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 223.206.42.35 (talk) at 18:32, 1 September 2017 (aoa). 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:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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]

    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]

    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]
    We can say that based on behavior, IPs are clearly the same as accounts. However, we cannot make a technical link (i.e. via CU). GABgab 02:08, 29 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]
    I tried to save to save this from deletion by adding the connection to this. I'm obviously new to this, as I am the person mentioned. But I never payed for any of the entries to be made. It seems as if this is the cause for deletion. (talk) --Shynoladelacruiz (talk) 05:26, 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[1].

    Now again:

    Other articles:

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

    SPI started here [2] 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 major release 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 [[3]], 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]
    You appear to be specifically not answering the question presented. "I assure you that I won't accept any paid compensation for any article which are not enough to be encyclopedic" appears to mean that you will accept money for articles you feel are encyclopedic. You still have not agreed to disclose who is paying you :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Doc James, When did I say "I will not agree to disclose the paid edits"?. I have clearly disclosed paid edits in article's talk page and in my user page too as list. You are welcome to visit my user page and have a look. "appears to mean that you will accept money for articles you feel are encyclopedic" - what is wrong in that? According to Wikipedia guidelines, I can get compensation but I have to disclose it. I am also saying that I already disclosed for previous articles and will surely disclose in future too if so. But, meanwhile, I will add new encyclopedic content voluntarily without any compensation but only intention to share knowledge. Will you delete that too? if so why?.please clarify. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I see that you have disclosed who paid you on the talk pages of the article in question rather than your user page.[4] That works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Doc James, kindly answer my question already asked "I will add new encyclopedic content voluntarily without any compensation but only intention to share knowledge. Will those also be deleted? if so why?.please clarify". Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on whether or not it is promotional I imagine. If you contribute none promotional stuff you should be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 24 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]
    Sorry, but I have nothing to report... Drmies (talk) 11:45, 23 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]
    there's certainly a reason we should not stubbify: to deny recognition to paid editors. It's our only real weapon,to delete all COI articles unless the person is so important that someone will create a new article from scratch, and this is nowhere near that important. Otherwise the subject pays for the article, the paid editor write his promotionalism , we remove it and rewrite it properly for him. WP is based on volunteers, and we destroy that principle if we use our time and efforts in writing work that other people have been paid for. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When deleting because of being a ToU violation has come up, the community seems to have been opposed. It is preferred to work from existing reasons - if the text is overly promotional, or if the paid editor is socking - rather than using the ToU as justification in itself.
    This particular case is a bit different, as it seems that editor wasn't hiding their affiliation, but was simply unaware of the need to disclose it. Hopefully now that they are being made aware of the requirements they'll take care of them and this won't be an issue. - Bilby (talk) 07:38, 23 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]

    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]

    @PaleoNeonate: You might get more action on this at WT:WikiProject Medicine. They are very responsive to articles with bogus medical claims. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bri: Shortly after my post here it was brought again back to attention there along with other related music therapy articles (WT:MEDICINE#Music_Therapy). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CORYS

    User:Emma Harbonnier started the article CORYS, which is a notable company. The article, as created had a distinct promotional tone. A casual check on linkedIn revealed a person of this name is an employee (Assistante en communication) of said company. I proceeded to place a {{uw-coi}} template on her userpage. Today she removed maintenace templates and reinstated much of the material which had been removed. This seems a clear case of undisclosed COI. Please advise. Kleuske (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left additional messages on the editor's talk page here and on French Wikipedia, where she has also been engaging in the same activities. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user, SGenin, has appeared to remove maintenance templates and add content. A simple search reveals a result that suggests this is yet another employee with an undisclosed COI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This user was also notified on their talk page on French Wikipedia in December 2016 about undisclosed paid editing. No disclosure has been made. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On French Wikipedia, Emma Harbonnier has been warned about an impending block if they don't disclose their employment within two weeks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kayzie Rogers

    Both the user and the IP seem to be the subject of this biography. They appear to be making good faith attempts to update and correct their biography, but keep getting reverted with little explanation. They could probably use some guidance from someone experienced in COI issues. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    William Andrew Oddy

    The article is a BLP and there have been all sorts of problems with sourcing. I'm now sure the guy is notable but, having done some clean up a few days ago, I've just had to revert a bunch of new edits because in most cases there is no way the sources support the statements in their entirety (eg: there is no way the source added in this edit will support all of the preceding statements). As a whole, the article relies far, far too much on WP:SPS and, well, it has been a bit of a nightmare just getting it into the shape that it now is. And the shape is not great because pretty much every non-SPS source is supporting ancillary info rather than info about the subject himself.

    I've asked the contributor about a possible COI - could be the subject, could be a museum colleague or student etc - but they seem to be ignoring that and, indeed, do not appear to be particularly communicative. Which is not to say they've been entirely silent - they did query adding still more likely SPS stuff relating to Sutton Hoo but then went on today's spree without raising the edits at the talk page first.

    I'm sure that they mean well but there is something not right here and I've not got the temperament to deal with it, sorry. Sitush (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is abila.pao and I am William Andrew Oddy. There is, of course, a possibility of COI in me trying to edit this page but as an amateur with Wikipedia I am having difficulty in contacting those who do not like my edits. Earlier today I put in new citations where they were being requested. They have all been removed. OK, yes, the Who's Who entry was written by me but I don't know where else to go to back up things like date of birth, date of retirement, freeman of Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths etc etc. In fact, I don't see that these need citations. Of course, I COULD be fantasizing but I am not and these are facts pertinent to my career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abila.pao (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a mistake a few moments ago as I closed the entry without signing it as I had not finished but wanted to see if I was 'working the system'. I then came back and added more text and signed, but this has been lost! One of the changes that I made earlier was to re-name a section of text. This is because a couple of days ago a section of text was removed, but the heading from a different section was removed. My edit had been undone. So now we have a section of text relating to 'The History of Museum Conservation' that is headed 'Forensic Examination of Antiquities'. Very weird. I will give up trying to make this article more comprehensive by editing directly. However, it is missing several major areas like the scientific and conservation work on the Sutton Hoo burial, the development of the Archimedes Method for the analysis of gold coins and its application in the field of numismatics, and a lot of numismatic work on the early Islamic coinage. I also wonder how much life outside the walls of the British Museum should be aired: Trustee of several charities over the years, membership of numerous working parties and committees, even some years in retirement selling antiques. Well, it looks as though we shall never know. Abila.pao (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm not trying to put you off or demean what you have done in your life. Sorry if it seems that way. I'm just at a bit of a loss regarding how to deal with this issue and that is why I have raised it here. I know that I removed the Who's Who entry, among other things, but I'm not even sure that mentions everything that it was being used to support.
    More generally, we usually want sources that discuss the subject, not sources written by the subject. Obviously, some will be ok but the article comprises almost entirely statements reliant on your own writings and that often rings alarm bells. I'm sure there are people here who can advise you (and me) regarding what is acceptable and what is not. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just addressing the final paragraph of what Sitush wrote. I have frequently argued at AfD about this, and deleted article sections with titles and content like "media appearances", links to author indexes, lists of periodical pieces authored by the subject, "was interviewed by", citations of books to themselves, and the like. These are reliable hallmarks of advocacy editing in my experience. I don't think I've ever been challenged on this so it does seem to be the will of the community that such content doesn't belong. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Abila.pao Fret not. You're not the first new contributor to Wikipedia that finds himself baffled initially by Wikipedia editing policies. Can assure you though, that our policies developed over-time by trial-and-error until we could maintain millions of articles that meet (or nearly meet) WP encyclopedic standards. Rome wasn't t built in a day and new editors can't understand it all overnight. Also, see it as OK to be upfront about your obvious COI as it alerts other editors that you may posses expert knowledge in some of those fields. For the time being however, just be content to add suggestions to the articles talk-pages -where you will get feed back, advice and help. It would be nice to have a photograph of yourself for the article about you but I won't go into how to upload one just yet as you will probably baffled about how comply with CC-BY-SA 4.0 aswell- but understanding will come with familiarity. Aspro (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll second what @Aspro: said. We need editors like you, even if it is just an occasional look at Sutton Hoo or similar. But we just don't need folks editing the article about themselves. Putting good information with good references on the talk page is as far as you should go. Just an idea, why don't we get some of the folks from the British Museum project to take a look at the article? @Wittylama and Johnbod:
    Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Christianne Klein

    I am concerned that these two editors may have a conflict of interest, but when I have tagged the article, Truthtellers19 removes the template. Note that, according to the article, Klein's company is called Truth Fairy TV Media Group. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The "truthteller" account, like the first, is an single-purpose account. It was created shortly after NPOVN was notified and other editors started doing article cleanup. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronu Majumdar

    Same name as flutist with questionable nobility. Article is poorly sourced and cruft continuously is added to it. Article was not created by user, but that is the only article they have edited. Username might be a violation, but I don't even know if this person is "famous". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Grohe

    User continues to add content, despite a COI notice on talkpage and obvious COI as evidenced by username. Edwardx (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please advise who to get in touch with to discuss GROHE_Marketing —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SFM Corporate Services

    Article created by an SPA, and edited by five other SPAs since then. Subject is of questionable notability. Edwardx (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SFM.Corporate is a SCAM, just google it Eu100 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Samuel Sangshik Han

    User has returned after being warned of COI seven years ago. Of course we allow people to edit articles about themselves and their associations, but there's no attempt, then or now, to communicate, follow guidelines, or add reliable sources. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Malik Shabazz

    See article: American Jews

    Over the past week, Malik edit warred (going well beyond the WP:3RR limit) over the inclusion of what appears to be a politically motivated line.

    Here is the passage in question: "The overwhelming majority of American Jews view themselves as white."

    On the talk page, I argued that it is a WP:REDUNDANT line (since the passage it precedes says the same thing, but in a more neutral tone) and serves no real purpose other than to enforce a "point" about Jews. The hostile, accusatory nature of his responses, especially his justification for restoring the aforementioned passage*, only reinforce my concerns.

    • "since you and your friend are still peddling the "Jews aren't white" line, it's very necessary"

    In other words, he feels it is necessary not because it improves the article (it doesn't), but because I mentioned in passing, on another talk page, that I don't share his views on this topic. Therefore, I (and my "friend", whoever that is) must be brought into line.

    The diffs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=American_Jews&action=history

    The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You brought this to the wrong forum, as there's no evidence Malik has WP:COI on that article. Try WP:ANI if you think there's a user conduct issue, or WP:3RR for edit warring. You will need to present clear evidence in the form of diffs though. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the complainant understands what a WP:COI is, nor do they seem to understand WP:3RR. What is my alleged conflict? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Camille Marino

    I have some concerns that the author of this article may be an undisclosed paid contributor, considering their name, the age of the account, and the lack of neutrality of their edits. PureRED (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I'm sorry. I see the alert that there is a discussion about the article I wrote, but I cannot find the discussion. The relevance of this article revolves around free speech issues. I deleted everything that may have been considered extraneous. Can someone please tell me if there is still an issue with the article. Thank you ghostwriter45

    Hi, I've deleted all the extraneous information in this article. free speech is the relevant issue. please let me know if there is still an issue. thank you
    I'll just say that the article is an obvious can of worms. At least in earlier versions there was a problem with WP:SOAP. It's been cleaned up a bit but the earlier verion I read starts out "Camille A. Marino (born 1964; Brooklyn, New York) is an Animal Liberation activist, author, and former political prisoner living in Wildwood, Florida. She has incurred a dozen arrests, two extraditions out of Florida, and one raid on her home. Having been banned from the Internet for almost three years, she has become a vocal critic of state-enforced censorship." And from what I can tell, that could be true. The link to the Southern Poverty Law Center should be read, and is quite scary.
    I'm not sure the subject in non-notable, but she certainly is soapy. It doesn't help that Ghostwriter is an SPA and the only real contributor to the 3 day old article. I'm kinda hoping that the article just goes away. @Ghostwriter45:, is there any chance you could just ask that the article be withdrawn? As I said it just looks like a can of worms. Make that a case of cans of worms. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had nominated the article for speedy after it was recently created, later I withdrew it. I am not sure about AfD, but the article is not valid for speedy criteria. The creator's activity is certainly fishy, but again, I cant be sure of COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Crap(s) spam

    Thre was an offsite ad for work on WP articles relating to dice games. In reviewing this I came across a lot of dubious references at Craps. Even after a bunch of cleanup back in May [5], the article is pretty crappy, perhaps in WP:TNT territory, but I wanted a second opinion before proceeding further. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EngiZe

    Articles edited linked to Upwork jobs:

    Long-time paid editor, more than 100 Upwork jobs completed. Rentier (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It is concerning to see accounts like this so active nominating and participating in AfDs. Another data point in the process integrity puzzle. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I assume it's cover. Any fool can voice an opinion at AfD because we don't punish editors for faulty opinions. Edits like that make the editor look like they're here to contribute. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin action request: please strip Extendedconfirmed as soon as possible. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CREATED

    EDITED

    UNEXPLAINED

    Fuller cleanup list above ☆ Bri (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed. MER-C 02:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    According to File:Price to Win (AUD-PNG-2 CO) (Issue 7).png Price to Win is related to another editor and something called Amplio Services which the username is piped to. They may have been one of the Upwork buyers. Also possible relationship to Draft:Capture Management. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Mattress companies

    Following up on the recent 100+ article paid editing case I noticed several mattress companies bear marks of paid editing, and the same editor was involved in categorization, an odd choice. At any rate this edit indicates COI editing from a marketing exec at King Koil. The article was overly promotional and nearly all sourced to corp materials so I nominated it for G11 speedy. Eve Sleep is declared paid, and needs a cleanup job. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I reported Kingkoil1 to WP:UAA for a corporate username violation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Applied kinesiology

    Blocked user in question indefinitely until issues of copyright problems and incivility dealt with Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 31 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.

    Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently I am not the lovely little potato I thought I was but a "bigoted coward who speaks out of ignorance". Interesting. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    |}

    User:Mehkalan

    Blocked until disclosure occurs and promotional editing issues dealt with Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 31 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.

    User appears to be on Wikipedia only for the purpose of advertising the company they founded. They have no-comment reverted several of my removals of their advertising, after I had warned them about COI. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked until disclosure occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't have made sense to give the user a bit of time to respond before blocking? - Bilby (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They are free to respond on their talk page. I did not remove those privileges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't have time to respond before you blocked them. We used to try to give people time to respond before blocking, if there's no major emergency. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a TOU violation. They have edited since the concerns were raised on their talk page without addressing the concerns. Blocks are to prevent further disruption. I take the TOU seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The TOU states "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation". I agree with that fully. Can you show that the editor you just blocked before they responded to the concerns was, in fact, being paid to make those edits? Because I'm going with no - all you can show is that you suspect that they had a COI. I think they had a COI as well. However, I'd at least have discussed the issue with them first. - Bilby (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They were given the chance to disclose and did not. Undisclosed COI editing is a serious concern that negatively affects our readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They were barely given a chance at all. However, what they did with that chance was to move the article where they appear to have a COI into draft space, exactly as we would recommend an editor with a COI should do. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They also continued to edit the article in question without disclosure.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in draft space, and we don't even know if they were being paid to make those edits. It seems that we're willing to give a lot more leeway to an editor who vandalises pages with a series of warnings than you are willing to give an editor who might have a COI.
    What we need to do is talk to them, If it is a serial paid editor, then fine, we block the socks. But if it isn't clear, we should be giving them a chance to understand before we bring out the big guns and just indef block them. If they don't or won't listen, then use the blocks. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at their user name? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks suspiciously like an editor with a COI, rather than a paid editor. I don't doubt that they had a COI. I just question the wisdom of blocking them without engaging them in discussion first. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 31 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.

    Gurdeep Pandher

    Back in late 2016, User:Siahar1 began adding references to "Gurdeep Pandher" to various articles. It was not a very sophisticated attempt at promotion judging by their edits. In 2017, User:MarkHilton came along and created an article for Pandher. That first article ended up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurdeep Pandher and was deleted. MarkHilton was blocked over remarks he made in the AfD. On 28 May 2017, new user (User:Cathy37) created a draft article on Pandher. The draft submission was declined. In August, another new user (User:Pellycrossing) appeared and edited the draft. This time it was accepted. Pellycrossing continued editing to add Pandher to several articles. Yet another new user (User:Bctoday) also dropped in to add almost 4k of text to Pandher's article.

    The thing that drew me to this nest of simple purpose accounts is an edit by User:76.9.53.147. That IP editor had been involved in a series of promotional articles which I reported here. Like the topics involved in that report, Pandher is based in Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. I strongly suspect the accounts are all related. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User Jeh & Guy Harris Undisclosed Microsoft afilliation

    OK before any admins hit the block buttion please hear me out. I contacted Arbcom member Drmie privately yesterday asking how to proceed with this COI complaint, I did that to avoid outing Jeh and to avoid being charged with harrasment. Let me say now that as soon as I sent the message to Drmie I was banned as a sockpuppet. That's what happened with Rich Coburn User - ME. So here I am again having no choice but to go through with this publicly using another IP. However I am that person Rich Coburn. Second, two emails have been sent to all Arbcom members specifically stating Jeh's real name, his partners' names and the how they are associated Microsoft along with proof. So before banning me check with Jimmy Wales. Now I need to know how to proceed further without breaking any harrsment rules. Jeh is directly connected with the sources he uses as references in articles, much of it biased and misleading. I realise "misleading" sounds cliche after Jegenwegen fiasco but it is the truth. And for the record I'm not Jegenwegen and don't know him. I tracked him down after watching Guy and Jeh doubleteam him on one of the x86 articles or maybe PAE I don't rembember. But he was right Jeh and Guy are promoting misleading content. By the way, I'm an IT Engineer and have been in the industry for nearly 20 years. That's not a brag, just painting a picture of how I may be familiar with Jeh & computer hardware. My co-worker was pastie face, a Systems Analyst, now in the States. He and I are not "meat puppets" (lol I never heard that expression til yeterday - had to Google it). There is a clear history of complaints aginst Guy ad Jeh for editing biased misleading and deceptive content into articles. I mean going back more than 5 years. Anyway with that let us please have a dicussion without silly accusations of sockpuppetry. 122.58.8.40 (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw if someone can unblock my Rich Coburn account I won't need to use a proxy. Thanks. -RC 122.58.8.40 (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This pocksuppet needs blocking. No comment on the complaint as op has supplied no usable evidence in th form of doffs. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     IP blocked. GABgab 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This "report" is a dupe/repeat of this one, only this time with far less "evidence". The replies to the previous report are relevant here. Also, whether or not reporter has been a sockpuppet in the past, he is self-admittedly using an IP to evade a block now. Jeh (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns

    Refspam concern

    Buddhabob replaced dead links to high quality souces with links to a private law practice, even though a quick google search finds government and university sources for the information. He did this just days after an Upwork job to make "Wikipedia page edits" was started by a client associated with the practice. Evidence:

    • an Upwork job asking for changes to carvercantin.com
    • a job by the same client from 2016 seeking an "Experienced wikipedia editor for dead link restoration"
    • a recent job by the same client seeking Wikipedia page edits. It was awarded to a freelancer whose previous Wikipedia account was the blocked Jkmarold55. Soon afterwards, Buddhabob added the links.

    More recently, Buddhabob added similarly questionable links to another law practice. In a discussion I initiated on his talk page, he argues that the edits are a net positive and denies having been paid.

    Article concern

    Michele Di Salvo was created by Buddhabob, later expanded by Cavecanem101 and IP editors. It had many of the hallmarks of a paid piece, so I added the Undisclosed paid tag, but it was removed by Cavecanem101.

    --Rentier (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Givaudan

    User:Sarah Jonson appears to work for Givaudan and is editing that article. Nothing in the editing here is outrageous, but I have asked her to declare her paid status. The (possibly) unusual aspect of this case is that Sarah Jonson is an international SPA see here in English, French, and German. She's also been asked to declare her paid status at Discussion_utilisateur:Sarah_Jonson by User: LaMèreVeille.

    I understand that this noticeboard is only for matters on the English-language Wikipedia, but as I understand it, we are allowed to include evidence from other language versions. One additional problem I've noted from the French version of Givaudan is that another editor (not apparently SJ, but likely a COI or paid editor) has removed information about this case from the article.

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Great work, Smallbones. I think it's important to check out activities on other language versions (like the CORYS discussion above, as an example). I invited LaMèreVeille to join this discussion here as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of notes. Givaudan is a notable company, so deletion is not an option. Probably the only thing we can do is block User:Sarah Jonson for disruption if she doesn't answer the question on UPE. Also User:Jeremy112233 (see below) has edited the Givaudan article extensively, so this doesn't appear to be a coincidence. I suppose we can notify the German-language Wikipedia as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Simonetta Lein

    Can I please have some help with this article? The COI issue is explained at Talk:Simonetta Lein#COI and promotionalism tags. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    From the talk page, it is clear that there is undeclared paid editing there. My reaction to the article is "ok, but what has she actually done?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine too, Smallbones! Any suggestions for what we should do here? Ordinarily, I might nominate the article for deletion, but there seem to be enough sources to pass WP:GNG - although it is difficult to sift out the independent coverage from masses of "fashion influencer" promo bumpf. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a certain sympathy for her - we've been remiss in our duty to let her know what is considered promotional here, or otherwise prohibited. She misses these marks by a huge amount. Her statement on the talk page "Just tell me what to do in order to fix this as we do not intend to go on and on," suggests to me that she just wants to know what to do. I'll answer on the talk page and put up a prod (if it hasn't already had one) and probably ask her to just withdraw the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    370 articles created by Jeremy112233 sockfarm

    The master and over 20 socks were blocked last September, a few more in December and one or two in February and March this year. Just the master and a few of the prolific socks are listed above. A fairly complete account of 370+ probably paid articles is here. It's too big for me to try to clean everything up, or even to {{UDP}} tag every article. Any suggestions? Also I wonder if the paid-editing LTAs were included when checkusers went to work?

    I'm running a trial G5 speedy on Bedgear Performance Bedding but it might be technically invalid. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for collating the list Bri. I'm unsure whether we should be tagging articles created in 2012 with {{undisclosed paid}} though considering that at the time, this was not prohibited by the ToU. @JJMC89: as I noticed you have been adding the templates. They most certainly need clean up and many probably need deleting, but {{coi}} seems more appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we could add a parameter to the template to change the wording for articles created before the ToU change came into effect? I think it's useful to keep them in a separate category and have the warning displayed to mobile users. Rentier (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and added the parameter. The alternative version, which doesn't use the "violation of ToS" phrase, can be invoked by using: {{UDP|pre16Jun2014=yes}}. Rentier (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like JJMC89 has tagged everything with a script (?). Successful G5s noted above. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manas dubey

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Was previously by User:Rrajesh.shandilya and User:Bindaas vikram Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajofe StreetMic‎

    User admits they're a freelancer on their user page but has not fully disclosed any paid editing. I strongly believe they have in fact been paid to create this article based on the lack of neutrality. I've asked for a disclosure, but have yet to see one. --PureRED | talk to me | 18:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=798402896"