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 Gorgelee78 (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 8 March 2018 (→Deleting reliable sources: new section). 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:Acts2 Network
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Katie Bickerstaffe
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Code Project
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:TJ Ducklo
    Talk:Element (software)
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Genuine Parts Company
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Stuart Machin
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Metso (2020–present)
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Qu Dongyu
    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:Year Up
    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]

    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]

    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 [2] 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 [3], 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 think that paints a good self-realization of the issue.Best, ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree but WP:CLEANSTART advises that he stay away from all topics he used to edit; if he goes back to them the accounts can and probably will be connected again. I don't know if TF92 is still watching this thread, but one thing that people don't understand enough, is that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline not only protects the encyclopedia, but it protects users from exactly the kind of thing that TF92 is so worried about. Editing with a COI risks reputational damage to the user. This is discussed in the WP:Wikipedia is in the real world. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm...,As I said on my t/p thread, I guess this's a lesson for all COI-editors, spamming our articles.....But, I failed to realize what caused WLC to pursue him so hypera-ctively and dig his own grave!~ Winged BladesGodric 06:30, 23 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 [4] 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 [5]. 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 [6] 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 [7], 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 [8], 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 ([9]). 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 [10] [11] 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 [12] and Instituto del Tercer Mundo [13]. 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 [14]. As you can see from the content of these edits (for example this one [15], 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 [16], and both attempts at starting a discussion on the article's Talk page have been ignored [17]. 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" [18]. 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 [19] 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 [20], [21]). 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 detestable, 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 [22] [23][24] 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. [25] [26] [27] 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]

    SmartSE, on the edits to the vodka article, I'd be inclined to give that a pass. Many editors, including me, sometimes stumble on an article that might be saved and attempt to do so, even though it is quite outside our normal area of editing. Coinigy is rather more problematic. In its current state it is very promotional in tone and needs a good whacking with the red pen. It also seems to have sprung virtually fully formed with multiple perfectly formatted PR-type references in the editor's sandbox [28] and after a few tweaks was then pasted in its entirety into article space. That and the dubious notability of this start-up usually ring "paid editing" alarm bells. But again this appears to be a one-off for this editor. There have been many editors who have combined normal editing with paid jobs after they have been editing for quite a while, but it's hard to judge on the basis of this one article. Incidentally, the failure to find a connection between the SPAs posting "keep" votes at the Deep Eddy Vodka Afd doesn't surprise me. We have had cases where various unrelated people were specifically recruited on paid editing sites to vote "Keep" in AfDs. Thus they wouldn't be found via an SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 7 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

    COI acknowledged more or less. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 7 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.

    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. It is also worth mentioning, either my edit wasn't clear enough or Zazzysa didn't bother reading the article. Since it is not about a Bitcoin web site. If the user engaged with me, this would have been immediately resolved. Engage with me. I will then give you enough background knowledge to know at least that you are not moderating a page about a web site. To be sure, BitcoinZ is no more a web site than Bitcoin or Ethereum is a web site. Nick Hill (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick Hill Thank you for taking time out to respond to the query, i do apologize for my late reply. Currently you should understand that this discussion is open to other users or admin to participate in, As such i am also awaiting inputs from admins who would close the discussion. I am also sorry for the mixup of calling BitcoinZ a website, however that wasn't the reason your article was tagged or deleted. If i may ask, are you the owner of BitcoinZ ? Zazzysa (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Nick Hill you have written a lot, but you have not responded to the point, which is whether you have some relationship with the BitcoinZ community and whether you hold the coin. You are claiming to be a person named Nick Hill; someone with that name is promoting this coin on twitter. I don't know if that is you or not.
    But you should be aware that Wikipedia has been hammered by promoters of various cryptocurrencies; we are very aware that there are many people who want to take advantage of Wikipedia's openness to promote currencies they hold, which of course drives up their value.
    Please be aware that holding a cryptocurrency creates a conflict of interest in Wikipedia; this is discussed in the WP:COI guideline.
    The former article was speedy deleted for being promotional and the Draft:BitcoinZ you have generated is also very promotional and shows no notability, being sourced solely to the website and white paper, with no independent sources.
    Please disclose your connection to the community generating this coin and whether you hold any. Please stop the drama. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Zazzysa Thank you for your response. I can confirm I am not the owner of BitcoinZ. There is no owner of BitcoinZ. There was no initial coin offering, and there is no founders reward. As such, there is no single entity which benefits from BitcoinZ. Like Wikipedia, ownership and benefits that accrue are diffuse and diverse. Presumably, this is why I am attracted to BitcoinZ in it's early days as I have been attracted to Wikipedia in it's early days. Like I have fostered Wikipedia early in it's development because if it's potential for general good, I fostered Wikipedia for the same reasons. I do mine BitcoinZ with graphics card. I don't consider this to be adequate to recuse myself since this is part of the fostering act, and my interests and support are congruent for both Wikipedia and BitcoinZ, which have much in common. I would also like to respond to Jytdog that this question was not originally explicitly raised here, and as such, it appears to be a post-fact justification, which is not a justifiable position. Nick Hill (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is no owner; many crytocurrencies have no owner but are created and run by communities. Most of what you wrote here is yet more distraction and not relevant. The issue here is that your WP:APPARENTCOI is very apparent indeed. The purpose of this board is to get conflicts of interest disclosed and teach folks how we manage COI here in Wikipedia. It is very simple. Would you please disclose and agree to follow the COI guideline (namely, not edit directly in mainspace where you have a COI, but rather, put things through prior review, with disclosure)? Would you please also acknowledge that it is not OK to use Wikipedia to promote anything (see WP:PROMO)? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked if I am the owner, so I responded to that question. Read above. I feel like I am a victim of circling sharks here. Nick Hill (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that was a poor question but raising the issue at this board was well done. Please deal with the purpose of this board. Please be aware that as a member of the editing community you promise to aim toward the mission of this place as well as the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines. What you are doing is frankly silly legalistic dancing around the issues. If you really "get it" as you claim you do, please start demonstrating that cluefulness. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Yes, 2) No. Did not address valid issues in the first instance. And I have responded to the question which was subsequently posed. 3) Yes, we need Wikipedia to be a well functioning system to be an excellent place of reference. At the same time, we need to be respectful. Do inaccurate and derogatory allegations have a place in Wikipedia? Under such circumstances, don't you think a defence is sanctioned? To be clear, I intend to abide by the rules irrespective of others behaviour. Nick Hill (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my last reply before I make my recommendations here. What are you saying yes and no to in "1) Yes, 2) No."? Please be brief and clear. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I agree it was a poor question. 2) I disagree raising the issue on the board was well done since it incorporated superfluous and unfounded allegations. This should be avoided. 3) I do agree to abide by guidelines. 4) I disagree with your use of characterisation such as "silly legalistic dancing around the issues" etc and consider such characterisations to be unhelpful in resolving issues. This type of characterisation I am sure you understand will elucidate a response, and to then criticise a response to this may not be seen in the best of faith. It may be seen as a deliberate provocation. That is not good. On the other hand, direct and pertinent questions are useful. I hope your recommendations will encourage statements placed here in relation to persons to be provable, factual and relevant. I hope you will discourage characterisation of people as sock-puppets unless there is evidence, such as consistent log-in credentials, or weaker, but perhaps pertinent, ip address. Just because someone may have touched the same article as someone else, it does not imply sockpuppetry. I do value the work of diligent people like yourself in helping form Wikipedia as a great reference. I also appreciate the tenacity you have shown in staying the course with infraction allegations you have dealt with personally which you discuss on your talk page. This gives you a unique insight. And I hope this discussion has brought more light than smoke. You have probably shown more tenacity in this regard than many others might. In terms of my involvement with BitcoinZ, I had done some mining using graphics cards from November to January. I have watched the development of the community without involvement. Being impressed with the efforts being made, printed and gave out some paper wallets (for free) to help friends understand crypto currency. I have also helped a friend with a shop set up a payment gateway. I could see a draft for a BitcoinZ article on Wikipedia. It appeared to be somewhat POV'd. I edited the article to make it what I considered passable, having stripped out material which appeared like marketing speak. Basically, to a bare bones, and with links to various resources. I moved it to main space. This got flagged in about 10 minutes. At this point, it appeared there must be some history here. The allegations cropping up on this board pretty much proved this. I have nothing to do with any history clearly going on here. Edit an article and POW. Allegations. Whilst I am not criticising COI guidelines, and the need to recuse oneself in the event of COI, I do think allegations of COI should be reasonably founded in the first instance. In this case, they were not. I have not attempted to re-instate the page. To be clear, I have not been paid to edit. I have done this entirely voluntarily. I have also voluntarily recused myself. Whilst at the same time, I am aware most things are done at far less of an arm's length. Nick Hill (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your editing about this cryptocurrency has been unambiguously promotional and that you cannot see that just shows important the COI guideline is, and how important it is that you follow it with regard to this topic in the future. In the future please disclose that you hold it and mine it, and that you promote it in the real world, and please do not edit directly about it in the future. Likewise with any other cryptocurrencies in which you are involved.

    If you keep abusing your editing privileges to promote this cryptocurrency or others you will very likely end up indefinitely blocked. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your point of view about what my point of view is about my editing hardly seems relevant, since I have recused myself. In other words, I don't intend to do further edits. In other words, I accept that if someone thinks my edits are promotional/POV, then I accept this. It would be silly of me not to. Sometimes it takes another's words to bring wisdom. I trust you will take the time to reflect on the other issues raised and address those. Nick Hill (talk) 21:37, 7 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.

    Galileo Galilei

    These articles are being edited by racialists and perverts, with conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.170.129.121 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't see any recent edits that fit your description, and it is hard to see how anyone could have a COI with regards to an article subject who has been dead for almost 500 years. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting reliable sources

    This is a official complaint about the Template:Quickfingers [[37]] After many attempts to add information with reliable source and delete the one without a source or with archived source in page https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&action=history this user continues to add false information. I tried deleting the information and explaning my edits. I tried adding government sources to prove that the information in the article is false and manipulative.

    [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&diff=829137715&oldid=825445100 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&diff=825446089&oldid=825445100 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&diff=829137715&oldid=825967211 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&diff=828433784&oldid=828432641 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Delyan_Peevski&diff=828728492&oldid=828727822 Not only that he didn't respond to the official souces of information /not media or magazines articles/. He reported my profile and accuse me of paid editing. This page is full with untrue and manipulative statements WITHOUT official sources. All the sources are archived or non reliable media sources. When you write that somebody owns a company you should check with the official registry not add false information with media sources and if somebody else finds out that the information you are publishing is not true and adds OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SOURCES you should check them out. This article is about a Living person [[38]] and it is not fair to them to publish untrue statements. Gorgelee78 (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=829405842"