Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Obie Scott Wade: update: {{tl|Connected contributor}} added to two articles - thanks!
Line 385: Line 385:
::::[[User_talk:Kelltastic]] - Apparently a graduate level class project. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 09:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
::::[[User_talk:Kelltastic]] - Apparently a graduate level class project. [[User:Sizeofint|Sizeofint]] ([[User talk:Sizeofint|talk]]) 09:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Thanks everyone. Yes, this resolves it: a class from a Pharmacy school. Edits are a bit disappointing for PhD students, but whatever. (Also a strange coincidence about those numbers in the user names.) Thanks again. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
:::::Thanks everyone. Yes, this resolves it: a class from a Pharmacy school. Edits are a bit disappointing for PhD students, but whatever. (Also a strange coincidence about those numbers in the user names.) Thanks again. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

== "SEO Friendly Wikipedia Backlinks" ad ==

From an ad for [http://wikieditorsunited.com Wiki Editors United]:

{{quote | I am very experienced with Wikipedia and I have an extremely reputed and trusted account with over 40,000 edits. I am a wikipedia editor and all my links are guaranteed for a minimum of 6 months and they will be on wikipedia. It takes much time and effort to get links on wikipedia, especially links that I guarantee for 6 months.}}

{{quote | As you may know it is almost impossible to get links into Wikipedia without an extremely trusted and authoritative site and most links get deleted by moderators the next day! With my reputation, authority, and ability to stay under the radar in Wikipedia I am able to get stable long term links. }}

{{quote | I will add a link to your site in Wikipedia, on an existing page related to your subject. I will pick the best page allowing for both a high chance of the link sticking as well as maximizing traffic to your site. There are a lot of moderators and editors watching all the content so everything I do has to be thoroughly planned out.}}

{{quote | ''420 successful links placed. 155 customers and counting. 11 years of experience. 98% stick rate.''}}[http://www.wickedfire.com/links-and-seo/185061-seo-friendly-wikipedia-backlinks-ultimate-authority-wikieditorsunited-com.html]

Is this a known paid editing company?
[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:27, 4 December 2016

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    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:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    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:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    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:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:TheSoul Publishing
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    David Packouz

    No WP:HA or WP:OUTING here, but this page is consistently being edited by one editor Factdefender (talk), who appears to have strong connection to the case and insider information. User constantly tells me to "stop editing", and has a history of inserting WP:PROMOTION. I think it's clear that Factdefender should declare a COI if they want to keep editing this page. Will happily comply with them afterward. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not connected to the case or know any of the individuals personally. I am a musician and use the BeatBuddy that David Packouz invented, so perhaps that is my source of my interest in this case. But I don't think that is any more a COI regarding this case than you having been in the US Army. Or of an iPhone user editing the page about Steve Jobs. I simply find this story fascinating. All information I have is publicly available. I have just studied this story (perhaps too) extensively. My objections to your editing are entirely based on your disregard for facts and sourced information that you consistently ignore. I believe that we have made progress in our dialogue recently and look forward to continuing this discussion in a productive manner. Factdefender (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it's appropriate but I have added another contributor and 3 other pages that are edited by these 2 profiles. It is very curious that as musician(s) the only edits that these contributors do is to pages linked to the 2 people subject of this film. Even if there is no COI (which I very much doubt) there is clearly un unhealthy obsession with Packouz and Diveroli and all subjects linked to them which seems to be clouding their capability to be objective about this subject. As Factdefender admits himself he is fascinated and may have studied this story too extensively. It may be time now for these 2 editors to move onto another subject and leave the editing of these 4 pages to those that are probably more objective and less fascinated by these 2 unsavoury characters. Domdeparis (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite my niche interest in this story, I believe that my edits are far more neutral and well sourced than those of FuzzyGopher, and I invite an Admin to read through the David Packouz talk page to make a final decision on the issues discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factdefender (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin but I have reread the talk page and it seems almost impossible that you do not have some kind of vested interest. The section on the Beatbuddy is pointless there is a page that gives all the relevant information. He is most defiantly not a notable musician so the part on his musical career is far from useful. You have removed only information that paints the subject in a negative light such as the un-safe helmets and failure to deliver the pistols. This information is well documented and is important but IMHO has its place in the part about AEY. You have changed the sentence of the subject being 7 months for conspiracy whereas the source that you cite says he pleaded guilty to fraud but from what I can find they were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371 which is Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/plea_agreements/dockets/AEY.htm. I'm going to make some edits and see if that will come to some kind of consensus. Domdeparis (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask everyone to show good faith. One editor account is new and may not fully understand everything that is going on.
    @Domdeparis - I cannot see where you assumption arises that they are both only editing the same limited topics.
    One editor has 77 edits and is a one topic editor (including beatbox) whose account has existed since 29 August 2016
    The other editor has 1000+ edits and only 30 are bots (well, automated as that includes TW) and whose account has existed since 13 August 2016 (= 12 a day avg.)
    I am still researching, but would expect to find much less than could be gleaned from a sockpuppet check. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Chaosdruid i think I may not have been clear in what i was saying. I am far from suggesting that FuzzyGopher is limited to these topics I am suggesting that 2 undermentioned editors are 1 topic editors and possibly the same person as 1 stopped editing in July 2016 and the other started editing exactly the same topics in August 2016
    The COI edits are still going on...Domdeparis (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    RemitRadar and others

    Not sure what to do with this article RemitRadar. On the surface it has many COI hallmarks including fully formed creation by a brand new editor [1]. This is still suspicious, however, as I was on the verge of initiating some kind of deletion I noticed that the Forbes source does seem to be legit. Looking for second opinions. Brianhe (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It was worse than I thought, two of three sources were press releases disguised as churnalism. This is probably fully eligible for G11 deletion. Still waiting for a second opinion. - Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You now have it - the article is up for G11. I looked at it earlier and thought it might survive a deletion; there are multiple sources, though how many of those are PR fluff, I'm unsure. With luck the G11 will see it off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like promo and COI...even if the sourcing was legit, the article is still an orphan. I would vote delete as well! --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake news sites

    • Forbes/Sites is self-published, user-generated content. Its not reliable for notability, contentious material etc. Depending on the contributor concerned, it can be reliable for facts, opinions etc as some of them are experts in their fields, otherwise previously published journalists etc writing within their sphere of expertise. But you could not use a Forbes/sites page to assert notability as their contributors have next-to-zero editorial oversight and can write about whatever they want. If it went to AFD with just a forbes/sites reference it would be deleted due to lack of notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: You know, how I came to this article in the first place was the red-flag inclusion of finextra.com (see my private watchlist #40; I am going through the list to see what's worth keeping). It seems like a tool that would search for this kind of dreck sourcing, to include Forbes/sites apparently, would be really useful. There are tons of articles that explicitly use press releases via easy to discern domains as well (e.g. pr.com [2], prwire.com, prweb.com [3], businesswire.com [4]). - Brianhe (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Forbes/sites would likely fall into the grey area where an automated tool would not be incredibly useful. A lot of information on Forbes/sites (depending on who wrote it) can be very useful/useable. Its just one of those places that needs both material & context to be manually looked at to determine if its appropriate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The so-called journalist writing in Forbes also has his own consulting company http://www.haggerstonmediatech.co.uk/ that says on its about page The aims of the Company are as follows:

    • To bring Companies to the attention of a wider audience and to build a roadmap for success;
    • To work with Companies to ensure that they achieve their goals;
    • To help businesses grow by developing funding opportunities;
    • To act as a sounding board for businesses in the Tech and Media spaces.

    Which seems exactly what he is doing with Remitradar. How can someone whose livelihood is based on bringing companies to a wider audience be used as a freelance journalist? There's got to ba a massive problem of COI in there somewhere! Domdeparis (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This would be one of those cases where the author would unlikely to be useable in an article as he would not be considered reliable due to their inherant COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just found this on his website...at least he's open about it...it's like he's saying 80 quid and you can use me as an external source on wikipedia!!!
    Edmund's rates start at £80 for an article of up to 1,000 words, but you can take advantage of his special offer of 10 articles for £600 if you wish - a great way to ensure somebody is thinking and writing about your company consistently and accurately, getting your brand message out there whilst keeping the masses informed about the industry as a whole. Domdeparis (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What do people think about putting the "Haggerston Times Newsblog" (haggerston-times.com) on the external links blacklist? It is currently used in one article, Carspring, created fully-formed upon the first edit of Ricky Octa. And it also uses forbes/sites as a source. - Brianhe (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One more note, this is a Rocket Internet related article or set of articles appearing at COIN for the third time in under 18 months. See Archive 89, Archive 92. - Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there. Just throwing my hat into the ring here: Brianhe tipped me off to this discussion and I'd like to be included when it comes up again. We should have a discussion about collecting these blog sources into a master list of chronically non-GNG-worthy (or entirely non-RS) sites as a matter of policy. Does such a thing exist already, and is it possible to amend something so specific to GNG/RS? Jergling (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Shirakbari

    • Possible sockfarm/meats

    Behaviour evidence: group of suspicious / blocked / not fully disclosed paid editors & accounts not exactly clear the connections/COIs):


    Rob Shirakbari clearly needs some cleanup. The main problem is the extensive list of credits, many of which are in minor roles. That needs a trim. So do the references, many of which are to list-type sites, not articles primarily about the article subject. The subject of the article was engaged to the singer of Rumer [7] and is now her husband, but this is not in the article. Does the article subject clearly pass WP:MUSIC? John Nagle (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. There's several composers/artists/producers with such a large table of minor roles. I've just PRODded some, this may be more borderline but worth taking to AfD as the notability isn't clear under the mass of minor roles. Widefox; talk 09:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nmwalsh has been sanctioned; see top of this case. Brianhe (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nmwalsh hasn't/doesn't fully disclose per WP:PAID (userpage and articles both don't have disclosures about which edits are paid), although has used the paid template in their sandbox, so appears to be willfully breaking the WP:TOU with no explicit disclosure per the best practice. Widefox; talk 14:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...saying that, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Minded (Canadian rapper) does have a paid template, so there's some disclosure although not done on the userpage as well. Widefox; talk 12:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Kerio Technologies

    Editor Special:Contributions/TheKarpati & Special:Contributions/Mlovato543 have extensively (and solely) edited on topics relating to Kerio Technologies. I've just removed massive amounts of promo & WP:MANUAL content (sample diff), but would also like for an experienced participant to have a look. The users have been notified of this discussion on their respective Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I do not quite understand, why you complain about this. As a person, using those products, you start changing one article and then you see, there are other articles, talking about the products you use. So you continue. So what is the problem? TheKarpati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    TheKarpati Do you have a WP:COI ? Are you paid to edit? See WP:DISCLOSE. Your account, as well as several others, are WP:SPAs, so other editors may assume, as I do, that a promotional article with several SPAs needs some explaining. Go ahead. Widefox; talk 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox No, I am not paid. I just use those products myself and thought, it is worth mentioning them, respectively updating the articles. I just saw for example, that also Microsoft is shown with separate articles for each of their products. So I do not understand all the complaints. As I am not a wikipedia editor professional, maybe someone (you?) can help me on that? Thanks TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, you have no connection whatsoever with the products, company, affiliates etc etc (broadly construed) in any form, per COI. Do you? (For why notability for other articles is irrelevant see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Widefox; talk 06:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TheKarpati The COI question was asked by another editor on your talk page two years ago [9] but went unanswered. Explain. Widefox; talk 06:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox Thanks for pointing me to this. I added a comment. You see, I am not a wikipedia pro at all. And I only contribute to things I know. And I think I do not violate any rules of wikipedia like the COI thing you mentioned. Again: I am just a user of those products why I think it is worth, contributing to those articles.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    Let me say, then, TheKarpati, that you find yourself in the unenviable position of having an edit history that looks absolutely indistinguishable from someone who has a conflict of interest - that it to say, your editing has the hallmarks of a Single Purpose Account interested in only one thing - in this case, Kerio. Our very long experience of COI editing is that users with edit histories like yours are generally connected to the product or service being edited. You'll forgive me - or not - in harbouring considerable doubt and reservation as to whether you are being completely candid in your responses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagishsimon So you would say, when contributing to other articles, even if I do not know at the moment to which, would change the impression? So you basically say, contributing to other articles just for the sake of contributing to others would be helpful, even if my opinion is: better contribute to things you know well instead of contributing to things you are not familiar with? TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) TheKarpati This early edit [10] (the accounts only use of the minor edit flag, used incorrectly as well) about the company (not the product) indicates to me, that your answer above isn't in any way convincing. Editors with a COI must disclose, they can still edit. Note: I've given this editor the COI template so they can read how to disclose any COI they may remember about in future.
    Now, TheKarpati have you used any other accounts, or do you know the users of the other accounts that have edited these articles? Widefox; talk 06:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox No I have not used any other accounts. This early edit was just done, because I visited San Francisco/San Jose in that year and I just went to the place of the company, from which I use nearly all products. And I thought, it is nice mentioning them on this Silicon Valley page (San Jose is Silicon Valley, right!?). If this was a mistake, please accept my excuse. TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox So again: No, I have no relationship to this company, except using their products TheKarpati
    TheKarpati how do you explain your only non-Kerio edit [11] - which attempted to delete a communication product not from Kerio? Promo edits on Kerio, deletion for an other. According to (what you said above) you only edit what you know/use. Explain? That appears WP:NPOV, COI, and promo / WP:NOTHERE. Why shouldn't we just block your account to protect our content from this - for failing to disclose (also see about violating the TOU here -> WP:TOU), and violating core principles of neutrality and transparency? Widefox; talk 07:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox that was basically a childish reaction after another user nominated a page I created for deletion. Check my contribution history please. As far as I remember, it was after my created page for "Samepage" got the deletion nomination. I was really upset, after spending much time for creating this particular page, that it got deleted, which I could not understand at this point, seeing pages like the "Yammer" page not being deleted. Apologies.TheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting "curiouser and curiouser". Then why attempt to restore WP:MANUAL material as in this diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Samepage was created by User:Mlovato543. So you're admitting that account is also yours, yes? How many accounts have you used? Widefox; talk 07:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Here [12] a Kerio marketing employee User:Tromele asked if you were also an employee! You only answered that question when I pointed out that you hadn't answered it. Even the Kerio marketing department that has stated it wants these articles created thinks TheKarpati is/was an employee! Widefox; talk 07:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox I remember I created a samepage article I believe not being logged in as a registered user around 2013. Maybe you can check that from the history for articles named "Samepage"? I do not how. My only account here on Wikipedia is TheKarpati. No other account.You may check that by cross-checking the IP?
    I personally get more and more the feeling, you are now only searching for reasons for blocking, deleting whatever just for the sake of getting a contributor blocked/locked out from this system. Proof me if I am wrong. But it really looks like a "user hunting game" at the momentTheKarpati —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just an editor like yourself so I can't view deleted pages. All I can see was it was deleted in 2013 and then recreated (and at least two other editors were involved in the deletion). Admins can view deleted pages. I will ask no further questions, as some of them still haven't been fully answered (see above). Widefox; talk 08:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WidefoxI really lost the track because of this immense text/answers published already. Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs) [reply]

    TheKarpati editors are not meant to engage in protracted discussions with you per WP:COITALK. Your pattern of editing including trying to !vote more than once at a merge discussion, borderline WP:OWN, overly promo SPA account speaks louder than an absence of disclosure. Widefox; talk 15:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I nominated Kerio Operator, Kerio Control‎ and Kerio Connect for deletion as I don't believe that they meet general notability guidelines. This will give other editors the chance to determine if they should be listed. Shritwod (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that a user calling themselves TheKarpati took it on themselves to post a Kerio promotional video (redacted) - on the same day that TheKarpati was posting some Kerio stuff here. tbh, if Kerio employees lie & lie & lie, it's not much of an advert for their software/service. Major ethics 101 fail. Kerio not to be touched with a bargepole. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Redacted link to an off-Wiki forum. - Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TheKarpati I'm still waiting. Answer to these above? Widefox; talk 08:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox And I already wrote, that I really lost track.Can you list your (potentially) not answered question in form of a bullet list? That would make it easier. Thank you TheKarpati 08:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs) [reply]
    TheKarpati The evidence that you work at Kerio...? Widefox; talk 09:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WidefoxWhich I already answered with a No, but I am pretty sure, you will find something else, what you dislike, so the discussion will be endless. Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it... BTW: after thinking again about merge/no merge of the articles into on article I came to the conclusion, that it is maybe a good idea. So everything is in one place instead of several places. TheKarpati 09:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC) --TheKarpati 09:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've merged the two product articles into the company article, and put the company article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerio Technologies (2nd nomination). Enough with these shills. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagishsimon Same comment for you: Just do, what you think you have to do. I am no longer wondering, why more and more contributors/editors leave the wikipedia project. Think about it...--TheKarpati 09:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKarpati (talk • contribs) [reply]
    TheKarpati it is odd that someone with exactly the same username as you is uploading promotional videos for Kerio on a web site (profile deleted but still visible) and since 2012 you have contributed 248 times and every single time it was on a Kerio related subject. Even trying to assume good faith we can apply the WP:DUCKTEST here and if you were us what conclusion would you come to? Domdeparis (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Domdeparis I partially agree: the fact with the same username on Reddit is odd, but I cannot solve it. The fact with my only contributions to Kerio: I only contributed to this, because I use those products for years now, as I wrote several comments before. Is it mandatory to contribute to other articles too, only for the purpose/sake that others do not get a wrong impression? That would be a pity --TheKarpati 10:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TheKarpati despite over 4 years of presence as a wikipedia editor you have never been tempted or in the least bit interested in editing a page that doesn't deal with kerio products????? Even if you do not have a COI (tries not to laugh out loud) you have an obsession with this company that verges on the pathological. Yours is a very clearly a WP:SPA Domdeparis (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TheKarpati "odd, but I cannot solve it" no reasonable person would be convinced by your reply to that. When busted, there's no point keeping up the pretence, is there? The problem with the line that being treated this way means you will go away, is that readers deserve less undisclosed COI/paid editing, not more. Your only non Kerio contribution was to try to delete a rival. It really is shameless. Widefox; talk 10:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I relisted Kerio Operator at AfD. Widefox; talk 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed block

    ANI, but don't see why we shouldn't gather opinions here. Widefox; talk 12:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    AuthBridge

    Creation of highly promo articles by SPA and sudden pile-on by more SPAs is suspicious. Note one is blocked for ToU violation. Creator is now messing about with Capital Float, linked to another blocked editor with prolific sockpuppetry. - Brianhe (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    New promotional editing in the binary option/FOREX area.

    (See also User Talk:Kenntybdv for rejected article creation.

    This looks like promotion in the heavily spammed binary option/FOREX area. Not too bad yet, but some new editors to watch. John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I will reiterate that it would be really useful to have a tool that searched for additions of crappy pseudo-news sites like financemagnates.com, which was added repeatedly by one both of the above editors. When I say crappy, I mean non-RS as determined at RSN. - Brianhe (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They also used Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency as a source, which now is open at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cyprus_Investment_Promotion_Agency. Brianhe (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Real Vision

    Just a notice - this article was recently recreated (after being speedy deleted as advertising some weeks ago) by User:Shomar103 who in this edit claims to be employed by the company. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Delhi School of Internet Marketing

    This editor has recreated the Delhi School of Internet Marketing page.
    See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_107#DrankJetter_sockfarm for prior discussion. 220 of Borg 09:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhi School of Internet Marketing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is going to be deleted, so any COI may be somewhat moot. Edwardx (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Obie Scott Wade

    The user name and article name are the same. I notified the user that it is an issue to write an article about themselves, and did not receive a response. It appears that the user predominantly writes about Obie Scott Wade, and the company created by Wade called SheZow, although it has been years since Wade has written about SheZow.CaroleHenson (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there information that I can gather to help facilitate the review?
    This summary, for instance, shows that all but four edits were made to Wade or his company's article:
    Article
    • 52 Obie Scott Wade
    • 16 SheZow - Wade's organization
    • 2 Sebastopol, California
    • 2 Guy (given name)
    I don't know if it's germane, but there have been a couple of attempts to remove the COI tag here and here by an internet IP user.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that removing COI warnings is germane on the COI noticeboard. Brianhe (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I shouldn't have used "germane" - I meant I don't know how much of it might play into the decision.
    For what it's worth, a lot of the content in the article is not cited. I do see 5 articles in HighBeam, some articles that are reliable sources in google news, and what look to be 3 sources that could be used in google books, although 2 of them are snippet views.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what else is needed for this. I haven't been commenting on other items on this page, except in one case, because it's out of my league. Instead I have been working on Articles for deletions as a way of chipping in.
    Is there something wrong with this posting? Did I miss a step? Is there something more that is needed that I haven't provided? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And, another attempt by the IP user to remove the COI tag.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaroleHenson: If you consider the repeated tag removals to be disruptive, which I think is a reasonable position, you can either wait for an admin to see this thread and take action, or bring it up explicitly at WP:ANI or ask for semi protection at WP:RPP. It's unlikely for this level of activity to result in a block IMO. Also, you should consider sending them a warning like {{uw-disruptive1}} - Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: I am kind of confused. If standard practice is to allow certain levels of autobiographical editing, who am I to say any differently?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm in kind of a sour mood ... I've come to expect minimum response from the current active admins. There's a lot of self-promotion going on here and not a lot of accountability. The minimum is what I indicated above. If you want to go for more, be my guest. - Brianhe (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, thanks. I'm in a disillusioned mood at the moment - and I truly get confused by the processes. I'll let it settle in my mind overnight. Thanks, Brian.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved uncited content to the talk page - which was most of it - and tagged the article for clean-up so that reliable secondary sources are used. I will be happy to work with the edits on requested edits. All I'm asking at this point, is: Is it alright for me to post {{Connected contributor}} - or can someone else do it if it should be done by an administrator - for these two users on the talk page. I'll work with any {{request edit}}s. Would that work?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this posting, {{Connected contributor}} has been posted on Talk:Obie Scott Wade and Talk:SheZow for Obie scott wade. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Lux

    Various factors in the behaviour of this editor at this article and that of Gérard Lopez (businessman) lead me to believe that the editor has some connection to the subjects of the articles or the business. These factors include: unexplained removal of content that may be seen at negative (i.e. subsection 'Nightclub incident'), addition of significantly detailed unsourced personal history, use of peacock terms to describe subject's business acumen, and editing history limited almost solely to directors of one company (Genii). Pyrope 18:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and, other than one edit to another biography, it seems that the user has only edited Eric Lux and Gérard Lopez (businessman) articles, according to his edit history.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion, or useful links?

    I really don't know whether this is a problem, so I am asking here. Peterhoneyman has been adding a large number of wikilinks to J. Alex Halderman.[13] Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If Peterhoneyman is writing about a colleague at University of Michigan, there could be a COI issue. I don't want to go further without knowing if WP:REALNAME affords the privilege. - Brianhe (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Halderman, whose contributions are mentioned dozens of time in wikipedia, is a leading and prominent expert in cybersecurity of voting systems, a topic that is both timely and long-studied. I threw up a rudimentary page and resolved a number of dangling links to help people looking for information about Halderman. Peterhoneyman (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peterhoneyman: I noticed you didn't address the purpose of this noticeboard, which is conflict of interest. Could you tell us if you are in fact connected with Halderman in some way, including as colleagues ast the same institution? - Brianhe (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reverted all of Peterhoneyman's spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this at IPsec. I think it's stretching COI too far to say that adding valid wikilinks is a problem, particularly when it is to an existing article for an academic. Someone adding links to a branded product might be a problem, but citations are supposed to have all the details, and if Wikipedia has an article on an author, the author should be wikilinked. If a colleague of the author (or even the author themselves) decides to do that, I don't see that we should be concerned. There are many other real COI and promotional editing problems. However, I believe the author field of {{cite web}} should not be wikilinked because that field is used to generate machine readable data. Use the alternative at Template:Cite web#Authors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this at Pwnie Awards since I watch that page; I put back the link to Halderman's article. I have no COI on these topics, and I agree with User:Peterhoneyman that Halderman is a well-respected expert in his field. It makes sense to me that Halderman should have a Wikipedia article with links to it from related articles where he's mentioned. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I have no objection to the reverts. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I went through and reverted the ones where he's mentioned in the article text. I didn't revert the citation links - somebody else is welcome to do that if they like; I agree with using the alternative formatting Johnuniq pointed out. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Quarry Hill Creative Center

    I am doing my best to add only information that is true and of general interest. I cannot help being related to the family the article covers but am t trying my best to write true and honest information. Ladybelle Fiske (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This was originally posted at WT:COI and I have moved it here--Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi thank you for your honesty and disclosure. I would say most of what you have edited does not pose a problem with the exception of this last edit.
    On August 11-12, 2016, it celebrated what may be its final annual All Night Dance Party, begun in1984 as a birthday party for Joya Lonsdale. Isabella Fiske's daughter. (See Facebook: Invitation to the Party by Katharina Francpise, Summer 2016). Internet rumor states that Eva Us, re Fiske's granddaughter, wishes the party to continue.
    As a member of the family it seems inappropriate to be talking about unsubstantiated rumours about yourself or your family...i would strongly suggest that you take this out as it is clearly COI editing and could be construed as promotion for a future event. And BTW facebook is very rarely an appropriate source --Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Fusion Systems

    AfD resulted in deletion. No further action necessary. Brianhe (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (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.

    A small company with local notability at best, SPA creator and co-editors. Smells fishy. Orangemike and I have trimmed kilobytes of promo [14][15], but I wonder if it even passes WP:CORP. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like some marketing staff have gotten ahead of themselves, and happy to revert their edits since Nov 14.
    The company, while small in staff, develops technology that plays a critical role in capital markets and services a number of household-name global investment banks, with a storied history in financial technology. The page should be restored to its original, objective content, consistent with WP:CORP. Logo is out of date, will fix later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djnz00 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the previous Fusion isn't really relevant. It was purchased. This is an entirely new company; that they share some employees doesn't seem relevant at all, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm going to AfD this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2016 (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.

    Capital Float

    According to recent edits, Capital Float is "the pioneer of digital lending in India". This article was discussed in the Smileverse case, archive 88. Editor also is adding questionable material to AuthBridge and probable refspam elsewhere [16]. Looked at as a whole, the account seems to be devoted to COI editing. Brianhe (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be a lot of these "digital lending to business" companies.[17] Names include Mahindra Finance, Bajaj Finserv, Capital Float, Religare, SMEBank.in, Mandii.com and ICICI Bank. These seem to have been affiliates of AskMe, which is a unit or brand of Getit Infoservices Private Limited, which is majority owned by Astro All Asia Networks plc. AskMe seems to have come apart.[18] Operations were suspended in August 2016 and a forensic audit started. Neither the Getit nor the Astro article mentions this, and both articles have and "ad" tags. All this indicates that Wikipedia's coverage of India's financial sector needs work. So I added a note at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#India_financial_sector_articles_need_attention. John Nagle (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    STICLI

    Airport Master (video game) is current being developed by a company named STICLI. Obviously this probably isn't a coincidence. Stikkyy (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I've already reported to UAA. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Raul Escribano

    My thanks to User:Marchjuly for mentioning this article on the COI talk page. Evidently the user in question was ordered to create an article for his superior, a prominent general in the U.S. Army! I suggest that this article be carefully monitored, keeping in mind that the poor soldier ordered to create this article is not exactly a free agent. I really feel sorry for the poor guy. I have never heard of a situation like this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Binary options churn continues

    Here's another WP:NOTHERE pumping binary options. Just opening this thread for awareness, not requesting specific action at this time. Unless you want to !vote at the AfD. Brianhe (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Binary options people seem to be using Wikipedia aggressively as a marketing platform. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coretheapple: hallelujah. The history of Binary option over the past year is pretty dismal. There's a lot of churn from anons, SPAs and socks (not mutually exclusive), but no significant improvement other than Nagle's addition of the Times of Israel exposé in June and some formulae from Parsiad.azimzadeh. In fact the only other apparent GF contributor in the past year may be Limit-theorem. Sorry if I missed someone, but here's relevant diffs that I think make my point: Nagle + Nagle + Parsiad = year net. There were about 200 garbage edits over this time period. I wonder if it's time to consider indefinite semi protection? - Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the directors of Daweda Exchange, Eran Chertok-Gorodezky,[19] was previously the CEO of Ouroboros Derivatives Trading, the company behind AnyOption in Tel Aviv.[20]. AnyOption is on warning lists from securities regulators in Canada and France.[21]. So this looks like it comes from the usual suspects. Voted to delete because there seem to be no non-hype sources. John Nagle (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Things are looking up. The Israeli Securities Authority finally raided a binary option company and arrested the CEO and six others.[22]. There's a bill in the Knesset to prohibit binary option operations. Right now, it's legal in Israel for these companies to scam people in other countries. Only scamming Israelis is prohibited. This is starting to become politically embarrassing to Israel as a country. John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll certainly monitor this area as best I can. I'm glad you both have technical expertise in this area. Coretheapple (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Ryan (executive)

    This editor has only edited this article, and their editing is typical of a COI editor. I left them a COI templated message on their talkpage on 23 November. They then stopped editing. On 2 December, they started editing again, but have not responded to the COI message on their talkpage. Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd appearance of multiple accounts editing about pharmaceuticals

    Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Somewhat strange article expansions. Any insights or help from editors who are experienced with this sort of thing would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Listing accounts mentioned in your diffs to see if they want to talk about this here. It does seem odd that a whole bunch of brand new accounts start editing in such similar styles on such similar articles in November and all have a preponderance of 2's and 6's in their usernames. - Brianhe (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe a SPI would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These two overlapped on Gadoteric acid User:Madflo22196 User:Leme226 so they are associated somehow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar, but they don't all look like one person behaviorally. Pharmacy school class project? I don't know. I have a sneaking suspicion they will never reappear on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the articles they have edited don't have anything in common. Approved as well as experimental treatments for many different conditions made by many different pharma companies. So that doesn't seem right for a COI issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User_talk:Kelltastic - Apparently a graduate level class project. Sizeofint (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks everyone. Yes, this resolves it: a class from a Pharmacy school. Edits are a bit disappointing for PhD students, but whatever. (Also a strange coincidence about those numbers in the user names.) Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "SEO Friendly Wikipedia Backlinks" ad

    From an ad for Wiki Editors United:

    I am very experienced with Wikipedia and I have an extremely reputed and trusted account with over 40,000 edits. I am a wikipedia editor and all my links are guaranteed for a minimum of 6 months and they will be on wikipedia. It takes much time and effort to get links on wikipedia, especially links that I guarantee for 6 months.

    As you may know it is almost impossible to get links into Wikipedia without an extremely trusted and authoritative site and most links get deleted by moderators the next day! With my reputation, authority, and ability to stay under the radar in Wikipedia I am able to get stable long term links.

    I will add a link to your site in Wikipedia, on an existing page related to your subject. I will pick the best page allowing for both a high chance of the link sticking as well as maximizing traffic to your site. There are a lot of moderators and editors watching all the content so everything I do has to be thoroughly planned out.

    420 successful links placed. 155 customers and counting. 11 years of experience. 98% stick rate.

    [23]

    Is this a known paid editing company? John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=753040296"