiki notification of some sort seems likely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: I took a brief look through PPP's public social media and blog but was not able to find any mention of their Wikipedia article. My main theory right now on what caused this unusual event is that they have a private newsletter (or multiple such newsletters, or even mailing lists for higher ups) and they criticized Wikipedia's coverage in one of them. I feel like reading through their social media allowed me to understand quite well what they are advocating for so it wasn't a total waste of time as if my deletion nomination succeeds I can add some content to the possible merge targets I listed in the AfD. (sent via📱) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet investigation has come back as unlikely based on technical evidence. An off-wiki notification of some sort seems likely. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've alerted an admin to look into this. Inexpiable (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Krazyrockstar
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.
- Daren Shiau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Krazyrockstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Krazyrockstar failed to respond to 2 COI notices and consistently only edits Daren Shiau and related pages. Likely to be related to Daren Shiau or the person himself. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, I got your message. Sorry I am still trying to figure out how to use Wikipedia fluently, so I am not sure if I am doing this correctly.
- First off, I am doing his page because I am familiar with his works. I have met him on two occasions in a book event, does tat count as COI? How can I prove that there is no COI in my updates? Would appreciate your guidance in this. Thank you! Krazyrockstar (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- While your encounter with Shiau will not make you having a COI with him but you have started off in English Wikipedia asking for help for a photo for his article in February 2016, then edited his page for a few periods in 2016. There was a COI notice on your talkpage since February 2016 which you did not respond to it and continue to edit on Heartland (Shiau novel) for 3 different periods in 2017. Your next few edits are in 2021 over a few periods again which I issued a COI notice again on 19 August 2021. You chose to edit his article and then which I reported your possible COI here. You finally responded on your talkpage to my COIN notice and now we are here.
- Your behaviour as noted in my report above indicated you are likely related to Daren Shiau or the person himself and not the casual encounter per your reply. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Justanothersgwikieditor: Sounds like they gave a good faith explanation. They also only made ten edits in 2017, followed by ten edits in 2021. It's not that serious. Just revert their edits if you think they add POV. --- Possibly ☎ 06:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Possibly: I was planning to give the benefit of doubt, letting someone else to chip in before any other actions. Will work with Krazyrockstar as needed. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Justanothersgwikieditor: Sounds like they gave a good faith explanation. They also only made ten edits in 2017, followed by ten edits in 2021. It's not that serious. Just revert their edits if you think they add POV. --- Possibly ☎ 06:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually I didnt really know what to do to respond to the COI in 2017, and since the article were passed, I didnt think much of it. How can I prove that I am editing it for the writer and that I am not the writer himself? Please let me know and I will furnish you with the details as best I can. Krazyrockstar (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Krazyrockstar: Based on your latest explanations, I will assume good faith. Do take note of promotional phrasing and also to give reliable sources for statements. You do not need take any further actions to prove independence. If you need help in anything, feel free to message me on my talkpage, or tag me in the talkpage of articles. Thanks!--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I will definitely message you if I need some help! Krazyrockstar (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Promotional pre-publication campaign for Uli Beutter Cohen
- Uli Beutter Cohen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- List of non-fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Transportation in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Documentary photography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- List of Simon & Schuster authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mmachado16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User is promoting the subject at their biography, and adding their forthcoming book to multiple articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for your concern. I do not have a conflict of interest, I'm just new to wikipedia edits and not sure how to properly link pages within the wikipedia guidelines. Please feel free to help me edit the corresponding links accordingly if they do not belong or should be executed differently. Thank you! (Mmachado16 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC))
- Mmachado16, notwithstanding WP:AGF, your edits speak for themselves, and suggest an undisclosed paid promotional motive. You're unlikely to find experienced editors willing to assist. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- As I mentioned, I do not mean any misconduct, but I am unsure of how to properly link pages within wikipedia guidelines. So if my edits go against any guidelines I would be happy to fix them myself, but I do not know the correct way to do so. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. (Mmachado16 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC))
- Mmachado16, notwithstanding WP:AGF, your edits speak for themselves, and suggest an undisclosed paid promotional motive. You're unlikely to find experienced editors willing to assist. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for your concern. I do not have a conflict of interest, I'm just new to wikipedia edits and not sure how to properly link pages within the wikipedia guidelines. Please feel free to help me edit the corresponding links accordingly if they do not belong or should be executed differently. Thank you! (Mmachado16 (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC))
Guide to filing an SPI
Of likely interest to folks at this noticeboard, User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI. It goes beyond the bare-bones official SPI instructions. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Douglasburton and bruceduffie.com
- John Adams (composer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Douglasburton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Douglasburton added a link to an interview at http://www.bruceduffie.com/johnadams.html to an article on modern art music composer John Adams (composer). My interest was piqued because it was added as the first link. Looking at the content, it started with obvious publicity content (as can be seen on https://www.hollywoodbowl.com/musicdb/artists/199/john-adams and other locations). The fluff questions that followed made me question why it was added at all. I removed it. The editor complained on my talk page, which I moved to the article's talk page. It was not until two edits later that it became clear that the editor was also the owner of the website and its only contributor. After a warning about CoI and a request to make it clear that the editor is the owner of that site, the editor has essentially refused. bruceduffie.com
has at least 500 inclusions on Wikipedia. I spot-checked, and they all appear to be added by Douglasburton.
I would like to make it clear that the content is fairly informative, but it might make more sense to be used as references than ELs.
Questions for this board:
- Is this CoI?
- Should the editor disclose?
- Are the interviews of sufficient value that we should continue to allow Douglasburton to add them where appropriate, or should the editor propose changes on article talk pages?
I am not seeking a block, but would like to gauge the project's temperature on this. Also @Gerda Arendt: who is active on the classical music project for input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- My temperature is that I'm busy, and not experienced with COI questions, nor the website, see nothing wrong in disclosing, and suggest you post a link to this discussion on project Classical music. Perhaps check if any discussion of this subject can be found in its archives. I don't know if the interviews could be references. I find them informative, so valuable as external links but please not in the top position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I informed the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- To comment on #3; I believe the answer is no. The website should be classified as a personal website, and it doesn't fall under the exception to personal websites in WP:NOBLOGS as Bruce Duffie, as far as I can tell, doesn't meet GNG.
- It may be worth mentioning that in terms of their general behavior, a cursory overview suggests that almost everything they do on Wikipedia is adding and editing the links to their website. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Based on the below, while WP:NOBLOGS would state that their inclusion is not warranted, WP:IAR could suggest otherwise. If this is the path chosen to take, perhaps to avoid future issues it would be worthwhile for Douglas to add his COI, as well as these two discussions, to his user page for ease of reference. BilledMammal (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I spoke to Douglas earlier this year, and they shared me this screenshot of a past conversation that seemed to show consensus for such links (or at the least, no consensus for their removal?). My only direct experience is the link they put on Anthony Payne while I was working on the article; in this case, the interview seemed interesting and certainly a benefit to readers. Aza24 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Aza24, the discussion, prolific spammer, was about whether the content constituted SPAM. It does not as the subject is not selling anything and not making money from the website. At best, we could assume search engine optimization. This discussion is about whether Douglasburton is in conflict of interest by directly adding the website to Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to add a notice on my user page if that would satisfy COI requirements...Douglasburton (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- The addition of these interviews has been discussed before, and they were generally considered to add value and satisfy EL. Of course, there may be those that some might regard as "fluffy", but I don't think a general prohibition is warranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to add a notice on my user page if that would satisfy COI requirements...Douglasburton (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Aza24, the discussion, prolific spammer, was about whether the content constituted SPAM. It does not as the subject is not selling anything and not making money from the website. At best, we could assume search engine optimization. This discussion is about whether Douglasburton is in conflict of interest by directly adding the website to Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:DISCLOSE says,
If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic
. We could endlessly debate whether this constitutes COI or not (I think it does, but can see how others might think not), but User:Douglasburton has already stated that they're willing to put a COI disclosure on their user page, so let's not waste time on that.
- I'm concerned about the copyright issues. It seems plausible that Douglasburton does indeed own the copyright to the text, and I'm willing to accept that as a given. I'm somewhat more concerned about the images of album covers that are included on those pages, but I'll leave that to people better versed in copyright issues than I am. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume there's no copyright problems we need to be concerned about.
- That leaves us with the COI question. From my reading of WP:COI, the disclosure on their user page should be required. I also think making edit requests on the article talk pages to add these links, would be a good thing. I don't know that I can argue it should be required, but it would certainly be best practice and would put this controversy to bed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- FYI, the note about my placing the link first was because the group seemed to be in chronological order. Since my interview was done before the others, that's where it seemed to belong. It that's not correct, I do not care where the link goes. I routinely have put it last on other pages. Douglasburton (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: User:Douglasburton definitely doesn't own the copyright to the album images, but I don't see how that's our problem because he's not putting them on Wikipedia. It would be up to the publisher of the album to send Burton a DMCA; he might be able to make a fair use argument, and it's very unlikely that'd happen anyway. The rules around copyright / fair use are stricter on Wikipedia because we want to be able to say that all content here is free content under CC SA. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:COPYLINKS says,
if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work
(and then goes on to explain why). But, as I said, this is not my area of expertise, so I'll leave it to others to make a more definitive statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)- I do a bi at the EL page and could mention it there.
- Douglasburton. One question: why did you reject all of my direct requests to place a notice on your user page and when I brought it here, you decided it was a plausible option? For the record, it still remains an option as you have not followed the advice at DISCLOSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding copyvio: it seems to be a straightforward conclusion that we should not link to these pages when they include copyvio, per WP:COPYLINKS. This page, for example, appears to have a dozen album covers without copyright tags; the end of the page says © Bruce Duffie. I removed three of the links; COPYLINKS seems very unambiguous on this: the pages I removed are packed with obviously copyvio images, and we should not be linking to them.
- Regarding self-promotion: despite all the relevant discussions on this, I think that so many links to one's site, in one's own name, ends up being self-promotion. If I set up JohnAlexanderSmith.com (not my real name) and start linking the crap out of it on wiki, will that be OK? What about the tenth or hundredth person who does that? I don't see why this is OK, when it amounts to being beneficial linking for an editor's personal interest project-- irregardless of good faith intentions. If someone independently links the site, it's not the same as one editor linking it dozens or hundreds of times. I think that previous discussions may have considered financial gain as a motivator when the real COI gain here is a reputational one. Incoming links from Wikipedia boost search results significantly. Editors should not be directly engaging in editing that benefits their reputation off-wiki; editors should not be directly engaging in editing that drives traffic tot their personal web sites, no matter how well-intentioned the effort might be. They should disclose their connection and use talk pages to request edits. --- Possibly ☎ 00:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:COPYLINKS says,
First, about the use of album covers. Having been on commercial radio for over 25 years, I know a bit of what's expected. Record companies send promos, and expect them to be used as much as possible. To place them on a website is additional promotion for them, especially when connected to their artist(s). I cannot imagine any record exec would object to this. Second, I am truly sorry some of you can accept the fact that I am NOT looking to promote myself. I have even turned down a couple of requests to add a Wikipedia page about me for that very reason. I know it's unusual, but I am only interested in having these interviews available. It's not about me, it's about them. Finally, in order to end this discussion I'm going to withdraw. I will no longer add any interview links to any Wikipedia pages. I will continue to make corrections, but will add no new links. To those who have made positive statements here (and on other places), I appreciate your comments, and hope you will continue to explore new interviews as they are posted on my site. Goodbye.Douglasburton (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think you've missed the the point here. The primary concern is that Douglas Burton and Bruce Duffie do not obviously connect, that is the main reason that DISCLOSEure should happen is so that editors can make that connection. I do think that there is some value in your website, but probably better as a reference than an EL. I still think disclosure would be beneficial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just so you will know how I have added things in the past, wherever there was a section for Further Reading, I used that. Or, if there was no EL list, I would start a Further Reading section. Here again, my goal was to be as brief and unobtrusive as possible. BTW, thanks for saying there is some value to my website.
- Just so I would be clear, is the disclosure you wanted a one-time thing on *my* page, or a statement made with every new link-inclusion? (Please don't send me to any kind of instruction page. Just answer the question. Thanks.) Douglasburton (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- DISCLOSE indicates, "there are three venues to do this". Option 3 is using the {{UserboxCOI}} template on your user page. You could simply use something like {{UserboxCOI|text=I am the writer and maintainer of bruceduffie.com. The interviews posted there are meant to be informative...}} and you can fill that out in whatever way you want, after the text parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear... by putting this brief text on my user page, you're OK with my adding links again just as before? (I will have to start a user page - another indication that I am NOT out for personal gain or recognition.) Douglasburton (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let's see what others think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, whenever I encountered those interviews, I considered them moderately valuable external links, sometimes triggering further searches for reliable sources for certain events first found in those interviews. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have the sense every single aspect of this has been explained at least three times to user:Douglasburton. Has he even made the miniscule effort to put a disclosure statement on his user page? No. There is some major time-wasting going on here, and it seems like Douglasburton's strategy is to run out the discussion until it goes his way. So, please save us some time and a) place the disclosure on your user page, b) suggest inclusion of the link on relevant talk pages, and c) don't suggest linking to pages that contain images or text for which you do not hold the copyright. These are pretty simple requests. --- Possibly ☎ 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let's see what others think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just so I'm clear... by putting this brief text on my user page, you're OK with my adding links again just as before? (I will have to start a user page - another indication that I am NOT out for personal gain or recognition.) Douglasburton (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- DISCLOSE indicates, "there are three venues to do this". Option 3 is using the {{UserboxCOI}} template on your user page. You could simply use something like {{UserboxCOI|text=I am the writer and maintainer of bruceduffie.com. The interviews posted there are meant to be informative...}} and you can fill that out in whatever way you want, after the text parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
FYI... I contacted the president of one of the record companies whose images I have used, and she said she had no problem, and even offered me more material. That, along with my 25 years in commercial radio, which included dealing with execs and representatives, demonstrates that they are pleased to have their materials used when connected with their artists, which is the case in all of my interviews. Therefore, there is no copyright infringement on my webpages. As to waiting, Walter said to see what others think. If my question had been answered, the disclosure would have been done already. Douglasburton (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- As someone who hasn't been involved in this discussion yet but has read through it all, I'm happy to be one of the "others" Douglasburton and Walter Görlitz are waiting to see what they think. Possibly's suggestions are straightforward and fairly standard:
- Post a COI disclosure on your user page
- Don't place links to your own website into articles
- Use talk pages to suggest inclusion of a link where relevant and let neutral editors respond.
- And regarding the copyright issue, it is irrelevant what people have told your for your own site, what is relevant here is wikipedia's policy on copyright. Melcous (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm no lawyer, but I believe that Wikipedia does not like to link to sites with unclear copyright status. I think that if you indemnify yourself by stating that you have made arrangements with the copyright holders to arrange for their display and that the copyright of of those images are held by the original copyright holder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous has brought up the most important point. Whereas I certainly have complete confidence in my work, I simply cannot absolutely 100% guarantee that every detail meets Wikipedia standards. A couple of days ago I tried to withdraw, but the door was re-opened. This time it shall remain closed. Douglasburton (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- You still need to place a notice on your user page to tell people that you have a COI in regards to bruceduffie.com. That fact has not changed, and you have been COI editing by adding links to that site for a long time, without disclosing it in the required way. It will also help future editors who come across this issue. --- Possibly ☎ 18:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done. If this is what you want, perhaps you should replace the links you have deleted.......? Douglasburton (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I looked it shortly after you posted it and it looked fine to me—albeit a bit long, which is to be expected from a writer—and I was waiting for others to weigh-in. It seems that there are no objections, so this satisfies the major part of my request.
- The next question is of direct editing stand on a case-by-case basis. Some articles likely have few watchers and if you add a request to add your link to the article and no one responds for a week, you could safely add it yourself.
- The final question is copyright violations, which as I said, I believe could address with a standard footer on your articles. @RoySmithand: @Psiĥedelisto: were the editors who raised that concern and have yet to weigh-in on my proposed solution. It seems that they meet our WP:FUR requirements and there is no attempt at distributing the images in violation of copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Done. If this is what you want, perhaps you should replace the links you have deleted.......? Douglasburton (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- You still need to place a notice on your user page to tell people that you have a COI in regards to bruceduffie.com. That fact has not changed, and you have been COI editing by adding links to that site for a long time, without disclosing it in the required way. It will also help future editors who come across this issue. --- Possibly ☎ 18:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Melcous has brought up the most important point. Whereas I certainly have complete confidence in my work, I simply cannot absolutely 100% guarantee that every detail meets Wikipedia standards. A couple of days ago I tried to withdraw, but the door was re-opened. This time it shall remain closed. Douglasburton (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm no lawyer, but I believe that Wikipedia does not like to link to sites with unclear copyright status. I think that if you indemnify yourself by stating that you have made arrangements with the copyright holders to arrange for their display and that the copyright of of those images are held by the original copyright holder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Prime Healthcare Services
- Prime Healthcare Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Cuaom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KgKeane519 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MBeatzM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There was a coi discussion earlier about this page, and one editor (MBeatzM) was blocked as a paid editor and another (KgKeane519) identified as a paid editor. Now, another editor has shown up and did a somewhat similar edit, plus he or she added a long laudatory bio of the founder. This new user is Cuaom. What needs to be done? I’ve rolled back their initial edits but they are doing additional edits.
rsjaffetalk 04:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've avoided making further reversions WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, and have posted advice and link to this discussion on Cuaom's talk page. Looking for help. Thanks. rsjaffetalk 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Its the same content that is being added back in, that I removed. It likely either an agency UPE or a representative of the hospital, who require it in the article as a brochure. scope_creepTalk 12:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is the third time since 2017 its been copyedited back. scope_creepTalk 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Self-promotional articles
- Van Lindberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- J. Luke Wood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These articles seem self-promotional. Not sure if this is the right venue to post this, just would like to hear others' input on how to proceed. starship.paint (exalt) 11:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looked at the J. Luke Wood article. One suspicious contributor is Karankjain. He or she has only edited that article, and uploaded the photo used in the article, stating that it is his or her own work. The photo is used in other sites, e.g., https://coralearning.org/about/all-teacher/ where it is used in a cropped manner. The only uncropped version is the one Karankjain uploaded (https://tineye.com/search/2699c9f12f5d6e4eaf9432ecb73ab8aa229759d5?sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1), so Karankjain is the originator, but the picture is being used (cropped) elsewhere for promoting Wood, which indicates to me that J. Luke Wood is controlling authorizing use of the picture and thus has a professional relationship to Karankjain. rsjaffetalk 23:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Lashrecse Aird
- Lashrecse Aird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kelley Losier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since joining Wikipedia, user has exclusively edited the article in question. Performing a quick Google search, it appears they are (Redacted). Unsure of the best way to continue/if edits need to be rolled back. Rockhead126 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unless someone has posted their workplace on wiki, it’s wp:outing for another editor to post it. Next time just say “a google search shows an obvious COI” or similar. --- Possibly ☎ 03:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I accepted this in Draft a while ago, and I'm slightly concerned about possible COI or SPA work here, but I don't know that I see enough to fully tag it as such. I would love another pair of eyes on this one. I opened a discussion on the talk page, but AngusWOOF suggested I bring it here to COIN. Bkissin (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- To lead: I've notified the creator of this discussion on your behalf, as I think you forgot. On the article topic, as an inexperienced editor, it does seem like a SPI dedicated to coverage of the subject, and that would suggest to me some level of COI. Further, I have some questions about the individuals notability; while there are a large number of sources cited, the only one I found that might meet GNG is this one, with the rest either lacking independence or significance; I also don't believe they meet WP:ACADEMIC, but I am not well versed on that standard and I might be wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- What are Invited talks and presentations doing in a Wikipedia article? This looks like someone took her CV and pasted things in. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 02:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Rsjaffe, I removed the list of talks and presentations. WP:NOTCV These types of things belong on an individual's personal website or on their CV. As to the COI, It reads like it may be a creation of her university's PR office. Netherzone (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Contributor BJFCollins acts like he or she has private info about the subject. How else could he or she post a list of invited talks? Also that contributor only works on this page. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 02:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rsjaffe, I totally get it that they are a SPA. A list of invited talks could be on her CV, and anyone who has access to it could have made those edits. Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
COI at AFD
This relates to Wikimedia movement, which was recently AFD'd with a "no consensus" result, at which I and others raised a COI issue. I do not suggest that anyone participating in the AFD has done anything wrong; rather, the COI issue may be relevant if this article is ever AFD'd again. I don't think there is any existing global consensus about this particular scenario, which is why I raise it here for input. So, here is the multipart question:
- Is it a COI for an editor who is a WMF employee to (a) !vote in an AFD about the article "Wikimedia movement", (b) to "keep" based on sources written by WMF employees (themselves or others)?
- Same question as #1, but change either instance of
WMF employee
(obvi paid by WMF) to:- WMF trustee (unpaid but may receive reimbursements for expenses and is on the WP:Board of Trustees that runs the WMF);
- WMF grant recipient (paid by WMF); or
- WP:Wikipedian in Residence (a type of paid editor)?
- Same answer or different answer? Note: I am asking to address the various combinations, such as a WMF employee !voting to "keep" based on a source written by a WMF trustee.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Levivich 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion:
- For #1, yes, it is, for an employee of an organization to !vote in an AFD related to that organization, as explicitly stated by WP:PAY. This naturally includes WMF employees. Further, how the individual !votes and the arguments they present isn't relevant to whether a COI exists. However, I will note that I wouldn't consider such work to be independent, unless it was written a significant amount of time before the individual began their employment at Wikimedia.
- For #2; yes, maybe, and no, in that order.
- For #2.1; Board of Trustees is the non-profit equivalent to the Board of Directors, and just as we wouldn't consider a Director to not have COI, we shouldn't consider a Trustee to not have a COI; in this case, the COI would be unpaid, but in many cases it would be paid.
- #2.2 is complicated, as while a grant establishes a financial relationship, it doesn't necessarily establish a "close financial relationship". If we consider a general grant, I believe we would consider a paid COI to exist if one of two conditions was met; if the goal of the grant is closely related to the granter, or if the grant makes up a sufficiently significant portion of an grantees income that they can be considered a contractor or employee. The grantees intentions around the grant should also be relevant; if they intend to renew it, then that strengthens any arguments for a COI, as they are to a certain extent beholden to the granters good will. In the case of Wikimedia, I feel only the first of these can be productively discussed in the general, and so I will set aside the later two.
- To do this, we need to consider the forms of grants available, but I must profess my ignorance; I have little knowledge of the Wikimedia grant program, and as such I will refrain from extensive comment, leaving that to those better versed in this area.
- For #2.3, "no", per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board.
- BilledMammal (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Hi @Levivich: How goes it? Having read this about X times I would say that #1: Absolutely. #2.1 It would depend on a case by case basis (who is saying what on the day) and the relationships. Probably. #2.2 Depends what the relationship is and to a certain extent what the big grant is for and who gave it out. Perhaps. scope_creepTalk 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Kevin Powell
- Kevin Powell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- KevinPowell1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eponymous account made multiple edits to their biography, creating a puff piece as a result. These edits are reminders why we strongly discourage COI editing, even from accomplished writers: [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]. A question: does anything from the former 'litigation' segment merit restoring? I've no strong thoughts either way, especially since we're not news, but a subject removing unflattering content always raises a red flag [8]. Requesting a targeted block on editing his biography, and more eyes on the article in the future. 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Bogura Cantonment Public School and College
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.
- Bogura Cantonment Public School and College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- NiloyBCPSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
More eyes, please. Judging from the username, NiloyBCPSC is in some way connected to Bogura Cantonment Public School and College. Neither that nor anything else gives him/her the right to add swathes of unsourced promotional content to the page. I've already reverted once. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree; seems to be a SPI with a COI towards BCPSC, and based on their edits, possibly NOTHERE. Incidentally, I'm sure that school meets GNG; I took a look at the sources, and couldn't see any that meet GNG, failing either the "independent" or "significant coverage" pillar. Might be worth bringing to AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is that "not sure", then, BilledMammal? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers I'm sure you know this already, but to me it looks to be 100% UPE. The copy they added was elf-promotion, and their username screams paid editing. I see no disclosure. --- Possibly ☎ 13:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the line "I'm sure that school meets GNG" should have read "I'm not sure"; sorry, very misleading typo, thank you for querying. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is that "not sure", then, BilledMammal? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Annie Moses Band
- Annie Moses Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Robin Wolaver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bwolaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Annie Moses Band (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The band article is a puff piece that needs major editing; the bio is a new and incomplete entry. The COI is self-evident. 2601:188:180:B8E0:98E1:991A:2540:23FA (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- See also Draft:Robin Wolaver an unsourced creation that I moved to draft earlier today, which I tagged COI JW 1961 Talk 22:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just removed the photo from that draft, which shows actor Lin-Manuel Miranda, not the subject of the non-article. Starting to think it's vandalism or a hoax. ♟♙ (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- It seems legit--she's a member of the Annie Moses Band. The photo was probably put there as a placemarker. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- I just removed the photo from that draft, which shows actor Lin-Manuel Miranda, not the subject of the non-article. Starting to think it's vandalism or a hoax. ♟♙ (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Draft:Will Roberts (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nihara.widefy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Draft:Deborah Mannas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Treymond Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The subject editor has submitted multiple drafts that are non-neutral and appear written to praise the subject rather than describe them neutrally. The drafts were declined. The subject editor was told both to re-read the neutral point of view guideline and to declare any conflict of interest. They were asked by two reviewers whether they have a conflict of interest, and were told not to resubmit the drafts without answering the question about conflict of interest. Two of the three drafts in question, listed above, have now been resubmitted to AFC without answering the question as to conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have a "feeling" that there is a COI, but no real evidence. I wondered if we might be able to link the three together through the website, as they had a similar "feel", but the backends are very different, strongly suggesting that there is no link there. Further, two of the three have publicly identified their agents, and they both use different people. The only evidence I could find was in the pictures used; these are attributed as "own work"; while this is a common mistake new uploaders make, I have not been able to find the image of DM anywhere on the internet (the image of WR is on their website) - however, I have been able to find an image I believe is from the same photoshoot on their website. To me, this suggests they were provided with the images.
- Nihara.widefy, in addition to making an explicit statement on whether you have COI or not, could you provide us with the reason you chose to create these three articles? The additional information could help us better judge the situation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not connected with this topic nor I am paid for it I sw one article about him where they mentioned about his 2worlds records and acting job so I thought he can be my first subject for Wikipedia. Nihara.widefy (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
robert McCleon I don't have any conflict of interest with this topic I saw one blog which mentioned about his world records that's why I choose this topic. i am new to Wikipedia that's why by mistakenly it happened. my intention was not to break any rules of Wikipedia. Nihara.widefy (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Nihara.widefy: I have removed the two {{COIN-notice}} notices which you placed in this thread. That template is for placing on an editor's user talk page to notify them of a discussion here. Including them here cluttered & confused the display of the thread. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've also removed the COI template as I don't believe they intended to post that, given the statements they made were contradictory to it. In any case, in regards to this I'm willing to assume good faith and leave it as is for now, as the evidence is weak and this could easily be the case of a new editor making an understandable mistake; in case the consensus goes this way, I will also leave a message on Nihara's talk page, giving suggestions for where they can find topics with more notability and how to determine that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Actual order of draft creation was Mannas, Smith, Roberts. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nihara.widefy you said you are "not connected with this topic", so I assume meaning Draft:Will Roberts (actor), but what about Draft:Deborah Mannas and Draft:Treymond Smith that both have PR sources submitted by "Widefy" (https://widefy.in/) which also matches your username. Can you state if you have a link to any of these two subjects and if your name does represeent widefy.in? KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how this could be any clearer in terms of UPE. 1. There is a company Widefy that engages in PR. 2. The user's chosen username is Nihara.widefy. 3. Widefy has issued Press releases for at least one of the concerned drafts: Deborah Mannas. 4. That particular one is signed with a name that adds additional suspicion. Conclusion: The user is obviously engaging in UPE and should be blocked. There is no reason to AGF in the face of overwhelming evidence. --- Possibly ☎ 20:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Widefy press release cache. --- Possibly ☎ 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Slightly embarrassing that I missed that connection, particularily given I thought the look for agency connections between each subject, but not between the subjects and the creator. With the Widefy connection, I would agree that this is very clear, and does not need AGF or ROPE. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Widefy press release cache. --- Possibly ☎ 20:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- The placing of tags in this forum and on my talk page gives me reason to wonder whether this editor has sufficient competence to edit the English Wikipedia, or whether they need assistance or a mentor. But this is not a competence forum. Possibly has pointed out that this editor has given an evasive answer to the question of whether they have a conflict of interest about Mannas or Smith. The original conflict of interest question by KylieTastic was about Smith, and has not been answered. The less likely reason why that question has not been answered is that the editor doesn't understand it. The more likely reason is what Possibly has deduced, which is that they do have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yip, it look like straight up PR agency employees, doing a really bad job. Most definently a UPE. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Lucid Nation article COI
- Lucid Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- theinfinite314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The article is about a band. It was created by and maintained by someone who has an obvious COI. It reads as a personally written promotional piece rather than a neutral article. The comments on the edits make it clearly evident that a member of the band is the only substantial contributor to the article and the user makes it a habit to revert edits made by other contributors claiming vandalism or inaccuracies.
The article lacks overall neutrality.
Page is confusing as it appears to be about a band but goes in-depth about film and writings by band members. Those things should be in a separate article as they are not directly related to the subject of the article.
The article contains excessive unrelated details about releases of printed matter and film projects.
I am in no way paid, a contributor to this article, or affiliated with the subject of the article.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 2601:203:4002:C700:E4C1:2855:353F:64E2 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- IP, I see no effort at all to initiate a discussion with the user; see the top of this page. You also need to notify them; this is not a private inquisition. See also the top of this page on how to do that. --- Possibly ☎ 20:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- IP I've left a note at @Theinfinite314: page. Next time please, leave a note informing the editors in question. That editor is completly in the dark about what is happening here. It is not cool. scope_creepTalk 11:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for providing this forum for discussion. I did contribute to this article. I did not create this article. I did not get paid. I am associated with the subject of the page. I did not read the rules when I first contributed. It took many years for an editor to point out my mistake. This is my responsibility and a massive screw up for which I apologize to all you good people who work to make this site dependable. I wish I had known sooner. I will from now on note my association in all communications and will add it to my user page when I finish writing this. I will no longer contribute to this page except by use of Talk.
On the subject of my use of undo when the page was vandalized. Please look at the personal nature of the attacks launched Dec 23, 2016 to Jan 1, 2017. For context this band has suffered trolling, harassment, gaslighting and canceling due to stalkers on other platforms. This is not uncommon among riot grrrl bands. But members of this band have also produced highly controversial documentaries. Tamra Lucid and other participants in the currently screening film End of the Line: The Women of Standing Rock have received death threats and trolling due to the film. It is not unreasonable to expect vandalism on this page. The politics of contributors and editors who delete content could have malicious political motivation inspired by the long history of activism of the band and its members. The abusive posts intended to be harassment have been posted by accounts with little activity anywhere on Wiki except this page. Many of the posts have similar content and syntax. I ask neutral editors to please take a look at them. If there is abuse occurring on the Wikipedia perpetrated by entities with malicious motivations they should not be enabled.
As to Scope Creep's comment about printed matter and film: message boards, zines and film are essential details in the history of riot grrrl bands. Many riot grrrl artists were intentionally multi-media. The content of songs, zines, films are all expressions of the band as a band. Often the activities directly intersect with the band. For example. the riot grrrl message board quote deleted by Possibly today is the same message board the band used to organize a national tour. The band's music is included in the film Exile Nation: The Plastic People. The band appears in the short film Grrrl. The band recorded a cover of the signature song of the band The Gits with the drummer of the Gits while producing a documentary on their murdered singer Mia Zapata. These films are not separate activities with no relation to the band. Songs refer to films. Films further the messages of songs. This is deliberate creative intersectionalism applied to media. The printed matter and films mentioned by Scope Creep are a direct expression of the band's continuing aesthetic and activism.
So to summarize, I am guilty of COI, ignorance is no excuse. I did not intend to promote, but only to update and undo abuse. I do believe the article has been repeatedly vandalized and may be undergoing vandalization now. See COIRobotuser and Queercorefan's recent activity related to the article. I think that the definition of band should not be restricted to corporate constraints that require excluding other media, especially in relation to idiosyncratic and deliberately multi-media subcultures like riot grrrl.
Thank you, editors, for taking the time to read this.Theinfinite314 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for admitting to the COI on this page and agreeing to not directly editing it in future. The article has been trimmed of 80% of its content and looks reasonably neutral at the moment. It might be that the band is not notable enough for an article; they seem to have done few shows but did have a review in Rolling Stone. Theinfinite314, in future do not leave legalese edit comments like this and this one Wikipedia; they can lead to being blocked for our no legal threats policy. --- Possibly ☎ 20:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you,Possibly I acknowledge and understand about the legal threats and will not do so on Wiki again. May I ask where you got the idea that the band played few shows? Are two west coast tours and one national, not to mention dozens of so cal shows in the 90s, to be defined as few? I cannot speak to the importance required for a wikipedia page but it troubles me that the actual aesthetic of the riot grrrl subculture (as explained above) has been ignored in these edits. My question was also ignored about how to verify band members when recording and video credits on YouTube, Bandcamp etc are not considered good citations. Also band member Tamra's name Tamara was misspelled in the first paragraph as edited by you today. I have noted that on the Talk page for the article. Thank you again for taking the time to explain. As you can see, I don't know my way around here.Theinfinite314 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for using the talk page. I think all the regular editors editors appreciate when COI editors with a long-running interest in one article restrict their discussions to the article's talk page, rather than consuming time all over the place. Thanks again. --- Possibly ☎ 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
UPE and possible sockpuppetry
- Rohit Ugale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gondulfo Cortesi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Georgetgeorge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ahsanullah2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gondulfo Cortesi's sole purpose seems to have been to create and maintain the article on Rohit Ugale and to prevent its deletion. The article has gone through an AfD once with a bunch of IP !votes following them and a suspicious close for keep by an autoconfirmed user Ahsanullah2015, their only involvement in AfD. The article is again on AfD, and is again starting to receive a flurry of !votes including from another autoconfirmed account (Georgetgeorge) and an IP. Note the subject has an extensive non-independent paid news coverage on the net and this might as well be part of that effort. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have opened an SPI on this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgetgeorge. scope_creepTalk 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would note that this wasn't their only involvement at AfD; they previously closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawny Williams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEMZ; both appear to be the correct decision, though I would probably have relisted MEMZ one more time, but I'm often overly conservative with these matters.
- With that said, that doesn't detract from everything else you have said, and I would consider those closures to be done to add legitimacy to their closure of Rohit - after closing three articles in their first few weeks here, they have closed none in the couple of months since. BilledMammal (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't notice those. I've struck the part about it being their only involvement. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Prix Versailles update
- Cultural footprint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Purple economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Francesco Bandarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Paulina Morán (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Idoumou33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MARdF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Pantell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 176.156.227.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- template:Prix Versailles
Prix Versailles and related subjects were the subject of a coordinated campaign of promotion, over several years and sixteen languages, involving numerous sock puppets and probably paid editing. Ten active and six older accounts were identified. I would like to report progress to date.
- 21 July I reported Prix Versailles here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Prix Versailles
- 31 July the articles on PV were deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prix Versailles
- 18 August sixteen accounts were globally locked meta:Steward_requests/Global/2021-08#Global lock for cross-wiki UPE socks
- 20 August PV shortlist categories were deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 21#Category:World selection for the Prix Versailles Airports
- 23 August PV categories were deleted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 2#Prix Versailles
- 23 August I nominated Purple economy and Cultural footprint for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple economy
- Archive at meta meta:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Prix Versailles
- Ongoing conversation at meta meta:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Following up Prix Versailles TSventon (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Adding 176.156.227.162 which made three edits relating to Prix Versailles and Purple Economy from 21 to 23 August on en and fr Wikipedias. TSventon (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly I posted here as an update to pagewatchers here. I hope that loose ends can be tied up fairly soon, allowing the page to be archived. New COI accounts have been opened, e.g.
- 6 September 3 more sockpuppets reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MARdF
- Also, other editors may wish to take action on remaining pages, e.g.
- 7 September Prix Versailles template nominated for deletion TSventon (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just wanted to mention that I am the editor who improved the article Paulina Morán when it was up for deletion in Dec. 2019. I was unaware at the time that Prix Versailles was not a notable award. Light has been shed on the fact that the award and its associated articles were a promotional effort by a sock ring, if the community thinks the Paulina Moran article should be deleted, that is fine with me. Netherzone (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
UPE with possible AfC involvement
- Olaf Kosinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Björn Rosengren (manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ABB CEO
- Sami Atiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ABB exec
- Jon Erik Fyrwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accepted AfC for ABB exec
- Michaela Steiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor
- Lenn Kudrjawizki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor
- Larissa Keat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor
- Franziska Junge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor
- Michaela Merten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor, AfC fraud
- Bianca Arndt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actor, AfC fraud
- Nox Cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accepted AfC for biz
- Sebastian Pufpaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accepted AfC for entertainer
- Landbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) biz, AfC fraud
- 195.36.35.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 195.36.60.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 195.36.51.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A prolific German editor of parliament bios seems to have begun creating bios of businesspeople and entertainers. There are German TV and radio stories connecting it to a PR firm. Here is a sampling of what I see on enwp. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sent Jon Erik Fyrwald back to Afc as it clearly invalid review as the reviewer is blocked. scope_creepTalk 22:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nox Cycles was accepted a couple hours after creation by an anon declared paid editor. Needs re-review. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- An IP editor, 195.36.35.251, came in this morning and removed all the UPE templates. scope_creepTalk 07:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Bri: Another IP editor came in, removed a prod template, and stated they are not a UPE. scope_creepTalk 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting: Olaf Kosinsky was autopatrolled; I have unpatrolled everything (I think) he moved into mainspace. MER-C 17:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Are Wikimedia Foundation employees required to disclose COI?
In general, I would've thought that if an AfD is made about a corporation's product, or some kind of entity closely connected to a corporation, then employees of that corporation (especially ones that work in communications and would be classified as WP:PAID editors) should either a) not comment in an AfD about that entity; b) if they do, should clearly disclose their status as an employee.
So I'm asking this question for if Wikimedia movement is nominated at AfD in the future... Several WMF employees commented at the AfD without disclosing their employment at the corporation. So I'm wondering, especially given that the phrase has strategic/fundraising value to the WMF and there is a serious dispute whether the subject of the article actually exists independently of the corporation, does WP:COI recommend that any salaried employee (or paid contractor) at the WMF clearly disclose their current (or previous) employment in the AfD? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I guess I should have picked a more descriptive heading for #COI at AFD. :-D Levivich 14:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- I won't restate what I previously stated at #COI at AFD, but I do feel that this forum might not be sufficiently broad to properly discuss this topic. Perhaps an RFC would be in order, once we work out how to work it? BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea. Maybe we should merge these two threads and make it an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion? I don't frequent this board so I'm not sure if that's an appropriate thing to do here. Levivich 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yours is more elegant than mine, I just didn’t notice it was there, so I’m happy for this to be merged in as a subsection and collapsed (I’d do it myself but on phone). I’m not sure an RFC is worth it, I mean it won’t create much binding precedent as it’s a very niche case, just a sample of opinions from COIN regulars. Since COI is ‘just a guideline’ and everything in it is just strong encouragements etc because (or so I’m told) the community failed to agree to make it formally binding, I figure it’s best if there’s enough opinions on the issue and then a future XfD could have a warning template at the top advising WMF employees of the results. I’m not sure if a stronger outcome is possible but if it is that would work too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea. Maybe we should merge these two threads and make it an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion? I don't frequent this board so I'm not sure if that's an appropriate thing to do here. Levivich 16:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- I won't restate what I previously stated at #COI at AFD, but I do feel that this forum might not be sufficiently broad to properly discuss this topic. Perhaps an RFC would be in order, once we work out how to work it? BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Nalbarian
- Nalbarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've just blocked this user based on nonpublic evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Any help reviewing his ~100 created pages for affected articles that need cleanup or deletion would be appreciated. I don't think everything he wrote was for pay, but some of it definitely is. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- From the bottom up:
- Anil Rai Gupta - probably created as as a UPE, but has since been cleaned up and looks like it meets GNG.
- Barkhala - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Deharkuchi - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Lahkar - surname list page. Included some uncited claims about caste status that I removed. Remaining information is also uncited, but as a surname disambiguation page no real issue exists with it. No evidence of COI.
- Jetting (injection moulding defect) - should probably be redirected to Injection moulding#Moulding defects, but no evidence of COI.
- Sink marks (injection moulding defect) - already turned into a redirect
- Pre-drying (injection moulding) - already turned into a redirect
- Purna Kamdev - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Himashree - first name disambiguation page. No issues, no evidence of COI.
- Ashok Sarma - politician stub. Does not read as promotional, and they meet WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of COI.
- Bhaskar Papukan Gogoi - comes across as promotional, specifically the "social work" section, and the evidence they meet GNG is weak. Likely COI.
- Kismat Village - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Will continue, just posting now so that if anyone else is working on this they can start from the top and we don't duplicate work. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Akana (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Pajipar - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Parowa (village) - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Marowa - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI.
- Deepamoni Saikia - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; the citations don't come close to suggesting they meet WP:GNG. Plausible COI.
- Anupam Nath - article doesn't come across as promotional, but the simple existence of it may be; they might meet WP:ANYBIO due to their TIME photography award, but I'm not confident they meet GNG. Possible COI.
- Baralia River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Pagladiya River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Jatinga River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Previously pinged for copyvio.
- Dikhow River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Gabharu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Haribhanga, Nalbari district - populated village, meets WP:GEOLAND, no evidence of COI. Could be renamed to Haribhanga (village).
- Kulsi River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Jiri River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Chowki picnic spot, Baksa district - since turned into a redirect. No evidence of COI. Original has no apparent copyvio.
- Billeswar Devalaya - Hindu temple. I have serious questions about notability, but won't comment beyond that as I suspect there may be sources in Hindi. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Aie River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Champabati River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. Copyvio, with phrases like " in south west direction and entered into Bengtal Sanctuary taking Khungrung river at its right in Hantupara" being directly copied.
- Embassy of India, Pyongyang - likely meets GNG, no evidence of COI. Possibly copyvio - table is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4098?000], and other text is copied directly from [here https://eoi.gov.in/pyongyang/?4179?00001]. However, I'm not certain of the copyright status of this content, given it was produced by the Indian government.
- Royal Bhutan Consulate, Guwahati - turned into a redirect. Origional has a possible copyvio with the phrase "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam is one of the diplomatic missions of the Kingdom of Bhutan to the the Republic of India with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland. It was inaugurated on 2 February 2018." being too close to the sources wording: "The Royal Bhutanese Consulate General in Guwahati, Assam with concurrent consular jurisdiction over Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Nagaland was inaugurated on 2 February 2018". As it has already been turned into a redirect, probably safer just to blank the original.
- Archana Mahanta - reads slightly promotional, but given the individual is deceased, that the article was created after their death, and is heavily sourced to non-paid obituaries, I think that is just a consequence of the chosen sources, rather than evidence of a COI. Easily meets GNG. No apparent copyvio.
- Adya Sharma - no apparent COI, meets GNG, but has copyvio, directly copying phrases like ["One of his remarkable achievements was staging Titanic in Kohinoor Theatre, one of the leading mobile theatre groups in Assam." https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/cultural-icon-passes-away/cid/1528681] from the Telegraph India.
- Jenny Atkinson - Might just scrape GNG, but they would need an additional source to do so, a source I haven't been able to find. No particular evidence of UPE, but the uniqueness of it - the sole article the user created that is not related to India - makes me suspect there is a UPE. Might be worth sending to AfD to get their feel for it.
- Jiadhal River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No evidence of COI. No apparent copyvio.
- Stopping for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Jiadhal River - Seems ok.
- Adya Sharma - Seems ok.
- Archana Mahanta - Seems ok.
- Embassy of India, Pyongyang OK
- Champabati River OK
- Aie River OK scope_creepTalk 23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Dikrong River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
- Borgang River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
- Basudev Devalaya - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
- Nona River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
- Ganga Pukhuri - [copyvio http://nalbari.nic.in/ganga_pukhuri.html]. No apparent COI, but I am not confident it meets GNG.
- Asha Bordoloi - Content does not appear promotional, but the individual might fail WP:BLP1E.
- Thetha Gohain Than - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Not confident it meets GNG.
- Archana Borthakur - Reads slightly promotional ("She is known for her social works ..." without the source making such a statement), and the evidence she meets GNG is slim; possible COI. No evidence of copyvio.
- Kushal Konwar Sarma - Comes across as slightly promotional, but I believe that is due to copyvio from a source that comes across as promotional, rather than COI.
- Ravi Kannan R - No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio. Meets GNG.
- [Bhaskar Jyoti Mahanta]] - No apparent COI, probably meets GNG, the "education" section is a copyvio.
- Surjya Kanta Hazarika - No apparent copyvio, doesn't read in a promotional manner, so no apparent COI. However, very unlikely to meet GNG.
- Shyamkanu Mahanta - Some minor copyvio, such as the line "Mahanta passed out in engineering and later did management course." being directly copied from the source. No apparent COI, probably meets GNG.
- Mayur Bora - Likely COI. Signature and photograph are presented as "own work" (not a new editor error, they have previously correctly attributed images), while the article reads vaguely promotional. No apparent copyvio, and possibly meets GNG.
- Manoj Gogoi - No apparent COI, but copyvio, with sentenced like "Gogoi decided to become a full-fledged environmentalist after a chance meeting with Kedar Gore, director of Corbett Foundation." directly copied from the source.
- M Kamalathal - reads promotional, using words like "selfless" that are not used in the sources. However, they likely meet GNG; all in all possible COI, but it might not need to be acted upon. No apparent copyvio.
- Bharalu River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
- Jhanji River - named geographical feature, meets WP:GEOLAND. No apparent COI, no apparent copyvio.
- Pausing for now, will continue later. BilledMammal (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Just looking at the above reviews, I am wondering if Nalbarian's block was justified. It just seems like a person with a passion for local places and people in India. They may have made a few copyvios in the process and the articles may not have been interesting enough for other WP editors to collaborate and form fully vetted articles. But COI? Indefinite block? Seems a stretch to me. SVTCobra 01:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I said, it was based on compelling nonpublic evidence. Most of his likely-commissioned articles were deleted before the block. – Joe (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Abdulhaseebatd
- Abdulhaseebatd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Anqui (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Zaid Ali T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sham Idress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This user was registered on 2 June 2021, and by 3 June 2021, Abdulhaseebatd was adding more promotional content to a grossly non-notable subject Anqui.[9][10] Praxidicae pointed out that this user "responded to a Freelancer request and were awarded the project
" and also left him a warning about his undisclosed WP:COI,[11] to which he responded with the message: "I was asked by a friend to improve this draft".[12] He admits the violation of WP:MEAT. He soon moved this non-notable article into article space.[13]
Even after that, he is engaging in undisclosed COI editing.
By 6 June, he created Zaid Ali T just to get around the salting of Zaid Ali, as seen by Bonadea.[14] As of 25 July, this user was still working on this draft.[15]
On 12 June, he created Sham Idress just to get around the salting of Sham Idrees. He requested the name change when the article was nominated for deletion.[16]
To me, this looks nothing more than a case of an undisclosed COI sock that is here only to create promotional and rejected articles without disclosing the payment details. Editorkamran (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would also note that the photograph (an headshot that appears professionally taken) is provided with the justification "own work". I can't find the image on the internet, so it seems likely that is provided by the subject. Praxidicae, could you provide evidence of this freelancer request or would that violate WP:OUT? BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Please clarify which image you're talking about? Up to date I've uploaded 4 images, all downloaded from internet, I can search and provide links of all images as well. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was mistaken. I thought it was you who uploaded that image, when it was a another user, who is likely the same user who added it to the article as an IP. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- No problem man, we all humans make mistakes. This isn't something strange to us 🙂. Have a good day. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was mistaken. I thought it was you who uploaded that image, when it was a another user, who is likely the same user who added it to the article as an IP. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Please clarify which image you're talking about? Up to date I've uploaded 4 images, all downloaded from internet, I can search and provide links of all images as well. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Earlier creations of Zaid Ali were done by Umais Bin Sajjad,[17] and SheryOfficial,[18] both users are blocked for socking + undisclosed COI. SheryOfficial also uploaded image "File:Shaveer Jafry's Photo.jpg."[19] while Abdulhaseebatd uploaded File:Shahveer Jafry.jpg.[20] Just like SheryOfficial,[21] Abdulhaseebatd also worked to promote Shaveer Jafry.[22] This user seems to be a part of paid editing sock farm. Editorkamran (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is really disgusting. How improving a draft, when someone asks you to do so, is WP:MEAT? Technically one can say that I tried to get around the salting of Zaid Ali but at that time, being new user, it was hard for me to understand why i wasn't able to move Draft:Zaid Ali to Zaid Ali as I stated in my move as well. But in case of Sham Idrees it was just a spelling mistake which I didn't correct all by myself due to ongoing AfD but mentioned that in AfD (Anyone having access to see all of my edits can independently interpret this claim). Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment about Suspicious reporter, isn't it suspicious, this account has been reactivated to report me on notice board. Editorkamran became inactive in August 2020 with this last edit and reactivated his/her account after a year (and a month) to directly report me here. There no edit in between her/his last edit and this notice board edit. Any experienced editor should look into this matter. Thankew Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)