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 Edwardx (talk | contribs) at 13:06, 11 June 2018 (→Everette Taylor: 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:Bill Ackman
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Kevin Hartz
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:Lester Sill
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Dmytro Kremin

    Svetlana Ischenko is apparently Dmytro Kremin's translator, which is an obvious conflict of interest, but I also wonder if it might also qualify her as a paid editor? In any case, this article could do with some attention, if anyone is willing to take a look. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cordless Larry, I can take a look, but as no sources are present regarding his work history, it will takes weeks to sort, with some searching. Emails dont work with the Russian/Ukrainian university folk, as they dont reply. I have added a ref, which disambs on the prize awarded to him, in the lede. He was one of 10 or 20 or so, who were awarded the prize, so WP:PUFF that was presented before, when it said he won a major state prize, has lessened somewhat. It could be full of puff, but Worldcat has multiple book listings written by him, so he is notable. scope_creep (talk)
    Thank you, Scope creep. I don't have any concerns about notability here, just promotionalism. Anything that is unsourced could just be removed until such a time as sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments! I will review my input there. Svetlana Ischenko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First haul of ACPERM evaders

    We have a sockfarm already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brown and Orange 12. MER-C 14:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    CU uncovered the following additional pages:
    MER-C 11:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is any of this G11 eligible? I'm thinking specifically of Draft:Alexander Galitsky. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah.....Even our most non-conservative sysops would decline a G11 on this:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Second haul:

    Most of these are up for deletion, which is good news. MER-C 15:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And now for the list of articles moved straight from user/draft space, with some screening to remove obviously genuine articles. Many of these are obviously native advertising. MER-C 19:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Animal husbandry anon COI

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 122.61.187.112 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies if this is in the wrong place, I am fairly new here. I intend to register an account today. I have received a notice that I am the subject of a conflict of interest discussion on this page, but I am having a great deal of trouble finding it to respond in defense of myself. I would like to contend that I have no such conflict of interest, and that in fact the person attacking me over this actually has clear conflict of interest themselves. I will refrain from naming the editor in question, as per the guidelines described above, but their conflict of interest stems from the fact that I edited their poorly referenced contributions. I think an independent third party needs to oversee resolution of this because the person who has had their content edited can't possibly provide impartial assessment of said edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.187.112 (talk • contribs)

    Upwork account

    I found the Upwork profile of a freelancer who landed more than 330 Wikipedia-related jobs (not sure I can display the link publicly). The names of his clients appear on only a handful of jobs but when such is the case, the date of the job is coherent with the creation/editing of those pages:

    This editor always follow the same process: 1) A handful of small edits, sometimes none; 2) A sandbox; 3) Article in main, without displaying the paid editing.

    Also suspected through indirect evidence (accounts this Upwork freelancer used on the French Wikipedia, accounts used to follow up on pages he had created):

    I had created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatongakinsella yesterday. Un historien (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet investigation was unconclusive, so there is only the Upwork profile linking those pages and accounts. Un historien (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Un historien: Can you send me the link please? Special:EmailUser/Smartse. If it is as you say, and combined with the inconclusive CU, then they've almost certainly been blocked before and I'll G5 the articles. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartse: I never even mentioned the word "inconclusive" in my findings. Quite the opposite: I said the accounts were Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Since I wrote the message he set his profile to private and I was not careful enough to take screenshots. Lesson learned for next time. Un historien (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That's obviously Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone so G5ing. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm thanks I feel stupid for not having found that page. I don't master EN.WIKIPEDIA very well yet.
    Should I try to merge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gatongakinsella into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone ? I asked a checkuser about it. Un historien (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Un historien: Could you help me understand the background on French Wikipedia better? Let's take one editor, Acumenmeister for example. I don't see editing on other wikis under this name. In fact fr.wiki says "Le compte utilisateur « R Acumenmeister » n'est pas enregistré". Maybe I misunderstood your intent. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Bri,
    Checking again it seems that my sentence about French Wikipedia doesn't make sense (I must have deleted what I had found): the suspicions for those 4 pages where through follow-ups and duck test:
    FYI, here are the 4 pages I was able to track to that Upwork user on FR.WP:
    Un historien (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendra Lust

    I became aware of this issue from a thread here about two weeks ago. The user identified above claims to be her attorney. He states she wants her given name out of the article where it has been, sourced to a weblink to a document he created. He since has changed the primary source, but the reference was replaced with an archive link to the original. Subsequently, another editor added two journalistic links to further verify it. Editor named above, despite repeated warnings to use talk page, continues to edit war, removing reference to her birth name. Latest claim is original source is not valid, because that document no longer exists, and the journalistic sources are not reliable. He has been pointed to the talk page, RSN and OTRS multiple times, but still continues to edit war. IMO, it's time to block him for TOU violation, and down the road, we can semi the article when he starts using IPs to block evade. This is getting really tiresome. John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    But if it's getting tiresome, so should be the insertion by editors of sources that do not support the claim (of the three sources that were there until I edited a few minutes ago, only one made a claim that could be interpreted as stating her "birth name", which was the field being sourced (it referred to her "given name", which can have that interpretation.) The other two may be seen as stating her "real" name, but real/legal name and birth name often differ, particularly for women (i.e., my wife did not have Gertler as part of her name at birth, but she does now.) As such, they were not appropriate sources for such a claim. Additionally, using a databased trademark filing is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, as that is a public document. Do not brush aside legitimate concerns because he has a COI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is a perfect example of all that is wrong with porn bios on Wikipedia. It has superficial referenciness, but the sources are:
    • IAFD, which presents wholly in-universe data and also has user submitted data
    • Enfluenz, no evidence it's an RS
    • Creative Loafing Tampa, no evidence it's an RS
    • KenAndAriel.com, fails RS
    • Arch Angel Blog, fails RS
    • NightMoves, no evidence of RS
    • And then: XRentDVD, Mens Mag Daily, Adult DVD Talk, XCritic, AVN, XBIZ, Xtreme, all of which are porn-specific.
    In wrestling, a lot of sources won't break the kayfabe. It's worse in porn. It's a walled garden with little or not intrusion of reality. Films are made on a budget that would not buy you product placement in a mainstream movie, and treated as high art by the industry. I really think we should not have a bio on any adult actor unless there are at least two mainstream sources, because the porn industry actually doesn't care whether a claim is true or not. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. Wikipedia is used by the "actors" and their fans as a means of getting mainstream visibility for a niche market that if it weren't for the army of fans/editors would not have a snowballs hope in hell of surviving a serious Afd. Wrestling is a similar situation. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And why, when we routinely purge virtually all other articles of non-notable industry awards, are we padding out these "biographies" of poeple whose real names ca't be reliably established, with "fan awards" for "best MILF"? This is ridiculous. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The changes keep being made after repeated attempts to explain that the sources being used did not contain the information. After this was provide many times in the Talk area with no reply, another removal was done then two new provided sources (finally admitting the prior source was not valid) appeared that were both from unreliable sources such as “thesun” and TMZ (used via the Kansas City Star, for which does not provide said information) for neither source provides how they gained the information. As is the case non-verifiable information is not allowed, the sources are not original nor supported, it would appear the very information being provided by Wikipedia is being used to verify the sources provided. This is the typical circle verification that one runs into with non-verifiable information is placed on Wikipedia that is then used by third parties as verification. If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans.. Attorney for Kendra Lust [Jhafke]

    Are you sure you are really her attorney...an attorney at law? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "thesun" is the the UK's biggest newspaper and, let's be honest, this information is clearly verifiable. However WP:BLPNAME is also an important policy and the fact that the subject clearly doesn't want her name widely published should be enough for us to exclude it. – Joe (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the request "If desired please delete the complete Wikipedia page, this is not a attempt to build more fans," we should just delete the article. Cleaning up standards for porn bios would be a good idea also, but that will take some time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The information is private WP:BLPNAME, is not verifiable, is speculation, and yes.. the full page can be deleted as desired. Attorney at law for Kendra Lust {[Jhafke]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhafke (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would maybe suggest that the above editor go through an WP:OTRS request instead of asking to remove information. I may be wrong but I believe that claims of being the attorney for a subject of a BLP should be verified and not taken as read. Some of what has been written by the above editor gives cause to request verification that they really are the attorney for the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dom from Paris This is a great thought, the ability to verified can be found on all the work my firm has done for Kendra Lust that do not include the Wikipedia issue at hand. Further, understand that if a lawyer such as my self took action for a party whom was not a client, we would lose our ability to practice law. The need to edit this Wikipedia is not worth no longer being able to make a living. Please let me know what needs to be done to verify my status of attorney for Kendra Lust. As of yesterday Kendra confirm ZERO desire to have a page on Wikipedia. Jhafke —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jhafke: having your identity confirmed via OTRS is the first step. Once that is done, you can then confidently requests that changes to the article in question be made at Talk:Kendra Lust. Given some of the comments above, you will likely find common ground with other editors and be able to form some sort of consensus as to what information should be on your client's article. I will, however, note that Wikipedia is not censored (per WP:CENSOR) and your client has no public expectation of informational privacy, so the veracity of your proposals and your ability to form a consensus is key. Alternatively, as an editor you may start a discussion (known as WP:AFD) as to whether or not the article should be deleted outright by the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    California bios and movies

    Seeking second opinion on possibility connected editor/s, WP:MEAT and socking likelihood. The group of articles here looks very walled garden-ish. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Devilishdoll and Weathervane13 have enough article overlap and similarities that I think they could be the same editor. This edit by Weathervane13 has a summary that indicates a switch "...to an italic (Worship Your Devil Dolls)..." indicating what they italicized in parenthesis. Compare to this edit summary by Devilishdoll, "added citation and italics (Goth Girl)" where they have done the same exact thing. Here's another one from Devilishdoll, "...changed to italics (From Bach to Broadway)". Both editors are using bare urls for refs and both are attempting to sign with four tildes in their edit summaries. A check shows that they geolocate to the same city and one is using a desktop/laptop while the other is using a phone.  Possible.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I opened this report, both editors have !voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Jessica Evans so MEAT or SOCK is now a question with tangible repercussions ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Narciso Contreras

    Not sure if I’m doing this right but this is a new area for me. I created a stub for this award-winning photojournalist a while back, and now it has been greatly expanded by the above user. I believe the subject is notable but as virtually the whole article has been written by someone who is apparently Contreras himself, I thought it warranted some attention. However I am unsure of the next step. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left the editor a COI notice on their talk page, as well as added the autobiography tag to the article and removed some completely unsourced content. Pawnkingthree you should note the guidelines on using this page which clearly state that you are required to notify the editor of this discussion here (in red at the top of this page), which has not yet been done. Melcous (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was doing so when my phone died. Now done. Thanks. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear editors, I'm new on editing on this site, sorry for the mistakes. I noticed the stub Narciso Contreras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) created by Pawnkingthree was uncompleted, for what I did a research online and expanded a bit more, relaying on other sources too. The article was written by different journalists and researchers. I just did put all together. Some of the texts removed are fully sourced as well, but I didn't have enough time for fulfilling the requirements in one time. I do apologise for this. Thanks (talk)

    Toastmasters International

    Toastmasters International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This keeps popping up on my watchlist due to the never-ending procession of promotional edits. I just reviewed the article and removed all self-sourced material, apart from the basic statement of who they are. There were no indpeendnt sources, and there still aren't. I suspect that the majority of edits are by members or their PR. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously a notable org but just how much can you say about? Its a loose collecion of local speaking clubs. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideological bias on Wikipedia

    withdrawn, restated below Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 2 June 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.

    We generally think about COI with respect to external interests -- things outside of WP.

    COI considerations get pretty house of mirrors crazy, pretty fast, with respect to this kind of navel-gazing page in WP, where it would seem that people who are here to advocate one ideology or another (or to downplay what they see as overemphasis on some ideology in WP) have an "interest" in how this page depicts "ideological bias" in WP.

    The line between considerations of COI per se, and considerations of WP:ADVOCACY, are pretty much obliterated.

    It is rather dismally forseeable that claims of "COI" will be tossed about on this page, now that the community has been through a deletion discussion and there was no consensus to keep it or delete it (AfD discussion), and this page will itself be cited in the context of content disputes.

    Claims of "COI" have already been thrown around with respect to this page, as for example in this Section at Guy's page by User:Netoholic, repeated at ANI in this diff (thread (permalink as it is now).

    (The source under dispute between Netoholic and Guy, was a paper published in a legit journal (doi:10.1177/0894439317715434), in which Australian academic Brian Martin analyzed the editing of Brian Martin (yes, the page about him in WP) and, and for example, described edits to that page by Guy and characterized them as "biased". Brian Martin characterizes criticism of anti-vax pseudoscience as "suppression of dissent" (source, source). The COI there is mindspinning, as is the question of how any editor - especially one who has a dispute with Guy, might want to deploy that paper. Like I said house of mirrors crazy)

    I have no idea how to even begin thinking in any kind of valid, rigorous way to consider COI management in Wikipedia with respect to this page. (COI is not a terrible thing, it just should be disclosed and managed).

    So - I am posting here for thoughts, in the hopes some principles could be established now at least with regard to:

    • is there any valid discussion to be had about "conflict of interest" on this page, and if so
    • what criteria would we use to say that "X has a COI with respect to this page"?

    -- Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it is far broader than that, as it says, if you read it. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're narrowing it to a single article. JzG has been making mass removal of Brian Martin references as a personal project since at least May 25th when he discovered this study was part of the article. This was raised at other articles like Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Does editor have COI?. Here is a rough set of links showing the mass removal: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I don't even care if he's right to remove any of that - the point is that he shouldn't exactly because the potential WP:BLPCOI throws doubt in the air and causes drama like this very COIN report. -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1: It's not a study. It's a rant about how all these oother people who aren't antivaxers have much nicer articles, and it's not fair boo hoo. 2: I have known about the article since it was written. 3: You "forgot" to mention that you have inserted references to this article despite being in a content dispute with me. COI, much? 4: You also "forgot" to mention that consensus was against including it. 5: BLPCOI refers to editing biographies to further a dispute. This is the exact opposite. Martin decided to take umbrage because I edited his article, not the other way round. None of the other articles are biographies. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had NO dispute with you - content or otherwise - and I wrote that article before you and I ever interacted (at least in recent memory). If you have diffs as proof, post something from BEFORE May 22 when I wrote the article or stop repeating this accusation. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted elsewhere recently, if we declared a COI every time a disgruntled individual took a pop at a named Wikipedia editor off-wiki, we would be giving carte blanche to crackpots to unilaterally decide who can edit articles. Sources should be assessed on their merits and per WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. Bias is universal, the only way Wikipedia maintains WP:NPOV is by using reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject under discussion - inclusion of Martin fails both in each case I found. By mentioning Martin you make the wider topic pretty close to impossible to discuss, as you'll see from Netoholic's response here. With the ongoing dispute, we can't discuss the other type of COI either, where editors create an article apparently in order to try to prove a point they are advancing in another dispute. All we can say at this point is that the result of Netoholic's attempts to write an article about how Wikipedia is ideologically biased, has resulted in a short but reasonably well sourced article essentially proving the opposite. So it goes. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 2 June 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.

    Ideological bias on Wikipedia 2

    We generally think about COI with respect to external interests -- things outside of WP.

    COI considerations get pretty house of mirrors crazy, pretty fast, with respect to this kind of navel-gazing page in WP, where it would seem that people who are here to advocate one ideology or another (or to downplay what they see as overemphasis on some ideology in WP) have an "interest" in how this page depicts "ideological bias" in WP.

    The line between considerations of COI per se, and considerations of WP:ADVOCACY, are pretty much obliterated.

    It is rather dismally forseeable that claims of "COI" will be tossed about on this page, now that the community has been through a deletion discussion and there was no consensus to keep it or delete it (AfD discussion), and this page will itself be cited in the context of content disputes.

    I have no idea how to even begin thinking in any kind of valid, rigorous way to consider COI management in Wikipedia with respect to this page. (COI is not a terrible thing, it just should be disclosed and managed).

    So - I am posting here for thoughts, in the hopes some principles could be established now at least with regard to:

    • is there any valid discussion to be had about "conflict of interest" on this page, and if so
    • what criteria would we use to say that "X has a COI with respect to this page"?

    -- Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Either every single Wikipedian has a COI in respect to all articles on criticism of Wikipedia, or none do. If someone's trying to include their Brand New Study funded by the Heartland Institute showing that Wikipedia is anti-American, that would undoubtedly be a COI, but nobody's doing that. The closest we have right now is writing an article to show how biased Wikipedia is when your edits are rejected. That's WP:POINT, not WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I kind of agree. I have thought about this a lot, and I cannot figure out a valid way to think about COI on these kind of navel-gazing pages, with the exception of the kind of SELFCITE issue you mention there. But I wanted to put this up for discussion. The community should obtain clarity on this. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need clarity on this? Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the mention of this at ANI, which is what brought me here. I also was active in the AfD discussion and am active at some other pages involving the same editors, so I have a feel for what is going on. I don't see much relationship to COI in this, and instead see it much more as an NPOV issue. To put it another way, if an editor is pushing an agenda but there is no obvious evidence of getting a benefit from doing so, aside from the potential benefit of getting their agenda into articles, then it's going to be hard to convince the community that there is a COI, but treating it as POV-pushing is the best way to deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a Catch-22 to say that only people without a COI can edit an article about Wikipedia, and anyone who edits an article about Wikipedia has a COI. So in a general sense, it is moot whether or not every editor has a COI in regard to articles about Wikipedia, as that would be unworkable. In regard to individual editors, if you are a significant editor on a topic that is being criticised in such an article, then you have more of a COI than others in regard to that topic, and that should be kept in mind (for example, if such an article discussed the criticism about Wikipedia's coverage of the Gamergate controversy, key editors of that article would have a COI, but possibly not a significant one and not one regarding Wikipedia in general). If it goes further, and articles critical of an individual editor's activities are published, then that editor has a clear COI in regard to that issue (or at least those articles), but would still be the same as other editors in regard to Wikipedia in general. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're better leaving COI as a more definite thing and NPOV is the problem to be dealt with here. People do get attached to things and many Wikipedia editors just don't like something which might be construed as a criticism of their work. Might I suggest in such a case they try renaming the topic so they can distance themselves a bit from it. For instance here one can think of the topic as 'Ideological bias on Topilos' and just substitute Topilos for Wikipedia whenever they see it. It is a simple trick but works well. Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restating jytdog's question: "should Ideological bias on Wikipedia be in the purview of COIN"? If it is, then other things like Wikipedia#Systemic bias are as well. By the way isn't it odd that such an important topic, and probably a superset topic, systemic bias, only rates a few paragraphs in another article but ideological bias has its own? Anyway, this could snowball quickly. My knee-jerk reaction is to say that a wider forum is probably appropriate for questions that touch on the entire community. But I'm waiting for other opinions to develop and be expressed here. Bri.public (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing the prior discussions some more, I'm with Tryptofish: this looks like a NPOV issue for someone deeply involved in the topic. In other words, an editor on the record as strongly anti-ideological-bias-editing has a POV to watch out for, not a conflict. Am more convinced now that it's not somewhere for COIN to go. Bri.public (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll leave this open a day or so more, but I don't expect any thing much different to arise, than what has been said already. The emerging consensus is that disputes on other pages about politics or ideologu does not constitute any kind of "COI" for this page but is rather an NPOV thing. This is sensible. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RAW artists

    The article has been edited by HLuerra - possibly Heidi Luerra the CEO of RAW, Conflict of interest. The article is written in a promotional tone. Lucymarie23 (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Layne

    Recently I posted a request at Talk:Ken Layne seeking an uninvolved editor to review a new draft of the article I've prepared on a paid COI basis for Mr. Layne. I've pinged a few editors who had previously made content-based edits to the article (including the individual who had approved the original version at AfC, which is very similar to the live one) and also at WT:BIO, but I have been unsuccessful finding anyone to comment. Per the advice of WP:COIEDIT, I thought to try here next. There's more explanation on the talk page about the situation, including a link to a draft showing how I used all of the sources in the new version. Would someone here be willing to give this a look? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Following up just to say, this has now been addressed. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbarmadillo

    Bbarmadillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing since November 2014. On 25 September 2017, Bri caught him making undisclosed paid edit through his Upwork account; Bbarmadillo claimed his good faith, and started listing his paid edits on his user page on 26 September—Rentier, DGG and Nagle said it was OK. Bbarmadillo then acted as a model paid editor. On 11-12 March 2018, he was involved in a tensed debate after accusing a user of harrassing him; he was criticized by some users, defended by others. After that event, Bbarmadillo only disclosed one other COI, on 14 April 2018. On 4 June 2018, he has thus disclosed a total of 14 paid edits.

    Meanwhile, his Upwork page lists 60 jobs. In April, he got around 10 jobs with "Wikipedia" in their description, or names like "post text", "update article", "create Company Page", "polish an article", etc. Since May though, the jobs he landed seem different; all are private, and Wikipedia is now nowhere to be seen: "Consultation" (×3), "Expert Writer", "Experienced Editor & Copy Writer", "Content expert", "Write PR content", etc. So, has Bbarmadillo completely stopped Wikipedia paid editing? Well, his catchphrase on Upwork remains "Wikipedia editor and consultant".

    One of those new jobs is particularly interesting: "Write PR content". Bbarmadillo got it along with an "article spell check" job in May 2018. As can be seen here, both those jobs were the only jobs created after February 2018 by Georg Kraus, a German entrepreneur with a history in paid cross-wiki spamming as show his first 5 Upwork assignements:

    1. "Wikipedia Spanish" in February 2016 > Spanish page created 2/29/2016
    2. "Wikipedia Professional" in February 2016 > Ukrainian page created on 3/1/2016
    3. "Wikipedia Professional" in March 2016 > Russian page created on 3/2/2016]
    4. "Wikipedia French" on 1 March 2016 > French page created on 3/6/2016.
    5. "Wikipedia Professional" in April 2016 > Japanese page created on 4/19/2016

    On 11 May 2018, the page Georg Kraus appeared on the English Wikipedia, created by Blwninja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As Kraus paid the Upwork accound linked to Bbarmadillo to create his page, I strongly suspect Blwninja and Bbarmadillo to be the same person.

    Also, Blwninja was a dormant account. The only time it had been used, on 3 May 2015, was to create another suspicious page: Aric Rindfleisch. That page has since then been periodically updated by mono-accounts, among them Nohemimimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Franciscopinheir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Kimnmai2803 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, on 24 March 2018, Almarifah1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    Un historien (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    interesting.Looking:)~ Winged BladesGodric 14:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I attended a presentation of Mr Aric Rindfleisch at University of Minho in Portugal.[7] That's when i found is Wikipedia page and contributed adding is picture. Best regards ~ Franciscopinheir 15:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.71.243 (talk) [reply]
    Looking back at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_120#Patrick_Sweeney_(entrepreneur), I looked at four of his articles, and suggested proposed deletion on one, AfD on one, and heavy cleanup on one. One of the four, Carl Fredrick Becker, about a deceased violin repair expert. looked OK.John Nagle (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Highstakes00 is back

    Or someone else who works the same. SPI pending. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That is second time in as many months that I have seen that Kaufman article. scope_creep (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Recordyear

    I became aware of Recordyear when they posted a request to my talk page for assistance with their subpages. By subpages, they appear to mean draft pages in user space, which are subpages of their user page. I tried asking what their questions were and got a vague answer. I expressed concerns about the promotional tone of Mom&Tot Box, and about the tone and grammatical person of RPA Engineering. I asked about conflict of interest, and got an answer that they are not being paid. However, the continuing presence of the first person plural, even after being questioned, even with the admission that all of the subpages are far from complete, makes me doubt that reassurance. I know that Kris Degioia has an “interesting” history with Wikipedia, but I note that that draft also has a promotional tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Important background at Krisdegioia SPI and Waffen77 SPI ☆ Bri (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuff here from blacklist ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    How is not haraasment to me? I’m finishing up my masters degree at UCLA. I DONT KNOW THESE PEOPLE. I’ll just do a simple copy and paste from my original response, as this is Ludacris as Ludicrous name itself. what am am I supposed to do about this? I don’t know the protocol. I’m being accused of a conflict of interest and being paid for articles by a person I asked for help about sub pages with? If I was being paid for writing an article wouldn’t it be well written articles? Not questionable ones? It’s pretty much common sense here. While researching for my thesis I found more technology companies that deserve to be on here, that are not, then I can count. I started by looking at the biggest companies with robotics. Did some digging and found out there was a lot more interesting things about these firms. I thought if I could learn the platform and EVENTUALLY over time put all the pieces together for an article then it was a win, win for me. I do believe that the fact the the person that does their marketing is on Wikipedia’s hall of shame is tha very fact as to why I’m having to waste time on even writing out this accusation. I didn’t hire Degioia for my marketing. I Had never heard of her until I looked into these robotics companies. She was linked to 12 out of 15 companies, so yes I also made base articles, never once did I state I was going to publish any of them. Leave me out of this which hunt and let me finish what I came here for, or don’t. I will not be apart of ridiculous accusations, I’m simply doing my finial thesis for my masters degree. I don’t know what this person has against me but again it’s clear the only mistake I made was asking the wrong person for help. Stop harassing me and accusing me and MOVE ON. Recordyear 23:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordyear (talk • contribs)

    It is not clear to me who is said to be harassing whom, or why. I became aware of Recordyear when they asked me for help with "subpages". I had assumed that they were a native user of English. If so, I would have expected that they would know that the RPA Engineering draft is written in the first person plural, which either means that Recordyear does know these people and is one of them, or that Recordyear has been given a draft by RPA that was written by RPA, or, if Recordyear really doesn't know RPA, that Recordyear simply copied language from RPA's brochure or website. I don't know anything about Mom&Tot Box, except that their draft reads promotionally. I don't know much about Kris Degioia and haven't studied the history. I do know the first person plural in English when I see it. Just saying that the RPA draft is incomplete and not ready for article space doesn't explain why it is in the first person plural. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack from Recordyear directed at opening party

    It is more then apparent what you are attempting to do, or you are just blind and do not know how to read responses. You are lying. I did respond to you in depth. I will copy and past again a different response to you. “I’m not a writer, I am a programmer. Writing is not my strong suit. I’m using Wikipedia as my theisis. While conducting research for my thesis, I was using Wikipedia for it. I learned that Wikipedia is made by everyone, and Wikipedia also helps new people. It has been stated in many articles that you do not need to be an experienced Wikipedian to create an article. I’m trying to learn this platform, learn from the people that have been around on here, just like it states all over the World Wide Web. I’m sorry my writing doesn’t meet your standards or makes you assume something totally off base. This wasn’t about how I wrote articles it was finding more about the platform. I did not assume that by asking what would seem a basic question would cause such criticism and ridiculous accusations. Thanks for your time, and thanks for the non help at the very topic I asked you on. I now have more then what I need and I don’t require your help. My only mistake here is picking the wrong person for help. Recordyear 5:43 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)” so stop lying and leave me alone. I have more important things to do with my time to have to deal with someone on an ego trip. Get a life dude and leave me out of your lame, stupid DRAMA. Recordyear 00:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordyear (talk • contribs)

    • well RecordYear has been blocked for 5 days for PAs which was... generous. Noting that...
    the website for RPA was designed by.. Kris Degioia.
    the CEO of Mom&Tot Box is... Kris Kegioia.
    Kris Degioia LLC is.. well i don't need to say that.
    Havent't found a connection yet with Accuray, but those three, hm. The protests ring hollow to me. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jytdog - Well, it was 60 hours, which is half of five days. Newbie paid editors often make hollow unconvincing protests about who they are and how they are only editing what interests them and so on. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes you are right, 2.5 days. brainfart for me sorry.Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    GraceComms

    GraceComms has exclusively edited the Ellansé draft. Ellansé is a biomedical product produced by Sinclair Pharma.[1] There is a company in London named Grace Communications which claims to represent Sinclair Pharma.[2] If there's any doubt that this article is being created specifically as a paid contribution, the present version includes the statement "[client to confirm]" regarding the "External links" section. I have tried on several occasions to get this user to add the required paid contributions disclosure, to no avail. I believe administrative action should now be taken. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Ellansé". Sinclair Pharma. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
    2. ^ "Grace Communications".

    This article is being edited extensively by a communications staffer of the organization. I left messages informing this user of our COI policies and guidelines in both March and May, but the user never responded. The user is back today with more organization-promoting content. What's the next step in a situation like this, when a COI editor has been warned but has chosen not to respond? Marquardtika (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Scour the article and remove any promotional/poorly-sourced material. I have left a {{uw-paid1}} warning, as he is required to disclose paid edits per WP:PAID. If that is ignored, then escalated sanctions can be imposed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He has now made a disclosure on his userpage. Still going over the finer points of what constitutes a paid editor with him. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Simona Weinglass

    Just a note for all of the folks who spent time working on Binary options and associated articles. Times of Israel’s Weinglass wins reporting honor for binary options exposé reports that Simona was awarded honorable mention in 2018 international Trace Prize for Investigative Reporting presented at the Newseum in DC. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mar11 reviews

    I've just revoked the page reviewer right from Mar11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I suspect that they are being paid to review UPE or are a sockmaster. I suspect it might be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mamadoutadioukone/Archive but can't be sure yet. We already have a case open for them and I can't see any links to those articles. Here are some of the affected articles, but there will be more in Special:Log/Mar11:

    SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Looking at the timings on handful of articles, this is a sockfarm rather than someone being paid to review UPE. We have reviews being carried out one minute after page creation, which points towards socking rather than a reviewer being paid off. SPI would be a good next step. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked for some of the more recent one's to be CUd already (privately), prior to noticing the connection to Mar11. We may as well wait and see what that turns up first. SmartSE (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, didn't see this comment until too late, but I created a SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11 going up to 90 days- is that the magic number after which data goes stale? I can't remember. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Just noticed the CU I asked is busy atm anyway so we may as well start there. And yes 90 days. SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something about this case is very strange. Why are US static IPs involved at Otsimo for instance [8][9]? I guess we'll know more when the CU does their stuff. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved a number of the articles listed above to the draftspace (where I will be watching them), as this normally takes care of SPAs. From what I have seen so far, the articles in question all follow a succinct pattern. First, the SPA joins the project and adds a random template to generate their talk page, then creates a new article (complete and well formatted, but missing some small details like categories) with a single edit. Soon after, Mar11 arrives and tags the article with maintenance templates. Per Special:Log/Mar11, Mar11 was drawn to a select few new articles, the majority of which were created by the SPAs they are linked to; this is very suspicious given the layout of the new page log, which encourages reviewers to review multiple articles in succession. Finally, the SPA would fix the article, and Mar11 or another SPA would remove the article's maintenance tags. Through this process, Mar11 was able to create decent-quality, reviewed articles that were only ever edited extensively by himself and a particular SPA; due to their status as a new page reviewer, Mar11's 'reviewed' marks made it much less likely for more stringent new page patrollers to ever have to opportunity to review the SPA-created articles, effectively cloistering them and allowing for Mar11 to edit without interruption. Should the allegations of them being a sockmaster prove true (I am of the opinion that they are, but waiting for the SPI to conclude is advisable), then Mar11 has been leading a successful native advertising campaign on Wikipedia and his work should be judged accordingly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've added some more but only so far back as 10 Feb this year. @Jcc and SamHolt6: It's my fault for not saying, but in cases like this it's best not to note the patterns of editing in public unless it's completely necessary. There are plenty of private discussions going which you're welcome to join if you drop me an email. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I quarantined all the pages created by the confirmed socks, with the exception of Payment21 which I deleted under the authority of WP:GS/Crypto. I also added one article accepted from AFC. MER-C 15:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a notification of this discussion at WT:NPP/R#Sock-puppetry and possible undisclosed paid editing by a new page reviewer. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We should also look at his AfC submissions/reviews, though there's not many:
    – Joe (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think the list above is complete now. SmartSE (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a comment on the quality of Mar11's AfC creations since they are listed above. Rajiv Kumar (economist) looks fine. The Brian Tracy article seems promotional but might have to be reviewed in detail to see if he's notable. The Application strings manager article looks to me like a made-up concept that isn't really sourced from the indicated sources. E.g. reference 4 does not contain the words 'string' or 'strings'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NY Medical Marketing and Yempl

    SEO/medical marketing outfits

    several of these sites say, (example) "Copyright Brooklyn GYN Place, Website & SEO by NYMM, Yempl Team"

    users
    spammed sites
    affected pages
    other spammed sites found along the way

    I checked all the links above and didn't find any more.

    I went and checked who the clients of nymedicalmarketing and yempl are, using a backlink finder. Other clients:

    I found one instance and removed it. Seems like just those accounts. Will bring them to SPI so we have that thread started there. Am wondering if we should blacklist the spammed sites and their other clients' sites. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There was this old native advertising sockfarm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boskit190) that also dabbled in these links. Blacklisted everything. MER-C 19:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Need a couple of examples of UPE operations, preferably shameless

    I've been asked by a reporter for a couple of good examples of UPE operations we've rooted out, ideally ones where the parent organization was advertising off-Wiki for their services. Suggestions? Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Orangemike: It's very rare that we make any conclusive links between real-world identities and UPE sockfarms. There's a long list of users identified through SPIs here. Earflaps was one of the more shameless editors IMO and unlike the majority of UPE was almost certainly US-based. SmartSE (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and there's WP:PAIDLIST. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277 was, presumably still is, a bad one. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Biografix and American civil servants and political appointees

    Biografix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I suspect that this user is engaged in undeclared paid editing on articles of primarily Republican/US conservative bureaucrats, civil servants, and political apointees that can be described in my view as the DC-D-list. Most of them aren't notable and are mid-level administrators, but you have several that could be notable in there as well. The articles are written in a promotional tone and show signs of undeclared paid editing. The name of the account also suggests it is here to "fix" biographies for these figures. Listing the articles here. I suggest a block of this account for spamming in violation of local policy, but want to get thoughts of others first. The list of articles is here.

    Review of the articles and thoughts on a block would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reviewed their talk page and contribs, and don't see where they have been asked or have replied. Some paid editors come to WP and just don'tknow about the PAID policy and COI management process. I will post on their talk page to ask them. In the meantime yes the pages should be reverted reviewed for their compliance with the content policies. Thanks for bringing this! Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (bad mistake, fingers. fix your clumsy mistake Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    My concern is less with UPE than with advertising and promotion of what amounts to a bunch of relatively minor administrative figures. The deceleration is important, yes, but it is not an end in itself: the purpose is to help identify problematic content, which is what we have here. In most cases, it doesn’t factor into my decision to block or not: most blocks should be handled through the local policy on advertising and promotion, which I’m fairly confident they are in repeated violation of. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernie44

    Advertisement Article created in mainspace by correctly-disclosed paid editor. It's a puff-piece for the owner of Juice Generation – which is another puff-piece by the same paid editor. I redirected it to that page, and did so again after that was reverted. Bernie44 seems incapable of understanding that he is strongly discouraged from editing in mainspace, and that discouragement often takes the form of reversion or removal of the COI edits. What other forms of discouragement are available to us here? – I'm certainly not going to edit-war over it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Justlettersandnumbers, blocked for advertising. As per my comments above, disclosure is not exemption from following WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, I saw – and I agree. I've no idea why we tolerate paid editing at all, but there's a world of difference between a paid editor who makes appropriate talk-page requests (OK, I know that's pretty rare!) and one who just carries on as if the guidelines didn't apply to him at all. Thanks for the prompt response, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. While paid editing is allowed, paid editors should not be given undue leeway by volunteer editors. For example, I have twice had to move the article at Ryan Cohen back to the draftspace after Bernie44 moved it to the main article space in the face of the WP:PAID requirement that editors with a conflict of interest submit their articles through AfC. I left a note ([10]) on Bernie's talkpage requesting he send his article through AfC, and yet they chose to themselves move the article back to the mainspace anyway. Looking through their archive, Bernie44 has been a fairly productive and cooperative paid editor since 2012, but they have been made aware of paid editing policy multiple times, and were explicitly directed to WP:PAID at User_talk:Bernie44/Archive_4#Paid_editing_in_Wikipedia; with this being put forward, I support Bernie's block as they have been shown to lack the competency to follow paid editing policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've received (via email) a courteous and complete apology from Bernie44 for his actions at Eric Helms – thank you for that, Bernie! However, I've also started looking at some other edits by this user, and am not much reassured by what I see; there may be a good deal of clean-up to be done. What I've noticed so far:
    • Paid articles created directly in mainspace with appropriate disclosure but in direct violation of our guidelines, such as DTV Shredder – how many of these are there, and what should be done about them?
    • blatant undisclosed paid editing, for example at Ben Gulak (one of the owners of the above shredder, and thus one of those who paid Bernie to promote it here), or at Chewy (company), owned by Draft:Ryan Cohen whose biography Bernie was paid to write
    • pages that seem likely to be UPE, such as Diane Tuft – complete with Flickr-washed image (note: that's a different project, but I'm particularly perturbed by the idea that it could ever be "easier" to steal someone's intellectual property, and make Wikimedia a party to that theft, rather than go through the proper process)
    I'm inclined to think that a systematic review of all his edits may be needed. Any thoughts on that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    has shown up as you can see in their contribs. The account appeared just as Bernie44's edits were starting to be contested, as this account has concentrated on two paid products of Bernie44, Chewy and the founder of Chewy, Draft:Ryan Cohen where Godrestsinreason contested speedy deletion of Ryan Cohen before it was draftifed. They also argued for unblocking Bernie44. I asked Godrestsinreason to disclose any connection to Bernie44 and they said I have no connection to Bernie. I started the account to talk about things I know about. Chewy, the company, Steven Universe, and the WWE..... At their talk page, I asked them to disclose any connection they have to Chewy, and they gave nonspecific answers. diff, diff, diff. There is some vanishingly small chance that this person is not connected to Bernie44 or to Chewy, but since the discussion is going no where I am posting here. I have also filed at SPI. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've offered proof multiple times, and have attempted to ward off baseless attacks and accusations from this user, as well as a bogus edit war warning on my talk page when my reverts to the page don't merit it. I've made sparse edits to Wikipedia in general, and have only come across the user Bernie44 in order to make adjustments to the Chewy page. I'm not sure what information is needed of me, but at this point, I've been dragged into this user's personal vendetta against another user, as well as what appears to be paid editing in general, all simply because I happened to be around the Chewy page, and contested what I believe to be an overly harsh edit blocking of another user. Everything I know about Wikipedia is that you can create pages and make edits as needed to a page, so long as the information is relevant and properly sourced. I saw a 7-year contributor to the website be permanently blocked over a single revert by this user, who is now also attempting to drag me through the mud, also for a single edit. This user has acted in bad faith, made baseless attacks, made accusations of COI/sockpuppeting, and is all-in-all not behaving in a way that's constructive to the continuation of this encyclopedia. I'm still brand new, and all of this is very overwhelming, but I don't know where to contest talk page warnings, nor do I know where to settle disputes in regard to what I feel are bogus warnings on my talk page. This is a huge red flag on my brand new account which I would like removed as I feel they're inappropriate, and I feel that this user should be reprimanded for wasting time on this. As for this section, what information needs to be provided in order to have my name cleared? Godrestsinreason (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Bernie44 pages

    disclosed paid editing that need review and check for talk page tags

    Bernie44 disclosed additional pages not listed on their userpage:

    In addition, the following ~look like~ paid editing but are not their userpage nor in that list:

    --That's all for now. I am out of time. The pages disclosed on their user page also need to be reviewed, as he has been editing those directly. Big load of work. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirEdimon

    Another native advertising sockfarm, see User talk:SirEdimon#April 2018.

    The football bios and films should be OK. What's really concerning here is the promotion of initial coin offerings, but fortunately I can use WP:GS/Crypto to summarily delete these. MER-C 09:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cuty Pie Sweetu

    In January 2018 I have filed an COI-case. The discussion solved nothing and no reply to this case ever came from Cuty Pie Sweetu, nor here, nor on her(?) user page or talk page. The only thing that changed was that now she sometimes add related sources to her talk page as explanation and claimed them to be valid sources.

    I am afraid that she also falls foul of WP:CIR, with edits like this. With more than 500 edits on her name, it should be expected that the editor masters the art of adding sources.

    She still only edits articles related to the three companies mentioned in the lead. There is still no disclosures of any COI from Cuty Pie Sweetu, although her editing makes clear that there is a COI.

    This goes on and on, without any sign of improvement or useful response. The Banner talk 12:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Corey Parker (actor)

    I blocked Coreyparker11 pending identity confirmation via OTRS, and added autobiography and BLP sources templates to the page, only for Ohayo65 to pop up and remove them. Some more eyes on the article content would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is WP:TNT case, it is utterly rank. I removed some heavy puff for the lede, but more could come out. It is a webhost case. The guy is notable, Ive heard the name, but the article has never been good. I doubt there will be disclosure; It could a fan(s) job. Well see. scope_creep (talk)

    Dominic Lam (physician)

    I'm not sure if this is the right venue, so if there are other more appropriate places, feel free to point me to them. This article was created by Cigarettesmoking in 2010. This editor later said here that much of the information was provided by the subject himself and not verifiable. The IP editor then turned it into a puff piece at the request of the subject here. Most recently Polyduo has been editing the article. After being asked multiple times, Polyduo has stated here that they have no connection to Lam, however the uploading of multiple personal photos as Polyduo's own work raised questions for me that have still not been untangled. I have gone through the article today and it was full of all kinds of unverifiable claims, including to awards that do not seem to exist, however there are multiple sources online making the same claims, all of which seem to trace back to the subject himself. There were questions raised on the talk page back in 2011 as to whether this is some kind of elaborate off-wiki hoax. Can someone else take a look and maybe suggest how best to proceed here? Melcous (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Everette Taylor

    Was alerted by a re-creation of Everette Taylor, which had a CSD A7 speedy deletion on 6 August 2017. All of these 7 articles were started by this editor and look like paid editing. User has been warned about COI/paid editing on 7 June and again today. Edwardx (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=845386994"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy