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:
|
Underwood International College
- Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Doodle2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 165.132.5.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 165.132.77.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User Doodle2017 has persistently modified the text under subheading Controversy by removing information from an article which is published in an academic journal and adding sourceless information. These modification are similar to the modification by user Eciffociu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (UIC Office backwards), a username which was banned earlier because of being a promotional account. With his modifications, Doodle2017 has caused severe harm to the neutrality and the content of the article. Kailliak (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Kailliak, I notified Doodle2017 of this discussion. At present I have no opinion on the possible COI or lack thereof. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- BlackcurrantTea, on March 6 2017, IP user 165.132.5.146 modified "Controversy" by removing the content similarly to Eciffociu and Doodle2017. IP address 165.132.5.146 is geolocated to Yonsei University, and Underwood International College is part of Yonsei University. This evidence supports the suspicion that Doodle2017, as well as Eciffociu and 165.132.5.146, are COI users. Kailliak (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- IP user 165.132.77.96 had copy pasted copyright material from Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) homepage. The user had also made modifications to the controversy. The IP address was geolocated to Yonsei University, thus, it seems like 165.132.77.96 is a COI user. The user has been notified. Kailliak (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk page at Underwood International College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). According to Doodle2017 "John Frankl cites official statistics from Yonsei University as an officer of the University and is therefore a credible source." These statistics have not been published and there is no other source than John Frankl blog writing. The fact that Doodle2017 states the statistics being official and Frankl acting as a university administrator proves that Doodle2017 is a COI user. Kailliak (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- John Frankl is currently the associate dean of the Yonsei University Office of International Affairs. http://oia.yonsei.ac.kr/intro/contact.asp He is a university officer and is responding to the claims in the article with retention statistics. If there is a desire to challenge these statistics, then a request for clarification should be sent to Yonsei University before they are dismissed as 'a blog post'. If Kalliak refuses to accept the statement of a Yonsei university administrative representative, then she needs to provide a valid source that shows otherwise.
- Notice Kailliak opened a sock puppet case against the editor, which can be found here. Regards, ProgrammingGeek talktome 00:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Chalk (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:Navin chalk/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) resume / WP:NOTWEBHOST problem
- Navin chalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Promotional article, presumably written by the film's director, a WP:SPA. Hasn't responded to multiple policy advisories. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Article is at AfD. - Bri (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. There is a way forward with a new article as long as independent sources are used. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan
- Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tapas Kumar Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pandit Surendra Narayan Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Manas Kumar Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alaka Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Das Dipanjan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Appears to be a family editing about itself and its own achievements. Also uploading lots of images that may require OTRS verification. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Edits and uploads continue, including reuploads of deleted material. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged all the images for deletion. The articles need eyes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- To editors JJMC89 and Train2104: I've posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh#Five new articles of questionable to see if the subjects are notable. I will post at the user's talk about COI. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've tagged all the images for deletion. The articles need eyes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
EmilyOBX
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.
- EmilyOBX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Says paid editor for one company but than adding spam links for other groups. Have blocked indefinitely. Clean up needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
FXCM
- FXCM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gouyoku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
FXCM was for many years up until recently the largest retail forex trader in the US. In February they were prohibited from trading in the US by the CFTC *and* the related self-regulatory agency (NFA) for lying to their customers over an 8 year period. The CFTC called it "fraudulent misrepresentation" and documented about a dozen specific cases. They are not even allowed to reapply for a CFTC license. On top of that the NFA would need to reregister them *before* the CFTC could grant a license, and they are being investigated overseas as well. Add in shareholder lawsuits and customer lawsuits. The fraud likely affected most of their approx. $200 million revenue each year. Did I mention that they are broke?
User:Gouykou looks like the classic sleeper/SPA/paid editor - 3 edits before August 2015, 22 edits to FXCM and related in the last month and no other edits. I've asked him if he is a paid editor (at User talk:Gouyoku) but he flatly denied it with no explanation, accusing me of bad faith. Two other editors, with very long histories of editing retail forex articles have chimed in since February, but appear to have abandoned the article since then. I have no opinion one way or the other on whether they are paid editors.
It is difficult editing in such circumstances, e.g. "recentism" and "too much detail" tags have been placed and just about everything I write gets reverted. I don't think this is as serious as the Banc De Binary article, but it is quite serious. I'll start editing this article again soon and the article would benefit from a bit of supervision. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I added a redirect from Global Brokerage, their new name. They're still mostly known as FXCM, but are in the process of rebranding, Bloomberg says.[1]. Bloomberg's news on them is all about six lawsuits. Lexis/Nexis is worse.[2]. Emphasis on their problems is clearly not "undue". John Nagle (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- "with no explanation" is a lie as I have explained my reasons for edit with the following sentence: "I have decided to improve this article as it was filled with inaccuracies and breaking WP:NPOV."[3]
- "accusing me of bad faith" is a lie as I have asked Smallbones (talk · contribs) to assume good faith about me: "Please engage in discussion on the talk page about contested changes and WP:AGF."[4]
- I may not have been an active editor until now, but I have also never seen an article that inaccurate and biased. For example, the article suggested the company has already closed down - falsehood introduced twice by Smallbones (talk · contribs). My reason for editing this article is a desire to read encyclopedic content on Wikipedia and not feel like I'm reading a news article sponsored by competition. In my opinion, difficulties editing the article might not be caused by ill will of others but factual inaccuracies and lack of WP:NPOV in Smallbones (talk · contribs) edits. Gouyoku (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
MARHy Wind Tunnel
- MARHy Wind Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sandra c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)*
- Viviana lago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm posting here not because I think Sandra c has committed a blatant COI violation, but because I'm looking for a second opinion on how this situation should be handled. I've read the relevant documentation on COI editing and am unsure about the degree of this COI and would appreciate any help with the matter. I noticed that the user's username was similar to the author of one of the references added to the document, so I contacted the editor about whether they have a connection to the article. Their response can be seen here. The user does not work for the company that produces the wind tunnel, but does mention their company (ICARE) in the article, and the reference added was indeed written by that same user. The article doesn't seem overly promotional or controversial, but it does require a thorough copyediting. I don't believe that this user is being underhanded at all and I think they are trying to comply with the rules. I would think that maybe adding Template:Connected contributor to the article's talk page and asking the user to state how they are connected to the article on their userpage would be appropriate, but I'm not sure if there is more that should be done. Any suggestions would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- EDIT: It appears that Viviana lago also has a close connection to the article. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 11:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Analog Pussy
- Analog Pussy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Psytrance shock wave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jinno.e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't know if this is the right place to mention this, but it's certainly about a conflict of interest. The Analog Pussy article is about a two-person group. They broke up, and now they maintain rival "official" web sites for the group, and have both edited the article. Today one of them added some sentences in German, which I have twice removed on the grounds that they're not in English. I'd prefer not to be the person who tries to find a balance between them. Maproom (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article survived an AfD in 2005, but where's the notability required by WP:MUSIC? Not seeing two recordings on a major label, appearance on a recognized top-N chart, or any major award. Can't find anything non-PR about them in Google other than one interview. Send to AfD again? John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Subscription box
- Subscription box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nick Nick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
- Antounplugged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA
- Girldekiev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA
- Prettybrett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA
- Spectord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA
- Swaugaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA & creator
This needs cleanup bad. Copyvio detector reports near 50% copyvio on Subscription boxes; article is full of dubious sources like Forbes sites and bloggy things more unfamiliar to me. Plus plain old refspam like boxofchallenge.com , pour-this.com, ohmybox.com, etc. - Bri (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did some cleanup. Article cut down from 41 kB to about 12. Probably enough. - Bri (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Coolpad Group
- Coolpad Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 老山 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
- 老山哥哥 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
- Man888888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ilikeeditwj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Bookperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
In the edit summary he admitted he is [a staff] from Coolpad Group. Compare to version before his edits and latest version, much ad was added. Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- two more socks
- Bookperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Emma0924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Matthew_hk tc 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- one more socks. Matthew_hk tc 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- yet another. Matthew_hk tc 15:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- A few more SPAs just for fun. - Bri.public (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- yet another. Matthew_hk tc 15:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- one more socks. Matthew_hk tc 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Pure Leisure
- Draft:Pure_Leisure ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Joshbrucebfi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A google search suggests that this is a paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Loveurope2016
(re-open archived above #Review needed)
- Loveurope2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User:Loveurope2016 needs blocking WP:NOTHERE promo only account, [5] dislosed as Maxim Zimin. possible meat/sock of blocked:
- User:Dharmesh Gohil,
- User:Ivanalesi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs blocking WP:NOTHERE promo only account (has also been implicated too per User talk:Loveurope2016). disclosed as agent (below) WP:NPA vios [6] [7]
- Maxim Zimin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PRODded BLP fails WP:GNG
- Brandon Maïsano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PRODded BLP fails WP:GNG
- TopCar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - G11ed Widefox; talk 00:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've declined speedy on this as it didn't seem overly promotional to me (though probably failing GNG) and the user's edits did not seem entirely spammy (though again notability problems with drivers who I think fail WP:NMOTORSPORT). But any other admin should feel free to override this without consulting me if there's a bigger problem of which I'm unaware. GoldenRing (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a reasonable assessment. PRODded GNG/CORP. Widefox; talk 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I very much respect your rules, no matter how insanely complicated they are, but this section NMOTORSPORT is a bit of a joke. There's no A1GP or CART, they are looong gone, and as someone who is currently involved in motorsport as driver agent and previously as journalist, the common opinion is that the ladder to F1(that's F4-F3-GP3-FV8-F2) is highly professional, certainly more professional than Trans-Am where if my memory is correct the late Paul Newman was winning races in his 80s! Also, a team like Champion, even though its long time since it has been active, is still remembered by many Le Mans fans for running the Audi R8 with legends like Tom K behind the wheel.
- On the front of my account deletion, I'd say that I have done previously the vast majority of the motorsport section(I think the whole junior single-seaters section) in the Bulgarian Wiki in 2008, but I haven't cared too much for honors etc and as you can see, my account was registered much later on. So, yeah... you can delete my account. I don't care. But I believe, it would be much better if Wikipedia is open to people who have insider knowledge in some industries, despite not having the account points of honor or whatever.
- Yes, there are sometimes interests behind adding articles on Wikipedia, that's why I did the motorsport section, but this is because Wikipedia is a well organized source for information and when i.e. a potential sponsor is looking for information - it can help him understand the sports/industry structure.
- Many of the rules you're quoting are not applicable to the present(especially trusting only Reuters, AFP and such) and it will be sad if the growth of Wikipedia is limited by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanalesi (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting. So, you are a driver agent and therefore have a WP:COI with these topics but have not disclosed this yet? Pls read and follow through the disclosure. Widefox; talk 12:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't have conflict because I work with others and in a wholly different field in racing. You're assuming stuff all the time. All the content is completely impartial and if you had a slight idea about racing and have followed single-seaters, you'll know it. That's why as I said, if you don't have any fucking idea about motorsport - don't fucking comment on it! If you don't know iota about smth, then just keep your mouth firmly shut, OK? Now because I see you get those nice dopamine rushes from using your Wiki powers, delete my account. Fuck you and have a nice day!
- So, User:Loveurope2016 claims to be Maxim Zimin but promo spams Payrexx Meta Payment Service Provider etc that you created? You created Maxim Zimin but you still claim to be the only account here without a COI, but still promo spamming articles, and editing their pages even though you claim no COI with any of this? How does that work? Widefox; talk 15:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ivanalesi We are not allowed to out you, but it's trivial to see the COI on the Internet, so yes you do have a COI with these articles as at least one account has outed themselves. They're all your accounts aren't they? Next time, just easier to WP:DISCLOSE, as you are required to here (and also EU, no doubt Swiss law). Widefox; talk 15:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I told you, I sell Ferraris! Delete my account, I don't want any more wiki emails. Fuck off! Live in your bubble and whatever... Suddenly after years some idiot with obviously no knowledge in the field starts deleting articles, whatever... if it makes you happy, I'm happy. I don't care. Just stop msg me you jerk!
- Ivanalesi We are not allowed to out you, but it's trivial to see the COI on the Internet, so yes you do have a COI with these articles as at least one account has outed themselves. They're all your accounts aren't they? Next time, just easier to WP:DISCLOSE, as you are required to here (and also EU, no doubt Swiss law). Widefox; talk 15:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- So, User:Loveurope2016 claims to be Maxim Zimin but promo spams Payrexx Meta Payment Service Provider etc that you created? You created Maxim Zimin but you still claim to be the only account here without a COI, but still promo spamming articles, and editing their pages even though you claim no COI with any of this? How does that work? Widefox; talk 15:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't have conflict because I work with others and in a wholly different field in racing. You're assuming stuff all the time. All the content is completely impartial and if you had a slight idea about racing and have followed single-seaters, you'll know it. That's why as I said, if you don't have any fucking idea about motorsport - don't fucking comment on it! If you don't know iota about smth, then just keep your mouth firmly shut, OK? Now because I see you get those nice dopamine rushes from using your Wiki powers, delete my account. Fuck you and have a nice day!
- Thanks for commenting. So, you are a driver agent and therefore have a WP:COI with these topics but have not disclosed this yet? Pls read and follow through the disclosure. Widefox; talk 12:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a reasonable assessment. PRODded GNG/CORP. Widefox; talk 12:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've declined speedy on this as it didn't seem overly promotional to me (though probably failing GNG) and the user's edits did not seem entirely spammy (though again notability problems with drivers who I think fail WP:NMOTORSPORT). But any other admin should feel free to override this without consulting me if there's a bigger problem of which I'm unaware. GoldenRing (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The whole Wiki structure is fucked up if it allows ppl with no knowledge in a field to act like the big bad boss. Before that some idiot told me I was editing F1 because I had interest there... just forgot to add, that I must be a fucking millionaire to have interest in F1. And just so you know, I have several identities - Enzo Ferrari, Brandon Maisano, own TopCar, Mazim Zimin and God Almighty! Yeah, same guy, same IP. Good job IT genius with emails from '88.
Deb Lawrence
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.
- Deb Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Debl101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
From UAA. Editor is editing article about herself. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was also created and the overwhelming majority of the content came from another SPA with PROMO overtones. This to me seems a candidate for AfD as I'm unsure if their agent is encyclopaedic, and removal (which would be my preferred edit) would leave it completely unsourced (even now, it just has one primary source). Rayman60 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agent? Do you mean article? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- A commercial art dealer is not a reliable source. This one doesn't even mention the artist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- So you want me to nominate this? Not my intention when I came here, I just wanted username clarification. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's certainly a possible AfD candidate, L3X1 – at a quick glance I don't see any strong evidence of notability. As for Debl101, shouldn't we hope that she/he will become a useful contributor to the encyclopaedia? I don't believe that one attempt at (possible) self-promotion is grounds for any sort of administrative action – a friendly personal message would probably be a better response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the scope of AGF and all that, yes. But Deb hasn't edited in more than 4 days, and I think it will bear out as another SPA/COI. I don't expect to hear from Deb until she discovers her edits were undone, if ever, but you have more experience in Wikipedia than I do. The account probably won't get any attention from admins, due to it being stale, already given a warn/welcome, and that an admin (UAA) has already declined to take immediate action. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Lawrence. Widefox; talk 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- In the scope of AGF and all that, yes. But Deb hasn't edited in more than 4 days, and I think it will bear out as another SPA/COI. I don't expect to hear from Deb until she discovers her edits were undone, if ever, but you have more experience in Wikipedia than I do. The account probably won't get any attention from admins, due to it being stale, already given a warn/welcome, and that an admin (UAA) has already declined to take immediate action. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's certainly a possible AfD candidate, L3X1 – at a quick glance I don't see any strong evidence of notability. As for Debl101, shouldn't we hope that she/he will become a useful contributor to the encyclopaedia? I don't believe that one attempt at (possible) self-promotion is grounds for any sort of administrative action – a friendly personal message would probably be a better response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- So you want me to nominate this? Not my intention when I came here, I just wanted username clarification. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- A commercial art dealer is not a reliable source. This one doesn't even mention the artist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agent? Do you mean article? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
To The New
- To The New (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ankitjigupta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Today I received an Upwork invitation to fix some issues on the article To The New. I checked the talk page and the linked user says that the article was deleted before but now it complies with the guidelines. I checked the user page of the user and he claims to be a seasoned editor, but only has 54 edits globally. Something is fishy. I suspect the editor has a conflict of interest towards the article, and in any case someone else is likely to accept the Upwork job soon, so we should keep an eye on the article. --Felipe (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Sophivorus Thanks for bringing this to Wikipedia. It would be great if you can post the actual content of that job opening here.
- Upwork is a freelancing platform where businesses and independent professionals connect and collaborate remotely. Any of the Wikipedia contributors/editors should not be involved in any such activity which converts into monetary value i.e. money. As per the portal, one can receive any invitation if you show your skills on the platform.
- So, this implies that User:Sophivorus is involved in receiving payments for the contribution he has done to Wikipedia. All his contributions should be thoroughly examined. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitjigupta (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the userlinks for Sophivorus (Felipe), he's made fewer than 200 articlespace edits since 2009 and it's readily apparent he's a legit editor. There are many reasons why one of us may maintain contact with Upwork; Ankitjigupta, please be careful with your assertions. And if you do that, you must notify the subject (see red text at top of this page). - Bri (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Bri I agree with the valid point made by Ankitjigupta. One can receive any job invitation on Upwork only if the person has shown similar skills and has done some work in the past and a payment has been made for the work done.
Felipe has received an Upwork notification for editing/ making changes to a Wikipedia article which shows that he is involved in receiving payments for the contributions he has done to Wikipedia. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Though he could be a legit editor however, please make sure that all his contributions must be verified again. Amitpurple (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Just clarifying a point or two here for User:Amitpurple. You will receive Upwork notifications even if you have not previously accepted any contracts. Receiving such a notification doesn't show that someone has been paid to edit. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have taken a look at the article and established that none of the references cited would meet the standard that we apply in the AfC process when considering the notability of a company. If I were reviewing this in AfC I would have declined it. I have explained my rationale on the article talk page and drawn Ankitjigupta's attention to it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The content of the job proposal is:
We already have a page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_The_New). After it's creation in last week, the page has been marked nofollow noindex. Please check the source code of the Wikipedia page mentioned above.
I need an expert who can fix it.
Please mention your contributions to Wikipedia, the possible causes of this issue, and the possible ways you can solve this issue.
And for the skeptics, if you want to do a thorough check of my contributions, go ahead, I have nothing to hide, but it'll take a while, because I have over 16000, plus many more to the software. Also, I get this kind of invites on an almost weekly basis, and ALWAYS reject them with a link to WP:COI. But this one was different in that it included the article name, so I was able to report it. I get this kind of invites because I'm a freelance MediaWiki developer (Upwork profile), not a paid Wikipedia editor. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my first message. --Felipe (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sidemen (YouTube group)
- Sidemen (YouTube group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sidemen2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The editor's single-purpose account has recently been created with a username that represents the group that is the subject of the article. They have been adding unsourced BLP material, and have removed the references that were present in the article, and have not left edit notes that explain why. They're approaching 3RR. I have left notices on their talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had a go at tidying it up. Outside of the COI issues (unsure if it's just a fan or someone connected closer), it was poorly referenced and poorly written. I still feel there's work to be done, I really dislike the section about how this one met that one and so on. Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Point Blank Music School
- Point Blank Music School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Brixtonzulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mattse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Declanmcglynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nick Whittingham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This article has suffered from serious COI/promo issues since it was created. It is quite easy to link the three who've used their real name to the organisation. The nature of the edits show that this was unashamedly WP:Promo abused. I have tidied it up over the years, adding COI tags in November 2015. The two older editors are long since inactive, the third appears to have stopped immediately prior to the new, anonymous editor commencing their activity - all are listed above for sake of completion. A new editor with no other contributions has been adding unsourced, promotional content in the last week and very enthusiastically removing COI tags repeatedly (despite it not necessarily being their solely because of them. Based on their activity, I have no doubt there is an underlying COI issue. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm posting it here so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent further abuse. Rayman60 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding page protection. However every user who has contributed has registered an account - does this not bypass this action and allow them to continue their activity? Rayman60 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- It depends on the level of protection: see this page for explanations. It looks like this one got semi-protected. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Culinary Institute LeNôtre
- Culinary Institute LeNôtre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cesnou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SPA User:Cesnou is continuing to convert this article into a blatant advertisement by copy-pasting promotional materials into it. A previous version of the article was G12 deleted for copyvio in March of last year, just now, Cesnou has come back to do it again. Geogene (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Deleted per CSD G11 and salted (inc. the redirect). There was nothing salvageable in that article. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Powerplus Group
- Powerplus Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 103.3.202.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Caroline.tay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The two main contributors to this article, Caroline.tay (talk · contribs) and 103.3.202.58 (talk · contribs) appear from their behavior to be in conflict of interest : they edit the article like a press release, sometimes reverting attempts to make the article look normal. It seems like user:Caroline.tay had already tried a few time to create this article, and was warned against conflict of interests but ignored the warning. It also seem to be a case of sock puppetry (may be the user/users don't know it's not allowed) since the ip address account who was just created immediately removed the CSD tag. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: The same thing is happening at the quasi-identical article Powerpac International. Also, they're adding the name of their company on various product page. And they're deleting messages from their own talk page. It's a bit over my head at this point, I'll let anyone else deal with that. KarlPoppery (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously created by an employee of the company without disclosure, in violation of our Terms of Use. Both articles are now at AfD, here and here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Caroline.tay has now been blocked for persistently violating WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Obviously created by an employee of the company without disclosure, in violation of our Terms of Use. Both articles are now at AfD, here and here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
London School of Business and Finance
Hello everyone, I would like to declare my COI with the London School of Business and Finance article as I am employed by the Global University Systems group, which incorporates the school. I have made an edit request on the Talk:London School of Business and Finance in which I asked for the correction of a couple of points. I would like to reassure everyone that I am fully committed to following the Wikipedia's COI editing guidelines and to working with the community to improve the article. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my work, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @BrandDude: Hello, and thank you for following the proper procedures for a paid contributor. I believe the requests you made have been addressed on the article talk page. We look forward to further collaboration with you in the future. Cheers. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Annamaria Lusardi
- Annamaria Lusardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dana314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am a researcher for the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center (GFLEC), Prof. Lusardi is our director. I am posting this to disclose the potential conflict of interest. I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding conflicts of interest and I will follow them. I will suggest edits on the talk page of Prof. Lusardi's Wikipedia page (if necessary)but I will abstain from editing the page directly. I hope to attract impartial editors to the page in order to improve the page's quality, and remove potential conflicts of interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana314 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)
- That article needs work. To start with, citing someone's own resume is a major no-no on Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Karen Kessler
- Karen Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Evergreenprkaren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
According to the article, Karen Kessler is the "founding member and president of Evergreen Partners Inc." Evergreenprkaren has made four edits, all to Karen Kessler. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
With a second look at the article's revision history, I noticed it was created by a member of a large sock farm which Yunshui described as looking "like some sort of concerted effort by a PR company." I wonder if any subjects of the articles created by the sockfarm are clients of Evergreen PR. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
American Immigration Council
- 208.118.161.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- americanimmigrationcouncil.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
For at least the last five years, all of the edits from this IP address involve the American Immigration Council, mostly adding links to americanimmigrationcouncil.org. The IP address geolocates to the same location at the organization's headquarters. It appears as if this organization is actively and persistently promoting itself, its policies, and its point of view on Wikipedia. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- I also found this IP: 74.96.79.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same geographic location, same behavior. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- The WHOIS tool [8] resolves the 208 IP to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Its article states "The Marketing Department staff assists its sister organization - the American Immigration Council - with marketing outreach efforts." Pretty cut and dried if you ask me. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like many of the links have been removed by other editors. I have removed a few more. If a regular editor of an article I have removed the americanimmigrationcouncil.org external link from thinks the link is worthwhile, I won't object to having it restored. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Also, for some reason, Special:LinkSearch didn't find a majority of the links to americanimmigrationcouncil.org which were present in various articles. There still may be more than what I have found. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- The WHOIS tool [8] resolves the 208 IP to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Its article states "The Marketing Department staff assists its sister organization - the American Immigration Council - with marketing outreach efforts." Pretty cut and dried if you ask me. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Don Reitz
- Don Reitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Janweh64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please review the tags on this article. I again find myself at odds with Justlettersandnumbers, who has in two previous occasions brought me before WP:ANI with no clear resolution, other than me agreeing to take my paid contributions through AfC, which I have done in this case. This article was reviewed and approved by Dodger67.
I am starting to suspect this is nothing more than harassment simply because I am a paid editor. My history with this user is long and I can recount it if necessary. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I have no idea what I can contribute here as I have no knowledge of the issue. I'm just the AFC reviewer. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Dodger67: That is understandable. Question: Where you aware this was a paid contribution before you reviewed it? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Janweh64, according to your user page, that article was created for pay. So why is there no paid editor declaration on the talk-page, as required by our Terms of Use? Of course, now you can collect your thirty pieces of silver, and someone else – preferably someone who knows something about pottery – will have to clean up that ill-written and inaccurate screed. Example: you write (ungrammatically) "The method had been in use in Europe but largely unknown in the United States"; but our article on salt glaze pottery tells us that "Salt glazed pottery was also popular in North America from the early 17th century until the early 19th century, indeed it was the dominant domestic pottery there during the 19th century". I've no criticism of Dodger67, by the way – the person is quite clearly notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE:
If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. The community expects paid editors to declare that they are being paid whenever they seek to influence an article's content; this includes when writing drafts in draft space or user space. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place {{connected contributor (paid)}} at the top of the page
- I choose not to tag shame an article. I have declared at two of the optional three places indicated: 1) User:Janweh64 and 2) "Created by a COI editor, paid by Jennifer Reitz" —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- As to salt glaze pottery, the sentence has been clarified to indicate it was "largely unknown in US studio pottery." [9] —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Janweh64, according to your user page, that article was created for pay. So why is there no paid editor declaration on the talk-page, as required by our Terms of Use? Of course, now you can collect your thirty pieces of silver, and someone else – preferably someone who knows something about pottery – will have to clean up that ill-written and inaccurate screed. Example: you write (ungrammatically) "The method had been in use in Europe but largely unknown in the United States"; but our article on salt glaze pottery tells us that "Salt glazed pottery was also popular in North America from the early 17th century until the early 19th century, indeed it was the dominant domestic pottery there during the 19th century". I've no criticism of Dodger67, by the way – the person is quite clearly notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Dodger67: That is understandable. Question: Where you aware this was a paid contribution before you reviewed it? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The New York Times": "At the time, salt firing, conceived in the Middle Ages and still used in Europe, was little known in the United States." —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I saw a mention of paid editing on the AFC Help page shortly after I reviewed and accepted the article. Undeclared paid editing is unequivocally a violation of the TOU, but there seems to some latitude/uncertainty about the requirements of the form and location of such declarations. BTW I am neither an art or ceramics specialist - my spot-checks of the sources all looked ok and on that basis I accepted the draft. I have no opinion at all about the content dispute. I'm done here, please stop pinging me unless you have a specific question for me. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Janweh64 seems quite determined to paint him/herself into a corner:
- Told by Smartse that removing maintenance templates from COI articles is not acceptable, goes straight to edit the guidance page
- edit-warring to … remove maintenance templates from COI articles
- Sudden interest in pages that I have created (1, 2) which I find hard to see as anything but purely disruptive in intent – but perhaps I'm biased?
Would someone like to try to get him/her to listen? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Janweh64 is correct in that they don't need to disclose on talk pages and that the current disclosures are sufficient. While their articles appear better than most paid articles, that is not to say they are perfectly neutral either. The removal of maintenance templates from this article when it is explicitly advised against for COI editors on pages that were cited to support their removal is worrying however as it suggests that they are mainly concerned with keeping articles 'clean' rather than for other editors to be happy that they are neutral. Even after I informed them they have again edit warred at Bonin Bough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to remove them and also incredibly edited a page to remove the part which says COI editors can't remove templates. SmartSE (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Smartse: and @Justlettersandnumbers: have begun a concerted effort to tag and leave article's I have created one by one. I have simply trying to force you "to follow standard practice" which is to discuss issues and resolve them. If you do not want to do that please leave reviewing and editing for others to do. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have asked both of you to carefully consider how to place these tag to no avail: [10] and [11]. What am I to do when you will not discuss? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Umm no we haven't. You've given us no time at all to explain what the problems are as we are too busy reverting your inappropriate removal of maintenance templates. How about you wait a few hours for us to note the problems or edit them away. Note that I've requested you be boomeranged at ANI. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I am taking a break see you all tomorrow. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- How is this appropriate when I have declare my COI at two different places: here in edit summary and my user talk page. You aim is quite clear now. You want to drive me crazy until I quit. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: my out-dented post above edit-conflicted with posts from Smartse and Janweh, but I didn't get any warning. I don't know how that happens, but I'm sorry about it anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Umm no we haven't. You've given us no time at all to explain what the problems are as we are too busy reverting your inappropriate removal of maintenance templates. How about you wait a few hours for us to note the problems or edit them away. Note that I've requested you be boomeranged at ANI. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Please! Please try to see it from my point of view for just a moment, I follow all of what we discussed in my two previous ANI (witch trials). I brought the article through AfC. Wait 25 days for it to get approved and @Justlettersandnumbers: proceeded to WP:DRIVEBY tag it, with no discussion started as is required, mere minutes after the AfC approval. A day-and-half and still no discussion.
I did exactly what we discussed I should do when I am unfairly treated. I started a discussion here at WP:COIN, IT WAS IGNORED. All it accomplished was give them a forum to accuse me of not declaring my COI. Really?!?! They even link to my declaration above ^!!! "Janweh64, according to your user page that article was created for pay.
"
Now, @Smartse: has joined-in on the fun of torment the paid editor. Please see Talk:Bonin_Bough#Improper maintenance tag where I try to explain to them that this is an improper use of {{COI}}. We will see if they will self-revert.
My removal of maintenance tags are justified in my edit summaries. Their only explanation is pointing to a non-existent rule that a paid editor can not remove tags no matter how inappropriately placed. It is pure WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Now they have moved on to accusing me of edit warring after ignoring my repeated attempts to bring them to a discussion about the content itself. Pure red herrings. They hound me (in Justlettersandnumbers case for FOUR MONTHS) and point-and-laugh when I get provoked. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is no deadline. You need to be patient and AGF. Your accusation that I am joining in the "fun" and that ANI is a "witch trial" is not helpful. At Bonin Bough, I began to clean up the article but you reverted me. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for discussing the matter. Please use the discussion section I begun here to state your reasons for the tag per Template:COI/doc. I apologize if I was premature in reverting your tag. I was frustrated after the situation at Don Reitz. I will address your concerns before the second AfC for this article, which is now back in draft. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport
- LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lisa Babin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
COI user says "Our page did not appropriately represent who LSU Health Shreveport is. As the Director of Public Affairs and Communication, it is imperative that I add to the limited and misleading information currently found in Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- the material they added should of course have been suggested on the talk p., but some of it can be used if worded neutrally rather then as hype. The key issue of financial responsibility should be based on more than a single source. (The COI editor's version and the current clean version both use the same source. There must be others.). DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Peter DeMarco, again
- Peter DeMarco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Onthelist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See the report in March on the same article and same user. 111 of Onthelist's 187 edits have been to Peter DeMarco. They have been notified of COI policies and have continued to edit the article without declaring any COI, most recently on 9 May. Pinging DGG as he's familiar with the article and editor, and Brightgalrs as he filed the report in March. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is certainly OWNership, even of little details. It's not the individual, who died 11 years ago.I doubt it's one of his family. The article is a mix of uncritical positive statements and reasonable well sourced negative information. He was in my opinion a quack with a MD,; I challenged notability as a way of dealing with the very problematic article, but I've come to think he was a notable quack. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Attacking the statistical edit proportion as a reason to invalidate article quality, especially upon grammatical/minor edit deduction, is not sound. If you have a non-pedantic complaint against a specific edit then please reveal it. The other complaints such as labeling a "snake-oil salesman" or "quack" for example, are opinion biased and not NPOV in style. Also, the "SOS patients" paragraph information you labeled as a "whitewash" is from a cited New York Times article; this is not a trivial source. Article points that are made are well cited and both positive and negative. Moreover, NPOV and referenced negative edits by other editors are left untouched. Therefore, your COI claims seem dissembling. If you wish to improve this or other articles, please remain within the Wikipedia guidelines such as neutral point of view. Sláinte! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthelist (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
SEI Investments Company
- SEI Investments Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nicole.Vattimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid editors working for the company appear to be on a mission to whitewash this article. Their preferred versions are based exclusively on the company's own press materials and have removed what appears to be the only attempt to introduce independently sourced material to the article (DanielRigal's coverage of a fraud case). She has now twice blanked the talk page as well, presumably to hide editors' statements that the article is biased or a copyright violation of their about us page or should cover the legal case. This company appears to have no interest in respecting WP principles so I have brought the matter here rather than continuing to edit war with them. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nicole.Vattimo is an WP:SPA account which has edited almost exclusively on what looks like the behalf of SEI for more than 8 years, albeit with large gaps in-between. In 8 years they have not learned what Wikipedia is for or any respect for our rules or objectives. A Google search suggests that somebody with the same name either works for SEI or used to. Of course, that doesn't prove that they are the person operating this account. Whoever is operating this account, I think it is time for them to go and publish their promotional material somewhere else, without abusing the resources of a charitable foundation. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.
- BTW, It is not really "my" coverage of the fraud case. Somebody suggested it on the talk page and, as the reference they offered was solid and the matter substantial enough to include briefly, I added a short paragraph on it in which I was careful to be clear that SEI was not the only company being accused and to include their explanation denying the accusations. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Josh Zepnick
- Josh Zepnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jzepnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jzepnick has been repeatedly editing the Josh Zepnick article, removing reliably sourced material ("Page contained unwanted third party material") and adding unsourced material. He has ignored a warning about COI editing on his talk page and reverted reversions of his COI edits. 32.218.32.127 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
COI addition at multiple articles
- George Fergus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
George Fergus is the creator of epguides.com and is currently adding {{epguides}} to multiple articles. It may be innocuous, but to me that seems a COI, as he's using Wikipedia to drive traffic to his website. I'm only raising this here because of that issue, and to seek opinion on whether that's OK. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I also just noticed this and expressed concern that it was a COI. AussieLegend beat me to creating a discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Just a comment from a disinterested passerby - I've never heard of this website nor that template for linking to it and I don't in practice work on TV articles. But I would point out that if you read the documentation on that template, it is marked with {{Underused external link template}} which essentially asks contributors to add this template to articles. Maybe I'm out of line here, but it seems odd to get mad at people for doing things we asked them to do. --Krelnik (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Epguides is not a reliable source so it doesn't get used much. In fact, we tend to avoid even using it as an external link. The issue here though is that the owner of the website is the one adding the template, not that it is being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Jim_Wilkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- kimmask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kim_Culpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- VancoreJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
While looking at the refs of this apparent WP:PROMO article, I stumbled upon: FAMILIESFORBETTERCARE.COM (familiesforbettercare.org is ref'd in the article) and vancorejones.com. Do a domainname whois on FamiliesForBetterCare.com and vancorejones.com. Familiesforbettercare.com: Tech Name: Kim Mask Tech Organization: VancoreJones Comunications. VancoreJones.com appears to be owned by the lawfirm that Jim Wilkes founded (Tech Name: WILKES MCHUGH). Please also note the other likely WP:PROMO articles from this same author: [[12]] The related articles are Florida politicians associated with WilkesHughes and VanCore. PeterWesco (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This blanking should be noted [[13]] PeterWesco (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Article D'Army Bailey created here [[14]]. Key item to note: Subject are article became employed by Wilkes McHugh two months before article was created. This is clearly stated in the article: "In September 2009, he resigned from the bench and became a member of the “Wilkes & McHugh, P.A,” a national civil litigation law firm, founded in 1985 by Jim Wilkes and Tim McHugh" PeterWesco (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)