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 Nick Hill (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 7 March 2018 (→NickHill). 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:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:V Pappas
    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

    Ratsama aka Makhamakhi

    Apparently is able to use his talkpage to dispute deletions, but has chosen not to answer Jytdog's Feb 1 query about paid editing here. With their large number of quick article creations (about 40 more since Jytdog's unanswered question) and the accompanying large number of deletions posted on their talkpage, this appears disruptive. We also have apparent cut-paste moves from Pinar Yoldas to Pınar Yoldaş (now deleted) and Draft:Nina Teicholz to Nina Teicholz (now histmerged): more disruption. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Draft:Susi Snyder → Susi Snyder ☆ Bri (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, it's possible that this editor was unaware of Jytdog's query. On 1 February Ratsama made a bunch of edits, and stopped for the day at 14:25 (UTC times and dates). Jytdog posted his query to Ratsama's talk page at 15:12. At 16:31, WikiDan61 created a new section on Ratsama's talk page (below Jytdog's query) with a notification of a speedy deletion nomination; that page was deleted a couple of hours later.
    Ratsama's next edits to Wikipedia weren't until the following day (starting from 08:50 on 2 February). It's plausible that Ratsama saw the "you have new messages" note, saw the deletion notification at the bottom of his talk page with the now-redlinked link to his article, and missed Jytdog's post entirely. Until right now, no one has followed up with him—at least, not on his talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is definitely something hinky going on here if you look at the history of the Nina Teicholz and David L. Katz articles. This first came to my attention through the editing of someone who was a fan of Teicholz and a hater of Katz, and both articles have become "active" again. The stuff at Katz is now by people wanting to buff that up now. I think there ~might be~ some BLPCOI going on here with a real world dispute being fought out here in WP, now apparently using paid editors. Ugh. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Said he's not paid, a film buff [1] / but no explanation for the involvement with Nina Teicholz, a US nutrition author. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, can editors remove UPE tags relevant to themselves? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame that Faith Wainwright went, she is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and eminently notable. scope_creep (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The mess that is COI tagging

    Recent disputes have highlighted what seem to me to be a number of systemic issues which need to be addressed, probably in a holistic fashion. In no particular order:

    COI maintenance tag

    There's an ongoing dispute about what constitutes justification for adding and removing {{COI}} tags. We probably need to clarify this in template documentation and the COI guidelines. COI is important because it identifies the potential for subtle bias which may well not be apparent in a superficial review. My view, which I think is close to representative but I could be wrong, is this:

    Phase 1 - Addition of COI tags on articles
    1. When adding a COI tag, the onus is on the tagging editor to justify inclusion
    2. There is an expectation that tagging will be accompanied either by identifying the COI editor using a template (but see below) or by opening a talk page thread
    3. Where the tagging is challenged, the expectation becomes a requirement
    4. If a COI is credibly identified, the default is that a COI tag on the article itself is justified and we move to phase 2.
    Phase 2 - Article lifecycle
    1. When removing a COI tag, the onus is on the removing editor to show that it is no longer justified
    2. Routes to removal include:
      1. Removing all text added by conflicted editors Undoing changes by conflicted editors
      2. Substantial rewrite such that the overall tone is significantly changed
      3. Credible evidence that the COI identified is incorrect
      4. Consensus on Talk
    3. If removal is disputed in good faith by an editor in good standing, and the evidence requirements in phase 1 are met, the default is to include the tag

    Underlying this we have:

    General principles
    1. Maintenance tags are not a badge of shame and should not be interpreted as such. A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue, though false or tenuous identification of a purported COI editor, might. A maintenance tag is there to encourage people to check sources and not take the article at face value, and to look for issues on the Talk page - actually a good idea always.
    2. COI implies some significant level of involvement. An account that is obviously the article subject, which turns up to fix something like a date of birth or home town, is not a COI. Conflicted edits must be more than de minimis in order to justify mainspace tagging, but an article subject's account can legitimately be identified on the Talk page (but see below).
    3. There are special cases and grey areas. See sponsored engagements below.

    Discussion of COI tagging

    My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentaiton for {{COI}}. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Like it - maybe we should use the standard term of art and call it revert, but not too bothered. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the list of means of removing the tag, what is missing is that an editor checks the text and determines that it does not have a problem. The template states that the article "may require cleanup" - not that changes necessarily have to be undone, or that it has to be rewritten, or even that it has to be shown that the editors did not have a COI. If someone reads the article and independently verifies that it does not require cleanup, I'm not sure why they need to prove a negative to remove the tag - it seems that it would make more sense to keep the emphasis on the tagger having to show that it is still necessary.In regards to saying that it should not be seen as a badge of shame, you can say that it shouldn't, but the reality is that it will be. When we tag an article with COI we are making a statement about the contributors, and we might see it internally as just a flag, but that's denying the reality of how it will be seen by most readers. I don't think that it is the best idea to pretend otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the problem is COI and potential subtle bias, and we have no way of telling if the editor who "checks the text" is either similarly conflicted, or taking a superficial view that misses subtle bias. COI is COI. If conflicted edits remain in the article, good or bad, they are still conflicted edits. They may be perfectly factual but give undue weight to something the subject wants promoting, for example. Or it may be a case where the PR people chip away at negative text until it's completely removed. The article may still look fine, but be missing significant facts the subject would rather we not include. Hence the route out is either to remove all conflicted text or rewrite. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution isn't to remove "all conflicted text or rewrite". The solution has always been to look at the text, check the sources, and determine if there is a problem. Otherwise what you're asking for is that editors with a COI can have nothing to do with an article, because we can't evaluate their edits (including, presumably, suggested edits on talk). Evaluating content sometimes means removal, sometimes means rewriting, and sometimes means determining that it is ok and leaving it be. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In your view. In mine, the solution is exactly that. COI is COI. Take it out of the article to talk and let independent editors discuss, review, change, and accept or reject it. Otherwise you leave the door wide open to the good hand / bad hand sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry of MisterWiki and the like. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the problem is subtle bias, shouldn't we do that with all cases of subtle bias? Shouldn't we remove the edits of polarised editors as well? What of articles for creation? Are we saying that a COI editor can't create an article, unless it is then rewritten, or approved only by a consensus on talk (as opposed to the current method of evaluation)? If the content is determined to be good, then we've always accepted that the tag can be removed, and we have never banned COI editors from article space. We might strongly discourage them, but the community has never supported a ban - which is what this wording effectively creates.
    At any rate, this seems to be a discussion that is well underway at Template Talk:COI. Rather than starting a new discussion here, perhaps we should let that one run its course. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "A COI tag does not inherently raise a BLP issue" A COI tag lacking a (valid) explanation, on a BLP, does. That is one reason why the documentation of {{COI}} states (formatting per original):

    Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

    I have asked those who nonetheless think it acceptable to tag for COI without stating a justification to state under what circumstances such a justification is not possible, but had no sensible reply. Several times recently, my removal of {{COI}} tags, citing that clause, has been reverted, with still no such discussion started on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Identifying a named COI editor with a tag is actually better than just starting a thread that will be ignored (as they usually are). Guy (Help!) 23:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COI and WP:PAID related tags in article namespace (variant proposal)

    Guidance relating to mainspace banner tags such as {{COI}} and {{Undisclosed paid}}.

    Adding a mainspace tag
    Make sure that the visible content of the template checks out. For instance, someone who apparently never edited the article before, changes the url of the {{official website}} or adds an Amazon link to one of the books mentioned in the article: whether or not correct, whether or not the editor has a COI, such isolated edit fails the "major contributor" description in the {{COI}} tag.
    These tags introduce WP:self-references in mainspace, which are avoided unless for a solid and explainable reason:
    • if entirely sure that tagging is justified, go to the article talk page and edit it accordingly, adding there a {{Connected contributor}} or {{Connected contributor (paid)}} tag as appropriate and/or explaining the COI/PAID issue in a separate section.
    • if not entirely sure whether the tagging is justified, bring the issue up on the talk page or at WP:COIN to find consensus before proceeding (or not) with mainspace tagging. For instance when several IP editors, from different IP ranges, seem to engage in whitewashing without it being very clear whether they are connected or not should usually be brought to WP:COIN before anything else (that is, after reverting any blatant whitewashing that deviates from reliable sources).
    Addressing the issues indicated by the tag
    Talk page and COIN discussion; disclosure:
    • Explain on the article talk page, the user's talk page and/or COIN why, when and how connections to the article subject need to be disclosed: in many cases, providing a link to WP:COIN and/or WP:PAID may clarify a lot without needing much more explanation.
    • Try to make explicit which rewrites and/or reverts would be needed to make the article content COI-free
    Rewriting, reverting and other measures
    • Depending on whether or not partial rewrites, deletes or non-COI additions have taken place since the last COI changes to the article, it is best to revert to a situation before COI changes.
    • Other impediments to simply reverting COI changes include articles that were initiated by a COI editor (measures may include speedy deletion or taking to AfD), or articles with copyvio content e.g. copied from a company website (see WP:COPYVIO on how to handle, without excluding speedy deletion of the entire article as a possible optimal measure)
    Removing the tag
    See also Help:Maintenance template removal, which has some specific provisions regarding COI related tags.
    Notwithstanding a general tendency to remove self-references from mainspace when they are no longer necessary, erring on the safe side regarding COI and PAID issues is to keep a warning up for the readers as long as the situation described in the content of the template is not conclusively and comprehensively addressed.
    Article subjects may be inexperienced Wiki-editors (e.g. they more often than not would never have heard about an edit war nor about its in-Wikipedia implications), so be prepared to explain why they can't just remove the tag or whatever else needs explaining (avoid WP:BITE); the same can usually not be said about WP:PAID editors, who may feign inexperience but need to be shown the exit ASAP if not fully complying to applicable COI/PAID-related guidance. Either way, dealing with real and feigned inexperience, and distinguishing the two, is usually best handled at WP:COIN (where it is often possible to speak more openly about certain topics), so rather than edit-warring, which would at least add a behavioural layer to what essentially should centre around solving a content issue, bring the issue up on that noticeboard better sooner than later.

    Discussion of COI/PAID mainspace tagging variant proposal

    Connected contributor template

    This template has evolved over time. We used to have {{notable Wikipedian}} but not any more. The same template is used to cover:

    1. Notable people with a significant history of Wikipedia contributions (e.g. Elonka Dunin, James Heilman)
    2. Notable people who have contributed a little, but mainly around their own article and work, sometimes only with one or two edits (e.g. Renato M. E. Sabbatini, John Zogby)
    3. Notable people who appear, in the judgement of patrolling editors, to have abused Wikipedia (e.g. Mark Geier)
    4. Disclosed paid editors
    5. Spammers

    I strongly believe that we need to fork this template into at least three:

    1. Notable Wikipedian (i.e. non-trivial contributor who also has an article) - the original use;
    2. Engaged subject, for accounts which are playing it straight but have minimal engagement outside the article itself - this is mainly to help independent editors identify the subject or their representative, and contact them directly about the article
    3. Conflicted editor, which arguably could be further split into admitted ({{Connected contributor (paid)}}) versus covert, perhaps through an argument.
    4. Addendum: {{Connected contributor (WiR)}} recently created for sponsored editors.

    In the end there should be a sort of traffic-light system. Doc James and Elonka are green: long-term Wikipedians for whom their article is a matter of only accidental interest. Sabbatini and Zogby, int he above examples, are amber: they may edit the article, in which case they's need advice to the contrary, but they may also pop up to flag issues with the article, and we should be on the lookout for cries for help. Red would be the legion of disclosed and undisclosed paid or COI editors: the PR drudges sent to buff up the article, the Mechanical Turks and the like.

    Discussion of connected template

    My view is that we should for the template as outlined above and add the appropriate guidance to WP:COI and the relevant template documentation. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do understand the historical use, to link an article about a person to their WP account. I have not seen the tag used this way in years, and I agree that it should be formally done away with.
    Yes the tag should only be placed if there is a problem. Somebody making one or two edits is not a problem, content or behavior wise.
    In my view #2 and #3 are the same, functionally. The template:Connected contributor tag says that X "may be connected", and I generally use the U1-otherlinks parameter to add a link to a disclosure the person has made: I write "disclosed here" with a link to a diff at "here". I also use this tag if the user is a promotional SPA (not just a SPA editing neutrally), in which case I put in the U1-otherlinks field "SPA per contribs" to provide the basis for making the claim that the person "may have a connection". When I use this tag I want it to be informative, for other people (and me later) to understand the basis for placing it.
    fwiw when I place this tag in mainspace, I always put underneath it the template:COI editnotice. I don't put that notice if the page is in draft space, because it is fine for conflicted editors to directly there. That is where we want them to edit. But the "connected contributor" tag should be there when the draft is reviewed.
    Finally, you didn't mention the template:Connected contributor (paid), which in my view should only be used if we have a disclosure from the person. That disclosure may include their username (in combination with their behavior).
    We also have a new cc tag, template:Connected contributor (WiR) which I think is a good idea. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited accordingly. So: are you agreeing that the historical {{notable Wikipedian}} should be resurrected for people who have non-trivial Wikipedia contributions, and who are, incidentally, notable? Guy (Help!) 23:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    if an editor is active at the article about them, that should get the cc tag.
    if an editor wants to link to a WP article about themselves at their userpage, they can of course do that.
    If an editor is not active at the article about them, there is no need to link to the editor at the article talk page at all - I have never understood why people would do that.
    so I don't advocate resurrecting the "notable wikipedian" tag nor do i advocate use of the cc tag for this purpose. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think that people who read the article on Nobel laureate Brian Josephson would be interested in looking at his edits to Wikipedia articles on physics? Or even sundials? I think they really would. Just as they might be interested in looking at Elonka's edits on cryptography or James' on medicine. It draws people in. And a de minimis edit to thir own article definitely should not trigger tagging as COI. That would be silly and bureaucratic. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it either gossip or navel gazing, not about building an encyclopedia.... i understand other people may view it differently. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We should ask the readers. They are the ones for whom it is intended. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just odd thing to hear from you.
    a) as far as I know, readers rarely look at talk pages
    b) in any case, Talk pages exist, are intended to be used, for the editing community to do its collaborative work; they aren't for gossip or navel-gazing.
    c) If the tag were on the article page I could see more of what you are saying about serving readers, but I doubt the community would ever agree to put this kind of thing there. And I think you would also oppose putting it there, right? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is ongoing discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (WiR). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Clean hands

    Editors adding or removing maintenance tags and the like should have clean hands. Guidance on adding and removing tags should counsel editors to default to talk page discussion if there could be any appearance of undue influence. You can be the most honest Wikipedian in the world, but if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person, and they ask you directly to remove a COI tag, and you do so, you risk your reputation and that of the project.

    Discussion of clean hands

    My view is that we should add the above guidance, with wordsmithing here, to WP:COI and the documentation for {{COI}}. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This bit is important, on its own.
    But there is a "clean hands" notion that is more broadly important. If two people get involved in a content dispute, and one of them starts to be concerned that the other's edits and behavior might be driven by a conflict of interest, the way the concerned person conducts themselves is very important. Trying to resolve the content dispute and turn and deal with the behavior issue, is a bad, bad idea. Even pivoting from one to the other, without clearly stopping and "resetting" the discussion, is a bad idea. Trying to do both at once, or turning from one to other gracelessly, can make the person doing it appear to be using COI as a bludgeon to "win" the content dispute. The person on the other end of it, is definitely going to feel that way, which is going to exacerbate the whole thing. I still make this mistake sometimes in the process of my day to day to work, even though I know what can happen.
    But the whole point of addressing COI at all, is to get everyone to reset and then move forward on a more appropriate basis -- with disclosure made and the person understanding what we expect of conflicted editors (or, if the person turns out to be an unconflicted advocate, with that person having had a decent chance to understand the problem and adjust their approach) -- so that we can all focus on building an encyclopedia.
    This section should also make it clear that if things start to get messy (unclean), then the person raising the concern should bring the matter to COIN and get out of it. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's often impossible to disentangle content and contributor in this way, hence the need for clear statements of principles that can be readily understood by all parties. As usual, if in doubt, get more eyes. RfC is your friend. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. If we're gong to consider "friendly engagement" to be a COI, we may as well all go home. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that it's friendly paid engagement. There is a need to protect WiR contributors from subtle coercion, and also demonstrate that there is a difference in character between WiR and paid PR editing, because any ambiguity absolutely is exploited by spammers. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't "friendly paid engagement". You wrote "if you have a long history of friendly engagement with a PR person" not "if you have a long history of friendly paid engagement with a PR person". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's fine to make edits if your friend the PR guy asks you to? Guy (Help!) 23:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that very much depends on the edits, and whether they improve the encyclopedia. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but that's why I'm here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, the correct answer was "no". Guy (Help!) 13:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a number of programmes such as Wikipedia-in-residence, GLAM and so on, which can potentially place editors in a grey area for COI. These programmes are blessed at lest semi-officially and are an important part of Wikipedia's outreach. Guidance in this area appears immature and there is no systematic process for handling disputes between good faith editors with differing views on the issue. This has gone well in the past, but has also gone badly (e.g. Gibraltarpedia). Sponsored engagements are likely to fall under the marketing budget for sponsor organisations, and it is very apparent that marketing people can struggle to understand Wikipedia's views on what constitutes neutrality, independence of sources and the threshold of significance for inclusion. Their goals and ours are orthogonal, which puts sponsored engagement editors in a potentially difficult place requiring robust protections and .

    Concerns I have seen include:

    1. Protection of engaged editors, sponsoring organisations and Wikipedia from reputational damage due to the appearance of COI (justified or not) when an editor is being paid or given support in kind
    2. Apparent lack of formal oversight (e.g. an Ombudsman) or independent dispute resolution around sponsored engagements
    3. Bright lines versus grey areas - who should be editing the article on the sponsoring organisation? Its long-deceased founder? Its still-living benefactor? Its current president? What disclosure is needed in such cases? What oversight or review? Is there a difference between a charity and a commercial sponsor organisation?
    4. Risk that an individual editor in a sponsored engagement could end up blocked or otherwise sanctioned due to disputes relating to interpretation of policy - where would that leave the engagement?

    Discussion of sponsored engagements

    My view is that we should initiate a centralised discussion on managing sponsored engagements such as WIR, GLAM etc., potentially including class assignments, specifically around the grey areas and potential oversight and dispute resolution, to provide better clarity and protection for the reputation of all concerned. We could also potentially request support from the Foundation in the form of an independent ombudsman. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    yep. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{Template:Connected contributor (WiR)}} tag is a really bad idea, and we're seeing why in the discussion that is emerging about it. I'm not convinced that WiR places editors in grey areas - the WiR program combines the interests of a GLAM organisation (to educate the public) with the interests of WP (to educate the public). This is not a conflict. The so-called grey areas (specifically editing an article about your employer) are not grey - they are clearly outlined in regard to any editor (WiR, GLAM or otherwise) editing about their employer, or using WP for promotion (aka Gibraltarpedia). There needs to be a solid case as to why this needs to be done, and why potential problems can't be handled by existing processes, well before we start talking about hiring an ombudsman. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It very obviously does, per some of the examples I provided above. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what you did was some generic concerns, but they don't amount to a solid case. Handwaving in the general direction of possible issues is cool and all, but does it really seem sufficient to warrant a potentially huge, unwieldy and messy discussion, and a call to appoint an ombudsman? - Bilby (talk)
    The problem here is a very specific one: WiR/GLAM/whatever type engagements inherently pace an editor in a potentially conflicted position re some edits, and as we can see fomr the fact that this discussion exisst and has been rumbling for weeks, there is no clear path to resolving it. I don't care what the process is - ombudsman is jjust a suggestion - but we need something because right now all we get is "oh yes it is!" versus "oh no it isn't!". That works for panto but doesn't really help Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the inherent conflict? - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The interests of say Brigham Young University and Wikipedia are not the same. They are aligned in some ways sure. When a WiR at BYU creates an article about a BYU faculty member, that is very solid COI territory; there is no distinction between Denise Stephens as it was created and say Peter K. Gregersen which was created by Jtalan who also appears to have edited under Jamietalan and Jlynntalan and J LTalan and probably Sciwri and did nothing but promote Feinstein Institute for Medical Research and its faculty, and based on their on-WP behavior is very likely to have been a PR person for them, and disclosed something along those lines here, and indeed somebody named Jamie Talan is listed in this newsletter as a Science Writer for Feinstein. The person who wrote Denise Stephens was new in the BYU library's WiR program; they are supposed to be using the resources of the BYU library to improve WP. This mistake of a newbie very much displays the natural tendency to promote your employer. This is something people who train GLAM/WiR editors are very aware of, and train such editors not to do. And in my day-to-day work some of the most difficult editors with an apparent COI with whom I open discussions are apparently working on or on behalf of nonprofits who think nothing of abusing WP to promote the institution (or its faculty/emoplyees) with which they turn out to be affiliated under the misguided notion that "we are a nonprofit!" or "we are a university!"
    And indeed, one of the few paid editors that the community has banned, even though they disclosed and even stopped editing directly, but who battered the talk page with IDHT promotional requests, worked in PR for a nonprofit. See this AN. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that GLAM/WiR editors do this regularly. As i understand it most GLAM/WiR editors generally do use the resources of their host to improve WP. But the inherent COI is obvious and the training to self-manage that inherent COI is essential, and it is essential that GLAM/WiR editors be very mindful of the inherent COI and their training.
    The transparency of the WiR tag is good for everybody, and its more widespread use would allow people within GLAM and outside of GLAM to track impact as well as audit from time to time. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing is writing about colleagues and writing about employers. But those aren't problems inherent to being in WiR - those are problems inherent in being employed by anyone while also editing WP. WiR, if anything, reduces those problems as we generally know who editors are working with. Understanding the difference between editing in an area of expertise, and editing where we have a COI is a problem we all face.
    The issue here is that I have yet to see anything showing that WiR is the problem - editing as a WiR, doing what you are supposed to do, does not create a conflict of interest, and I can't see an inherent problem. Editing as anyone and writing about colleagues and employers is a problem, but if that is inherent in anything it is inherent in being an editor with a career. - Bilby (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, with regard to things you cannot see. I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again? I disagree with you so you declare you won't talk about it anymore? Not the best way of making progress. - Bilby (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure we will both continue discussing with others. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity and you and i don't have to agree. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled by your apparent refusal to even accept the potential for conflict. Wikipedia has a mission, a significant part of which is NPOV. I have yet to see the promotion of neutral information about itself listed as a goal of any organisation, other than in the Orwellian sense. If I am a director of a charity and I am supporting a Wikipedian in residence, I am going to be feeding them at least some material specifically designed to make the charity and its people, past and present, look as good as possible. It would be naïve to expect anything else. Even if there is no pressure brought to bear at all, it's still selection bias. I think you have encountered enough articles on anti-vaccination nutjobs by now to realise that selection bias is potentially a very profound sort of bias even if you are not the one doing the selecting. Do you not see how an organisation, in perfectly good faith, could nonetheless spoon-feed a non-neutral set of information, and in fact is highly likely to do so? Guy (Help!) 18:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly accept that there is always a potential for a COI with any editing. The question is whether or not the role of a WiR is to provide information about the organisation which is (in some cases) paying them. But the WiR role isn't to write about the organisation, but to use the organisation's resources (including staff and premises for training and editathons) to expand Wikipedia's coverage of subjects related to Wikipedia and the organisation's mission. If you are at a museum, you are finding ways to use the museum's collections to expand WP articles about items in the collection (typically by makeing resources availabe to editors), or use the site to conduct editathons, train the staff, and perform tasks where there is no conflict between the museum's goals and WP's. There is no inherent COI in that. Writing about the institution would fall under the usual COI restrictions, but being a WiR does not inherently make this part of the WiR role.
    What I was looking for was something that a WiR is supposed to do that inherently risks a COI. But from the descriptions and rules I've found, their role doesn't create a COI in itself, and if they act outside of that then it isn't the WiR role that is the problem, but instead is the same problem that anyone who edits Wikipedia faces. It would be different if their role was to write about the institution, rather than find ways to use the institution's resources, - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WiR with like minded organizations have generally been positive and are something I promote. Clear guidelines around disclose IMO will make everyone more comfortable and prevent possible negative events or misunderstandings. Disclosure is standard in medical academics and if we do a good job at this it will raise our reputation within academia. Those I have worked with have understood why disclosure is important and have been happy to disclose but that maybe just reflects the groups I am working with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that you can compare two very different situations - whether or not you need to disclose relationships when publishing in academia isn't necessarily relevant to WiR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilby (talk • contribs) 09:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider working on Wikipedia to be academic work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You can do that, but it still doesn't make the two comparable. We can make a case for a need for disclosure for WiR if that's the direction that we want to go, but we can't make the case by pointing at a different and unrelated field and saying that they disclose there. The case needs to be made in terms of WiR and Wikipedia, not in terms of the medical profession. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this whole discussion very dispiriting. It seems that this discussion is conflating controversies that have happened associated with people using the term "Wikipedian in Residence" [WiR] - all of which are circumstances where policies and warning templates already exist - with an inherent need to be wary of/warm against WiR projects in general.
    The fact that the term WiR is not “accredited” by anyone - and therefore has been used in association with a wide variety of projects have taken many different forms (long/short term, paid/unpaid, professionals/students, article-writing/event-organising, fulltime/partime, oureach-focused/in-house training-focused...) - means that some activities by some people can end up being controversial - for COI or other reasons. But what’s important to remember is that calling yourself a WiR doesn’t bring any special rights or privileges on-wiki. It’s just a way of expressing a proactive, mutually-beneficial, relationship that the editor (and wikimedia) has with an institution (which is often but not always a publicly-funded GLAM). Any and all normal policies about paid editing, NPOV, and CoI all still apply regardless. There’s nothing inherently required to be warned about with WiR projects because the term can be used in many ways.
    Some would see that flexibility/looseness as a flaw in the system: I see it as a strength. Rather than needing “permission” from a accreditation body, a Wikipedian can build a relationship with a GLAM that is contextually appropriate to their circumstances, and within all the normal norms of editing behaviour. It’s just a convenient term - both for the institution and for us - to explain that a relationship exists!
    And by the way, I find the idea that WiR should be referred to as a "Sponsored engagement" to be very sad - If a museum wishes to build a proactive relationship with us, and there's an editor who wishes to take on that responsibility of being the bridge, this should be celebrated not warned-against. YES all of the usual rules about disclosure of payment, avoiding writing in mainspace about your employer, etc. still stand regardless
    And finally: can we please stop with the assumption that all WiR are paid [they aren't, and I certainly wasn't]; and that "being paid" is the most likely/common criteria for whether one has a Conflict of Interest; and furthermore that "being paid" in general equates to being paid to make a specific edit/article on WP. Wittylama 13:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your note, Witty. "Sponsored" can certainly mean paid with money, but having access to an organization's resources is a (very valuable) form of consideration as well. And perhaps creates even deeper bonds with that organization if it a volunteer relationship.
    That said I appreciate what you wrote about "all normal policies and guidelines apply". That makes sense to me.
    Additionally, two questions for you -- are you aware of any data on the percentage of GLAM/WiR gigs that are volunteer vs paid? That would be interesting to know.
    Also, is there some way that people who organize GLAM/WiR activities track or gather data on such activities? If so, what is the means for that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the specific question - there's is no formal/consistent documentation of how many WiR there are (or have been), nor the criteria associated with their project (such as if they're paid in money, or class-credit, or are existing employees, or are 'pure' volunteers...). This IS a List of Wikipedians in Residence on the Outreach wiki - which has fields for Institution, project homepage, unsername, time period, and location. However, it is by no means 'mandatory' for every person to list themselves there. Furthermore, and this speaks to my point above about the 'weakness/strength' of the term WiR "because the term can be used in many ways", the way some people have applied the term to their own project might not be appropriate in another country, language-wiki, Chapter etc. It is, ultimately, just a "label" that people can apply to their own projects if that helps improve the collaboration for the betterment of our movement. I, personally, have strong opinions about what a 'proper' WiR should be like - but that's just my opinions and doesn't mean that other people's approaches are "wrong".
    All that said, it is my belief through anecdotal-evidence that there is a 'supply and demand' correlation in the proportion of "paid" WiR in any given country. Generally speaking, in countries that have lots of wikimedians interested in GLAM outreach but few museums (or those museums are poorly-funded) then the WiR will be, generally, volunteers. In countries where there are many museums that want an in-house Wikimedian to help them - but few wikimedians available with the time/skill/inclination - then they're more frequently paid. This is all, also, contextualised by the fact that sometimes it is the wikimedian who approaches the institution with the proposal (as was the case with me) and sometimes the institution 'goes looking' for a Wikimedia - this dynamic also affectects whether there's a budget allocated to the project: budget not just for the Wikimedian, but also to fund things like sandwiches/coffee for editathons, insurance overheads for 'official volunteers in the building', meal-vouchers, prizes, security-staff for after-hours editathons... Also - in some cases where the WiR is paid [with money] it has been 50/50 split between their local Chapter and the institution, sometimes 100% the Chapter in the first year/month/period and up to the institution thereafter, sometimes with a grant from a likeminded org... So: all in all, the very diverse nature of the projects undertaken, their diverse contexts, and diverse funding methods in those cases when they are paid - make it very difficult to try and "track". My guess is that more than half of the WiR in the USA and UK are paid in some form, a lower proportion in other well developed glamwiki countries like Netherlands, and low-to-negligible proportion in other countries. But that's my 'off the top of my head' guess. As you can probably tell by now - I don't consider 'paid' to be a useful metric to categorise a WiR project, and even less as a measure of whether there's a likely CoI. But that's just me... Wittylama
    Thank you, that is useful additional information and perspective. I agree actually - the matter of payment (or some kind of in-kind benefit) is largely a red herring, but it's one that leds to drama, and that is why I would very much like to improve clarity on this. I do believe that WiR is usually if not always positive (I don't have stats to show otherwise and your comment indicates such stats are unlikely to exist anyway). My concern is primarily protecting good people (and the project of course) from any possible reputational taint. I didn't realise there was any depth to the Outreach content, is there a policy page or guidance there we could point to? A framework that a WiR would use for their own protection if subjected to subtle coercion, for example? Guy (Help!) 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw guy, the relevant section of the COI guideline points to Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence which I think it pretty good at laying out what WiRs should do. I wish it were more clear that they should not edit about the host organization or add gratuitous links or references (there is "rather than directly editing articles as a core goal" in the 4th bullet there...) Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but they can suggest them on Talk, that's not a problem, as long as there's not some Mister Wiki style cabal to rubber stamp it. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to say thanks to Witty for that extensive reply, as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network, a meta:Wikimedia user groups which seeks to provide a forum for staff Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Residence to to set norms for the profession and log comments from anyone with feedback. There is not much activity posted to this board but off-wiki there are lots of discussions and ideas in circulation. Currently every major organization in the world has staff Twitter and Facebook personnel and there are thousands of publications totaling the equivalent hundreds of thousands of paper pages of text talking about how that works. Similarly, endless issues arise for engaging in Wikimedia projects. For the benefit of staff wiki people, and the organizations which sponsor them, and the community of wiki editors, and for wiki readers, I agree that doing more to state and agree on fundamental principles would be useful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bluerasberry Thank you, that looks very interesting. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    This is an awful lot to parse on a noticeboard not typically used for this. Is there a better approach than trying to discuss it here? - Bilby (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I have found. This is the pace where COI is habitually discussed, and this is where editors familiar with COI can be found. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest moving the whole thing to a subpage (say Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Tagging (2018)) and leaving a simple pointer to that, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Though, on reflection, why discuss WiRs and GLAM in the COI namespace, not the GLAM namespace, or somewhere neutral..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that the most involved projects may not be aware of this discussion and that its implications are significant for WIRs and GLAM institutions in particular. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Lapsley

    KSKM is the name of Lapsley's production company. The editor who uses that name varies between "I" and "we" while discussing the fact that they just want to tell the world about what "we" are doing ("we" in this context seems to mean Lapsley and his company). There is much whining about how Wikipedia shouldn't only be for famous people, but I don't know for certain whether that is (in their mind) a tacit admission of non-notability, or merely the usual assertion that 'all famous people write their own articles, so why can't I?'. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    it has had a trim of unreliable sources and invented narratives.104.163.148.25 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And when you trimmed it, we are left with three crummy sources to testify to the subject in each case "working with" somebody so obscure we don't have an article about them, on a video, a movie and a "project" (jeeze, I'm coming to hate that meaninglessly pretentious abuse of a perfectly good word as much as I do "solutions"). I've deleted it as A7, no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that was the point. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike: do you have a solution to the solution-problem? I just ran into "price intelligence solution" alongside "right-pricing". Maybe adding something into the Manual of Style (business) would be a solution solution. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOLUTION, which warns, "if one writes an article about a company that provides solutions, the very least the reader expects to know is what solvent is used and what solute gets dissolved in it; or else what kind of equation solving they offer. On newly introduced pages, one usually finds that vital information to be lacking, leading new page patrollers to believe that the page's creator had another definition of "solution" in mind, one that warrants considering the entire article promotional and, in the more extreme cases, tagging it for speedy deletion." --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A brilliant solution! Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    European Center of Sustainable Development

    Multiple accounts/IPs edit warring at this article, repeatedly removing COI and other cleanup tags. I have indef soft-blocked ECSDEV for the username violation and blocked the other two for 24 hours for the edit warring. Since I have taken administrative action here, it's best for me not to get involved in the editorial concerns. Could someone please have a look to check the article for notability and for promotional content. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Edgar181. There have been other related IPs editing there in the past month, but they may well be inactive. This has been written and maintained by the Alessandra account; the others appear to be either sock or meatpuppets. I've looked a little into notability, and think AfD may be appropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the article as spam anyway, and posted a paid editor warning on his talk page. If he ignores that and makes related edits without a formal declaration, I'll indef, enough is enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Czechmate2018

    One account and ip that have only edited CzechMate – In Search of Jiří Menzel and Shivendra Singh Dungarpur, who directed the film. Czechmate2018's (talk) choice of username seems to imply a conflict of interest. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor now blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dineshsp.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Altman sockfarm

    I've gone through and these are the articles needing a look over:

    Not sure about a COI on these but they may not be notable.

    SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I went through the edits of all the socks. I made a list of articles where User:Altman has likely COI. The revision has been hidden on Talk: Christopher Altman. May an admin please copy-paste that list here? Ariadacapo (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is that list with duplications from above removed:
    @Ariadacapo: Any discussion about this belongs here since User:Altman could be anyone. SmartSE (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All these article are full of Non-RS ref's, I mean chock full. I wonder how many can be saved. scope_creep (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Very little from what I've looked at so far. I've sent some to AFD and PRODed others. SmartSE (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: (with ping to BU Rob13 for info) Got it. Thank you for taking care of the list! Ariadacapo (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think all of the articles have been reviewed now. I am grateful to all the co-editors, seeing the work accomplished is very uplifting after this unpleasant episode. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhrigu Nath Singh

    Singhaniket255 created the article and Afrojack255 made significant edits to the article, and repeatedly removed the COI tag. The reliance on original research and personal pages ([2], [3]), the addition of own-work personal information ([4]), and addition of peackock terms ([5]) and the interaction between User:Afrojack255 and User:Singhaniket255 show that they are closely associated with the topic and have to disclose their COI and preferably not edit biographical articles that relate to their COI. Bright☀ 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Agreed Some references & grammer are not more significant and need to be changed. Afrojack255 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedvisor

    Feedvisor is looking for a Marketing Content Writer (NYC). Who is "a whiz at effectively editing Wikipedia or other MediaWiki sites, and you might know your way around HTML, too." Not sure if that's only referring to standalone MediaWiki deployments. — Dispenser 02:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I can confirm that this looks like an ad for article writers. It is surprising in a couple of ways. 1) it could be for a full-time position, not a one-off 2) zip is not one of the usual free lance advert sites, and 3) "algorithmic repricing", the business of Feedvisor, looks like a very interesting industry. At first glance it is online AI algorithmic price intelligence combined with automatic price adjustment. Companies may never need to collude to pratice price fixing ever again! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I got the sense they were looking for SEO for clients? Also just in case we see IPs doing the dirty work, they are hiring in Manhattan and Tel Aviv. And they had a Seattle presence as of 2017. Look for Victor Rosenman to become a bluelink... ☆ Bri (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coty

    Just for fun, and just in New York I checked out Zip for other Wikipedia writers-wanted ads. This one is the only serious potential problem I saw. The advertiser does have an article on Wikipedia that has a bushel of press release sources and 2 bushels of self-citations. Other cities may have more WP:COIN candidates. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So Coty, Inc. wants somebody to "Manage updates of other digital platforms, such as Wikipedia" huh? Watchlisted. Looks like you and Jytdog have already seen to it for now. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like they've had paid editors at the Coty article before. The IP listed above is Cyprus where Euclidthalis/Cyprianio used to operate from, on the same ISP. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    So I won't put the link in here. If anybody wants 2 links about this please just e-mail me and I'll give them to you.

    From a newsish article posted on google news with a South African .ZA address

    "Sucuri has reported seeing several new infections of WordPress sites by Minr cryptocurrency-mining malware.

    "Minr uses almost all the CPU power of a victim’s PC to mine Monero for the attackers.

    "This follows a Wikipedia editor reviewing sources added to a Wikipedia entry which linked to a site infected with the malware at the start of February.

    "Sucuri said it is seeing a variety of “creative approaches” by malware authors to infect websites with cryptocurrency mining scripts.

    "Examples include CoinHive injections, hidden iframes within public repositories on GitHub, infections in Drupal and Magento, and the use of old infections to distribute mining malware."

    There are a couple more paragraphs adverting Sucuri and linking to them. There is another link to our article Feminist views on transgender topics.

    I find this quite confusing.

    • Can Wikipedia readers really get infected with mining software just by clicking a link?
    • If readers can, wouldn't the 1st thing to do be to inform the right folks at WMF? (I haven't - if this looks real at all, would somebody contact the right person?)
    • Standard practice in financial scams is for the scammer to claim that somebody else is trying to scam them. Since that claim in the newsish article doesn't look real, I'm paranoid enough to believe that I'm going to be infected by having clicked the .ZA link.

    Any advice appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Following the history on the Feminist views on transgender topics article - @Mathglot: seems to have caught this and done something about it at ANI . Still trying to get my head around this, but I'd guess it is pretty safe now. BTW, I was originally looking for something for the Monero (cryptocurrency) article, would I be 100% safe citing the .ZA article? Probably still not an RS, though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    > Can Wikipedia readers really get infected with mining software just by clicking a link?
    Yes, if the hackers have a browser exploit. I don't think they do, the Securi blog only states that web servers were getting pwned -- otherwise they would have mentioned which browser vulnerabilities (i.e. CVE-20xx-xxxxx) were exploited. MER-C 22:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From various things I've read e.g., while it would be possible to get infected via a link, more common is that it is only when you are visiting a page in your browser that your CPU will be used i.e. nothing is permanently changed on your device. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    TF92 and North Korean tourism

    In 2016, User:TF92 posted a link on their userpage to what they called "My very own international relations project" which was to a site called "Visit North Korea". TF92 created an article for Visit North Korea which was deleted as advertising. Visit North Korea is apparently a franchise of Young Pioneer Tours, where TF92 added the link to his site. IP user 192.76.8.88 also recently added the same site as a reference to Tourism in North Korea. T. User:MickeyFinns has only ever edited Lupine Travel and Tourism in North Korea so they may also be connected. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding User:86.5.183.150 an IP which seems to be spamming the Visit North Korea website. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ip 192.76.8.88 also added [6] a link to Visit North Korea at Tourism in North Korea.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not interfere with this discussion but as a right of privacy I do not want my personal name mentioned on here. Please respect that. --TF92 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all. I deny any affiliation with the username (MickeyFinns) in Question as well as the IP addresses. Second of all, Visit North Korea was deleted as a self-nomination and not for advertising, it was a question of notability. Thirdly, Lupine Travel meets Wikipedia's notability guideline in terms of its own content to merit a page, given its media coverage. Fourthly, the companies in question consistent of more than one person. Fifthly, many of those references stated are legitimate towards contributing to the subject in particular and and not spam.--TF92 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TF92 can hardly appeal to WP:OUTING anymore, having self-outed at User talk:Anachronist. I think this was not a legitimate revert in this forum. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No Bri, it was not an open "outing"- it was because someone was harassing me using an attack account and I had no choice but to defend myself. I do not wish to be outed, this can go without needing personal details. Please respect my privacy. TF92 (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you realize what self-outing means. But it's probably moot since the thrust of that conversation was access to server logs at a travel website in question [7], which indicates a definitive commercial COI. If you will acknowledge then we can move past issues of identity and onto how to manage the conflict. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want my personal details mentioned on wikipedia. There is enough "evidence" from my account in question not to have to refer to it. Also, there is no financial conflict of interest here. I am not being paid to add links to the website, if I done so through this account, it was voluntary. My editing history, patterns and duration show that I am a legitimate editor which has focused on a variety of fields. Also keep it in mind that this industry and company in question is not just one person- TF92 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't split hairs. You have a conflict of interest, financial or not. If you are receiving compensation from the subjects you write about, even if they aren't paying you explicitly to edit here, it's still a conflict of interest. And adding links to your own travel website, does affect you financially due to traffic driven there by the link's presence, in which case you do indeed have a financial conflict of interest. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make it clear, there is no need to "out" me when "evidence" for this case can be drawn from this account directly without reference to personal matters. There is no need to mention my name in order to establish the facts. Please respect my right to privacy--TF92 (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated "outing" is not legitimate. Several editors keep saying I outed myself intentionally. This is untrue. My name was outed on wikipedia because someone created an attack account using my personal details in order to defame me. As the attack account already worked out what my wikipedia account was, I was placed into a compromised position. This was not an act of self-promotion or WP:COI in this instance--TF92 (talk) 08
    20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


    As a result of this discussion I am going to swiftly wrap it up by acknowledging the following:

    • Yes I do have a conflict of interest related to the North Korean Travel Industry. This however was acknowledged back in November and is not a secret. I have not tried to promote the project since.
    • I deny affiliation with the listed username and IP's. These companies do not consist solely of one person and there are many other people active on wikipedia in the same industry with a similar COI, this is the same for any given business.
    • Due to my personal identity being violated unwillingly by an attack account, and then linked to here, I am retiring from this account with immediate affect to protect my privacy as it has too many obvious links to me. I strongly suspect that this report itself was stemmed from an anonymous tipoff to admins by someone else who has a very similar COI and is only using it as a means to competition. It is part of a long standing harassment campaign against me by someone who runs another tour business.
    • Before I create the new account I will make it privately known to the admins related to this report, and concurrently, agree to not edit articles related to North Korean tourism.

    Cheers- TF92 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the changes made to my posting and the title of this thread by TF92. He has a conflict of interest, not the username TF92 or whatever username he adopts next. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be more willing to accept TF92's promise to stop his COI editing if I hadn't seen that he deliberately obscured his own name in election results for Sunderland City Council where he ran as a UKIP candidate. The IP which added the majority of the Visit North Korea site links locates to Sunderland. All the other IPs I found adding the site locate to Oxford. They all use a similar formatting. Unless TF92 wants to revise his statements, I would suggest a checkuser is the next step. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop outing me, it is constituting harassment because the revelation of these personal details was not with my consent, it emerged through an attack account- TF92 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not willing to edit war over your removal of information from my original posting here. It is being discussed on AN/I. I would also like to point out that accusing me of having "have acted on anaonymous tipoff which has been sent by a specific business rivall" does not help your case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the ANI thread, I've revdel'd TF92's real name from this page, and it (and the linkedin page) should not be restored. At this point they serve no useful purpose anyway. I think it is important to note that the user previously removed their name from an article where it legitimately belonged. I've revdel'd that as well. As long as TF92 doesn't dispute doing so, that fact can be considered as correct when determining what to do next, without need for a diff. If they do dispute it, then I can take it to the functionaries email list, but that would likely result in an indef block and a ban on a cleanstart, as that is clearly what happened. Note that, regardless of whether the name is on-wiki or not, any sanctions on this editor are directed at the actual person, not the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    U B Prudent and Multifest.org

    U B Prudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began editing on 2 February. He/she has edited a significant number of articles, adding a significant amount of new content to each – mostly negative content on Iran and North Korea - which includes citations to at least one, and up to six, different articles on https://www.multifest.org/. Note in particular this edit, which changed Religious symbolism from a stub to a substantial (and somewhat strange) article, citing Multifest.org eight times and adding it as an external link. I have never heard of this site before, and googling it gives me no information on it. It appears to be a personal blog by a man calling himself Charles Black. Black's biography can be found on any of the Multifest pages, such as this one. He promotes his site as a "multi faith resource", but also expresses very strong opinions on Iran and North Korea (examples here and here), which U B Prudent invariably cites in his edits as verifiable fact. After one of those edits was partly reverted, U B Prudent began a heated discussion at Talk:Kangwon Province (North Korea), accusing the editor who reverted him/her of bad faith. I asked U B Prudent straight out whether he/she had a connection with Charles Black or Multifest. In his/her answer, he/she did not say yes or no, but said, "the conflict of interest guidelines only prohibit people and organizations from writing Wikipedia articles about themselves. There is no such restriction applied to an editor using his or herself as a source...So, you see, even if I was the founder owner and operator of Multi Fest, Osomite should have never deleted my edit." He/she then went on to say that if somebody suspected a COI, they had the option of airing their suspicion at COIN, so here I am. I believe that all of U B Prudent's edits since registration have been aimed at promoting Charles Black and his blog, rather than at improving the several articles. It looks for all the world like a COI. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:E407:181E:EFE0:D6A2 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This message is in response to the message posted on this talk page on February 22, 2018. It was posted by an anonymous user. But, it seems that our enthusiastic colleague failed to post a link to the current discussion on the articles talk page. The comments that the user is referring to were near the bottom of the page at the time of this posting.U B Prudent (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you are mistaken. If you click "Talk:Kangwon Province (North Korea)" in my post above, it takes you to the exact same place that your link does. I hope you will see from the following discussion that I did, after all, know what I was talking about. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:25BE:D65C:1929:C8EF (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JzG see also MrCharlesBlack which appears to be a sock which is ironic in light of this I found that account at Draft:Baha'i Liberalism looking for instances of Multifest.org which i have nominated for the spam blacklist. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Plausible but not a duck, please WP:SPI this. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "not a duck": did you mean as in WP:DUCK? Comparing talk page contributions of both accounts (U B Prudent/MrCharlesBlack) they look remarkably similar, indicating exactly the same bird: the specific verbosity, the literalistic approach to guidance in an unconvincing attempt at WP:GAMING, arrogance towards fellow-editors ... Anyhow, support SPI comparison ASAP (their last MrCB edits date from November last year, the first UBPrudent edits start some weeks later). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI requested and declined. --2001:BB6:4703:4A58:1405:140E:E2A8:9A00 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Plot Spoiler

    Obvious UPE, creator indeffed today ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We need a CSD criterion for articles created in violation fo the terms of use. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I think it should have been available a while ago, as it is classic boundary issue. If it is outside and fails TOU, it gets deleted. I think there was impression the a dodgy article could perhaps be cleaned up and saved, but there is so many coming through now. scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you say doggy article? Okay, to business: I won't vote on all of these "for reasons", but I note a clear pattern described by WP:Identifying PR. Certainly we have lists of clients and software products, namedropping tangentially related but powerful people, and an overall uncritical PR-ish tone. A PR agency "known for representing [people and books] as well as negotiating television and media deals for its clients", gee, wow, that's unique. I'm making use of this essay as frequently as possible to highlight and socialize these issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They essentially follow the same kind of pattern, where knowledge seems to be ok to the reader, but is substandard and in a way deceitful. Dodgy, dictionary definition low quality, dishonest and unreliable. They essentially follow the same kind of pattern, where knowledge seems to be ok, but is substandard and in a way deceitful. It is a practiced art, well established and understood by the PR. I think think anybody has sat down formalised how these pr are created. I think the essay is a good start. scope_creep (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it looks like Anthonyhcole voiced concerns about this account's paid editing back in 2012, but was rebuffed w stuff about harassment. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ​​Given the block reason, someone may want to revoke autopatrolled. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. MER-C 11:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Some more which look suspicious:

    SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ori Feibush

    I placed a prod on Ori Feibush, per above as I thought he was non notable and Bridge to Somewhere who hasnt been on Wikipedia for 3.5+ years, came in, and removed the prod and made some light edits. scope_creep (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Looks like a duck to me of Plot Spoiler but I will start an SPI to confirm and look for other accounts. SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: That was confirmed so I've merged it up to here. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on terms of use violations

    Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § ToU violation Guy (Help!) 17:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Highbrows is back?

    Reference: Undisclosed paid editing by Highbrows Engineering and Technologies (COIN archive 117) and CU confirmed socking in 2012 at probably unrelated case.

    Watch this space for new sockfarm → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Added some articles. Can anybody explain how these got around ACTRIAL? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded via email. MER-C 20:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it now. Mentally swapped the X edits and Y days criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    An hour or so of programming later, I have some more articles that are behaviorally similar in creation:

    Creators listed at SPI:

    I haven't been through these thoroughly, but at first glance they are quite likely to be created by other UPE socks. I pulled out a collection of the most obvious quackers and listed them at the SPI. Could someone please double check the rest? MER-C 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for all this work! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply below, sorry about messed up indents. ☆ Bri (talk)

    Above look like Highbrows' protocols and style (no further details due to BEANS). Not sure about the others. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This one is odd -- has had multiple editors, at least one of whom is in Highbrows sockfarm but also others that look dodgy. Can anybody else have a peek at this? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Per this, we need to hold off adding to the SPI case. Recommend letting this cool off for 24 hours. There's going to be some more Highstakes socks but also some new sockfarms. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a look at it. After having removed 12 non RS references, mostly blogs, press releases, and weirdly images of folk and magazine covers, don't know how were supposed to be a valid source, and other routine coverage. Of the 13 remaining 9 are no RS, and the same. I have proded it. scope_creep (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Damelin

    Article G11'd. It apparently wasn't an autobiography, so the creator has been blocked pending a change of username. – Joe (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2018 (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.

    Long term ownership of autobiography. The user really does need to be restrained from editing here as if this is a place to post their resume. Additionally, I'm wondering about notability. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:9003:D040:24F8:507F (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Author has requested deletion per this [8] edit summary and by blanking the page. I have tagged the article as a G11.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2018 (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.

    Old Charter

    See District Court Issues Opinion in Old Charter Bourbon False Advertising Class Action. Old Charter, distilled at Buffalo Trace Distillery, owned by Sazerac, are passing off "non-age specified" (NAS) bourbon as 8 year old stuff. The Old Charter article was pretty promotional and they just forgot to update the photo of the new, less misleading label, by 3 years after the change. The new photo by has an OTRS ticket (which I can't access) but is 100% traceable to the Buffalo Trace Distillery's website.

    MillCreek is obviously promotional, the anon geolocates to Sazerac in Frankfort, KY home of the distillery. MillCreek stopped editing about Sept. 2017, but Forceten seems to have taken over. There are lots of editors at these 3 articles that also edit articles on about 15-20 other Sazerac brands.

    It's a bit hard to sort out these possible COI SPA editors, but I'll propose 2 groups: 1) folks who concentrate on Sazerac products, and 2) folks who just like booze in general.

    If anybody wants to go thru all the Sazerac brands, I'll predict you'll find lots of promotional articles and lots of both groups of editors.

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated to include User:Brbngurl and take out User:Forceten. Forceten has an unusual editing history - an 8 year editing gap, but that's certainly not conclusive. It's hard to tell all the players without a scorecard. At Commons User talk:Sazerac redirects to User talk:6620MillCreek. Together with all the Sazerac Company articles and the promotional tone of his edits, I do consider that conclusive. User:Brbngurl is a Sazerac SPA and has been noted by others on his/her talkpage as promotional. There are 33 brands listed in the Category of Sazerac Company brands. 1792 Whiskey shows evidence in the NYTimes of other court action regarding the company's agressive marketing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. I'd wager a lot of edits come from the companies in many industries. I'm not affiliated with Sazerac or Buffalo Trace. I'm just a fan and noticed some of the brands were missing (Kelsey Creek) or had errors (Age International owns the Blanton's and related products, etc.). My edits were accurate as I got them from asking the source OR through multiple independent sources.
    forceten(talk) 1:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    Please see above. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. Yes, we have a lot of spam coming from lots of companies. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This has popped up many times before for Sazerac, since at least 2010, and my impression is that the blatant and clumsy promotional editing situation for Sazerac has been worse than for most other booze companies. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Multiple bourbon related articles, for example, which identifies more related articles and user accounts. IPs and SPAs and newly-registered accounts have repeatedly been showing up to make biased edits about Sazerac and its products for a very long time. Most of the time they seem to go quiet for a while when confronted directly, then another account shows up to continue the effort. They have generally been treated politely. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:COIN if not WP:PAID?

    User:Steevven1 pretty clearly seems to have a WP:COIN if not engaged in WP:PAID for non-notable subjects at least on these pages (image if you scour user history more will turn up): Digital Brands, Heavy Petty, DB Studios. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified them. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer I look at the editor's contributions, the more questions arise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting to note that the Digital Brands (now at AfD) article concerns a company that owns/launched both CardRates.com and DatingAdvice.com, which Steevven1 also created. Both articles have been to AfD and deleted. It could also be that in researching one article he found enough inspiration for another related one. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone! I see that two articles I wrote have been put up for deletion surrounding this discussion: DB Studios and Digital Brands. First, let me mention that these two companies are entirely unrelated to one another, other than both having the initials "DB." As for the DB Studios article, it is a subsidiary of InnerWorkings, a large and publicly traded company whose Wikipedia article has been recently deleted. Since InnerWorkings was not deemed notable enough for Wikipedia (hard for me to believe!), I guess I can see an argument for DB Studios' article being removed at this point. I'll let the AfD process play itself out. As for Digital Brands, SamHolt6 correctly points out that I previously authored articles for two of the company's subsidiary websites, CardRates.com and DatingAdvice.com. They were deleted on grounds of notability, so I authored an article about Digital Brands as a whole instead, figuring this was in line with WP:DOM in a sense; a compromise. The community will decide. As for a conflict of interest, I do know some of the writers at Digital Brands personally, as the company is in my town. I have a personal, favorable opinion of the company and the things it does in my community. I read their articles regularly. I can see how this could be considered a conflict of interest. However, I am not an employee or shareholder of the company. I have never made dishonest or bad faith edits due to this supposed conflict of interest, and I welcome all of you to edit the page as needed. I do not believe the article should be deleted, but again, the community will ultimately decide. Thank you. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 06:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog:, and look at all the datingadvice.com links Steve littered throughout Wikipedia [9]. Which also led me to this PR Wikipedia page of this non-notable figure - Jay Cataldo (made by a different Wikipedia editor in 2012). 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog:, and then all the links to CardRates.com, mostly added by Steve as well [10] 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And the CardRates.com links are pretty consistently found on the pages of non-notable PR-type pages (not created by Steve) like Money Talks News, Stacy Johnson (journalist), Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council, etc etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the dealcrunch.com links (non-notable, non-RS website) Steve is putting up throughout Wikipedia [11], naturally leading to subject pages of questionable notability with major POV/Advert issues like Abt Electronics, Goodshop, Lowepro, PrestaShop, eMarketer, Offers.com, etc etc etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More linkspam mostly from Steve for hostingadvice.com, following same pattern [12], subject pages mostly non-notable and PR-like e.g. Replicon (company), Collaborator (software) etc. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused on these points from 220.144.184.239. How are any of my edits on the pages you cite "spam?" I added citations to poorly sourced, existing statements and truthfully updated outdated statistics, particularly on pages that lacked significant coverage, from articles written by independent journalists who have no connection to the subjects of the articles in any capacity. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 02:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this is resolved now...The domains I have been referencing have been blocked from being added to Wikipedia in the future ([13]). I think this is a mistake because the articles served to provide independent citations for valuable information, but I accept the outcome as it stands. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloom Cigar Company

    Article deleted, creator is no longer actively editing. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2018 (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.

    "an iconic and internationally known Pittsburgh-based premium cigar store". 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've slapped an {{advert}} tag on the article; hopefully somebody will be up for rewriting it at some point. HoboJones hasn't edited in nine years so other than that I don't think there's anything to do. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2018 (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.

    User:Nowa

    Franklin Street Works "is a contemporary art exhibition space and café located in Stamford, Connecticut, featuring 'thought provoking... politically motivated' art." 220.144.184.239 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nowa's editing doesn't strike me as a classic COI's. However, he's declared on his user page that he is a board member of Franklin Street Works. Surly Bob's might just be some sort of joke. I've put an orphan tag and a sources tag on it. I assume that somebody else will nominate it for deletion, and I'd support it, but it's clearly not a paid article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear failure then by User:Nowa to properly share that COI on the Franklin Street Works. And the page consequently looks and reads like a press release/advert. 220.144.184.239 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up on properly declaring the COI. I've updated the talk page for Franklin Street Works. I was elected to the Board in September of 2017. Regarding Surly Bob's I have no COI.--Nowa (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    DesignCrowd

    Can someone take a hatchet to the PR job please? I am busy for a bit. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    checkY I've left several tags. Took out the advertising, third party and weasel words. scope_creep (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I took a chainsaw to the investment section. Is there some kind of policy discouraging startups form describing their funding rounds? It's nauseating. As it is, the only encyclopedic information in the article is truly banal. I think we really do need a distinct policy that recognizes that this startup garbage is just that. Just because my product (btw it's a solar ashtray with a built in lighter that updates my doctor with how much I am smoking) has a bunch of trashy sources form other industry buddies and tech sites, it should not merit an article. The fact that these startups are passing notability by using such garbage sources seems to be the problem. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasmine Choi

    Jasmine Choi posted a job on Upwork on 30 January 2018 regarding her Wikipedia page. Then Musikvicky2 added various information. Kokonino (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC) PS : On January 29 Musiclovernike had taken away a mention regarding her dismissal from the Vienna Symphony.[reply]

    I trimmed it and tagged it UDP/COI.104.163.148.25 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lesara

    Per above : the Upwork user who edited Jasmine Choi's page using the Musicvicky2 account also edited Lesara's page just after being hired on this Upwork job. Kokonino (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct account name is Musikvicky2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note the "k" in "Musik"). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Shibley Telhami

    WP:COI editor making major PR-like changes to article. 27.89.98.65 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Straight up COI. I've left a message. scope_creep (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Maris

    Seems to only edit Bill Maris. Section 32 is mentioned above. scope_creep (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Left the mandatory notice for this on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BUITEMS

    I have added some information about BUITEMS land from our official website and about the undergraduate and graduate information from rules book of BUITEMS, I am an authorized employee of the institute and I am assigned the job to update the wikipage. The information I had added has been reverted to which I don't have any other reference. please don't revert my changes. Rabia Qadar (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two problems with adding material as you did. One is that the source material, your employers website, is under copyright. We have specific ways of granting permission for copyrighted material to be used, which you can find at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
    The other is that material that is designed for the BUITEMS website is not appropriate for Wikipedia, as we have different goals. The official website is basically an advertising site, there to promote BUITEMS, while the goals of an encyclopedia are a more neutral chronicling of known facts. As such, text directly from the website is almost never appropriate for the encyclopedia, even when we have the proper permissions.
    As an employee of BUITEMS, you do have a conflict of interest. I suggest you review our guidelines on dealing with conflicts of interest, and suggest that you follow the best practices there - mainly suggesting edits on Talk:BUITEMS rather than editing the article yourself, and identifying yourself as a BUITEMS employee when you do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tongil Tours

    This report concerns more blatant conflict of interest violations stemming from the North Korean tourist industry. The discussion above about myself (which I have admitted to) generated greater scrutiny of articles on this topic, which lead to a number of promotional orientated North Korean tourism articles get nominated for deletion under notability guidelines (with all of them leaning undisputedly towards delete. The article Tongil Tours was subsequently nominated for deletion alongside the rest. However, an anonymous IP address has since attempted to unsuccessfully disrupt the debate and prevent the article from being deleted. This IP address has made no other edits

    As per wikipedia policy I cannot name this individual in particular, however I know from substantial off-wiki information that the individual in question is the owner of this company. A quick trace of the IP addresses' location and Internet Service Provider reveals that it is based in Western Australia which is where the company owner lives, with of course Tongil tours being a self-professed Australian company. This information can all be found in the sources he has cited. Previously, the individual created the page under the username "Haksaeng Dongmu", which is reflective of his Korean language background as per stated in all the sources as to which he is keep adding about himself. His ultra-defensive posture concerning the article, combined with the fact he is familiar with me and involved users to the point he has been watching things over a long term basis [14] [15] show decisively he is not a random anonymous editor- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a blatant conflict of interest here. Efforts should be stipulated to prevent the IP from interfering in the discussion and also from harassing me (which is a long term modus operandi of this person both on and off wiki)- Antonian Sapphire (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    William Carroll

    Someone is using Wikipedia as a webhost to promote Carroll's research.

    First 9 articles are about organisations that participated in some research performed by Carroll. They were all created by the one editor Njgraham2 who has done almost nothing other than related to Carroll's work. They are almost exclusively sourced to the organisations' own pages or to a series of papers written by Carroll. The 10th, Transnational alternative policy group, is the research area in which Carroll works. The 11th, Social Watch, was created by someone else but otherwise fit the profile, it was expanded by Njgraham2 to be primarily sourced to Carroll's research. Others edited to include Carroll's work are Rosa Luxemburg Foundation [16] and Instituto del Tercer Mundo [17]. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    People's Alliance of New Brunswick

    This user has been reverting edits on this political party's page for months and just got a 24h block for edit-warring [18]. As you can see from the content of these edits (for example this one [19], this user seems more concerned with promoting the party in question than with providing neutral (and sourced) information. All their contributions to Wikipedia have been on this political party's page [20], and both attempts at starting a discussion on the article's Talk page have been ignored [21]. Furthermore, in the process of trying to challenge the 24h block mentioned above, this user has admited to editing the page "as [he/she] was asked to by the political party involved" [22]. My understanding from reading the official Wiki page on COI is that users who are linked to an organization and who wish to edit the organization's page must have a disclaimer on their user page (which this user doesn't have) and are advised to go through the article's Talk page as opposed to editing the article directly (which this user isn't doing). Pipicacalol69 (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed conflict of interest edits by User:BrandingGuy13


    BrandingGuy13 (who until today edited as User:FrankMazza3) seems to have a made a number of undisclosed conflict of interest edits, particularly in regards to Bryn Mawr Trust and Globus Medical. While avoiding WP:OUTING, an individual with a very similar name to FrankMazza3 can be implied to be related with these two companies, as can be seen through a google search of both the name of a company and BrandingGuy13's former username. This indicates to me that the editor has a very clear conflict of interest. It also must be noted that the editor in question attempted to remove [23] a criticism section from Frank Leto, an article he created about the current CEO of the Bryn Mawr Trust. He then requested that the article be deleted via G7 and changed his vote from keep to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Leto, which was already underway for a different issue. Requesting someone take a look at all of this editor's edits. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He also claims ownership of File:Frank_Leto.jpg which implies a close relationship. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sladillard

    User:Sladillard claims to be the subject of the article Stephen Louis A. Dillard. As the subject of the article is a high-ranking judge in Georgia I am not sure if the editor is Dillard or someone acting in his name. In any event, they have been advised that editors should not be editing their own article(s). Should any edits made be reverted and researched? The editor replied and apologized. I believe it should be treated as a good faith matter (see [24], [25]). I do not know if the person who claims to be Dillard will be replying here. Quis separabit? 02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent you an email from my official court email address in order to verify that I am who I claim to be. You'll note that the email domain matches the official court website. As I said, my only intention was to ensure that my correct name was used and that my article was updated to reflect my current title. I didn't realize that these types of minor edits were problematic. I certainly do apologize. That said, I would appreciate my full name being used in the title of the article: Stephen Louis A. Dillard. Alternatively, you can use Stephen Dillard. I do not go by Stephen Louis Dillard in either a personal or professional capacity. Also, here is a link to my official court biography: http://www.gaappeals.us/biography/bio_judges.php?jname=Stephen Dillard. I am puzzled as to why you feel the need to cite an old judicial opinion where I am listed as a lawyer to verify my name, when my official court biography is available. Thanks again for your assistance. I am not familiar with this platform, so please forgive any breach of etiquette. Update: Thanks again for all of your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladillard (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sladillard -- Understood. You did not act in bad faith. I moved the article to Stephen Dillard as per your request. Quis separabit? 03:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Frank kensington

    This editor seems to only add links to a website called jffrank.com, such as in this fine piece of work. Needs to be stopped, since as far as I can see, the site is not RS and each addition needs to now be reverted. Editor and site seem related. Warned on talk page. Pinging User:Lopifalko as he seems to edit the photo articles often.104.163.148.25 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, yes I have seen this editor's contributions recently, noticed the Frank kensington / jffrank.com connection, and may have reverted some of them. I am not an admin so cannot block them. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Delyan Peevski

    Possible undisclosed paid editing. These users removed sourced information about the subject from highly reputable local and foreign medias. They didn't edited any other articles. Quickfingers (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tactile imaging

    Every edit this person has made has promoted the work of Armen Sarvazyan and his companies, which sell tactile medical imaging equipment. The person is non responsive on their talk page.

    Included in their edits are apparent self-cites like this diff where they cited PMID 28831274 which lists V Egorov as an author, who the publication lists as working at Artann Laboratories, a company started by Sarvazyan.

    This person should be indefinitely blocked until they convince the community that they will abide by the COI guideline at least. They have dumped industrial waste into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I did the thing here, that I don't usually do, which is address problematic content and problematic behavior at the same time, and the result is somewhat predictable - the user missed the point and thinks I am a crazy person. But I have no tolerance for this specific kind of COI editing - medical marketing dumped into WP. Ah well. I don't care if they leave angry. They have been polluting Wikipedia for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is a bit shabby. I have afd'd Tactile imaging. Hopefully it will get a good response. scope_creep (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "it" you mean me doing both at the same time, I agree. It causes these additional problems on top of what there was already. Not me at my best. If you mean the article, I agree with that too. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant he never even got your username right, which is destestable, although it could have been a simple mistake. scope_creep (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I see. That is not a big deal to me. I haven't gotten the chance to say this to you, but thanks for the work you are doing on this board. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional account

    Idumont (talk) has recently re-created Lacework, which was deleted at the start of February via AfD. On a hunch I checked their recent contributions, and sure enough Idumont has recently been adding [26] [27][28] mentions of Lacework to a number of different articles. I have flagged Lacework as a G4 and as G11, but have concerns about cleaning the other effected articles. Need more eyes, but I suspect the editor in question may be here for the wrong reasons. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    for clarity, the Lacework page referred to by Samholt6 was deleted by an admin today and restored with a redirect to Lace.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The detection systems which are various types of HIDS or AIDS are all established articles, re: comparison and descriptive articles and he has added in Lacework in comparison, or as an external link. I check the last one, it could be a company neologism. The more I look at it. scope_creep (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be an established term, and is now establised article. New term in 2016 came out of Carnegie-Mellon. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Abu Sayeed (film director)

    The account is being used only for promotional purposes. This user in the past tired to hijack Abu Sayeed on a Bangladeshi minister to an article about a Bangladeshi director with the same name. Since then they created Abu Sayeed (Film director) multiple times and which were deleted. They successfully created Abu Sayeed (film director), which was not deleted, then they created articles on the movies directed by Abu Sayeed. Their contribution, excluding Moving Road which reads like a personal essay, have been on Abu Sayeed and his movies exclusively. In my opinion he may be Abu Sayeed or works for the director. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oscarcopper123

    It's unlikely there is a COI here. – Joe (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2018 (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.

    PR work pertaining to real estate development in Phoenix. 114.178.202.210 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I stumbled across this editor yesterday but don't think COI is an issue here. e.g. Hallcraft Homes was about a company that went bankrupt in 2005 and Edward L. Varney is deceased. They're not typical of PR work and it is far more likely that they are just a new editor with a specific interest in the architecture of Pheonix. SmartSE (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2018 (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.

    User:Non-Euclidean

    PR work for about.com now known as Dotdash it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Zigma8

    Rakib has created two articles by different sock masters who were blocked for UPE/TOU violations directly related to the subject matter. The content is different enough that I don't believe it to be direct sock puppetry but meat/a continuation of UPE. There is also significant overlap with 3 masters: Zigma8 was created by Umais Bin Sajjad/their socks, Irfan Qadir has a long history with Hamzaramzan123 and then there is overlap here and here, specifically with regard to Jagrit Pratap Singh, most recently created by Sumon07's sock Sayed022. I didn't take this to SPI as I previously said because it's not likely to be a technical match but a continuation of UPE in violation of WMF's TOU. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably is worth listing them at SPI... you never know what it will turn up. That said, it's so blatant that I'll block and G5 even without the technical evidence. Looking at Kiri Bloore the actions of Jasper Mitch and Lancelin Luc also strike me as rather odd. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Eddy Vodka

    See here for the background. There were a ridiculous number of SPAs at this AFD but CU came back completely blank. The AFD was close was overturned but really needs more input. Personally, I think there is zero doubt that those accounts are not coordinated (and I have concerns about some of the others too) but am involved, so could one of @Doc James, JzG, and TonyBallioni: please take a look too and block and strike accordingly if you concur. I really don't think we can put up with AFD being so blatantly manipulated as it was when the AFD was closed the first time. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow That is something, the worst afd mess I have ever seen. scope_creep (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Spoon Guru was written as a draft by User:Nidhi.b.dalal and seemed to miss out WP:AFC. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've been meaning to do something with that. There are other dodgy looking articles edited by various keep !voters there. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for WP:MEAT. Feel free to go through and strike (too tired now to do it myself). They also have some creations amongst them that probably need to be looked at. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Godzilladude123

    Godzilladude123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user began editing back in 2011, but made promotional edits to the vodka article e.g. [29] [30] [31] and !voted keep. They then created Coinigy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - about a company of dubious notability, that is involved in cryptocurrencies. Their earlier edits seem mostly ok, to me and I am not convinced either way at the moment, but I would like some more opinions on their recent edits, which are of course, the ones that are pertinent now. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone through the accounts Tony blocked and these are the articles created. Should we just G5? SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nottoohackneyed (talk) is also involved. On their userpage a list of drafts of many of the articles above can be found.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamHolt6: Sorry if it's not clear, but that user is one of the ones Tony blocked after my note above. SmartSE (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Randall Miller, bit part actor then very new director and Nancy Appleton, are highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    William Brooks. NOT notable. <1000 listens on spotify, <600 on soundcloud. scope_creep (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the following can be safely G5'd. Jose R Costa, Jon Wanzek, Nancy Appleton, William Brooks, Randall Miller, Round Hill Music (if this was ce'd there would be nothing left), Tommy Alastra and Vito Bruno (most of the coverage is running for office). The rest are partially notable, or no consensus at Afd. I don't know about this one: Sandeep Tandon. scope_creep (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sathish1127

    Undisclosed paid editing concerns. This user has previously admitted to paid editing , but I see no disclosures on any articles created, or on their talk page (which has a long list of deletions and copyright issues). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Janos Besenyo

    Juhaszpatak has been repeatedly adding links to specific publications, many by the same author Janos Besenyo, to multiple articles. He has been warned about adding inappropriate external links and about managing a conflict of interest in the past, but he doesn't appear to have responded on his talk page to those concerns and the pattern of behavior hasn't changed. I have reverted many recent edits, but there are still references to "Janos Besenyo" in some Wikipedia articles (see search: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=Janos+Besenyo&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1) which should probably be reviewed for appropriateness. Peacock (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NickHill

    Stale user who hasn't edited since January 2016, drops by to create an article BitcoinZ which is somewhat promotional. All previous edits seems to be okay, but popping up after a very long while to create an article about a non-notable Bitcoin website is not okay. Also it maybe it maybe a sock account. Zazzysa (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no other Wikipedia accounts. And nobody is telling or asking me what to post. Whilst I accept that there were a number of links to various resources, which may have make the page look rather promotional, these have been removed, and am re-editing the page to fit in with style profiles of pages such as zcash or zclassic. Along with Jimmy Wales, I am a co-founder of Open Rights Group, and I was tightly involved with early work on distributed database design for Wikipedia. I have generally not been using Wikipedia whilst signed in and would thank you not to use that against me. Nick Hill (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited Zazzysa on their talk page back here 8 hours ago. It doesn't appear to me that this user rectifies problems, and withdraws allegations, or even bothers reading rebuttals as quickly as makes them. I can't help but feel somewhat disappointed if it is becoming just a place for authoritarians to get their power kick. In some ways, I am glad this has happened, so I now know this is where Wikipedia is going, and I know what to do next funding round.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=829169801"