Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uyarafath (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 23 August 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    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:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Brian Hamilton (businessman)
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Alain Pellegrini
    Talk:Philip Morris International
    Talk:Minouche Shafik
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Surgical Care Affiliates

    Another day, another sockfarm

    See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati

    Articles created

    Added since 30/7

    More older articles

    Substantially edited

    Discussion

    Given the redirect method used to create these it is obvious that they know exactly what they are doing and have been blocked before. I think regardless of the SPI, these are all safe to delete via G5 per WP:DUCK. SmartSE (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through and nominated the most obvious and most recently created articles for speedy deletion, when they had a clean edit history (i.e. few other GF editors). My rule-of-thumb cutoff date was created after April 2017. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about Veal Milanese? Why a food? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    kitchenproject.com refspam / SEO perhaps ☆ Bri (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like a false positive. I must have missed it when I was going through the list manually, because I would have removed it otherwise. Rentier (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The earlier edits of that account don't look so typical of UPE either and kitchenproject.com doesn't look commercial. I've removed the tag and will cross it out above. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was curious about the zipper related articles. All of them seemed to have links to the website of SBS zippers. Fujian SBS Zipper Science & Technology was created by User:Mozhike, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mokezhilao (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mokezhilao/Archive). Connected? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Other references written by him on other sites show up here. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've endorsed a check for this case (you can read my comments at the SPI), but I frankly wouldn't wish this one on any CU. The number of overlaps with other sockfarms is eyebrow-raising. I applaud you guys for the extraordinary detective work, as with many others. GABgab 02:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Btw, is late-July/August sockfarm season or something? It seems like we've been getting an abnormally large number of... abnormally large promo groups. Must be the heat. GABgab 02:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If topics like metal zipper and nylon zipper are created as conduits for spam, can we please be careful to keep the useful information in those articles (while removing, obviously, any spam links). We are sometimes overzealous in purging good materials added by bad accounts. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oswald Foundation and Anand Chowdhary

    User:182.64.255.167 creates Draft:Oswald Foundation at 7:38, edits it until 7:54. User:Pushingatoms moves it into mainspace at 8:07. User:Nishant Gadihoke has only contributed to this article. Similar pattern with Anand Chowdhary. User:Bluemusic15 has only contributed to Oswald, Chowdhary, and one other. User:Arvindsingh2 has only contributed to Chowdhary. Likely that these accounts are all somehow connected. Edwardx (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Content issues. Oswald Foundation cites pr.com nine times, other press release sites six more, various Facebook pages seven times, and lots of fine reliable sources (not) like Jaipur Women Blog, viralkick.in, newzhook.com, ScoopWhoop, etc. Plus own websites, Twitter and even github projects. But I'm taking a WP:BOGO vacation right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anand Chowdhary was accepted by someone with 6 edits?!?!?! Surely there's nothing promotional here... Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Manc1234/Prof Aleiscter (Orangemoody)

    creations
    sandboxes
    other

    According to evidence on talkpage, this is indistinguishable from OM. User is blocked though hasn't been tagged yet. Articles listed above are page creations. Several go back to 2015, newest was created under 90 days ago. SPI started: permlink ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuked a bunch not substantially edited by others under G5/G3, whichever is appropriate. I'm a little hesitant to delete Arteluce, that dates back to 2011. MER-C 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Longford Cinema seems to be OK. It's an old Grade II listed building, and apparently vacant or abandoned. Unclear who would benefit from COI editing. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    J. C. Maçek / Neptune's Trident (revisited)

    In a previous posting on this noticeboard, I outlined Neptune's Trident's long history of promoting J. C. Macek. The latest example is even clearer. On July 27, Neptune's Trident created an article for a book publisher, Bloodhound Books. On July 28, Bloodhound books announced that it had signed J. C. Marek to a book deal. Not only does it appear that the article exists only because J. C. Marek is involved, but it was created before his involvement was publicly announced. How obvious does something have to be before it can be stated here? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed all links that just mentioned Bloodhound Books while talking about something else. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloodhound Books was deleted at User:Neptune's Trident's request. Neptune's Trident has made no comment, so I will assume this is a tacit admission of COI. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Toriqul-kushtia

    A little bit of outing is required here, so here I go. I reviewed his draft articles, and looking at his contributions it was evident that he is a paid editor. A search for the given user name reveals that he is an Upwork freelancer. The magnitude of his contributions indicate that he needs to be blocked before this goes any further. Jupitus Smart 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC) Redacted per WP:OUTING - Bilby (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you may have forgotten to notify the editor of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually just ping the concerned parties. But I seem to have forgotten that as well. Rectified. Jupitus Smart 04:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so fast. Please explain why this is not covered by the exemption in WP:OUTING (emphasis mine): "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations... There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." It was reaffirmed by Doc James here. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes agree, one is explicitly allowed to link to ads for paid editing here on COIN. One still needs to be careful that the "advert" is not a covert attempt to harass someone. (ie someone created a fake ad to harass a Wikipedian in good standing) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redacted this - it does not meet the exceptions set out at WP:OUTING. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilby: How does it not meet the exceptions? The policy states that Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations. This user has uploaded his photo and posted a link to his private Facebook profile on Wikipedia. How can a link to his Upwork profile, which contains considerably less private information, be considered outing? Let's not forget that WP:OUTING is a subsection of the Harassment policy. Do you believe that Toriqul-kushtia was being harassed here? Rentier (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking to other websites is allowable in specific situations does not equate to being allowed to link at will. There was no need to link to the profile. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify this a bit more, as it is probably needed. The exception under the harassment policy is that we can link to a job ad, even though that might by default out an editor. However, in this case the link was to a profile, not an ad, and the profile had nothing to do with Wikipedia. As to the editor making the connection themselves, the editor did not. They posted a photo presumably of themselves here, but that doesn't mean we can link to a profile under a different name because a crop of the photo appears in it, and while it is true that they did provide a link to their Facebook account (as a source for the photo), it wasn't their Facebook account that we linked to. I share the belief that the editor was doing paid work - although I'd have preferred at least some attempt to warn them before an indef block - but the evidence for that was only in their editing history. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The ridiculous contortions that good faith editors have to go through when dealing with paid editing are a joke, and this thread illustrates said joke. Roxy the dog. bark 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a joke. The community has always been strongly opposed to outing. It is especially a problem in this case, where the user was outed without justification. The Upwork profile which we linked to had no evidence that the user had ever been paid to edit Wikipedia, yet that was used as a reason for an indef block and the reason for outing. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanas (PRC)

    Noticed that editors are adding perfectly formed but unreferenced articles at high speed today, suggesting to me some form of paid editing. There are probably more, which I shall now look for. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There might be nothing to do here. Articles like Ma Fulu（Senior Vice Precident） are wiped and two of the accounts blocked. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tianqingle ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    GABgab 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Plural Acronyms

    I came across this draft during AfC. Rather than being an article about grammar, it appears to be nothing more than a crude SEO technique to promote a company called Mentor Media. A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they work as an online marketing consultant. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical analysis software

    As part of the OfficialPankajPatidar sockfarm cleanup above, I dialed back the product features in Technical analysis software. This is following even more excision of product feature lists by MrOllie. Unfortunately an anon has reverted both of us without any explanation, restoring over 20k of unsourced material. The IP is a static Comcast Business IP geolocates to the same area that just happens to be headquarters of one of the companies whose article links to Technical analysis software. The MetaStock article also has pages and pages of feature lists and such. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. That whole area needs some work. We previously had COI problems with alternative data, which means taking data from non-finance sources and crunching on it for financial prediction. Surveillance capitalism seems to be partly the same thing, but from a different ideological perspective. Then there's technical analysis, which is a reasonably good, broad article. I'd suggest merging anything worth keeping at technical analysis software into technical analysis. That article gets looked at, so linkspam there will get noticed and dealt with. All of this is related to big data, to which I recently added a small finance section. This is a real subject area, but what we're getting are little POV articles on parts of it, not an encyclopedic overview. John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying. I did almost 20k of cleanup on MetaStock but something tells me a new redlinked editor might pop up there soon. Agree with you on the efficacy of a merge of technical analysis software into technical analysis. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed merge, with appropriate tags at both articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kopaz

    The Kopaz is a newly-registered WP:SPA account whose only Wikipedia edits have been to the Dale Groutage article and its current AFD discussion; I already suspected conflict of interest due to his WP:BLUDGEONing tone in the discussion, but was reluctant to actually bring it up here because I couldn't figure out how to raise the issue without outing him. However, in his most recent comment at the AFD discussion, he switched from referring to Dale Groutage in the third person to referring to Dale Groutage in the first person — so for all intents and purposes he's now outed himself. That said, since I'm the primary person in his line of fire at the AFD discussion, I'm not the right person to decide if any COI warnings or sanctions are warranted or not. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible paid promotion

    User:Daowner (User talk:Daowner)) recently created the article Daniel C. Adams (web designer), which I tagged for COI after Daowner cited [1] as a source. When that article was subsequently deleted for violating G11, User:Alvinturner (User talk:Alvinturner338) created the articles Daniel C Adams and Daniel C. Adams (designer). I think we should keep and eye on these editors and content relating to Daniel C Adams. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Springbox aka Mobile1st

    Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same according to Bloomberg [2] and the company creates software called Mobilizer. The editor, formerly named Mobile1st, has partially disclosed a conflict but hasn't specified what it is and continues to directly edit. WP:REALNAME applies. His latest action (after a years long hiatus) is to add several sources to dePROD the article, including springbox.com and mobile1st.com. It is problematic. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, it is not at all true that Springbox and Mobile1st are one and the same.(Mobilizer is a web tool sold by Mobile1st.) Mobile1st was spun off from Springbox in 2014. The services offered and the personel are entirely different. Here is some info on the leadership of Mobile1st: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/digital-agency-executive-jonathan-silverstein-named-ceo-of-mobile1st-and-its-pioneering-mobile-conversion-optimization-organization-300496685.html I have alerted the Springbox people to the erroneous info offered by Bloomberg, which Bri cites. My conflict of interest -- I am a friend of Springbox ceo, and he asked to me produce a factual, verifed account of the company. I tried to find good sourcing for the key facts of the entry. Jake Rabin (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh here's a page detailing the leadership of Springbox, which you can see is different from mobile1st: https://www.springbox.com/about/ And here's mobile1st, though its new ceo isnt mentioned: https://mobile1st.com/about/ Jake Rabin (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to add that I'd love your guidance on how to make the article better fit Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for your help! Jake Rabin (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Peppadew

    This user, whose username strongly suggests a conflict of interest, has for a third time overwritten the article with the identical advert, despite talk-page warning: Noyster (talk), 12:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Large portions of the material being added appears to be a copyvio, taken directly from http://www.peppadew.com/about-peppadew-international/ - clear promotional wording. Also being added by IPs which appear to be related to the named account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Easyship

    Easyship was created a few days ago by User:Kingd97, who has no edits other than on this topic. The company may or may not be notable but the original article was filled with blatant promotion. I trimmed the advertising and editorializing after which there wasn't much left. User:Kingd97 restored the promotion by the rather unconventional approach of moving the article to Draft space, editing it there, then it moving back to article space. More eyes are needed on the article. Not sure what to make of moving the article back and forth to Draft space -- it could be seen as disruptive, or it may be that User:Kingd97 simply is inexperienced. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I did create a Wikipedia page for Easyship, but it was not meant for promotion. I am making a page for Easyship like every other company with a Wikipedia Page, to inform others what Easyship is, and Easyship is a notable company. I was told by a Wikipedian (whose Username I have forgotten) to make a page for Easyship again, and that is what I did. He told me to switch from Article to Draft, write a better one and then switch it back to Article. And also, so many other companies have a Wikipedia page, how come they are not deleted and Easyship's is? If you believe that those company pages are not there for promotion, then how/why is that the case for Easyship? Kingd97 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Careeba

    A Google search for the editor's name indicates that they are an employee of the company, and an undeclared paid editor using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HannahVerg

    Bringing this here because there was what appeared to be a paid editing declartion that was later rescinded after I noted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation. There does appear to be a COI here given the very long defense at the AfD and the lengthy bouts of inactivity followed by creation of perfectly formatted articles from scratch. The following were created by the user:

    Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25, which is connected to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    • User Response Hello, I would like to clarify. I was not paid to create these pages. The lengthy defense at the AfD comes from my experiences as a journalist, dedicated to research and providing factual information. All pages I've created were throughly researched, in terms of finding the content, sources and spending a large amount time teaching myself how to properly code the pages. I initially disclosed my employer to show transparency and represent that I was not paid to create the Rainbow page. These efforts were misunderstood. Now I see that my efforts to clarify the situation has, again, been misunderstood. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to further clarify the situation to stop the confusion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannahVerg (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • HannahVerg, could you please explain then why you described Etched Communication as "client" and then explained the relationship between that firm and the subject of the article? To me that suggests payment, but even if you are not being paid directly, if you are creating an article about this subject where one of your clients has a PR relationship with the subject, it is likely a conflict of interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • TonyBallioni, Yes, I can explain. Etched Communication has a client who is working with a government coalition. This government coalition has a relationship with Rainbow, so there is not a direct PR relationship. I learned about Rainbow through my work, but I was not paid by that employer to create the page. I originally disclosed my employer and client to explain how I came about learning of Rainbow. I created the page because after researching Rainbow, I believed that the organization was noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I was a surprised that a Wikipedia page had not already been created for this organization.

    Kukun

    Silicon Valley "home renovation resource platform...with the goal of helping others make their renovation dreams a reality" with $1M startup money. And a shiny new Wikipedia page from a just as new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed some copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on Yan Gorshtenin

    The new article Yan Gorshtenin has been introduced and edited mainly by User:Gorshteninyan (talk), which implies a potential conflict of interest. The editor has several times removed an autobiography tag placed on the article, and some of the information added to the page seem to be very promotional towards the subject. Requesting we keep an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging Smallbones...this is one for the examples file. "Worked countless hours...discovered his entrepreneurship journey...his accomplishments have led him into many new opportunities...help[ing] teenagers in his community start their own ventures in media marketing and self branding." Sourcing to high school newspaper even. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tempting, but I'd rather not make fun of a high school student. My question is how he can write the article, and nothing other than "his" article and get it in main space without going thru AfC? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Smallbones, because WP:ACTRIAL doesn't start until September 7th at the earliest, so until then, anyone can create any article they want in mainspace by simply picking a username, password, and typing in a captcha :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    7th can't come soon enough. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It won't matter much. WP:ACTRIAL is a minor speed bump, not a traffic barrier. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was speaking ironically, the joke is on us since we have such a low bar and examples of just this kind of self-hype everywhere. Why wouldn't an ambitious young person go ahead and insert this? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bri, I just tagged as G11. If someone is familiar with Commons deletion-speak, they should probably head over there to nominate that glorious webcam selfie for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A WP:SPI also is in order. The subject lives in Los Angeles, and the article is being edited by both User talk:Gorshteninyan and two IPs that geolocate to... guess where? I've gotta get to bed but if somebody wants to file the paperwork that would be great. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Boris without commenting on whether or not your conclusion is correct, I don't think an SPI would be productive; these kinds of cases don't go well over there in my experience. They will not publicly relate IPs to a specific editor. If we had continuing disruption a block might be possible but right now even that isn't evidently necessary. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lotteries editor

    A cool edit filter that was brought to my attention, Filter 867, flagged one or more of the articles above. Ubet (company) created by a brand-new editor with unusual facility for creating entire articles in one edit. Who has done several more since. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be an editor who has an interest in the Australian lottery industry, or it could be someone with a vested interests (I.E COI or paid promotion.) No harm can come from us keeping an eye on the situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaning up after GringisMan

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HelgaStick which will shortly be moved here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. One of the accounts had semi-disclosed they were taking jobs from Fiverr but none of the others had. They also had a keen interest in politics as well, which may need looking at closely. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts

    Articles created or substantially edited

    I've only included obvious UPE articles here. There are other political biographies which could also be.

    More added by Bri below.

    More missed by Smartse:

    Discussion

    Thanks, {{undisclosed paid}} seems to do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a contribution surveyor report for the three really active accounts here. Regarding your question about the not-obviously-commercial editing, it's hard to suss out. Example, what is this all about? HelgaStick is the "good hand" and Liborbital, GringisMan the "bad hand"? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We might have a new editor - brand new account has added a link to one of the (now deleted) articles. Will wait and see if they have something to say about it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Omaze

    I edited the Omaze article to remove insufficiently notable and biased information. This information appears to have been added by H-riddle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is repeatedly reverting my edits to the article. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mukesh Hariawala

    Article deleted ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The page and its AfD would benefit from some examination by editors who are experienced with COI issues. (By the way, I've taken COIN off my watchlist.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD completed as delete. This should help with {{db-repost}} if necessary in the future. IMO, for this reason, AfDs once begun and the time sink has been endured, should not be allowed to be derailed. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Creation of previously deleted articles by User:Sungoesup

    First created by this group[3].

    Now again:

    Other articles:

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI started here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrospect (software)

    Long-lived single-purpose account. User page says CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC, no COI or paid editing disclosed despite initial COI notice by @Diannaa and "me" last year. The article on Retrospect doesn't seem to be anywhere near the encyclopedic standards, and hasn't improved since last year despite continued contributions from DovidBenAvraham; quite the opposite, in my opinion.

    On first look, the article on Ronny Lee is probably fine. But I have no idea what to do about the Retrospect article, so I'm bringing this up here as a first timer. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For comparison:

    • Before (3 October 2016)
    • Then (23 October 2016)
    • Now (20 August 2017)

    2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "CEO of Ronny Lee Publications, LLC" means I am the sole owner and only employee of a New York State Limited Liability Corporation that was set up slightly over a year before Ronny Lee's death, so that the 20-odd guitar method books and charts to which he held the copyright could continue to be sold despite the fact that his macular-degeneration-caused legal blindness made him unable to read orders coming in through PayPal e-mails. I don't pay myself a salary or expenses, the copies of the books are stored in a closet and on bookshelves in my apartment, and the LLC loses money each year.
    I am not and have never been an employee or contractor of Retrospect Inc., or of its predecessor corporations. I have paid for every new edition of the Retrospect software I have ever used, either at the new-purchase price or at the upgrade price, including most recently in spring 2017 for Retrospect Macintosh 14. I'm a 76-year-old retiree who looked at the Retrospect(software) article in early October 2016, saw that it was truly a stub that IIRC was at best current as of 2005, and decided to expand it in hopes of getting other people to buy it—so that Retrospect Inc. could stay in business and add new bug-fixes and features I could use. That expansion has proved to be much more extensive than I expected, for reasons I'll discuss on my own talk page.DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sandiprajbhar

    I don't want to be seen as harassing/outing him, but it is obvious from his contributions that he is a paid editor. I searched for him, and it turns out that he is an SEO Executive at some firm (Not providing link to prevent being misconstrued as outing), suggesting that most of his contributions have been paid for (which is anyway evident from looking at hs contribution history). He hasn't responded to warnings on his talk page, but I will still ping @Sandiprajbhar: to see if he has anything to say. Jupitus Smart 09:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I was just contemplating starting a section here on Sandiprajbhar myself, after he recreated Rahul Roy (ARC), which was speedily deleted earlier this month. Edwardx (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uyarafath

    I am not exactly sure how to handle this case, but I will still try. This person has accepted that he is a paid editor, and has provided a list of articles that he has been paid for on his user page. Paid editing if declared is probably a transgression that is forgiven here. However there are many other articles that he has created which are probably paid editing as well, and have not been declared as such by him or mentioned as such on the talk pages of the articles. Some of the undeclared suspected paid edits include

    • He has expanded Maija DiGiorgio with a lot of information, most of which are not even provided in the only source provided.
    • He has removed tags from Majestic Realty Co. and its chairman Edward P. Roski after making minor cosmetic changes to them.
    • He has created Limnesh Augustine which has a candid photograph uploaded by a person with the same name as the subject of the article and most of the references for the article are not even about the person, but about some events.
    • Articles on entrepreneurs like Matthew Edward Zagula and John Adrain, both probably non notable and containing external links.
    • Companies like Natera and Creditseva which don't have proper references and seem like product pages.
    • Probably paid to take over editing Draft:UrbanClap after a newbie editor (probably related to the company) could not pass the article through Draft review.
    • Has accepted to have been paid for Adda52rummy but not for its founder Anuj Gupta and parent company Adda52.

    I am pinging @Uyarafath: for comments. Jupitus Smart 10:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also pinging @Batwoman3366: who seems to be the sockpuppet of the above user as his only role is to remove maintenance tags from pages that have been created by the above user (besides some other minor edits). Jupitus Smart 10:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, @Jupitus Smart:. You are right. By the way, you have not seen my disclosure in my talk page. Please read it. I am making it clear here that earlier I was not aware about 'paid disclosure', So I didn't mention. After I came to know about 'paid disclosure policy' from Wikipedia, I do disclose it properly and for my early editing also I am disclosing one by one, so it is taking time. You have mentioned some of my editing. Thanks for that. I will disclose 'paid editing' wherever it applicable. The articles created/edited by me always withing Wikipedia guidelines but limit of my understanding. So, I always welcome experienced editors to correct/improve my articles.Uyarafath (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with your acceptance now (you had said empathetically that its your responsibility to declare your paid editing on August 9. Accepting after a COIN revelation doesn't seem very responsible to me), I am not sure I can digest so much of paid editing. Anyway let us see what the other guy has to say before I or somebody else starts off a sockpuppet investigation. Jupitus Smart 10:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going on a Wikibreak. Probably one of the editors will consider taking up an SPI. Jupitus Smart 10:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I had the same suspicion last week and you can see the talk thread with user here. I recommended Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists for deletion but then saw user's upload of a commercial looking image to Jade Mya. The photo came from Flickr and looks like it was uploaded a day or two prior. Upon Googling the name of the original uploader on Flickr, I find it is linked to a company that offers paid services for editing Wikipedia. I am not putting any names - company or person - here to avoid outing, but you can easily follow the path for yourself. I should note that prior to me contacting user on their talk page, they had only two paid editing disclosures I could find and the disclosure on their userpage was non-existent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Had to return after I saw this. SPI won't work as this is not sockpuppetry but meatpuppetry. Uyarafath has agreed at Talk:Creditseva that he has been paid by Facilius. Searching for Facilius reveals that it is an SEO company, and Wikipedia editing is one of their services. Per their services listing page here they offer to return money in case articles are deleted (It is an interesting read for those interested). Creditseva was created by Copeflojo who has been blocked for Sockpuppetry and largely edited by Krawtani2600 who was the Sockmaster (SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krawtani2600). They probably understood that more sockpuppetry would not augur well for the article (and they would have to return the money) and recruited Uyarafath. A look at the SPI investigation reveals other users who were not blocked as they were technically unrelated - another probable case of meatpuppetry. Does Uyarafath have enough claims for a block and possible WP:G5 deletions. Pinging @Doc James: for his thoughts. Jupitus Smart 18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the same company that links to the Flickr image that I mentioned above. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Uyarafath also needs to disclose any intermediaries involved in their work. If they are facilitating the work of a blocked editor for pay that is at least a breach of the spirit of our policies if not the policies themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Doc James, It is good that I am taught many things about wikipedia. As I already said, initially I did not aware about disclosures. Once, I came to about 'paid disclosure' I started mentioning in the talk page of respective articles for which I am compensated. Now User:Jupitus Smart says that since COIN revealed, I admit the paid disclosure. But, it is not the case. As I declared in my user page, I am not part of any marketing company at all. If I am requested to create an encyclopedic content on payment basis, I do accept. If the article is within Wikipedia guidelines and accepted then only I will get pay. So, Until I did not receive any compensation I can't disclose it, Am I right?. But now, I have disclosed many articles for which I have not received any compensation but still I declared because I may get (depending on review). See, fist I do check whether the subject is notable. In my point of view the subject is notable (by looking many such articles created by other editors which are reviewed by experienced Wiki admins and allowed to be encyclopedic), So I do think it is good to upload an article about particular subject. After that, other Wiki admin/moderator decides about existence. As of now, within my knowledge, Wikipedia allows paid edits and it must be disclosed and the article within Wikipedia guidelines. The problem is I may sometime feel that yes! this subject is notable but wiki moderators feels 'not'. What I can do for that? For example, one I created for an 'Indian painter' who is very peculiar in particular painting, the person holds some records, news paper coverage is there. So, I strongly feel the subject is notable. But, Other Wiki editor feels 'not'. Just yesterday one of my article D.S._Kothari_Fellowship was deleted,(Not paid article, as a service I created it) the reason 'advertisement' and it was tagged like this by a 'Well experienced Wiki admin'. But I am totally confused that how could 'a research scholar science fellowship' be advertise and promotional?. If that is the case, then all the article under [[5]], how were they accepted as encyclopedic? This point I got confused. What is wrong D.S._Kothari_Fellowship.User:Doc James please clarify under which case D.S._Kothari_Fellowship is advertisement. Thank youUyarafath (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CNMall41 and Jupitus Smart: thanks for the info on the Indian SEO/marketing/social media/WP editing firm. I have reported them to WMF Legal for trademark infringement: they are utilizing the puzzle globe for advertising these services. We should do this every time we see it used this way. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Acting sheepish won't really be helpful. Here are some points to consider:

    • It is not our fault that the company tricked you into not paying you. If you were commissioned to write in lieu of payments, you have to mention it.
    • What difference does it make if you are not really working for the company. A worker there makes articles and is paid for that. You make articles sitting at your home, and are paid for that. I don't see much of a moot point.
    • Why was D S Kothari Fellowship deleted. Simple Answer : Because you lost our trust. Even though we grudgingly allow paid editing if declared, we don't like it and we will try to delete it if it can be deleted. So even though D S Kothari Fellowship was innocuous, somebody tagged it for deletion, and an admin accepted it, because they believed an advertiser editor can only write paid articles (and probably because the article read like an advertisement). What do you think is stopping me or Doc James or some other experienced editor from writing paid articles. Don't you think we can write much better articles than what you are producing. It is because we are committed to a greater cause of providing free knowledge, and probably money can't replace respect and trust.

    Bah. Jupitus Smart 06:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclosure is required if there is the expectation of getting paid. The transfer of money is not required first.
    You need to mention who paid you and have not yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Jupitus Smart, User:Doc James and other editors, Since you have said that I lost your trust, I have nothing to say. Yes, you guys can write much better article than me but you don't. I understand. So, here I assure you that I won't accept any paid compensation for any article which are not enough to be encyclopedic. So, for that don't blindly delete my article which are non-paid but encyclopedic and notable such as 'D S Kothari fellowship' article. Also, well before all this conflict one of my non-paid but notable article about 'National Wind tunnel facility IIT Kanpur' was deleted, saying advertisement. I wondered how could it be advertisement and 'National wind tunnel facility in UK' is encyclopedic but 'National wind tunnel facility in India' is advertisement. How to digest this? You guys can explain this too. I can't accept your argument that Since I lost hope so that you can delete my non-paid encyclopedic articles. It is my request that please show me the Wiki rule which says if an editor lost hope from admin, so even a notable encyclopedic content from such editors can be deleted. Since guidelines are vast I could not exactly find out such information. You may please help to read out. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mannatech

    Whitewashing of a company page by an editor who claims they aren't compensated for their edits. However, an Upwork job requesting edits to the Mannatech page has been started a few weeks ago (a link would have to be to the freelancer's profile - let me know if it's OK to post it), and the company appears to have a long history of editing the page. Rentier (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Posting links to job sites is allowed by the exemption in WP:OUTING (emphasis mine): "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations... There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." It was reaffirmed by Doc James here. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The ad was hidden on Upwork right after my post, so no point now. It wasn't possible to link directly to the ad, and a link to a freelancer's profile was redacted in one of the threads above... Rentier (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting upwork links here is definitely ok, but we can of course take your word about having seen it. The edits were obviously not neutral and it is is not difficult to see why this company would want the article rewritten from their perspective. I've reverted the changes as they were such a mess and will keep an eye on it. SmartSE (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rentier: Are you certain that the upwork user has taken other jobs? The age of the Zrex00 account makes it very likely that they're socking. Even without, we may be able to persuade a CU to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: Yes, certainly. Here is a link to another job by the same freelancer. The corresponding edits were done by WordNinja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was confirmed to Muzr1009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked. Rentier (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rentier: Ah yes I remember that AC. Unfortunately those accounts are all stale but it seems likely that there are others lurking. I will see whether I someone can take a look later on. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Risker and Drmies: Are either of you able to use your powers to check this account? Per the above, we know that they are getting jobs from upwork and have socked before (but all stale now) so it seems likely that there are others accounts lurking. Zrex00 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be happy to run CU but I need to see some evidence for socking. I compared that big fat ridiculous edit by Zrex00 to the one in the history by Chris1200, and to some others, and I looked at the WordNinja edits, but I don't see any resemblances. If you can help with that, sure. Or you can email me. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Emailing you. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has definitely been cleaned up, good team effort. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paolo Casali

    Would someone else like to look at this? It was created by KAustin, who acknowledges here that it was written for "my boss". Neagleyz knows Casali well enough to have taken this photograph of him (but, Neagleyz, why did you upload such a low-resolution copy of your photo, and without any EXIF data?). It's no surprise to discover that the IP range 129.111.0.0/16 is registered to UTHSCSA, University of Texas, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio.

    The content appears to have been created as a part of someone's paid employment, and I've suggested here that either the text be removed from the page, or the page moved back to draft ... with predictable response. I then – very reluctantly, I must admit – started cleaning it up myself; when I was reverted by SwisterTwister, who was responsible for moving it into article space in the first place, I stopped. I don't plan to touch it again, hence this post. The subject, by the way, is most certainly notable by our standards.

    This article aside, I think it's time to review with care our handling of both of COI content in draft space, and of TOU violations. Specifically, is there any reason why an editor, any editor, should not remove all body text – with TOU violation as rationale – from an article like this one, so that a neutral and non-conflicted page can be written in its place? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Justlettersandnumbers: I'm low on blood sugar please explain further. You want to strip the article body under what conditions? WP:STUBIFY and leave just a one-sentence lede or ...? Help me here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Danish Sait/Orangemoody

    Recreation of article posted by Orangemoody sock, Arr4. ☆ Bri (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Bri,
    There was no such page when I was created Danish Sait. I am not aware of history of this page. I am looking to create new articles which is related to my earlier articles. First I created Humble Politician Nograj then writer of the movie like that.. No intention of doing a particular page for particular person. Its my own creation and I am not linked with these people or users mentioned above. Thank you Wikieditorksd (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are behavioural clues which make it clear that Wikieditorksd is a sock of someone, but I can't remember exactly who. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Some stuff has been G5 speedied under Orangemoody but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Principles of Curiosity

    Resolved
     – Article deleted and account blocked

    "Andromeda Creative" is the name of an LA based marketing firm. Here is a tweet saying they are working with Skeptoid to promote their new film "Principles of Curiosity" which is dated to July 20th. On July 20th, this user who has the same name as the marketing firm, made the Wikipedia page for "Principles of Curiosity", and inserted the page under "In Popular culture" sections to several articles using the official website of the film as a source. I believe this user to be the same as the marketing firm, as both names and dates line up. I don't believe the film is notable enough to have its own page, nor is it notable enough to be referenced in other articles and this user has a profound conflict of interest. WP:USERNAME also bans company names from being used as usernames. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and deleted (not by me). SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    They are actually blocked for username issue, so they could be back anytime. Eyes on the article(s) is a good idea. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BME917

    The articles listed above are the existing articles by this on-again-off-again editor (a pattern commonly but not always that of paid editors). With Nicholas C. Rowley, this editor found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BME917. It is true that the subject editor has stated that they do not have a conflict of interest with regard to C. Shegerian and to Favale. The sockpuppetry (in order to have another account remove the G11 tag) has been confirmed by a CheckUser. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Neurologic music therapy

    COI editing appears to have persisted "to inform the public" with sourcing and copyright violation issues. This is also a medical topic. More attention to the article welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 01:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=796810011"