→Waakye: section has been removed |
The Little Platoon (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 942: | Line 942: | ||
::Thanks [[User:Damien Linnane|Damien Linnane]]! Yes, looking at the history of that article, I can see there has been a lot of contention. I'm really glad to see the quality of all the editor interaction has seriously lifted. [[User:The Little Platoon|The Little Platoon]] ([[User talk:The Little Platoon|talk]]) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
::Thanks [[User:Damien Linnane|Damien Linnane]]! Yes, looking at the history of that article, I can see there has been a lot of contention. I'm really glad to see the quality of all the editor interaction has seriously lifted. [[User:The Little Platoon|The Little Platoon]] ([[User talk:The Little Platoon|talk]]) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|The Little Platoon}}, thanks for disclosing and coming to COIN. I have a questions regarding your employment situation. You're not required to answer any, but any you can answer would help. Who exactly employs you? eg Is it a firm, that is contracted by the Australian Parliament or by MPs individually? Or do you work for the Parliament directly? Or are you self-employed/a freelancer who contracts for individual MPs? What's your job title (eg is writing your full time job)? Who decides which MP you're writing about at any given time, is it the MP/you, or some kind of central writing department? Do the MPs know that you (individually) wrote on their articles? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
:{{u|The Little Platoon}}, thanks for disclosing and coming to COIN. I have a questions regarding your employment situation. You're not required to answer any, but any you can answer would help. Who exactly employs you? eg Is it a firm, that is contracted by the Australian Parliament or by MPs individually? Or do you work for the Parliament directly? Or are you self-employed/a freelancer who contracts for individual MPs? What's your job title (eg is writing your full time job)? Who decides which MP you're writing about at any given time, is it the MP/you, or some kind of central writing department? Do the MPs know that you (individually) wrote on their articles? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::{{ping|ProcrastinatingReader}}If I answered those questions everyone would figure out who I was in the Parliament! And people would start asking me to change things or to say certain things. Right now, no one gives me instruction and no one approves what I do. Look, maybe I've been a bit naive and maybe this isn't going to work. I think I've set my boundary as thoughtfully as I can. I've declared that I as a contributor to wp I have a connection. I could go further — like the remarkable {{ping|Damian Linnane}} and identify myself completely — but then I just wouldn't be able to write about the subjects because they would want to exert an influence on the articles. My hope is that I keep declaring that there is a connection, to maintain my anonymity, and, more importantly, to stick to what's important - balanced views, good sources. If that's just not good enough, then I will accept that, as much as I enjoy editing, and am passionate about this subject area, this just isn't going to work. I will accept your judgement.[[User:The Little Platoon|The Little Platoon]] ([[User talk:The Little Platoon|talk]]) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Waakye == |
== Waakye == |
Revision as of 22:07, 16 July 2020
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:
|
Charlie Buhler
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:Charlie Buhler ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Courtofmiracles98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Appear to be an undisclosed paid editor repeatedly creating Charlie Buhler and not responding to warnings on their talk page. The draft was declined by Robert McClenon and Sulfurboy and Courtofmiracles98 copy-pasting the same version in main repeatedly. GSS 💬 03:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Draft:Ryan Vigilant ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Before the Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject author may be promoting the movie Before the Fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked. MER-C 16:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Gardner–Webb University
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.
- Gardner–Webb University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Noeltmanning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This appears to be a clear case of undisclosed paid editing and a conflict of interest. This editor has exclusively edited this one article and almost certainly works in the university's marketing and communication unit. Our policy against outing does not allow me to directly state why I believe this editor works for this university but I am confident that other editors who spend even a few seconds investigating this will come to the same conclusion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, blocked. MER-C 13:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
MCPCG
- MCPCG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mason Piscitelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Glenbard East High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Aerolayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WikiLeviathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BoxWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WikiClown150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MoneyMan7274 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2601:243:B04:8310:70B8:94C6:E754:23EC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Articles and drafts are about non notable companies founded by Mason Piscitelli, who was also added to the high school article [1]. User appears to be here primarily to promote Mr. Piscitelli's endeavors. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: Promotions have continued with meat/sockpuppets, as added above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:8582:E7C7:C0B6:2FB7 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Invento Robotics
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.
- Invento Robotics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Anuj 0601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor has not responded to COI notice on their talk page and gone ahead an removed the COI and other maint tags on the article MB 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Doesn't smell too good. Their only other major edits (other than "grammatical changes") was to Mitra Robot to promote a robot designed by Invento Robotics (which is the 2nd page they've edited on). The page reeks of promotional editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Page seems AfD-worthy to me, so I've thrown it into the pit. GeneralNotability has left another COI notice on their talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- See also Glittershield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose contributions overlap and also appear to be pure PR. Guy (help!) 21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- This really does stink of COI. They clearly gamed autoconfirmed (12 fairly minor edits) to be able to publish this directly into mainspace then post a bunch of promotional rubbish. It's since been cleaned up a bit, but they're clearly not declaring their conflict of interest. Waggie (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with the analysis by Waggie and others. This editor clearly gamed the auto confirmed and is only here to publish PR content based on this article and their edits to the Mitra Robot. Their lack of response to the COI notices is strange - hoping they respond and admit their conflict of interest. -- Dane talk 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Stony Brook University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sbueditorjoanne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The name rings alarms, but is not forbidden. The account, however, seems to only care about SBU. Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: this edit makes the user sound like a paid employee: "We've tried to reach out numerous times on the old logo used for this page, but haven't heard from any editors on if it can be swapped out to the one that's being used now. There have been two separate updates to the logo since that one, so this hasn't reflected updates to the imagery. This page explains the new logo. https://www.stonybrook.edu/brand/design-visual-identity/logos-2/" ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The strength of the evidence that this editor is employed by this subject and violating WP:PAID makes me believe that he or she should be blocked until he or she directly and clearly addresses these concerns on his or her Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Which block template would you recommend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar enough with the block templates to make a recommendation. If there isn't already a "there's strong evidence that you're violating WP:PAID but you are refusing to address the issue" template then it might need to be created. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: how about that fancy new pblock on the Stony Brook University page? The only problem seems to be them editing SBU pages.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Which block template would you recommend? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Did you notice they refer to "our legal team" here? -- Bri.public (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: good catch. They also extensively edited the page for an SBU president here and in other edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Orangemike: Sorry. A bit late to the party, but noticed this thread. {{Uw-upeblock}} tends to be the template of choice for unpaid editing blocks, if you come across a similar situation again. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Digital Finance
- Draft:Digital Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- LiliyaBulgakova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please read my synopsis of the situation at User talk:Curb Safe Charmer#"Digital Finance" article. While the draft has been deleted at the user's request, their message to me on my talk page makes it clear that they are still intent on creating an article about the company. Given the WP:GAMING, COI and SPA I think some administrator action is appropriate. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Joey French
- Joey French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Joeyfrenchmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated reverts against MOS:BOLD and adding links to his YouTube channel against WP:LINKFARM Leijurv (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Martin Newman
- Martin Newman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Martin Newman (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AmyHarper77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kennard.lucy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikicontributor279 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On comparing the history of this article and this draft, these appear to be the same person, and both have a history of editing by fly-by-night accounts, most recently User:AmyHarper77, who has not replied to an inquiry about COI. This history of puffery goes back to 2011. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Creep Catchers
- Creep Catchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- AminCreepCatchers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Brax1016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user downright admits in their edit summaries that they are the owner of Creep Catchers, and is requesting another editor on their talk page to edit for them. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Brax1016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet of them, pretending to be an unaffiliated third party. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Drmies has blocked both accounts making this discussion moot. For the record, I couldn't even find a source that they were purchased by an American company, and that doesn't even seem possible because of how they're made of non-affiliated individuals and groups. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- CU confirmed your suspicion, JDDJS. Let's see if they can do it properly--with reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hoshinoya
- Hoshinoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hoshino Resorts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hotel Shilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WikiHotels01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- HotelsKorea01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Promotional editing to related articles by multiple editors. Both have been warned; mentioning here because I don't know if there are more articles or editors involved. Hoshinoya may be an AFD or G11, searching hits on dozens of hotel booking sites so it's hard to tell what actual coverage there may be. MB 18:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hotelpedia01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another one. MB 06:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pulsion Medical Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- PiCCO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- PulsionGermany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.125.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shameless spamming, often in first person plural, and block evasion. Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is at the top of User:Movies Time.
Movies Time is a site that brings you the highlights of Movies from past, present, and future. Movies Time also brings you the highlights for entertainment like music and television.
Okay, so blatant advertising and bad username. So obvious that I deleted the userpage as an ad. But then I looked and that this person has done quite a lot here. So, I'm stumped. The username SEEMS to be an advertisement for the user's YouTube, Instagram, etc., etc. brand name, and the userpage reeks of advertisement.
Advice?
--Orange Mike | Talk 14:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- They have their email and shit on their user page. Is the any policy that states that their username and userpage are problematic? Then they could be renamed? --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Editor agrees with my reasoning, is petitioning for re-name and promises to remove promotional content from userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Funding Societies
- Funding Societies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Glennice.yong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 116.86.189.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Glennice.yong did a series of potentially COI edits on the article on 3 July. The edits were reverted and tagged as COI, with the standard COI message left on the user's talk page. Similar edits were made again via IP address on 6 July. Similarly, edits were reverted. – robertsky (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Peter Schwerdtfeger
- Peter Schwerdtfeger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Paschwer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wranxisys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Wranxisys is a single-purpose account editing Peter Schwerdtfeger. They say they are "Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself". Their interest in the page is a bit unhealthy, neutrality-wise. Mostly I think they just need to understand that they should leave the page alone and not edit it, at which point the COI template can be removed. The username Paschwer, with 60 edits to the article, has a lot of similarity to the article subject's name. They also uploaded a portrait of the subject, with the caption "One of our staff members in 2014 with my own camera:, which implies they are the article subject.
Pinging @Melcous: as they also interacted with this user. Given the long-term COI, use of multiple accounts, lack of disclosure and the fact that they have ignored and not repsonded to a COI warning, this seems like a good candidate for a pBlock. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP I am not Peter Schwerdtfeger, however i know his work. Of course i am not going to deny that "i know the subject" however there is no COI in my edits. The problem with my "bit unhealthy" edits was only in response to Melcous continued addition of "issue" tags to the article without attempting to offer a significant and specific reason(s) why. Apart from the links to articles about COI, reads like résumé etc which are "blanket" reasons. What Melcous fails to understand is that most biographies of living (academic) persons read this like. One can see easily that Melcous edits biographies with a template that is not suitable to academic profiles/articles. I encourage anyone attempting to edit this page to find any real COI with any of the content and/or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Wranxisys and thanks for your reply. Why did you say in the linked edit above that is was "request from Distinguished Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger himself".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP in discussion on Melcous talk page. thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wranxisys (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I have said on my talk page, any further discussion about your conflict of interest, Wranxisys, which you have now acknowledged in at least two different places, should take place here, not there. Melcous (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
User Budke says of the article subject that "I have contacted him and had a long set of discussions with him", and apparently the subject says they won't do it again. The idea that editors are in touch with the article subject is a bit of a bad idea all around. GeneralNotability what do you make of that policy-wise, contacting subjects off-wiki?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, it sounds like they knew each other in passing before this, so this isn't exactly a Jytdog situation. I don't think it's a huge issue, we've certainly had cases where editors contacted a biography subject to request a freely-licensed photo or something similar. Might have been better to keep the communication on-wiki, but what's happened has happened. I wouldn't encourage contacting article subjects off-wiki, but I don't think any lines have been crossed. (Also, I think you meant Bduke, not Budke). GeneralNotability (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Dudva, edits primarily consisting of adding images
- Trier Cathedral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dudva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Much of user's edits don't make significant contributions to the article prose, but are predominantly pushing/shoehorning their self-created images into articles, and sometimes replacing existing images with their own as a minor with vague comments like "more colours". There might be a conflict of interest of their primary purpose being publicizing their own photographs, which isn't consisting with WP:GALLERY policy.
Here are some examples of their displacement of existing photos with a vague summary Special:Diff/962550137, Special:Diff/962677089 Graywalls (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I know, adding images one has taken is 100% fine, as long as it is not self-promotion. Whether they are an improvement or not is a content issue. The user also needs to stop marking edits as minor and start leaving edit summaries. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- "as long as it is not self-promotion." this is what we're trying to determine. Since images at Wikimedia Commons are Creative Commons licensed, anyone can use any image form existing pool of images there. When a user's edits predominantly consists of findings articles to insert images they have created and sometimes over-writing existing images on subjective ground, I believe we're stepping on the fine line of promotional COI much in the same way as looking for articles to insert citations to your own book. (which should not be happening anyways per WP:GALLERY it could possibly be WP:NOT. This series of edits for example is an introduction of a number of images into an article in which an effort has been underway to trim down on excess images. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: I see what you are saying. I looked at the most recent diff that had the edit comment "more colors". Dudva's photo (right) is indeed better and has more colors than the original (right), and Dudva's photo has better composition and more even lighting. I don't see any promotion in it; the image credit is "Dudva". After seeing the image comparison at right, I restored Dudva's image at right. Hope that is OK Graywalls. I would take this as an improvement of the image, in the same way we would overwrite text with something better. But maybe I am missing something? I didn't look at any others. It's quite time-consuming to assess image-based COI!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also looked at the first diff mentioned above (this one) and Dudva's image was clearly not as good as the original; reverted. I do not think there is much COI or promotion here, beyond a subjective feeling that their image is better than someone else's. Regarding the second diff mentioned in the initial post above, from the images at right, Dudva's is a clear improvement to the article. But they should not have been marking the image additions as minor edits, as it makes it look sneaky. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- If these two edits were out of many ordinary contributions, it would be one thing, but look at their contribution as a whole. There's hardly ANY contribution that isn't piling up and exhibiting images they authored into the gallery section of articles. Some target are already overfilled with pictures. Adding sources unrelated to the editor to improve unsourced articles is encouraged, but looking for unsourced, or inadequately articles to mold around sources related to the editor is likely COI. The same may apply when editor goes to look for articles to which they can insert photos they have taken especially when the article does not have encyclopedic merit from having additional photos or there are plenty of photos not related to the editor to tap into in Commons. The possible COI arises from the observation that essentially all their edits consist of inserting their own photos into articles, sometimes a bundle of them at once. Graywalls (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Graywalls: I hear what you are saying, so I went and looked at a dozen more of their image edits or additions. I am not seeing anything but good intentions in their edits. If it is COI, then what are they gaining? The images are all credited to the anonymous Dudva rather than any particular photographer or company. If there is a particular diff that shows COI, it would be good to see that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- If these two edits were out of many ordinary contributions, it would be one thing, but look at their contribution as a whole. There's hardly ANY contribution that isn't piling up and exhibiting images they authored into the gallery section of articles. Some target are already overfilled with pictures. Adding sources unrelated to the editor to improve unsourced articles is encouraged, but looking for unsourced, or inadequately articles to mold around sources related to the editor is likely COI. The same may apply when editor goes to look for articles to which they can insert photos they have taken especially when the article does not have encyclopedic merit from having additional photos or there are plenty of photos not related to the editor to tap into in Commons. The possible COI arises from the observation that essentially all their edits consist of inserting their own photos into articles, sometimes a bundle of them at once. Graywalls (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- "as long as it is not self-promotion." this is what we're trying to determine. Since images at Wikimedia Commons are Creative Commons licensed, anyone can use any image form existing pool of images there. When a user's edits predominantly consists of findings articles to insert images they have created and sometimes over-writing existing images on subjective ground, I believe we're stepping on the fine line of promotional COI much in the same way as looking for articles to insert citations to your own book. (which should not be happening anyways per WP:GALLERY it could possibly be WP:NOT. This series of edits for example is an introduction of a number of images into an article in which an effort has been underway to trim down on excess images. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Smile Foundation
- Smile Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 2402:3a80:688:3400:5922:5ab8:ab68:a471 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 2402:3a80:662:2511:c111:9e7b:be25:97df (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
- 2405:204:8b:8043:1897:abbe:995c:1fbd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Only here to promote Smile Foundation with no efforts to follow WP:COIEDIT. They were asked to disclose their conflict of interest but unfortunately, there is no reply. GSS 💬 11:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Smile Foundation for three months. The fluctuating IPs never discuss. A note was left at User talk:2405:204:8B:8043:1897:ABBE:995C:1FBD by User:GSS but there is no answer. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Collabora Online
- Collabora Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Marc_Rodrigues_(Collabora) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has disclosed their paid editor status on their userpage, but has also deviated from best practices by 1) writing an article on his product himself in the main space without using WP:AFC and 2) is in the process of adding wikilinks to that article to several list and comparison articles. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like the user is now blocked, but the article remains. - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ro'ya
- Ro'ya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Razan raghad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor repeatedly add un-encyclopedic/promotional info. Has not responded on their talk page. MB 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Is this an opportunity to partial block? The user was really pressing the company line, but has now been educated. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- There has been some further discussion at User talk:Materialscientist#Clearing my edit. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Greghenderson2006
- Patricia Ford Crass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Emile Kellogg Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Jean-Baptiste Boisot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Lewis Francis Byington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Byington Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Tirey L. Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Emil Ernest Gloor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alexander D. Henderson Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alexander D. Henderson III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Girard B. Henderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Joseph Henderson (pilot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- David H. McConnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ellwood Walter (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- George Faunce Whitcomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor was warned about COI seven years ago and posted a generic notice to their user page, to the effect of "I am making pages about my family". Here is a very low quality memorial-type page that they pushed to article space on Patricia Ford Crass,which includes a list of workshops that the subject did, and a section for their travels. Greghenderson2006's user page lists Patricia Ford as their mother. They have apparently made numerous other pages on family members, so these may need to be checked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- The editor lists Alexander Henderson as their father on their user page, so I am adding the three Alexander D. Henderson pages that they have edited. This is reminding me a bit of the Mitzi.humphrey family memorial efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, they have been adding various forms of this link, which the user lists on their user page as their own site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, there's quite a lot at [2]
- It's perhaps worth noting that the editor in question makes exaggerated claims about his subjects, such as that Cary S. Cox is "best known for inventing the ... the cotton gin ". (His patent is from 1928, Eli Whitney patented the first modern cotton gin in 1794) Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Vexations: I have removed all mentions of hendersonfamilytree.com as a) it was published by the editor who added it. Not a reliable source or appropriate EL. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Another one of these cases. My hand is currently not on the block button, but it twitches closer and closer as I note how almost everything he has contributed is connected in some way to his family (List of Pilot boats? Oh, that looks okay...wait a second, why's this Joseph Henderson linked everywhere...?). There do appear to be some unrelated pages in his contribs, though, and I don't think this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. I will give him some time to explain himself here. I also recommend that those experienced in image licensing take a look at his Commons uploads, I've already see a few doubtful "own work" cases. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GeneralNotability: maybe you could speak to this user on their talk to encourage them to discuss here? They are ignoring requests to stop editing the family-related pages: today's edits. I agree they have made some positive contribs in the past, but they seem dead set on ignoring basic COI principles and continuing to promote the family.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I concur with ThatMontrealIP that this COI case is similar to the Mitzi Humphrey case. (Which took a long time to clean up). I looked through Greghenderson2006's edit history and it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a vanity press, a means to blatantly celebrate and promote his family genealogy/ancestry. It seems that virtually all the articles he's created are about members of his family or their business activities. Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. See their newest creation Carmel Art Association.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- The user in quesiton has added a COI declaration with articles, but it is still unclear as to whether these are all the articles. They still do not seem to understand that their editing has created a lot of work for other editors who now have to go through and check each of the articles on family members that they edited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. I have looked through a number of this editor's articles and they contain excessive quotes from obituaries and trivial mentions which make them read much more like memorials than encyclopaedia articles. I've made edits to several but they will need a lot more careful scrutiny. Melcous (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK I found the COIN page. You guys are doing your job and I appreciate this. I have been creating Wikipedia pages for many years have loved it! However, in the last two days, you have laid into me with messages and warnings. I am slowly getting it. I can of course improve the pages, but not sure what to do here with so many messages of COI and possible deletions. I thought Wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals, and Developers of Airparks, Patents, companies, etc. When I write a Wikipedia article, I try to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work. I have signed a COI Declaration on my user page. What can I do to improve the articles and repair this relationship? Greg Henderson(talk)
- Greghenderson2006 it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "thought wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals" etc when the vast majority of your edits here have not been to do that, but to create and maintain articles about your family members. What you can do? The first step is pretty simple: agree to stop editing articles on topics connected to your family members. Melcous (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- And please, Greghenderson2006 stop WP:SPAM spamming the External Links sections of articles with links that go to an Amazon.com sales page to your own self-published book. Wikipedia is not a place to try to sell your "book". Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Greghenderson2006 it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "thought wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals" etc when the vast majority of your edits here have not been to do that, but to create and maintain articles about your family members. What you can do? The first step is pretty simple: agree to stop editing articles on topics connected to your family members. Melcous (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- OK I found the COIN page. You guys are doing your job and I appreciate this. I have been creating Wikipedia pages for many years have loved it! However, in the last two days, you have laid into me with messages and warnings. I am slowly getting it. I can of course improve the pages, but not sure what to do here with so many messages of COI and possible deletions. I thought Wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals, and Developers of Airparks, Patents, companies, etc. When I write a Wikipedia article, I try to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work. I have signed a COI Declaration on my user page. What can I do to improve the articles and repair this relationship? Greg Henderson(talk)
- @Netherzone:, I agree it's a good chance of WP:NOTHERE situation. Have a look at his edits on Pilot boat which involves inserting Henderson mixed with buffer to make it less obvious. Disclosing his COI isn't a pass to make edits for the purpose of inserting things to show his ancestors name visibility Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Greghenderson2006: thank you for your post above. The reason that we are concerned about your edits is that we don't allow substantial content editing of articles by those who are directly related to the articles.
- @Graywalls:, I saw that also - and there was another boat article with 14 mentions of one of his relatives that I saw you cleaned up. Even the articles that seem unrelated, when you look through them up pops another COI entry. This category he created on Commons says it all.[3] All roads lead to you know who. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I see you have asked about adding sources at Cary S. Cox. As long as these are independent sources, doing so is fine in my view' the COI policy allows involved editors to make minor non-controversial factual corrections or small additions to the article. You should keep in mind that anything that looks like promotion of your family is probably not a non-controversial item. Any significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page, usually through the WP:REQUESTEDIT process.
- What is not OK is creating articles about your family members, pushing them to article space and then continuing to edit them for years. If you want to write articles about family members you can do that via WP:AFC, where the article will be reviewed by an independent editor.
- Similarly not OK is adding links to books that you have published, unless it was an independent publisher and you add the links very judiciously. The same goes for the family history website that you operate: we are not interested as you are publishing your own material, and ostensibly could be seen to be promoting it via Wikipedia.
- To sum up, the advice here is that you have to stop directly editing articles on your family unless the edits are very minor. Larger edits need to be discussed or approved via Requestedit. New articles on family members need to go through AFC. Does that all make sense? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Yes, it makes sense. I appreciate the time you have made to educate me on these issues. I will follow the above advice. Greg Henderson(talk)
- Thanks, that is all we needed to hear. It is all about keeping the encyclopedia neutral. We appreciate your future adherence to the policies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP Yes, it makes sense. I appreciate the time you have made to educate me on these issues. I will follow the above advice. Greg Henderson(talk)
- The disclosure on his user page needs to be clearer and articles by listing articles with COI separately from generic my articles listing. Also, I feel like the anchor text on his user page is more along the line of use of Wikipedia for webhosting and brushing up against WP:NOTAWEBHOST policy. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good point,t he user should have a list on their user page of articles for which they have a COI with. That would be "best practice".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/947316726 This insertion about Henderson related stuff into the generic article perfume is also a COI concern. This Special:Diff/828212184 one is also inappropriate. Graywalls (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I am starting to think this user should be blocked:
- They have not given us a listing of COI articles on their user page, despite what seems like 20 warnings; See the numerous reuests just above this. They do say "I have a conflict of interest in many of my Wikipedia articles." but it is up to us to find the ones they have a COI on.
- They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting.
- Same thing at [the Carmel Art Association AfD], where they edit comment is "My vote is to keep it" and does not mention COI anywhere. Mentioning COI is important for editors unfamiliar with the COI saga.
- Same thing at the AFD for Cary S Cox: no disclosure for unfamiliar editors or admin closers.
- Ten days after this thread started, they've admitted they are a connected contributor on Carmel Valley Airport by adding the tag.
- I just found another article, William_Helm which is obvious COI, but they have not listed it on their user page as a COI article, and haven't tagged the page as connected contributor. At one point they did seek an OTRS release for some of the content, which was copied from their family history web site, so they clearly have a COI.
- In short, they have been using Wikipedia to promote their family for years, and now that we have figured that out, they are not being straight up about their COI in talk page discussions and have stonewalled very clear requests for disclosure. The user is WP:NOTHERE. Pinging GeneralNotability for their opinion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- ThatMontrealIP, ugh...I agree with your assessment that they haven't been forthcoming following the previous discussion and that they're pretty much only here to write about family history, but I know I can be quick on the block trigger so I'd rather another admin review and block if needed in this case. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I also see the user's pattern supports the assessment he is WP:NOTHERE to build the enclopedia, but here with an agenda to make articles and insert contents about those that relate to his own family. His disclosure looks deliberately vague and no kind of disclosure is a pass to increase the prominence of a particular group for their own purpose. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am in agreement that their contributions indicate WP:NOTHERE. Aside from the obvious COI articles, when I've looked through his edit history of contributions that seem to be unrelated, such as Brooklyn Bridge, Garden State Cemetery, Statue of Liberty, etc. only to find that his edits amount to adding info about a family relative, and do not contribute to the overall quality of the article. I've cleaned up this trivia on multiple articles, as have several other editors. Citations are often low quality, linking to Familysearch.com, his personal family website, or his self-published books or publications. He has been editing since 2007, but still seems unfamiliar with (or disinterested in) our basic policies and guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Deepak Mittal
- Draft:Deepak Mittal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- JasbeerPhoghat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA not responding to warnings on their talk page and only edits are to create Draft:Deepak Mittal. The draft was declined by multiple users so they choose to post it under Deepak mittal. WP:NOTHERE applies imo. GSS 💬 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- SoftServe
- Biosphere_Corporation
- Dragon Capital (company)
- NIX (company)
- Kvartal 95 Studio
- Oleg Bakhmatyuk
- Norebo
- Andrey Stavnitser
- Darnitsa (pharmaceutical company)
- DLC InterChem
- Boris Lozhkin
For everyone's awareness, we worked our way through a pile of possible Bodiadub (long-time UPE) socks in this investigation. I'd appreciate it if folks here could take some time to look through the socks' contributions in case cleanup is required. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is a lot of material to go through. It would be really helpful if you at least point in the direction of what you have concerns on. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I cleaned up Boris Lozhkin back in April over "a bunch of socks". Prior sockfarms included WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Issack.build & WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais and CU-blocked user:Imrelaxed. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris
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.
- Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bnguyen1114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous discussion on the Kamala Harris talkpage.
This situation arose because The Intercept wrote a piece called There’s a War Going On Over Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia Page, With Unflattering Elements Vanishing on July 2, 2020. Bnguyen1114 was mentioned in the article by his username only. On his talkpage, Bnguyen1114 has stated that he has been doxxed as a result of the article.
Bnguyen1114 himself has said the following about his possible COI on-wiki:
I'm just a constituent of Kamala Harris who volunteers for Democratic candidates
[4]a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates
[5]I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events
[6]
However, the material which cannot be linked here due to WP:OUTING, actually details that he had a far more direct COI while editing the Kamala Harris pages.
WMF CEO Katherine Maher also has commented this issue in Twitter and stated that conflict of interest editing is against Wikipedia policies.
So far Bnguyen1114 has continued to edit the Kamala Harris talkpage. If the nature of his COI is more than "just a constituent" per the information elsewhere, how to proceed? Should functionaries process the private evidence?
In any case, the COI is "apparent" without a doubt. His 200 first edits were adding endorsements to the Kamala Harris campaign.--Pudeo (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Being a member of the Democrat party, heck even volunteering for Democrat party events isn't a COI. A lot of people might be members of a political party, it costs a few bucks to be one and doesn't carry really any obligations.
- You mention that you have private information which can show a COI, which cannot be posted here due to WP:OUTING. You can email your information to: paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Private information can be sent here, volunteers for that email address are bound by confidentiality agreements. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I request that an administrator delete Pudeo's sentence invoking the authority of Katherine Maher. Given her status as chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia, Maher's public off-wiki insinuation that Bnguyen1114 is guilty of conflict of interest editing is outrageously prejudicial and should have no place in this COI discussion. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I will note that Bnguyen1114 has recused themselves from editing Kamala Harris due to an apparent COI. Unless there is proof of paid editing, I'm not sure what the goal is here. PrimaPrime (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the goal in throwing Bnguyen1114 under the bus is twofold: signal Wikipedia's virtue and appease The Intercept. Such are the times we live in. NedFausa (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- He hasn't really recused, he said that he will recuse "until some editors go through it". Since then he has participated on the talkpage and argued about content. Plus, he has racked up hundreds of edits which will need to scrutunized if there is a COI. That's what this noticeboard is good for. --Pudeo (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since Bnguyen1114's last edit, four dozen unique editors have closely scrutinized Kamala Harris and cumulatively made nearly 200 good-faith contributions. It's absurd to suggest that your COI noticeboard report, filed five days after The Intercept′s exposé, was needed to remediate his overzealousness. Repairs are ongoing and will continue just fine without formally scapegoating our fellow editor. NedFausa (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't really been active other than adding Robert Redford and Ady Barkan's endorsement to Joe Biden's page. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you want me to say I will recuse indefinitely? I will recuse indefinitely. What more do you need to know about me? In 2017, I donated money to Ralph Northam. In 2018, I wrote letters, phonebanked, and textbanked for Claire McCaskill. In 2018, I volunteered to knock doors for Josh Harder. In 2019, I volunteered on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. In 2020, I phonebanked for Joe Biden's presidential campaign in the run up to the New Hampshire primary. I've taken pictures with Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jill Biden, and Jay Inslee. I mean seriously, I'm an open book, people. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bnguyen1114, thank you for that information. The above means you have a conflict of interest in relation to these people and you should not edit articles about them on Wikipedia. You're welcome to make suggestions on the talk pages, but you should signal your COI when you do. SarahSV (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Bnguyen1114, thank you for being up front. Can I just ask, did you do any of the editing in coordination with the Harris campaign? You have said earlier that you have volunteered for them, but the siginficant issue in situations like this is whether there was any coordination or direction. It sounds like there isn't, but just to be clear it would be good to know. Thanks for bearing with us here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of course there's no coordination. As I've explained before, I worked this project while in quarantine with long stretches of free time. I haven't been anywhere since the Stay At Home orders have been issued, not even my own office. I saw that Harris' page missed a great deal of information, so I began adding it on my own initiative. The same way I started adding campaign endorsements to hers and Joe Biden's page when the primary was still going on. Moreover, there is no Harris campaign. She suspended in December. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks to Bnguyen, to Slim, and to user:Drmies who I think summed up Bnguyen's edits quite well with this comment: "Bnguyen seemed to be a COI editor who's prime interest was the flooding of these articles with every bit of information, whether relevant, reasonable, well-sourced or not--not overly promotional stuff, or I would have blocked them, but just too much stuff. It's the kind of editing that turns articles into swamps." It was my impression that this editor did not intend to bias the article but perhaps (and hopefully) unknowingly put in so much "stuff" that the article was indeed swamped. I know that I tried to wade into that swamp to improve the article several times but quickly felt I was being sucked under in quicksand and could not go on. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is the right outcome. Restricting Bnguyen1114 as an arbitration-enforcement action from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents, based on Bnguyen1114's self-disclosure, is reasonable. Since he is not blocked, Bnguyen1114 may now contribute to Wikipedia however he likes, providing he does not breach the limited restrictions that SarahSV has imposed—and, of course, adheres to our other policies and guidelines. NedFausa (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please confirm this is a permanent sanction. If so, I will abide by it, though I don't think there's any reason for me to contribute to any wiki article going forward if this is how volunteerism is rewarded. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've only been restricted from editing a dozen or less articles. There are still 6,117,931 ( that's 6,117,943 - 12) articles that you are free to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: I take your point, but your count is way low. Bnguyen1114 is restricted from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. Wikipedia presently mentions Joe Biden in 2,620 articles, Kamala Harris in 815, Claire McCaskill in 379, and Josh Harder in 138. And their opponents! My god, Biden's likely opponent in November, a guy named Trump, is mentioned in 18,549 articles. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- That sill leaves millions! Lots of volunteer opportunities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: I take your point, but your count is way low. Bnguyen1114 is restricted from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. Wikipedia presently mentions Joe Biden in 2,620 articles, Kamala Harris in 815, Claire McCaskill in 379, and Josh Harder in 138. And their opponents! My god, Biden's likely opponent in November, a guy named Trump, is mentioned in 18,549 articles. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've only been restricted from editing a dozen or less articles. There are still 6,117,931 ( that's 6,117,943 - 12) articles that you are free to edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please confirm this is a permanent sanction. If so, I will abide by it, though I don't think there's any reason for me to contribute to any wiki article going forward if this is how volunteerism is rewarded. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, just seven hours after administrator SlimVirgin imposed arbitration-enforcement restrictions on him, Bnguyen1114 has defiantly flouted those restrictions with this edit. By thumbing his nose at our COI process, Bnguyen1114 has earned an indefinite site block. NedFausa (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Romesh Wadhwani
- Romesh Wadhwani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Easchroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Contributions show that the editor has been only active on the article. The editor removed information from the article for "security concerns", giving me the impression that the editor might be working for the Wadhwani family. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SuperGoose007: agree about the likely COI. The edior summarised removal "at child's request". I'd agree with this if this would be about welfare of a minor, e.g. WP:CHILD. However, the subject's daughter is an adult and details of her wedding are widely published, including wedding glamour pics, etc. A sentence about his daughter in this respect are not undue. The editor has been warned correctly. Let's see how they respond. Some of the edits need clean up.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Easchroeder response to COI--I also put this on my user page but putting this here too, since I'm not totally sure where I'm supposed to be responding.
- The page for Romesh Wadhwani (the founder and chairman of SAI Group) is wildly out of date. This is coming up this week because the Wadhwani Foundation announced an initiative so people are looking him up on Wikipedia and it incorrectly cites his current role as head of STG. He left STG in 2017.
- The page is also missing info about the Padma Shri (awarded Feb 2020) and a bunch of other items. I'm happy to provide external citations for each needed change. I don't know how to get the information updated so would love some help in that.
- My main concern is getting Romesh's info up to date. I do not work for "the Wadhwani Family." I work for SymphonyAI Group.
- The secondary concern is the mention of Melina and Patrick. Patrick (Melina's husband) works at SAI (so the information about him is wrong anyway). They do want their mention removed from Romesh's bio. I did not say welfare--I said security concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchroeder (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Easchroeder, many thanks for the clarification. If you are employed by SymphonyAI, a company founded and led by the subject of the article, you are a paid editor under Wikimedia's terms. Any edits to articles about the company, its products, key personnel, etc. are subject to disclosure. For details, see WP:PAID and WP:COI about how to disclose and suggest edits as paid editor.
- In a nutshell, the wishes of people connected with the subject are irrelevant as long as there is sufficient publicly available coverage in reliable media and a mention is not undue or otherwise violates Wikipedia's guidelines. If the place of employments of the subject's son in law needs to be corrected, that's fine. Removal of mention is not necessary as there is sufficient coverage about the daughter and her relations. A sentence is not undue weight and it is relevant.
- Factual updates are fine, but they must be free of puffery. "Fast growing", "leading AI", "driving ... operational excellence", etc. are all marketing hyperbole. Whatever is referenced will also need reliable secondary sources. Company websites, press releases or closely authored articles are not sufficient. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
EAschroeder responding again: OK. So I don't violate anything, where/how do I put recommended edits to factual info on Romesh? Noted about "puffery." --Easchroeder (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- You can make an edit request on the talk page of the article. Create a new section, and put {{request edit}} at the top of the section, and that'll put it into the COI request queue for a neutral editor to come and review your suggestions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
wikiprofessionals inc
- Articles
- Wissam Al Mana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Pages listed in the Wikiprofessionalsinc.com portfolio)
- Anne-Marie Baiynd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ciro Guerra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gaby Natale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- David F. D'Alessandro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rick Riordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Aliko Dangote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Shaherose Charania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gavin Arthur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- James D. Marks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ali Azayku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Ben de Lisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Helen DeVos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Robert Citrone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Pete Flint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Neil Young (video game executive) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Linx Cargo Care Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Standard Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Odibets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- XING Mobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Big Red Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Caliburn International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dreamscape Immersive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Blendtec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Russell McVeagh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hornblower & Marshall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delivery Hero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- BATS Chi-X Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Brown & Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- TheBlaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Firefly Aerospace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Day Software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Pedego Electric Bikes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- VinFast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Alaba Lawson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Editors
- Belmop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- HappyKatsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Posting this here as a courtesy; it was originally posted at the Teahouse.
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I would like to report a couple undisclosed editors working for a company called wikiprofessionals inc. They have an online profolio (can't post link because it won't let me due to the filter) and that the page creators from the page creation log does not appear to have disclosed their editing. I also had a live chat with a rep and that they have admitted these accounts, but claim it is allowed. On their FAQ, they say that wp:iarpermits them to do so, except they actually don't. What should I do now? The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 11:21 am, Today (UTC−7) (reply)
We don't have a list of involved editors or an article list to look at; The creeper2007, perhaps you could post below if yoiu know of any involved editors or articles?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I practically have a incomplete list! They have a profolio at (can't post link because of blacklist) and that they are all page creations. so, one could look into the page creation log of each one of the pages and find out. The thing is, there are way too many people and I am quite busy at this time. I would also like to post a excerpt of my conversation with the company here:
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- (The rep admits one and Denys one of the accounts.) So, that is the evidence for now. Also, it would be very helpful if someone could look through the page creation log of all of the pages in the profolio. BTW I'm Joe and it is not my real name The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will notify those users. I am not sure if what they say is true or not. It would be quite easy for them to pick any editor and say "this is one of our paid editors?.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, that's not all, there are much more because that they have a profolio that we can track with the page creation log, but I can't post the link due to blacklist.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- You can add the names of the pages they claim to have edited, just paste them into a post here without the actual link to the portfolio page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am sure there is also a friendly admin who would receive the link by email.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- You can add the names of the pages they claim to have edited, just paste them into a post here without the actual link to the portfolio page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Again, that's not all, there are much more because that they have a profolio that we can track with the page creation log, but I can't post the link due to blacklist.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The creeper2007, Probe them a bit. Ask them if I am an account they use to edit Wikipedia. We all know where my affiliation are so it will be a way to test and see if they are honest about it. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678 Like, should I ask them if they use your account to edit? Not sure what you mean The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The creeper2007, yes. Exactly. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678 After a long conversation, they said that they did not use your account to edit. Here's the transcript:
- The creeper2007, yes. Exactly. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678 Like, should I ask them if they use your account to edit? Not sure what you mean The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will notify those users. I am not sure if what they say is true or not. It would be quite easy for them to pick any editor and say "this is one of our paid editors?.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
conversation
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- I'm John in this instance.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The creeper2007, so this likely increases the chance that they are telling the truth about the first two users. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm John in this instance.The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@The creeper2007: Regarding the portfolio of articles, you don't have to paste the whole link. Just remove the part from the beginning through "wikiprofessionalsinc.com" and post the rest. Or you could just paste the list of articles (though this is not as good as having the links to them). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! The portfolio's address is wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/ The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is an admin looking at this already, or is there any value to my posting the list of articles and/or researching the contributors? It doesn't seem as simple as looking at page creator (though for many of them, it is). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've added the list of articles at the top of this section. These are the ones that they mention in the portfolio link. Who knows if these pages have any COI or paid editing at all, as they could easily say something was their product when it is not, but it bears examination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with ThatMontrealIP - there is no way to be sure that they aren't lying about what work they've done to impress potential clients. Neil Young? Really? BD2412 T 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: That's linked to the wrong Neil Young. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you know which Neil Young it is (or which spelling of Neil Young)? I'll pick a handful of these to look over. BD2412 T 02:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: I went to the website, and I see four testimonials there, from Sam Alvey, Ekaterina Zakharieva, Full Tilt Poker, and Dechert. BD2412 T 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alvay, for example, was created by User:Udar55 and largely expanded by User:Ppt1973, both of whom seem to have been a fairly consistent MMA editors since long before this article was created. If there was paid editing in the article at all, it was probably something more minute, like adding or removing some key item. BD2412 T 02:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I have corrected that one as it have should read Neil Young (video game executive). I checked the others and they are correctly named. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. Created by User:HappyKatsu, which looks like a fairly shady account. Their second-ever edit was this highly precocious addition of a ref tag (I didn't even learn the {{!}} trick myself until I had been here for several years). They made 265 edits over a period from November 2017 to July 2018, and their created pages were Brian Farrell (video game executive), Frank Gibeau, Project Alamo, Mike Verdu, Aaron Loeb, Kevin Chou, Eric Schiermeyer, Roger Dickey, Bill Jackson (video game designer), Neil Young (video game executive), John Schappert (video game executive), and Mark Skaggs. These are all in the area of video game design or social media operation, and each one is created with an edit asserting the notability of the subject (e.g., "Added Kevin Chou page, notable for founding Kabam and growing it to over $400MM in revenue and then selling it for between $700MM-$1B. Also notable for his foray into eSports with the Overwatch League and the $25MM pledge to UC Berkeley"). BD2412 T 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP:, can you tell me how to find their portfolio? BD2412 T 03:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412:Here you go! Also, again, this link is not linked to. The chat rep gave it to me. wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/ The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 03:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Very glossy. I have no confidence in their honesty in putting out this list, but I will go through them all, probably a handful per day for the next week or so, and I'll flag those that are suspicious. If User:HappyKatsu is a model, they are using dedicated throwaway accounts to make groups of articles within a relatively narrow field, and each account will have a disproportionate number of articles created relative to their total number of edits (i.e., very few edits to topics other than their own created articles, with those tending to be the addition of links pointing to the created articles). BD2412 T 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I agree about having no confidence about what they are claiming. At the same time, the video exec biographies that you point out above do have the atmosphere of promotional/paid editing. Such an easy business to start: they have millions of example articles they can claim as their own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I looked through a few of the users, many appear to to make 10 edits marked minor and then start creating the page, and then cease editing The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 04:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I agree about having no confidence about what they are claiming. At the same time, the video exec biographies that you point out above do have the atmosphere of promotional/paid editing. Such an easy business to start: they have millions of example articles they can claim as their own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Very glossy. I have no confidence in their honesty in putting out this list, but I will go through them all, probably a handful per day for the next week or so, and I'll flag those that are suspicious. If User:HappyKatsu is a model, they are using dedicated throwaway accounts to make groups of articles within a relatively narrow field, and each account will have a disproportionate number of articles created relative to their total number of edits (i.e., very few edits to topics other than their own created articles, with those tending to be the addition of links pointing to the created articles). BD2412 T 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412:Here you go! Also, again, this link is not linked to. The chat rep gave it to me. wikiprofessionalsinc(dot)com/wiki-portfolio/ The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 03:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: That's linked to the wrong Neil Young. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with ThatMontrealIP - there is no way to be sure that they aren't lying about what work they've done to impress potential clients. Neil Young? Really? BD2412 T 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Investigation of wikiprofessionals inc
Note: Articles believed to have been created by this entity (or otherwise under COI circumstances) are marked [X]. BD2412 T 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- [X] Wissam Al Mana was created by User:Qatar1123, who only made a handful of edits, mostly that page and then disappeared. Funny story: the second edit to that page was by me, gnoming away at disambiguation links.
- Anne-Marie Baiynd was created by User:Gene Hobbs, a long-time well-established editor in the area who was around from 2006 to 2018. Other than a few IP edits, the rest of the editors who have contributed to the article are equally known. I would not consider this a likely candidate for paid editing.
- Ciro Guerra was created by User:Lugnuts, a well-established Wikipedian, and was created well before the period in which this company seems to be active. If there's paid editing going on with this article, it would be somewhere later in its history.
- Thanks BD2412. Looking at the edit history, I created this back in 2009, inline with a load of films and directors linked to the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. If you need any more info from me, just ping/drop me a note. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- [X] Gaby Natale was created in draftspace by an IP, and then twice declined as a draft before being promoted to article space by User:Leran Chip, whose only edits were to that article. This sort of bespeaks the problem of allowing any editor to come along and make a handful of edits and then be able to promote previously declined drafts to mainspace. Tagged as COI.
- [X] David F. D'Alessandro was created by User:Tegeril, whose grand total of 16 edits were almost entirely to that article. Tagged as COI. BD2412 T 05:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- [X] Rachel Cruze is one of five articles created by User:BloominOnion27 between July 2015 and April 2017; the others are Avrom Honig, Mustaq Ahmad, John Carrafiell, and Academy of Art University Automobile Museum, all of which are suspiciously boosterish and commercial-focused.
- Rick Riordan is a fairly famous author (the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series), and was created in 2006, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Aliko Dangote, also created in 2006, with plenty of back-and-forth but no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- [X] Shaherose Charania, created in 2011 (so a bit early) by User:Virgilia.singh, whose only two edits were the creation of this article.
- The subject of this article also founded Women 2.0, which was subject to likely COI editing by user Women2.0 (talk · contribs) (if any doubt, confirmation of paid editing in Special:Diff/444348620, indication of copyvio in Special:Diff/444383518) as well as possibly Turtledragon (talk · contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gavin Arthur, created in 2013, is the grandson of President Chester A. Arthur. It was created by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history. BD2412 T 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Should we open a SPI into the matter? SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 15:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SuperGoose007 and BD2412: Well, there would likely to be groups of socks from each ip. also, it is also likely that they have teamed up with well established Wikipedians. Please see transcript below:
Transcript
|
---|
|
- It can't hurt, but let me finish going through these initially so I can pull out all the suspicious editors. BD2412 T 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, perhaps pop like a [X] or something before suspicious entries, so the 'likely not related' entries can be distinguished from the 'perhaps problematic' ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I will do that when I get through the list. Almost done. BD2412 T 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SuperGoose007:: SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belmop. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I will do that when I get through the list. Almost done. BD2412 T 16:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- BD2412, perhaps pop like a [X] or something before suspicious entries, so the 'likely not related' entries can be distinguished from the 'perhaps problematic' ones? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- It can't hurt, but let me finish going through these initially so I can pull out all the suspicious editors. BD2412 T 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Next group:
- [X] James D. Marks, created in 2012 by User:Danielj55, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
- Ali Azayku, created in 2007, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Ben de Lisi, created in 2009, with no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Helen DeVos, created in 2017, but by User:Edwardx a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Robert Citrone, also created in 2017 by User:Edwardx, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- [X] Pete Flint, created in 2014 by User:Edcowin, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it.
- [X] Linx Cargo Care Group, created in 2018 by named paid editor User:Belmop
- [X] Standard Media, created in 2019 by User:Spizbo, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this and another company, Media General.
- Should probably be merged into a section at Media General, who acquired them, anyway. Insufficient notability on its own. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- [X] Odibets, created in 2019 by User:Kripticjay, who only made a handful of edits, mostly related to this topic (which is their only page creation).
- [X] XING Mobility, created in 2018 by User:Sam.w.90, who made fewer than two dozen edits, many related to this topic.
- Big Red Group, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Caliburn International, created in 2019 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Dreamscape Immersive, created in 2017 by a well-established Wikipedian, and has no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- Blendtec, created as a redirect in 2006, and expanded into an article in 2010, no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
- [X] Russell McVeagh, created in 2006 by User:Lawgeek18, who had all of seven edits (of which three were page creations in the New Zealand legal services area). There was an attempt to introduce promotional content in 2017 by User:Tessatelle, who only ever edited this article.
BD2412 T 15:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think I should alert the company after the investigations(so they won't interfere) to give them a chance to provide their thoughts on this matter?The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the point, frankly. They are up front about their claimed activities, so what is there for them to explain? BD2412 T 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: The thing is, you would never know if there is something until you ask The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, presuming that they do not yet know of this investigation, we don't want to give them an opportunity to cover their tracks, to the extent such a thing is possible here. I imagine that if we are able to query some of their current work, that will alert them enough. BD2412 T 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: The thing is, you would never know if there is something until you ask The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see the point, frankly. They are up front about their claimed activities, so what is there for them to explain? BD2412 T 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If User:Lawgeek18 is one of their paid editors, then we need to list the other two articles created by that user. Or am I missing something?
[X] Fay Richwhite[X] David Richwhite
Thanks. Schwede66 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: It is not possible for User:Lawgeek18 to have been one of their paid editors, since all of that editor's edits were performed in 2006. The issue with the article, Russell McVeagh, is that it appears to have later SPA editing. BD2412 T 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Last group:
- Hornblower & Marshall, created in 2011 by a well-established editor, an historic architecture firm and not at all a candidate for paid editing.
- [X] Delivery Hero, created in 2012 by User:Ponpinketo (user's only two edits were to create this), and has had much activity from short-lived SPAs (User:Margarita77; User:CaroStephenson who also worked on Hungryhouse; User:213.61.228.26; blocked sock User:Kshitizgarg45; User:Stanislavlabamba; and several other blocked accounts or single-edit accounts).
- [X] BATS Chi-X Europe, created in 2007 (before our time frame) by User:Cyrus.kapadia, whose only edits were the creation of this article. Some other suspicious accounts in the edit history are User:MarkWDowd and User:SCL2010, both highly focused on this article and adding promotional content.
- [X] Brown & Brown, created in 2012 by blocked sock User:Candleabracadabra. Some other SPAs (e.g. User:Zenglhtao2012) are also in the edit history.
- [X] TheBlaze (since moved to Blaze Media), created in 2010 by User:Difluoroethene (now blocked by his own request as "retired"), some suspicious SPA/low-edit accounts in the article history (e.g., User:Gwvest, User:Yestetyear, User:38.92.73.174, User:96.229.11.125).
- [X] Firefly Aerospace, created in 2014 by User:Chris prophet, as one of only a handful of edits.
- [X] Day Software, created in 2007 by User:David.nuescheler, as one of only a handful of edits.
- [X] Pedego Electric Bikes, created in 2015 by User:EBikePro, as one of only a handful of edits.
- VinFast, created in 2018 by a well-established editor no obvious paid editing in its edit history.
BD2412 T 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I'm going to propose deletion of several under WP:G5 criterion. It might help if we had a formal community ban of this outfit, if there isn't one already. I looked at WP:AN and didn't see one (yet). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: Agree. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 21:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Given that some of the stuff they claim to have created is junk, and who knows what the quality is of stuff they haven't claimed, I strongly agree. BD2412 T 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Moving to WP:AN to generate wider consensus. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 23:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fairly confused what's going on here. As I said at AN, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Wikiprofessionals Inc, and paid editing, Russell McVeagh was created in 2006. The editor was only active for that short time, so paid editing can't be ruled out, but if this farm only came about in the early 2010s, how on earth would they be responsible? The other major edits are by User:Tessatelle who may have had a COI but seems to have failed (rejected by User:Drmies), Special:Contributions/Sammy2008 who seems to have a wide ranging interest in NZ (and Tongan) law over a long period of time i.e. probably wasn't a paid editor, an IP from the Lower Hutt library system [7] and Special:Contributions/MarkoMetal who seems to have been identified as editing for Wikiprofessionals Inc back in 2018. But that editor is interesting because they added [8]? As I said at AN, would the law firm pay to add that to the article on them? I guess it's possible it was recognised there was no way it wouldn't be covered so they tried to add something as innocuous as possible before someone else did, but IMO there are many open questions about who is paid who for what in that article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've mentioned this discussion and the AN one at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- In the conversation it is mentioned that HappyKatsu is involved, but Belmop is not a "named paid editor"; also Standard Media is a subsidiary of Standard General, not of Media General (which was sold to another company before Standard Media was founded). It's also possible that this is just a random list of articles and accounts provided as an experiment to see what is deleted and what isn't. Peter James (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
RfC outcome
RfC just ended with a site ban for WikiProfessionals. Plus, anything they created is eligible for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Additional articles
- Alaba Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (tagged, UPE evidence emailed)
- The article Alaba Lawson is claimed by the firm, I need to send off-wiki evidence. Is there an admin who wants it? @DGG: given your deletion nom of an article by same creator, maybe you are interested? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: I think you would be better off directly contacting admins, because that this thread is moved to AN and was closed. The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I sent my evidence via email to paid-en-wp and will tag it g5 for any admin to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- G5 tag was removed by article creator, apparently before the evidence has been considered. Certainly before there has been a response to the evidence by a third party. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Cathy Marie Buchanan
- Cathy Marie Buchanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Lindow Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bog body (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Cathymbuchanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite [9] and notices on her talk page, she is continuing to add her current and forthcoming works to articles and to edit her own article, adding quite a bit of unsourced or self-sourced material. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tagged page for COI, added another warning to user page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just noticed that user General Notability had already used the extremely handy partial-block button to limit the user's editing of the Cathy Marie Buchanan page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since her response was to go edit other pages and write about her connection to them, I'm going to go ahead and upgrade that to a full block. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just noticed that user General Notability had already used the extremely handy partial-block button to limit the user's editing of the Cathy Marie Buchanan page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
SocialChorus
Hello, I have a conflict of interest related to a software company called SocialChorus, so I don't intend to make any direct edits to Wikipedia myself. I have created a draft for you all to review at User:JeffreyArthurVA/sandboxB. Could an uninvolved editor review this draft and, so long as it meets your criteria, move it to mainspace? This falls into the category of business software companies along the lines of something like Slack_Technologies so if it would be best to bring this over to an area such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Technology I'd be happy to do so. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @JeffreyArthurVA: thank you for your disclosure. This is not the page to submit articles for review. I moved your draft to draft space and attached an AFC template. You will see a blue button that you can press to put it in the review queue. You need to also look at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure to make sure that you have the proper disclosures on your talk page, in case this is paid editing. Question: is this paid editing? You should also be disclosing your COI there for the SocialChorus article. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you. I will submit it for review through the process you've recommended. I'll clarify that this is not paid editing; I do however know many people in the business software industry, including the founder of this company, so I wanted to err on the side of caution and refrain from making any direct edits myself related to it. Much appreciated. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the disclosure. It might be wise to put something like the above on your user page. The draft itself is tagged for COI so reviewers know to check carefully, and some other editor will remove that template once they have checked it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will do, that is a great idea. I get how important it is to be clear with disclosure so I will update my user page to reflect this. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- JeffreyArthurVA, there is an easy template for that, which creates a little box with the COI info on your user page. See item #3 at WP:DISCLOSE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fantastic, that is much cleaner than my bullets. I'll add that. You have been quite helpful -- thank you. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- JeffreyArthurVA, there is an easy template for that, which creates a little box with the COI info on your user page. See item #3 at WP:DISCLOSE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will do, that is a great idea. I get how important it is to be clear with disclosure so I will update my user page to reflect this. Regards, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the disclosure. It might be wise to put something like the above on your user page. The draft itself is tagged for COI so reviewers know to check carefully, and some other editor will remove that template once they have checked it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you. I will submit it for review through the process you've recommended. I'll clarify that this is not paid editing; I do however know many people in the business software industry, including the founder of this company, so I wanted to err on the side of caution and refrain from making any direct edits myself related to it. Much appreciated. JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- McKinsey & Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There are obvious COI issues on the McKinsey & Company page, with some edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article 111k and needs to be shrunk. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- What a ridiculous response. You went to the article and helped the COI accounts by scrubbing ALL the negative information (scandals, controversies) from the lead and by restoring ludicrous puffery language such as McKinsey helping "the world’s leading businesses... and nonprofits"? As for the substance of your remark, the solution to the size constraints of the McKinsey is obviously not to reduce the lead to one paragraph (!) and conveniently remove text from the lead about the organization's controversies (which takes up most of the space in the body), but rather to trim the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Is this what's to be expected when one comes with obvious COI issues to the COI noticeboard? The editors here will promptly go and help the COI accounts puff up articles and whitewash negative content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article 111k and needs to be shrunk. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Toptal
- Toptal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nickhartley27707 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jakozloski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both accounts have recently edited Toptal. We could be dealing with SPAs with COI. While their edits are not disruptive in nature, it may be worth having the admins remind them of what they can/cannot add to the page considering their COI.
- Nickhartley27707 - recently added edits in the article and may have close affiliation with the company.
- Jakozloski - SPA which recently editedthe article. Could be worth looking into whether they're connected or not. Infogapp1 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Infogapp1: You need to notify those editors they are under discussion. You can use the template in the red box at the top of this page. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bri: That's done. thanks — Infogapp1 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I imagine both accounts are related to the subject, but tidying up an image isn't too big of an issue (though I've left a paid note on their talk). I'd say just keep an eye on the page. As a sidenote, do note that you shouldn't out other editors; that comment was suppressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Hi, yes. Thanks for the reminder and it's noted. I meant for it to make it easier to double-check the report (like the requirement for diffs), and shouldn't happen in future reports. — Infogapp1 (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I imagine both accounts are related to the subject, but tidying up an image isn't too big of an issue (though I've left a paid note on their talk). I'd say just keep an eye on the page. As a sidenote, do note that you shouldn't out other editors; that comment was suppressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Naked Elvis
- Naked Elvis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sesquipedalian69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Good day everyone! I recently reverted flagged Sesquipedalian69 for {{subst:uw-spam1}} after adding a self-promotional external link to the article Naked Elvis. After that, the user dropped by my talk page to demand that I revert my previous revert of his edit, in doing so admitting that he is personally interested in the page, as he himseld played Naked Elvis as seen in this talk page discussion. I came across said edit as I am currently enrolled in the CVUA program and would like to know if the situation is a potential conflict of interest problem.
Gardo Versace (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gardo Versace, as COIs go, this isn't that bad. That doesn't mean the link is appropriate, however; off the top of my head it violates WP:ELNOT and WP:YOUTUBE, especially the latter -
Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations
. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GeneralNotability: Thanks for clarifying that up. Will ping @Sesquipedalian69: so that he'd also be aware why I removed that link in the first place. Warmest regards 15:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
New York City Police Department
- New York City Police Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bec755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The New York City Police Department has had issues with confirmed COI accounts recently. Today, a freshly created account started a RfC, which leads me to wonder whether COI accounts are allowed to start RfCs, as opposed to making edit requests? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is not hard evidence that is a COI account as far as I can see, but an SPI is in order if you suspect they are abusing multiple accounts. Added links and notified.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Katey Cattlehand Pluck
Article Katey Cattlehand Pluck has been edited by User:Katey-cattlehand-pluck, including adding herself to the 1993 and February 3 articles. Editor identifies herself as the subject of the article in this edit, saying This article is about me, including my childhood memories.
I'm not convinced the article meets WP:GNG, but I'm not going to pursue that until we deal with the potential COI of a person editing her own article. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.:, it's already at AFD and doesn't look long for this site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tarl N., please note that you must notify editors when you discuss them at this noticeboard. I've taken care of it for you this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:David H. Baker (animal nutritionist)
- Draft:David H. Baker (animal nutritionist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rndilger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rndilger recently created Draft:David H. Baker which was speedily deleted as WP:G11 and as a copyright violation. I left them a message about their COI and they responded correctly by declaring their connection on their user page. Since then, they have been in touch with me on my talk page to ask for advice. So far so good. But it is clear that they are here to create a memorial 'to honor his deceased mentor'. I have told them that this is not appropriate, but they are insistent. I would be grateful if you could advise the editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Curb Safe Charmer: I left him a message. He is far far to close the person and its beyond COI really. I'll move the article along out of draft. The subject is in the National Academy of Sciences, so no problem with the notable. See how editor takes, but he needs to withdraw. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Dr Basil Hunnisett
- Draft:Dr Basil Hunnisett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Harpysett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Harpysett has written a draft and was struggling to find in depth coverage elsewhere and good reliable sources. Some of the references they provided after my first review were uploaded scans of documents that only someone close to the subject would have, so I left them a message asking them to declare any conflict of interest. They have now disclosed that the subject of the article is their father. They have made a persuasive argument on my talk page that the father's work is widely cited and I will assess that, but please could you advise them on the COI aspect. My gut feel is that this editor is too close to the subject based on their determination that there should be a Wikipedia article about them. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Curb Safe Charmer: are you more concerned about COI or notability? I have the article a little trim, and in doing so he does seem to be a widely cited authority (or at least his boook or books are widely cited). COI-wise, I would think the standard process of letting them edit the draft but requiring requesteedit after it is published would apply. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: On the notability front, in my initial assessment I thought the subject was not notable as there is very little in depth independent coverage about him. However Harpysett has put forward new evidence that they are widely cited even if Google Scholar doesn't show it (as we know, Google Scholar doesn't evenly cover all specialisms). So I will re-assess that at AfC. My concern is about COI and whether they are too close to the article to be able to be objective, and the level of original research that the draft currently relies upon. Compare with the COIN report about Draft:David H. Baker directly above this one. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I agree they are a bit close to be neutral. But I have not seen anyone stopped from editing in AFC due to COI. They should be declaring it on their user talk page though. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ThatMontrealIP: On the notability front, in my initial assessment I thought the subject was not notable as there is very little in depth independent coverage about him. However Harpysett has put forward new evidence that they are widely cited even if Google Scholar doesn't show it (as we know, Google Scholar doesn't evenly cover all specialisms). So I will re-assess that at AfC. My concern is about COI and whether they are too close to the article to be able to be objective, and the level of original research that the draft currently relies upon. Compare with the COIN report about Draft:David H. Baker directly above this one. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Curb Safe Charmer: are you more concerned about COI or notability? I have the article a little trim, and in doing so he does seem to be a widely cited authority (or at least his boook or books are widely cited). COI-wise, I would think the standard process of letting them edit the draft but requiring requesteedit after it is published would apply. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Karlie Kloss
- Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Hipal keeps editing the page to make it positive and they keep removing any significant historical and noteworthy moments of her career that paint her in a negative light.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Jaydoggmarco why is this a conflict of interest? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Jaydoggmarco, you added material based on crappy sources. You have a bit of a history of that. Maybe don't? Guy (help!) 10:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Jaydoggmarco: Can you please withdraw your completely baseless accusations, stop edit-warring, and revert your addition of the poorly sourced trivia to the BLP article, and work to create consensus? Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Help would be appreciated on the article. Discussion at Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- It wasn't me who added the sources it was another user, Hipal keeps shifting the goalposts and no matter how good sources were Hipal would not allow the user to add the material. It comes across to me that Hipal had already made up his mind and is not going to let information about her political views get added to the article no matter how well sourced it is. And how do i have a history of "adding based on crappy sources". Hipal only contributions seem to be reversions and edit warring Jaydoggmarco (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- So you're not even going to attempt to support your accusations of a conflict of interest? Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I already have, I've stated that no matter what sources are provided and even if they meet RS you seem determined to not let information about her political views in the article, The link to the talk page i feel is enough evidence.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- There's no evidence at all. Nothing. Unfortunately, all you've done is attack me in an attempt to resolve a content dispute. Please rethink your approach. Such behavior could result in a block or ban. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I already have, I've stated that no matter what sources are provided and even if they meet RS you seem determined to not let information about her political views in the article, The link to the talk page i feel is enough evidence.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- So you're not even going to attempt to support your accusations of a conflict of interest? Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- It wasn't me who added the sources it was another user, Hipal keeps shifting the goalposts and no matter how good sources were Hipal would not allow the user to add the material. It comes across to me that Hipal had already made up his mind and is not going to let information about her political views get added to the article no matter how well sourced it is. And how do i have a history of "adding based on crappy sources". Hipal only contributions seem to be reversions and edit warring Jaydoggmarco (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Ly Kimlong
- Ly Kimlong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hout Ly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ly Kimlong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user was blocked because of shared promotional name. The user changed the username but did not disclose the WP:COI as explained by unblocking admin RickinBaltimore. The Ly Kimlong fails notability and thus was listed at WP:AFD. The user tried to remove the notices with un-acceptable explanations in edit summary. See here. Also, same message was posted in User talk:Hout Ly. See this ~ Amkgp 💬 09:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's actually paid editing.
Hello, I’m the President of the Cambodia Chess Federation. The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles. One is for the CCF and one for our champion Ly Kimlong.
And I suppose it's actually undisclosed paid editing, since they haven't disclosed this in the way required by the TOU. I'm not gonna spam their talk with even more messages (they have 3 about this incident from you). Let's just see if they respond to the COI message (which contains the paid part anyway). If they continue editing without proper disclosure it'll be up to the admins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- And that's not to forget that they were told to disclose and use AfC as an unblock condition, they did use AfC, it got rejected, so they just created it in mainspace themselves. Pinging the admin who issued the original block (RickinBaltimore). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader In response to WP:COI notice, the editor has posted the following response on his/her talk page
First of all, I’m just trying to write articles about cambodian sportspersons. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to other people. I’m not trying to write an article for my colleagues or friends. The Cambodia Chess Federation as well as the Ministry of education, youth and sports are trying to list our national champions on Wikipedia and try our best to get ready for sea games 2023 which is host by Cambodia. Writing articles for our strong national sportsperson will make other countries know that Cambodia has good talents! Hout Ly (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
. Links here. The statements are not convincing. An admin and others should look on this ~ Amkgp 💬 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- Also, again the editor has emphasized that
Feel free to contact the ministry of education, youth and sport of cambodia. They want me to write articles about all famous cambodia national champion. I’m starting with this chess prodigy then I will move on to the old champions Hout Ly (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
. See diff - It suggests the editor is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia rules and regulations! ~ Amkgp 💬 11:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since they're not really hiding anything, I think they're just misunderstanding how to properly disclose and follow the COI policies. Perhaps a friendly non-automated message pointing out the areas they're not getting would help. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, again the editor has emphasized that
- ProcrastinatingReader In response to WP:COI notice, the editor has posted the following response on his/her talk page
- And that's not to forget that they were told to disclose and use AfC as an unblock condition, they did use AfC, it got rejected, so they just created it in mainspace themselves. Pinging the admin who issued the original block (RickinBaltimore). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I left another note on their page regarding what they need to do to edit with their admitted COI. Hopefully the get the message here, and follow what I asked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No this account is not a shared account. This is my personal account. https://www.chess.com/member/namtarn
https://www.facebook.com/108090605896115/posts/3298261826878961/?d=n
https://english.cambodiadaily.com › ...Search on for Cambodian Chess Champions - The Cambodia Daily
These are a few links I found in about 15 minutes. Ly Kimlong himself will join this thread later today Hout Ly (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Hi I’m Ly Kimlong. I didn’t know about this until mr. hout told me yesterday. I personally don’t know much about wikipedia. I believe it’s Wikipedia rights to delete this page. Thank you for writing about me in the first page. I have submitted my own version of the page but got rejected too because lack of references. The problem is that we in cambodia dont use fide rating we have national ratings. All the tournaments here are national rated not fide rated and for articles there are a few on facebook posted by independent accounts not so much attention on chess in cambodia. This is why I think mr hout ly created this page. To get foreign attention and ready for sea games which will be my first sea games representing cambodia sea games 2021 in vietnam. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Please Dont ban mr hout. I believe he is just doing the work the government told him to do. I take all responsibility for all of this action. Thank you wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ly Kimlong (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (reply)
Here are the final diff of the conversation.
@RickinBaltimore, ThatMontrealIP, ProcrastinatingReader, and Pawnkingthree: I think the above are enough. They are violating rules purposefully. Please visit User talk:Hout Ly to know the full incident. ~ Amkgp 💬 09:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Courtesy @331dot: for any additional input as he/she regularly interacts such cases at AfC Help desk ~ Amkgp 💬 09:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see what has changed since RickinBaltimore's message on their talk, they've made no mainspace contributions and agreed to have a paid editing notice placed (they agreed to someone else's offer to do it, as it appears they can't figure it out and/or haven't read WP:PAID). We're already aware he's a paid editor, he just appears to confirm that further in this message. The message by Ly Kimlong is on a separate account, so it's not a shared account violation.
- This is messy, and I have a feeling at this stage that the articles being created will be unable to show notability and won't ever reach mainspace, but if they're willing to follow the AfC process responsibly I'm still not sure further administrative action is needed at this stage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I concur with ProcrastinatingReader; if they have declared and are using AFC, that's what we want and is allowed. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot But then statements like
The Cambodia Sports Ministry wants me to write 2 articles
andhe is just doing the work the government told him to do
is a clear violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID. Isn't it ~ Amkgp 💬 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- They've declared, that fulfills their WP:PAID obligations; as long as they only submit drafts for review and avoid directly editing about the people they are writing about, they are fine as far as policy is concerned. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly OK with this as well. If they are doing what they are supposed to do, no need to do anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- They've declared, that fulfills their WP:PAID obligations; as long as they only submit drafts for review and avoid directly editing about the people they are writing about, they are fine as far as policy is concerned. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot But then statements like
- I concur with ProcrastinatingReader; if they have declared and are using AFC, that's what we want and is allowed. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Ancestris, User:Yannig35-38
- Ancestris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Yannig35-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User edits for Ancestris, evidently on its AFD. HiwilmsTalk 11:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, although they have disclosed in the AfD, the disclosure hasn't been made in the required format. But I'm not sure how much this matters since it looks like the article will be deleted anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
- Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Amorcos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alpopovici (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 69.74.234.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Although this editor has only made two edits, they are both to this article and immediately follow identical edits made by another editor who self-identified as an employee of the subject (you have to look at the history of the article to see this; the exact edit was deleted as a copyright violation so I cannot link to it). I asked Amorcos on their User Talk page if they are connected to the institution and they have responded to me via e-mail in the affirmative. I won't say more to avoid violating WP:OUTING but this editor's connection is a clear COI and their editing of this article without a disclosure of their relationship would be a violation of WP:PAID. Moreover, in their e-mail messages - they continue to send me e-mail despite me explicitly requesting that they respond here in Wikipedia - they are also demanding that I cease editing this page because I am not "authorized" to do so by the institution. I think it might be helpful if someone else can open a discussion with this editor; they do not seem to understand what I am saying or welcome me saying it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the duck test here is sufficient to show those two editors are connected, especially given they both introduce copyvios from similar URLs in a short period of time, on this otherwise dormant article. Offhanded note, to paraphrase DGG, it always seems to be the more 'noble' organisations (schools, churches, hospitals, etc) with more iffy COI violations than typical corporate orgs like startups. Anyhoo, left a template on their talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Timothy Ballard
- Timothy Ballard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Operationundergroundrailroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mporenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user "operationundergroundrailroad" made edits to the page of Timothy Ballard, who is CEO of Operation Underground Railroad. Appears to be COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubeka (talk • contribs)
- I've reported the username Operationundergroundrailroad as it appears to be the same name as Ballard's organization Operation Underground Railroad.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- This editor user:Mporenta added a whole bunch of promotional links without declaring. scope_creepTalk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Anil V. Kumar
- Anil V. Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- anilvkumarproductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apparently self promotional account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Listed at WP:UAA, will likely be blocked per WP:CORPNAME. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:The Little Platoon the editor in question, which is me
- @Damien Linnane: an editor questioning me, helpfully!
Dear Admins or other arbitrators. I'm here to ask for guidance. I am working in the Australian Parliament. And I am contributing to articles about various MPs, some from the progressive side, some from the conservative side. I am moved around a lot. Sometimes I write about the MP I may be working for, sometimes I write about MPs I know from around the place. I don't take instruction on what to write, no one approves what I write. As per my user page, I have disclosed the above, but I feel I can't disclose who I may be working for at any one time. It will stop me from writing freely.
Recently I decided to be brave and do a major re-edit of an article on a highly controversial MP, Angus Taylor. There have been all kinds of edit wars on this article, and some of it has got really nasty. But it was such a mess and I really wanted to fix it up. So, I jumped on Talk:Angus Taylor (politician) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disclosed that I have an interest, but that I wasn't going to disclose who I work for in any given week, because that would ruin my anonymity and it would inevitably lead to a situation where some MP started telling me to change things. And I'm not okay with that. I want to write the truth. I get good sources. I keep it balanced.
If you see the talk page, I notified everyone who seemed to be interested, got some encouragement, and I proceeded with the project. Once I was done a few weeks later, I, of course, received a bunch of suggestions and corrections, all of which were very reasonable, and they have all gone through.
One of those editors @Damien Linnane: has been particularly helpful, pointing out where I was in danger of committing coat-racking (which wasn't something I fully understood until today) and a couple of other best practice things. Our interactions have been very respectful and productive.
But there's one matter where we may now be stuck. It's been suggested that today, with my employment situation, I may have an unacceptable COI. I thought a lot about that value when I started editing, and I set out on my user page what my situation is. I disclosed this when I began the edit and only received positive encouragement. But maybe it's not okay. I feel that I've disclosed as much as I can without messing up my actual role. I would probably have to leave off the project if it is unacceptable. Can I get a perspective on this?
I hope I have done this the right way. I am very new at all the conventions and so on. Thank you for looking at the material and for thinking this all through.
The Little Platoon (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just responding to being pinged here. I'm impressed by The Little Platoon's professional response by bringing this discussion here. Something that made me initially suspicious was the fact someone has previously openly admitted to being a paid employee of the Australian parliament editing the article in question on the instruction of the article's subject. Additionally one of the subject's family members had a similar COI and even made legal threats: see here, and also see the COI tags at the top of the article's talk page. If there wasn't so much history with COI at this article it probably wouldn't have been an issue. I'm now, however, inclined to believe that The Little Platoon's desire to edit the article in a neutral manner is genuine, and that previous edits that were undoubtedly biased may have been unintentionally so. That being said this appears to be a rather unique situation so I think bringing the discussion here was the right choice. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Damien Linnane! Yes, looking at the history of that article, I can see there has been a lot of contention. I'm really glad to see the quality of all the editor interaction has seriously lifted. The Little Platoon (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Little Platoon, thanks for disclosing and coming to COIN. I have a questions regarding your employment situation. You're not required to answer any, but any you can answer would help. Who exactly employs you? eg Is it a firm, that is contracted by the Australian Parliament or by MPs individually? Or do you work for the Parliament directly? Or are you self-employed/a freelancer who contracts for individual MPs? What's your job title (eg is writing your full time job)? Who decides which MP you're writing about at any given time, is it the MP/you, or some kind of central writing department? Do the MPs know that you (individually) wrote on their articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader:If I answered those questions everyone would figure out who I was in the Parliament! And people would start asking me to change things or to say certain things. Right now, no one gives me instruction and no one approves what I do. Look, maybe I've been a bit naive and maybe this isn't going to work. I think I've set my boundary as thoughtfully as I can. I've declared that I as a contributor to wp I have a connection. I could go further — like the remarkable @Damian Linnane: and identify myself completely — but then I just wouldn't be able to write about the subjects because they would want to exert an influence on the articles. My hope is that I keep declaring that there is a connection, to maintain my anonymity, and, more importantly, to stick to what's important - balanced views, good sources. If that's just not good enough, then I will accept that, as much as I enjoy editing, and am passionate about this subject area, this just isn't going to work. I will accept your judgement.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Waakye
There appears to be some COI editing going on on that page related to the Waakye in a jar. I cleaned it up a bit, but I have neither the time nor inclination to keep track of it. Particularly this IP edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waakye&type=revision&diff=965780441&oldid=964313926 comes across as marketing to me. 77.172.168.139 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)