Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 163

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163Archive 164Archive 165→Archive 170

Greghenderson2006

Editor was warned about COI seven years ago and posted a generic notice to their user page, to the effect of "I am making pages about my family". Here is a very low quality memorial-type page that they pushed to article space on Patricia Ford Crass,which includes a list of workshops that the subject did, and a section for their travels. Greghenderson2006's user page lists Patricia Ford as their mother. They have apparently made numerous other pages on family members, so these may need to be checked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The editor lists Alexander Henderson as their father on their user page, so I am adding the three Alexander D. Henderson pages that they have edited. This is reminding me a bit of the Mitzi.humphrey family memorial efforts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, they have been adding various forms of this link, which the user lists on their user page as their own site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, there's quite a lot at [1]
It's perhaps worth noting that the editor in question makes exaggerated claims about his subjects, such as that Cary S. Cox is "best known for inventing the ... the cotton gin ". (His patent is from 1928, Eli Whitney patented the first modern cotton gin in 1794) Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vexations: I have removed all mentions of hendersonfamilytree.com as a) it was published by the editor who added it. Not a reliable source or appropriate EL. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Another one of these cases. My hand is currently not on the block button, but it twitches closer and closer as I note how almost everything he has contributed is connected in some way to his family (List of Pilot boats? Oh, that looks okay...wait a second, why's this Joseph Henderson linked everywhere...?). There do appear to be some unrelated pages in his contribs, though, and I don't think this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. I will give him some time to explain himself here. I also recommend that those experienced in image licensing take a look at his Commons uploads, I've already see a few doubtful "own work" cases. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: maybe you could speak to this user on their talk to encourage them to discuss here? They are ignoring requests to stop editing the family-related pages: today's edits. I agree they have made some positive contribs in the past, but they seem dead set on ignoring basic COI principles and continuing to promote the family.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur with ThatMontrealIP that this COI case is similar to the mitzi.humphrey case. (Which took a long time to clean up). I looked through Greghenderson2006's edit history and it seems that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to use Wikipedia as a vanity press, a means to blatantly celebrate and promote his family genealogy/ancestry. It seems that virtually all the articles he's created are about members of his family or their business activities. Netherzone (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. See their newest creation Carmel Art Association.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The user in quesiton has added a COI declaration with articles, but it is still unclear as to whether these are all the articles. They still do not seem to understand that their editing has created a lot of work for other editors who now have to go through and check each of the articles on family members that they edited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I have looked through a number of this editor's articles and they contain excessive quotes from obituaries and trivial mentions which make them read much more like memorials than encyclopaedia articles. I've made edits to several but they will need a lot more careful scrutiny. Melcous (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
OK I found the COIN page. You guys are doing your job and I appreciate this. I have been creating Wikipedia pages for many years have loved it! However, in the last two days, you have laid into me with messages and warnings. I am slowly getting it. I can of course improve the pages, but not sure what to do here with so many messages of COI and possible deletions. I thought Wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals, and Developers of Airparks, Patents, companies, etc. When I write a Wikipedia article, I try to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work. I have signed a COI Declaration on my user page. What can I do to improve the articles and repair this relationship? Greg Henderson(talk)
Greghenderson2006 it seems a bit disingenuous to say you "thought wikipedia was a place to add information on important subjects like Sandy Hook Pilots, Attorney Generals" etc when the vast majority of your edits here have not been to do that, but to create and maintain articles about your family members. What you can do? The first step is pretty simple: agree to stop editing articles on topics connected to your family members. Melcous (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
And please, Greghenderson2006 stop WP:SPAM spamming the External Links sections of articles with links that go to an Amazon.com sales page to your own self-published book. Wikipedia is not a place to try to sell your "book". Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Netherzone:, I agree it's a good chance of WP:NOTHERE situation. Have a look at his edits on Pilot boat which involves inserting Henderson mixed with buffer to make it less obvious. Disclosing his COI isn't a pass to make edits for the purpose of inserting things to show his ancestors name visibility Graywalls (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Greghenderson2006: thank you for your post above. The reason that we are concerned about your edits is that we don't allow substantial content editing of articles by those who are directly related to the articles.
@Graywalls:, I saw that also - and there was another boat article with 14 mentions of one of his relatives that I saw you cleaned up. Even the articles that seem unrelated, when you look through them up pops another COI entry. This category he created on Commons says it all.[2] All roads lead to you know who. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I see you have asked about adding sources at Cary S. Cox. As long as these are independent sources, doing so is fine in my view' the COI policy allows involved editors to make minor non-controversial factual corrections or small additions to the article. You should keep in mind that anything that looks like promotion of your family is probably not a non-controversial item. Any significant changes need to be proposed on the talk page, usually through the WP:REQUESTEDIT process.
What is not OK is creating articles about your family members, pushing them to article space and then continuing to edit them for years. If you want to write articles about family members you can do that via WP:AFC, where the article will be reviewed by an independent editor.
Similarly not OK is adding links to books that you have published, unless it was an independent publisher and you add the links very judiciously. The same goes for the family history website that you operate: we are not interested as you are publishing your own material, and ostensibly could be seen to be promoting it via Wikipedia.
To sum up, the advice here is that you have to stop directly editing articles on your family unless the edits are very minor. Larger edits need to be discussed or approved via Requestedit. New articles on family members need to go through AFC. Does that all make sense? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP Yes, it makes sense. I appreciate the time you have made to educate me on these issues. I will follow the above advice. Greg Henderson(talk)
Thanks, that is all we needed to hear. It is all about keeping the encyclopedia neutral. We appreciate your future adherence to the policies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The disclosure on his user page needs to be clearer and articles by listing articles with COI separately from generic my articles listing. Also, I feel like the anchor text on his user page is more along the line of use of Wikipedia for webhosting and brushing up against WP:NOTAWEBHOST policy. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point,t he user should have a list on their user page of articles for which they have a COI with. That would be "best practice".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Special:Diff/947316726 This insertion about Henderson related stuff into the generic article perfume is also a COI concern. This Special:Diff/828212184 one is also inappropriate. Graywalls (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am starting to think this user should be blocked:

  • They have not given us a listing of COI articles on their user page, despite what seems like 20 warnings; See the numerous reuests just above this. They do say "I have a conflict of interest in many of my Wikipedia articles." but it is up to us to find the ones they have a COI on.
  • They !vote at AFD without disclosing their COI while !voting.
  • Same thing at [the Carmel Art Association AfD], where they edit comment is "My vote is to keep it" and does not mention COI anywhere. Mentioning COI is important for editors unfamiliar with the COI saga.
  • Same thing at the AFD for Cary S Cox: no disclosure for unfamiliar editors or admin closers.
  • Ten days after this thread started, they've admitted they are a connected contributor on Carmel Valley Airport by adding the tag.
  • I just found another article, William_Helm which is obvious COI, but they have not listed it on their user page as a COI article, and haven't tagged the page as connected contributor. At one point they did seek an OTRS release for some of the content, which was copied from their family history web site, so they clearly have a COI.
In short, they have been using Wikipedia to promote their family for years, and now that we have figured that out, they are not being straight up about their COI in talk page discussions and have stonewalled very clear requests for disclosure. The user is WP:NOTHERE. Pinging GeneralNotability for their opinion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, ugh...I agree with your assessment that they haven't been forthcoming following the previous discussion and that they're pretty much only here to write about family history, but I know I can be quick on the block trigger so I'd rather another admin review and block if needed in this case. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Newslinger: I know this is a long thread. Still, if you have time: I wonder if you could please share your thoughts about blocking or banning Greghenderson. —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Unforgettableid, while conflict-of-interest editing is discouraged on Wikipedia, it is tolerated when there is no undisclosed paid editing involved, and the editor does not violate other policies/guidelines to carry out their edits. Now that Greghenderson2006 has begun disclosing their conflict of interest on their userpage and on talk pages of affected articles (e.g. Talk:Emile Kellogg Boisot), as well as using edit requests, I think the conflict of interest issue is mostly under control. As some of the articles created by Greghenderson2006 had survived deletion, e.g. Joseph Henderson (pilot) (AfD), Henri Vincent-Anglade (AfD), and Ellwood Walter (businessman) (AfD), I do not think there is a strong enough reason to block Greghenderson2006 under WP:NOTHERE. For comparison, disclosed paid editors who do everything Greghenderson2006 does (on top of receiving payment) do not get blocked under WP:NOTHERE, so for consistency, I am not able justify blocking Greghenderson2006 when they appear to be trying to comply with our conflict of interest disclosure recommendations. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I also see the user's pattern supports the assessment he is WP:NOTHERE to build the enclopedia, but here with an agenda to make articles and insert contents about those that relate to his own family. His disclosure looks deliberately vague and no kind of disclosure is a pass to increase the prominence of a particular group for their own purpose. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I am in agreement that their contributions indicate WP:NOTHERE. Aside from the obvious COI articles, when I've looked through his edit history of contributions that seem to be unrelated, such as Brooklyn Bridge, Garden State Cemetery, Statue of Liberty, etc. only to find that his edits amount to adding info about a family relative, and do not contribute to the overall quality of the article. I've cleaned up this trivia on multiple articles, as have several other editors. Citations are often low quality, linking to Familysearch.com, his personal family website, or his self-published books or publications. He has been editing since 2007, but still seems unfamiliar with (or disinterested in) our basic policies and guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed Brooklyn Bridge, and Statue of Liberty and removed his contribution after seeing the relative insignificance, promotional language and apparent COI intentions. There has been the use of non-neutral phrase like "Joseph Henderson, a harbor pilot regarded as one of the most experienced and trustworthy of New York's Sandy Hook Pilots" in multiple articles, inserted by the editor in question. It shares the editing pattern of covert COI similar to Mitzi.humphrey case mentioned earlier that prevents other editors from noticing unless they're looking for it. Graywalls (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability:, I think it's most appropriate to bar him from editing on anything related to his family, or addition of any contents even abstractly related to his family is perfectly reasonable. He could still pursue his interest in genealogy in something that is unrelated to Henderson, Cox, Ford, and whatever that does not remotely relate to his own ancestry. Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a ban or block is the only way we are going to prevent the Henderson promotional memorial editing here. I had a discussion with them on their talk page today where they refused to provide a list of articles they have COI with, just saying that it was most of them. Then they added a connected contributor tag to Archibald Murray Campbell, and promptly added a source along with some puffery "he was one of the richest (physicians)", which is plain old family promotion. They also marked the edit as minor, with the summary "m (Minor addition of citation requested." This editor's refusal to play by the rules is getting to be a royal pain in the something or other. They just do not get it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, that a ban or block is in order, unfortunately, I don't see any other way to deal with this situation. I have never suggested blocking or banning before, so I did not come to this conclusion impulsively. He continues to edit articles with which he has a COI. He has not disclosed on his talk page all of the articles that he has a COI with, just a smattering. 95% of his edits are connected to his family, their businesses, associated businesses and landmarks, he is solely here to promote his family legacy and ancestry. WP:NOTHERE. He has failed to reveal his COI in AfD discussions. He does not seem to want to abide by policy/guidelines, and has not been listening to the recommendations that several other editors have made to him. He has been given substantial time to mend his ways, as his first warning was in 2013, seven years ago. His COI editing has increased dramatically since then, and it is wasting the time of many editors. Netherzone (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 Comment: I would like to say thank you for your concern. I understand you are doing what you think is the best to make Wikipedia the best! In my defense, I would like to say I have learned a lot about editing in the several years, especially in the last two months! You guys are good about pointing out what people are doing wrong. I have done the following to comply and not be WP:NOTHERE.
  1. I have listed COI articles on my user page
  2. I forgot to add my COI on AFD pages, but will do so in the future
  3. I’ve added the COI tag on the William Helm article
  4. I avoid writing about family ancestors, see recent article Richard Brown (pilot)
  5. I intend to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to WP:NPOV, and having other editors review my work.
Thanks for your understanding and assistance. --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Greghenderson2006: thanks for cleaning up the COI concerns. You have indeed done some good editing on Wiki. I think you will find that the more you concentrate on topics unrelated to your family the less trouble you will run into, and the more respect you will gain, as an editor in the community. It's all about the neutrality. Thanks for moving in that direction. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
further concerns @Netherzone and Greghenderson2006: The user who is the subject of complaints have been active in this discussion, so I'm making a presumption of awareness. Per WP:AGF, we're not expected to assume good faith without limitations. Netherzone shared their concern on July 22 2020 about the subject failing to disclose COI upfront in AfDs. Despite this, they've done it again in the Archibald Murray Campbell discussion and kept silent on COI until I asked him about it. He took the Campbell article to Article Rescue Squadron without disclosing it even though expectations are clearly shown in ARS instructions. Special:Diff/972949471. This was AFTER he indicated on what he will do to rectify the situations just above this comment. I think this is a refusal to get a point situation as well as WP:NOTHERE and dealing with his articles have been time consuming for multiple editors. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Greghenderson2006 still has not listed all of his COI articles on his user page. I've tagged a few of these with COI templates on the articles themselves. Netherzone (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Netherzone and ThatMontrealIP:, something I just caught on is that in the article William Helm, it's significantly made up with copy-and-paste contents from that self-published hendersonfamilytree website. So this edit removes the website from being exhibited in the article space, the concern with this type of "copyright donation" of personal website contents is that it imparts the point of view of the website. [3]. The release that's in the talk page addresses the copyright issue, but it leaves the concern that the article's purpose is to essentially be a quasi-mirror of the contents from that website.
Tirey L. Ford which is also another quasi-mirror of stuff from Henderson site onto Wikipedia. That docx is linked from http://www.hendersonfamilytree.com/
Girard Henderson
While I'm comparing the results from a copyright violation check tool, I'm using it to show the pattern of substantial mirroring of sections of his website/book onto Wikipedia, thus using Wikipedia as a respository. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Henderson (pilot)

So the user corrected the copyright issues, but the fact that it's essentially a copypasta from his self published family tree] site, including the selection of direct quotes from sources imparts a POV bias and WP:RS issues within the source. In at least one particle that was substantially based on copypasta from his WP:SPS have had accuracy issues too. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Desktop.com

This particular editor, Sirllamadk, along with Desktopdotcom (now blocked), appears to have no other edits, apart from this article. Infogapp1 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Infogapp1: At the top of this page (admittedly in a sea of text) is "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue..." Please can you link to such a discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Hiya, apologies as I missed that indeed. Feel free to archive this particular thread, thanks. --Infogapp1 (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

NetJets (again)

Page semi-protected. – Joe (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

These IP addresses have a pattern of editing the NetJets article. A quick WHOIS will show that these IP addresses belong to NetJets. KD5TVI (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice that this pattern includes deleting the entire "Incidents and accidents" section, a section that is standard to all airline articles. I suggest that requesting semi-protection so that COI editors are encourages to use the talk page may be the correct remedy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an earlier (unactioned) request at ANI. I agree with the above and have semi-protected the article for a year. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SmartSE! KD5TVI (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
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.

Richard Uihlein

Most of the accounts blocked at SPI. Semi-protection seemed to do the trick but the problems resumed after it expired, so I've made it indefinite. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

There are several new accounts who are all edit-warring out reliably sourced content about Uihlien. They are very likely the same individual and are very likely affiliated with Uihlien. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Those accounts just need some checkuser.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I have opened an SPI; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticalHistoryProfessor. Neutralitytalk 01:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It's been 5 days since I posted on this board. In the five days since, it seems pretty clear that there's a concerted PR effort going on at the page, with a large number of new accounts popping up to do virtually the same edits. The SPI failed to show that some of the accounts were the same, which indicates coordination to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

American Descendants of Slavery

Blocked by GeneralNotability. – Joe (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

His talk page makes it clear that he is one of the co-founders of the organisation/movement. However, he is going to WP:DRN and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests without declaring his COI despite my asking him some while ago to comply. He's also making significant changes to the article in a sentence about himself.[4] Doug Weller talk 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The user refers to American Descendants of Slavery as "our movement" in this talk page diff. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 20:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Geoffrey Berman

WP:SPA. User was asked, understandably, whether there was a conflict of interest back in 2018. There's never been a response. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising that there was no response, given that the 2018 question was phrased as "Do you have a personal or professional connection to Geoffrey Berman? If so, I urge you to review our policies regarding conflicts of interest.". Do you have any evidence of CoI editing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at the edit history. It's exceedingly rare for a long term interest in a WP:BLP, with no edits to any other subjects, that is not the work of a COI account. If that's deemed to lean too heavily on appearances, okay. But it sends up a red flag for me, and I hoped for a few more eyes. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If our policies allow COI editors to evade or sidestep those policies simply by ignoring questions about potential COIs then the policies have a massive hole that needs to be filled. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
You have no evidence that the question was "side-stepped". It was - as I note above - phrased as "[If you have a CoI], review the policies". They may well have done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The appearance of a conflict of interest is often enough to bring something to this noticeboard; evidence is good, and at least some is necessary, but a complete picture is not always available. In this case the evidence is that the editor has made about 80 edits to the article, to the exclusion of other topics, over the last 20 months or so. They've also ignored requests to clarify if they have a COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
What "requests to clarify"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: read up higher in the thread. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd already read the entire thread when I asked the question. I repeat: What "requests to clarify"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
You must have missed it, it's plainly stated above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Then you won't have any trouble citing it precisely, will you? Unless, of course, you're over-egging something that doesn't say what you claim it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I am not sure what you are trying to draw attention to. The user Ausaausa was asked if they had a COI last year. Result: no answer. They were then advised of this COIN discussion last week. Result: no answer. That makes two requests to clarify their involvement with the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
As I've recently highlighted ("You must have missed it, it's plainly stated above"), the former was phrased as an exhortation to "review the policies". The latter points them to this discussion, but does not ask them to clarify anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: is there any point to your nitpicking on this noticeboard? I'm trying to see one, but having a hard time discerning any constructive intent.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
This editor continues to exclusively edit the article in question without responding to any messages on his or her Talk page or participating in this discussion. Is that sufficient to warrant a block or are we establishing the precedent that potential COI editors can simply ignore questions from other editors and continue to engage in behavior that raises clear COI concerns? ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear ElKevbo: I've templated the editor with {{uw-paid1}}. If the editor fails to reply to the template before editing further, this doesn't look good on them, and they may be a promotion-only account. Please see WP:SPA. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ollimania

The articles related to Diederiekje Bok and Hein Mevissen, founders of John Doe Amsterdam advertising agency and children's authors, need a cleanup of promotional content. The articles on Bok and Mevissen were deleted from nl wiki as promotional. Joostwijnberg's (active from May 2012) and Hanswillemsen's (active Jan and Feb 2012) editing histories almost exclusively involve articles connected to Bok or Mevissen and one of them is the starter and the largest contributor for all the articles listed except "John's Phone". Their editing focus in nl wiki and commons is similar. TSventon (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear TSventon: User:Hanswillemsen has been inactive for years, so we need not do anything. I've templated User:Joostwijnberg with {{uw-paid1}}, which demands that Joost not make any further edits before replying. I think G11, PROD, and/or AfD would probably be a good way for us to deal with a lot of the created articles; I'll leave that to you. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Melcous, thank you for removing some of the promotional material.
Unforgettableid, thank you for templating User:Joostwijnberg, hopefully they will respond before they edit again, but that might not be for a few months. I stated in my post that User:Hanswillemsen has been inactive for years, I included them because they are another single purpose account and they started several of the articles. I will do some research on deletion criteria.
TSventon (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
TSventon, no worries! Today I PRODded Ollimania and notified Joostwijnberg. Maybe we can bring him back to Wikipedia and then extract a paid-editing confession from him. If that happens, we can start to move towards a better relationship, working together with him as a disclosed paid editor. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this can now be archived as it has been open for four weeks and as User:Joostwijnberg seems to edit sporadically they will probably not see the discussion while it is live. Thanks for all the help: two articles have been deleted by WP:PROD, Ollimania (promotional) and John Doe Amsterdam (WP:NCORP not met). i too hope that User:Joostwijnberg will disclose their COI and if applicable paid status when they return. TSventon (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear TSventon: Should we PROD the rest of the articles? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Unforgettableid, I have PRODded Diederiekje Bok and Hein Mevissen and notified Joostwijnberg. I haven't nominated the other articles because
  • John's Phone was not created by a SPA
  • Marike Bok and Rinus van den Bosch are probably sufficiently notable as artists
  • Olli may be sufficiently notable as a series of books. TSventon (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Portugal123fanlove at April Ivy

Portugal123fanlove has admitted here to being a member of April Ivy's management team, and has been making repeated efforts to add promotional language to the article, despite repeated attempts to warn them about editing with a conflict of interest. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61, they are now pblocked from April Ivy. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Samarkand State University

Wikipedia account with the name of the subject of the article. Idan (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Zvikorn, I've blocked them. In the future, you can report usernames like this to WP:UAA for quick action. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun

Pahlevun seems to really wish to keep everything STABLE as is in Iran page. Talk:Iran#Change Religion Demographics to Resemble New Data. Baratiiman (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, with no evidence of CoI. The procedure described at the top of this page has not been followed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ENEA AB

Hi, I edited outdated (& now erroneous) info on Enea AB's corp site as a favor to Enea, who is a client for whom I perform work unrelated to the Wikipedia request. A fellow editor rightly directed me to the COI info on Wikipedia. I have reviewed that info, added a disclosure to the edit page, and per Wikipedia's guidelines Conflict of interest, posted this note here on the the COI noticeboard so the content can be peer reviewed (as a Wikipedia-authorized alternative to posting line item requests in the Talk page). I've gone to pains to ensure the content is all factual, publicly available info presented in a properly objective manner, but if anyone sees any content on the page that does not adhere to Wikipedia standards like verifiability and a neutral point of view, please let me know. For a full history on this COI issue, please see my Talk page User talk:Wilberterra. Thank you! Wilberterra (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have all been reverted as "written in promotional language from top to bottom". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Wilberterra is refusing to accept that his version is blatantly promotional and has been edit warring to keep it as is, saying that it needs to remain that way so a 'peer review' can be carried out on this board. More eyes and comments would be very much appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Blackstone & shill account Theoracle102

User Theoracle102 works for The Blackstone Group. New shill account. Leaving messages harrassing me.

There is also chance they have paid for the services of ~Oshwah~ though I am only 50/50 on that one. User:Oshwah is either being wilfully dense, or has received payment from Blackstone's PR team to help assist.

All the evidence for Theoracle102 is on their talk page and user contributions:

User talk:Theoracle102 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmcdermott (talk • contribs) 09:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You were told in this post on your talk page by User:Oshwah to provide evidence of COI and to do so here; you have not done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
After an examination of the talk posting it is clear that this account User:Theoracle102, is an undeclared paid editor, or at the very least has a COI. New Editors don't come in a and then go straight into a contentious subject to argue a unpopular viewpoint, particularly when their account is created mere hours or minutes after the content is posted. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:scope_creep, yes it is incredibly obvious. One reason why I was incredibly surprised when the user ~Oshwah~ left a message on my talk page supporting them. Also I relieved a message from user Andy Mabbett 'warning' me. Paid thugs on Wikipedia... what a strange world we live in. Do you think it is worth looking into those accounts also? Perhaps they just didn't bother to look into Theoracle102's account history before they left messages. Either that, or... Colinmcdermott (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Colinmcdermott, it is entirely possible that they are a UPE account. However, they're also right - the controversy was given undue prominence in the lead. I also note that your post has two personal attacks against Oshwah (accusing him of being dense and accusing him of being paid) neither of which is acceptable at all, and now you've accused Pigsonthewing of being UPE as well. People telling you to provide evidence is not proof that they are "paid thugs". GeneralNotability (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: I have blocked Colinmcdermott for a couple of days for personal attacks and very directly asked Theoracle102 about their relationship.. Regardless of whether someone might be UPE, we don't need to go around calling them names, and accusing editors who disagree with you of being UPE and throwing around phrases like "paid thugs," especially without evidence, is entirely unacceptable. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
These personal attacks are uncalled for. I moved a sentence in an article. Hardly an act of war, and after my edit was reverted, I went to the talk section. Personal attacks are uncalled for (listed below). Both in the edit logs, article and my personal talk pages. cc User:Oshwah Theoracle102 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]


Honestly, I don't think the admin ~Oshwah~ is a paid editor. More likely he was impatient or peeved off that a single editor is trying to force a POV that was not based on consensus and has done what any other admin would have done. I don't want to put words in his mouth as he is a good administrator. It is a big PR firm that is protecting this article. It is a big, paid for article that is run by a large PR team. They often come with dozens of people being employed and don't mind sacrificing one or two editor accounts to achieves their aims. They are companies that talk amongst themselves on the web, advertise they're business and so on and are visible. The other group likes other organisations in history, are invisible, they operate by word of mouth, and don't advertise, and they're all here, all the time. Personally I am sick to death of spam and the paid. They have completely subverted both the vision and spirit of Wikipedia, so I wouldn't worry about to much. The WMF doesn't worry about it. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Scope creep - I was neither paid, peeved, or impatient toward the situation nor this user. :-) When I am notified of a content-related dispute or edit warring, I must be impartial and handle the situation exactly as it is, and without letting things add a bias to my thoughts and findings. I often see accusations thrown left-and-right by editors in edit summaries when I am patrolling recent changes and when I am investigating a content-related dispute and edit warring. I'm sure that we've all seen this. Users will revert edits by other users and call them "vandals", misidentify their edits as "vandalism", or call the user a "paid editor", etc - all the time. I try to look at the edits themselves (and other information, too, of course) and I do my best to use them to figure out what's going on. I was there to put an end to the edit warring and disruption, not investigate possible paid editing issues. In the end, this user was making accusations without evidence, and that is why I talked to him/her about this. Based on what I saw, fully protecting the article was the decision I thought would best stop the issue that I was looking into. Now, I'm not saying that I ONLY investigate edit warring when someone files a report in AN3 and do so blindly; if I see clear evidence of sock puppetry, or something that makes me say "heyyyyy, oookayyyyy, I've seen this before - I know what's going on", I'll absolutely handle that, too, while I'm there. I'm not perfect, and I still occasionally make mistakes and miss something that I maybe should've seen on Wikipedia to this day. This case may or may not very well be one of those instances. I'll leave it to the community to decide, and I'll learn and improve from there. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The idea that Oshwah is a paid editor is about the most ridiculous idea I have seen at COIN. The guy is straight up neutral. Always. So let us not waste any time casting aspersions in that direction. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, sometimes he strikes me as chaotic... GeneralNotability (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
GeneralNotability - Not sure if this was a joke or not, but I'll just say that I've ALWAYS made edits, responses, and decisions with what I believe is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Full stop. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Billy Davis (guitarist)

  • Billy Davis (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone take a look at the recent edits by Jcbilly at that article? They appear to be by the article subject, and are changing referenced information - for instance, several sources quote the name that he used in the 1960s, but apparently now wants removed from the record. I haven't reverted their latest set of edits, but I have left notices on the editor's talk page and the article talk page. I'll be unable to edit for most of the next week so will rely on others to take this forward. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential UPE farm(s)

I am opening this thread to discuss a group of around 60 accounts that are engaged in what appears to be paid editing without disclosure. Almost all of them were found and sent to me by a user on discord who prefers to remain anonymous. All of these accounts exhibit highly similar behavioural patterns (detailed below) and some are definitely associated with each other. Our assumption is that at least some of these accounts are run by the same individuals and that at least some of those individuals are affiliated with each other. It is unclear, however, whether they are all run by the same marketing operation. It is a distinct possibility that the common behaviours are linked to individuals reading the same manual on covert marketing.

A checkuser investigation seems appropriate to

  1. Potentially associate accounts with one another
  2. Investigate whether private proxies are being run for editing and block them if that is possible without collateral damage
  3. Check for sleeper accounts
  4. Check for associations with potentially related prior sockfarms (see below)

If this is indeed a case of one or more large UPE operations, it is unlikely that blocking these accounts – even though such blocks would seem appropriate – would stop the disruption in the long run; however, documenting and investigating the behavioural patterns alone might provide beneficial in tracking down similar accounts in the future. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Behavioural patterns

  • Edits are almost exclusively to pages about businesses, occasionally BLPs
    • Specific industries include:
      • Software and technology
        • Video games, see [12]
      • Clothes
      • Other retail
      • Entertainment
  • Remarkably similar edit summaries
    • Almost never marked as "minor"
    • No personal commentary, just stating the facts; "good" edit summaries
    • Regular use of the word "request" (e.g. "requested citations")
  • Mainly small edits (punctuation, CN tags), interspersed with large additions that hint at potential COIs
    • Accounts rarely make multiple edits to a single page in a row.
    • Single accounts edit a large number of pages – not the typical SPA behaviour seen with more primitive UPEs.
      • Some target only specific industries, others have more variety
    • Potential targeting of competitors by use of cleanup and CN tags?
  • Occasional AfD votes, but almost no communications with other editors; mainspace participation well above 90% is the norm
  • Lots of "information maintenance" edits, e.g. noting that companies have been purchased by other firms
  • All involved accounts edit only on weekdays with very few exceptions; however, the editing times vary significantly
  • Userpages are either a single sentence or a single sentence and a few userboxes below
    • Adding the userpage is often the first edit they make
  • Often show up after less sophisticated (mostly SPA) COI/UPE editors have already edited an article.

Users and pages edited

list of users
  • Richcitii (talk · contribs) Xtools Prior SPI linked below.
    • Edits pharamceutical industry/biotech.
    • Times: Very broad, main cluster 1300-1800 UTC

Sample of pages edited

Addendum

We've found a number of new accounts, they are listed below. Again pinging Bri, in case you're interested. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
  • Indigobones (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Non-profits, including political
    • Times: Mainly 1600-2300 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 4, B+6UBX
    • Created: 2020-04-04 00:48
  • KotaN05 (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Non-profits, medical
    • Times: 0100-0600, 1400-2000 UTC (Some edits on weekends)
    • Userpage: Edit 1, B+P
    • Created: 2020-03-04 15:31
  • Sakhmix (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Non-profits, medical
    • Times: Broad, main cluster 0700-1700 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 11, B
    • Created: 2019-11-27 11:08
  • Somersalt (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Non-profits
    • Times: Broad, 0600-1000 and 1400-2200 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 3, B+Def
    • Created: 2019-10-08 10:54
  • ThinkTrainBM (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Non-profits, medical
    • Times: 0400-0900 and 1300-1800 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 2, Q?+I
    • Created: 2019-12-05 20:09
  • Toedelokea (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Finance and real-estate
    • Times: Very broad, 0200-0900 and 1400-1900 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 1, I
    • Created: 2019-12-10 23:23
  • KittyKatey (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Finance and real-estate
    • Times: Very broad, 0200-1000 and 1300-1700
    • Userpage: More than twenty edits in, P
    • Created: 2019-10-24 07:10
    • Strong link to Toedelokea, see [26]
    • Shared AfD vote with Lightningbumbumb [27]
  • Lightningbumbum (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Not clearly discernible. Finance, software, manufacturing...
    • Times: Very broad, 0500-1700 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 9, I
    • Created: 2019-05-10 18:49
    • Shared AfD vote with KittyKatey [28]
  • Haattorii (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Too broad to discern. BLPs, manufacturing, advertising agencies...
    • Times: Main range 0700-1200 UTC, second group 1600-1900 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 9, B
    • Created: 2019-09-24 10:52
  • Palauwan (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Broad. Tech, universities, BLPs
    • Times: More than 20 edits in, 0500-1600 UTC
    • Userpage: Com+I+2UBX, userpage template
    • Created: 2020-01-20 11:10
  • Berryfrost (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: Broad. Clothing, retail, BLPs...
    • Times: Broad. Main cluster 0600-1200/1600 UTC
    • Userpage: More than 40 edits in, B+Com+I
    • Created: 2019-06-25 00:28
    • Links to Investedpersonas and other accounts, cf. [34] [35]
  • Humblephi (talk · contribs) Xtools
    • Focus: BLPs
    • Times: 0000-0400, 0700-1100, 1300-1800 UTC
    • Userpage: Edit 9, P+2UBX
    • Created: 2019-06-10 13:37

Userpage coding:

  • UBX: Userboxes
  • Q: Quote
  • I: Hint at interaction
  • B: Bland
  • Def: Definition of own username
  • Loc: References to geographical location
  • P: Personal
  • J: Joke
  • Com: References to Community

Discussion

@Blablubbs: So, in summary a user on discord who prefers to remain anonymous sent you these, and you posted them here without any hard evidence? I'd suggest you delete this thread and take the "evidence" to an SPI investigation. it just looks like casting aspersions with only scant behavioural evidence. That's a bit much as you are suggesting 60 accounts are UPE. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, I have to disagree (disclosure - I'm not the secret anonymous user, but I did review Blablubbs's draft before they posted here). There is indeed no "hard evidence" that this is a UPE farm (let's be honest, hard evidence is pretty hard to come by in the UPE-hunting business unless you find an Upwork post or the like), but the behavior certainly smells like competent UPE to me (corporate article "touch-ups" and surprising interest in various companies' trivial merger and acquisition history). I agree, however, that this needs an SPI. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, to expand on what GeneralNotability has said, I want to clarify that I did not just relay some stuff that some random user on discord sent to me. I have probably spent upwards of ten hours examining these accounts, not to mention the time they have put in. I also disagree that the evidence is merely "evidence" or "scant". These accounts exhibit similarities in behaviour that make it highly unlikely that they are not connected in some way (note, for instance, Bri's example below). There is certainly no smoking gun of the sort that would pop up at SPI, but there is a pattern of highly unusual behaviour and various links between the listed accounts. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 16:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, but this really looks more like an SPI than a COIN discussion. I can't see anything COI-wise from what you have posted here; likely because there is too much information. If you think it's multiple accounts then SPI is the venue for determining that. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We should not look to SPI as a panacea. They really don’t do as much behavioral analysis there as this noticeboard is capable of providing, bith due to staffing levels and interests, and due to technical limitations to checkuser. Good investigation of suspected covert advertising is often a collaboration of both groups (sometimes others as well, for instance, WP:WPOP). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri, in this case the filer here at coin is asking for Checkuser. (A checkuser investigation seems appropriate...) 60 accounts needing Checkuser is an issue for SPI, at least to start. I imagine it was not filed there first as there was not enough evidence?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP, the main reason for filing this here first was to get wider community input and more eyes on the matter. I will be filing an SPI as soon as I can, likely within the next 24 hours or so. Best, — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: Have you determined who to file under? From a spot check I didn't see any accounts older than Richcitii. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri, I haven't decided yet, but I'm considering filing under Richcitii. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Blablubbs, since we don't have strong evidence tying them to any particular sockfarm, I recommend starting this as its own SPI; clerking will probably be needed regardless of who it's filed under since I suspect there are multiple groups in play here. And, of course, I know who's going to get stuck clerking this... GeneralNotability (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Added Susanna.cornet sockfarm, see history of Draft:GIADA. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Added Jbuffkin, see history of Vivek Ramaswamy – it's a pretty old connection but still noteworthy. The sockfarm may have been biopharm focused, like Richcitii. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Added Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mememento, see history of Draft:Ari Rastegar and image. User:Fullpop was there, also has a similar looking edit history and COI warning(s) on their talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri, Mememento was already listed – I've removed the duplicate. Draft:Ari Rastegar is a very nice find, however. Best, — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 10:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri, I've also removed the Jbuffkin sockfarm after looking at the contributions of the users involved; I think the modus operandi doesn't line up there. There are a number of pages similar to Vivek Ramaswamy where our suspected UPE farm comes in after less sophisticated actors have already been around. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have filed an SPI here. I chose Yoodaba as the suspected sockmaster since it was the oldest account in the list. Pinging Bri since you might be interested in this. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs I appreciate the depths you’ve gone to uncover the sockfarm as there are a lot of indications of one here, but I am uninvolved. I have focused a lot of my editing on the Direct Relief page which is what seems to be the reason for my inclusion here, so I understand the motives behind the investigation. I am unaware of the user you’ve mentioned, Memento. I figured the grant was notable enough to be included on the aforementioned page. Kingofthenorf (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Kingofthenorf, thanks for replying. You have indeed focused a lot of your time on Wikipedia on Direct relief, both on editing the article about the organisation itself (e.g. [45], [46][47][48]), and on inserting content about the organisation in related articles ([49][50]). In fact, your second edit was one that blanked an "Advert" template ([51]), despite the article arguably still containing content that could be considered fairly promotional. The other reason for your inclusion is that you fit some other patterns that we have observed with this putative UPE farm; many of these behaviours are listed in my original post. Could you explain what your relationship with Direct Relief is? Thanks and best, — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Blablubbs No problem, happy to help out here. Direct Relief has provided a lot of aid for me and my family as we are poverty-stricken and I like to try and help out where I can. I'm very passionate about organizations that help families like mine. Kingofthenorf (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC subversion

We should be on the lookout for subversion or end-arounds on AfC, for instance this biz brochure was draftified, an AfC submission was declined, then one of the named accounts just re-created it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

More??? Continued editing draft(s) belonging to Jannhall sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that Draft:Sectigo has been edited by Quizbizet (on our list above) and Risingmold who I examined but did not include because they were already blocked. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri Addendum: I think PKIhistory is likely unrelated to the group above; the userspace and the edit summaries don't really fit the pattern. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri I am not related to any previous author and discussed the creation of this draft with other users on the Comodo Cybersecurity talk page. I added a lot to this draft and removed anything that looked like advertising to me. I also added material that is well sourced and factual (part of which is not favorable to Sectigo). Sectigo is the largest certificate authority in the world providing SSL certificated that help secure much of the transactions on the Internet. It does deserve a page. I have no affiliation with Sectigo and I have edited most of the pages on this topic including pretty much all of Sectigo's competitors and greatly improved Sectigo's competitors GeoTrust and GlobalSign. I used to have an affiliation with pretty good privacy which I have made clear and have only suggested edits on that talk page. I hope the history of the previous editors that were blocked won't prevent other editors from taking a fair look at the content and sources in the draft. Feel free to check my edits or request any type of investigation on my account (I understand that this article was previously written by a sock so any examination of me is fair given the previous history of this draft).PKIhistory (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
PKIhistory struck as a legit editor caught in the crossfire. Sorry for the mix-up ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri No worries. I knew this would be a challenge when I took it on. It does deserve its own page, but the recent history makes your concern well founded.PKIhistory (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Richcitii

I see that Richcitii drew my attention for potential COI about a year ago but didn’t respond to the message on their talkpage, and didn’t change their editing as far as I can tell. Maybe this time they have something for us.

Also note prior finding by another editor of socking by this user ☆ Bri (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Creations needing evaluation

National Life Group, Rebekah Neumann, etc. are creationS one or more editors named in this case, and needs some COI/WP:PAID/identifying PR attention. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Scratching the surface?

I took a superficial swim through my quarantine pool and found another: Roaychin (talk · contribs). They unquarantined GivePower, which I've reverted. I've seen this abuse pattern many times before. Goodness knows how many I've blocked in the past or still lurk out there - although I did check all those that I blocked this year with more than 200 edits and didn't find any more. MER-C 17:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, these two [52] [53] are below 200 edits but fit the pattern as well. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KittyKatey

Among those listed, this user came to my attention in the last few days for pretty strange behavior that is indicative of COI. Their first ~40 edits or so, done over a period of about two weeks, were all removal of red links. The page topics vary wildly as though the user was just using the random page function. Then the account made no edits for two weeks, then became active again. For the ten months since they have edited regularly but only articles on real estate companies.

The user will typically make 10-15 relatively minor edits (adding wikilinks, citation needed tags, adding categories, etc.), then approximately once a week will add large-ish amounts of content to 3-5 unrelated (other than being real estate businesses) articles. This content is always material from a press release with minor changes to make it not word-for-word, but definitely not enough to avoid copyvio. The minor changes are often clunky and sometimes don't make sense, as though the user is choosing a few words and just replacing them with the top result from a thesaurus. For example:

  • Original: Extell Development Company has brought in a partner to help build its controversial 50 West 66th Street skyscraper.[54]
  • KittyKatey: Extell Construction Corporation has taken in a developer to help build their notorious skyscraper 50 West 66th Street.[55]

Note that 'Extell Development Company' is the name of the company and the subject of the article, so the fact that it was thesaurisized away is extremely indicative of something underhanded. Paisarepa (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paisarepa, I saw the message on my talk page and am surprised to see I’ve been included in this talk. I am not involved in this group listed above, but I can see how it could be mistaken especially since there are page overlaps with some of these other accounts. I’v been trying to edit on Wikipedia after hearing my brother talk about it but I’m not that good to make bigger changes so I mostly stick to basic edits I see other editors doing, and I’m still learning about what kind of information can be added correctly. My boyrfeind sometimes likes to use my account to make the big edits because he is more interested, but sometimes I’ve tried to do similar edits to him. KittyKatey (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
KittyKatey, thank you for replying. A very important comment: you should not be letting other people use your accounts, nor should you use other peoples' accounts. Our policies require that each Wikipedia account is only used by one person. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi KittyKatey, I'm glad to see you reply. My concerns with your account are not that it is linked to other accounts, they are the specific concerns I list above. Since you're here, would you mind explaining the behavior that appears strange to me? Why did you only remove red links for the first two weeks, and then only edit real estate companies since then? And why are your content-adding edits just press releases that have been run through a thesaurus? Or are all those your boyfriend's edits? Thanks, Paisarepa (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
KittyKatey, Hi, I'm also glad that you are replying.
Aside from the concern Paisarepa has brought up and the similar behavioural patterns between you and some of the other accounts, I also have some specific concerns about some of your edits which seem fairly promotional to me. [56][57][58][59][60]
Could you please explain who made these edits and what the reasoning for insertion of language like
ONE LUXE provides exposure to premium high-quality branding and interactive media tools and services, collaborations with selected associations and organizations, exclusive gatherings and networking activities, coaching and preparation, a ONE LUXE website. or He would play an instrumental role in helping the real estate agents of the organization to operate more intelligently, not harder, and to expand their companies. was?
Best, — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment I cleaned up Realty One Group last month by excising overly promotional content, and removed an advert tag. The article had multiple edits from several SPA accounts in its history, but was short enough to easily fix. KittyKatey subsequently made a promotional edit that was reverted before I even saw it, but the article was then flagged for inside editing. I looked at her (his?) edit history and noticed the strange pattern of edits described above. It doesn't look to me like all or even most of the edits are paid editing - it looks like they are simply to try to boost edit counts. It's also possible that this editor is part of a firm that is reaching out to companies by industry and claiming that the articles they edited are for existing clients, showing these industry-targeted edits as proof, to get business. It's unlikely that the Kushner or Durst real estate companies are hiring this person to do these minor edits, but the unfortunate side effect is that like Realty One Group, Kushner Companies and several others have just been flagged for inside editing. I worry that this tagging may discourage future editors from doing cleanup or additions. So to the COI hunters out there, please consider the nature of the edits before tagging an affected article. Cheers! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Timtempleton, I agree. While there are lots of articles that definitely do need tagging and cleanup, it is fairly likely that not all edits they made were actually made for pay. My approach is to tag articles if members of the farm made one or more substantive additions to the article text. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What's going on here? And next steps.

Checkuser has given us some valuable clues in the SPI. We've been notified they won't be able to nail this down to one or two operators; to the contrary, this looks to be a widespread network of coordinated individuals, probably work-at-home type stuff. So, assuming this is actually coordinated, who is the coordinator? It needs to be a fairly well funded effort given the number of individuals involved and – given the breadth of industries and apparent ongoing reputation-management and grooming edits – is probably a PR firm, not an industry-specific actor. My money would be on Go Fish Digital, a marketing company offering Wikipedia services, who we think is behind one of the similar-looking sockfarms. Would anyone here be interested in working with WMF to request at a minimum a lawyer letter to be sent to that firm? I don't know what action WMF has taken with them to date. - Bri.public (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bri.public: All I am seeing in the SPI checkuser statement "the retail and law clusters... (are) all technically unrelated... With two exceptions, they all geolocate to the same country." So checkuser has confirmed that most accounts in the retail and law clusters are in the same country. I'm for rooting out UPE sockfarms and the like, but, where's the evidence that, for example, Go Fish Digital is responsible? It seems to be just a hunch?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
back on my primary account The combination of the apparent playbook (evidenced by the setup of the user page, and other things), and unique IPs, is really unusual. The corporate connection seems self-evident to me: this isn't someone's hobby. And it doesn't appear ideological. We try to keep tabs at WP:PAIDLIST when we know who is behind specific UPEs or sockfarms. The firm I mentioned and associated known sockfarm seemed the best match to me – it's not that common really to see large sockfarms. Especially with relatively high language and technical editing skills, and persistence. If others have alternative theories, I'm listening. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like they're working multiple shifts as well. Does this look like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook prior to 2019? MER-C 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Behaviorally, some things match and some don’t, but they may have changed their process over time. The subject matter does look very similar: a mix of pharma and the other biz, entertainment and so forth. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Bri, MER-C The edit summary usage of the BrookeCook farm is inconsistent with the accounts here, as is the lack of gnome-ish edits. It is of course possible that they changed their MO at some point, but I think the behaviour alone isn't enough to establish a link. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
MER-C: if you examine Special:Contributions/Cyberfan195, it looks very different from this group, to me at least. Clumsy. The firm they are tied to at WP:PAIDLIST strikes me as unlikely to be doing somewhat skillful long-term monitoring, as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

he is deleting related pages links he is not supposed to. Baratiiman (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, with no related discussion on the article talk page, and no evidence of CoI. Baratiiman was given a warning on their talk page on 1 August (by User:El C), under the aegis of Post-1978 Iranian politics General Sanctions (which applies in this case), to desist from making false accusations against other editors; I note that they have also falsely accused Keivan.f of vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
what do you call evidenceBaratiiman (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Baratiiman: Pardon me, but before saying anything else just try to chill out. Removing a link or two from the “See also” section is neither conflict of interest nor vandalism. So what you’re basically saying here is utter nonsense. If you believed the links needed to be restored you should have opened a discussion section on the talk page. And thanks Andy Mabbett for your immediate response. I appreciate it. Keivan.fTalk 16:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and it appears that it’s not your first time making false accusations against users whom you don’t agree with. I ask the administrators who review the discussion to impose sanctions on his account. Keivan.fTalk 16:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Wrong venue

I believe truth is incontrovertible so give a reason why you deleted the links?Baratiiman (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: This topic should be discussed on the article’s talk page. But since you’re insisting to know this so-called truth I’ll leave a response here. As a Wikipedian, it’s your responsibility to go over pages and links before putting them in the text of another article. Forced Confessions is the title of a 2012 movie, with no relation whatsoever to the page on Afkari. That should have either been changed to Forced confession or removed totally. As with the other link, Sharia does not necessarily have a connection with this article “in my opinion”, because the way it’s executed in Iran is different from that of Arabic countries. Now, if you “disagree” with what I say, you take the issue to the article’s talk page and discuss it there. You don’t make false accusations against other users; that usually backfires at you. Keivan.fTalk 16:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Just like that you removed all context Forced confessions is a docu about forced confessions in iran just like the subject did you know that? Sharia means iranian penal code as you already knewBaratiiman (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: That’s not how sharia is defined in other parts of the world. Get your facts straight. It’s a tradition mentioned and practiced in Islam. As I said, the way it’s executed in Iran is different from that of other countries, so I basically see no connection here. And yes, Forced Confessions is a documentary but it dates back to 8 years ago, and Afkari’s name is not even mentioned in it. Instead, you could add a link to Forced confession which defines the whole thing with regards to its general aspects. And “again”, this is neither conflict of interest nor vandalism. You have made a false accusation, just like you had done before. So stop searching for a victim and try to be more careful with your actions, otherwise you will be banned from editing specific topics or even editing in general. Keivan.fTalk 17:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You are saying between changing forced confessions to forced confession and option of deleting it you did the latterBaratiiman (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: I said you could either delete it or link it to the main page on that topic as an alternative. Besides you’re not making any sense. You either don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately ignoring my statements. I’ll leave it to the admins to deal with this and decide what needs to be done in your case. Keivan.fTalk 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to WP:PAID being discussed at the village pump

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Volunteers must declare that they are paid? about a recent edit that restored the April 2019 version of the Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" section of WP:PAID. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have also pointed out to you elsewhere, the discussion is in fact about the edit I reverted, which made a change to this policy, such that it asserted that "volunteers are deemed to be employees". I did not "restore the April 2019 version" of the section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Entrepreneur article

5 Tips To Get Yourself a Personal Wikipedia Page

"Not everyone can have them because they are expensive and time consuming to create. However, having them improves your future career prospects, credibility and connection with your audience." For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Entrepreneur is a paid spam site masquerading as a business magazine. It's mentioned in this NYT story for it's bad practices. And it seems Every. Single. Article on the website has the disclaimer "opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own". So it seems they have no editorial oversight and aren't willing to own up to any article published on their site since everything there is marked as opinion. It's used on some articles about SEOs and as usual, it's spammy promotional nonsense. Should be blacklisted, imo. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
TryKid, use of entrepreneur in a citation is a pretty good indicator of paid editing. a search like this gives Yuri Elkaim as the first result and has only two sources; the subject's own website and https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/336956 and if that's an independent, reliable source I'll eat my shoes. Vexations (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
entrepreneur.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This spam site is too widely used. 1300+ times for the http version alone. I'm not familiar with spam blacklist, so I'll ask here: is Entrepreneur eligible for the spam blacklist? If not, it should at least be listed at WP:RSP as completely unreliable. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
In short, WP:RSP is for stuff that's been repeatedly discussed at WP:RSN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that now. This discussion should be enough evidence to say that Entrepreneur is unreliable. Sommehow even some long time editors cite Entrepreneur at AfDs as if it means anything. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
And now I notice that I'm on COIN and not RSN Uhh... Sorry. I feel like Entrepreneur is so obviously unreliable that it doesn't even warrant a RSN discussion but on the other hand some people just cite anything at AfDs not explicitly declared completely unreliable. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I put it here because I think it could be interesting for COI-interested editors anyway. One thing that does give it a hint of RS (on the face of it) is that it has a decent looking WP-article that says "magazine." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for an interesting read. I wonder whether the omission of any mention of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is deliberate, as surely the author read Wikipedia, but perhaps they only read the lead. The article says "You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.", but I don't know whether that makes it any more or less reliable. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:RS may not be a priority for the intended audience. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The accompanying screenshot of English Wikipedia's main page is titled "image credit: Unsplash". Oh the pain. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding this one from The Guardian since it's kind of related. In fact, the effect is so large that it raises questions about why more cities around the world don’t do such basic editing themselves, the authors say. Wikipedia is largely written and edited by volunteers, yet simply increasing the amount of information available on certain topics could reap a huge reward relative to the time spent. Also intersting take on "good" editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The paper seems to be Wikipedia Matters originally published in October 2017 and updated in 2019, so hardly new. It is available here but I haven't registered to download it. The experiment covered adding content in French, German, Italian or Dutch: perhaps that means publicists have already added similar information in English so the researchers couldn't find enough stubs to experiment on. TSventon (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
TSventon, you didn't have to be regd to download it, not where I'm sitting anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks, now downloaded. It would be interesting to know if there is any public discussion on nl Wikipedia about how they dealt with the edits. TSventon (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It was discussed at m:Research:Newsletter/2017/May and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/Recent research. No need to get the PDF from IEEE, it's at http://marit.hinnosaar.net/wikipediamatters.pdf Nemo 06:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I started Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Reliability_of_Entrepreneur_(magazine) in order to get it listed on WP:RSP. MER-C 17:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Citing my article

I have added a reference to an academic article I've co-written to a relevant sentence in a single article: [61]. Per best practices, I am self-reporting my COI here. Please review. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a perfectly valid WP:SELFCITE. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearcast

CassClearcast has been notified of the COI guidelines and hasn't edited since. We can look at it again if there are problems in future. – Joe (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Username implies the user works for the organisation which the article is describing. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@JSH-alive: You appear to have raised the matter here, before carrying out any discussion with the user concerned. Such discussion is required, as stated at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
That’s a company account. We allow shared accounts now? That’s remarkable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup, as I thought. WP:ISU is quite clear that this account is not allowed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The account appears to read as "Cass at ClearCast" which is explicitly allowed by the username policy (bullet 4 under WP:ISU). GeneralNotability (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I read it as "Cass at Clearcast", which is OK.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, I see what you mean. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Even had you not retracted your allegation, the note at the top of this page - This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue... - makes no exception for company account names, for which another, more appropriate, venue exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: is it your new plan to ream out everyone who fails to follow the protocol perfectly with a bold-text dressing down? I see you posting the same thing two or three times below. A friendly welcome is perhaps a better approach: you could change your COIN dissatisfaction boilerplate to say, for example "Thanks for your report. Just a reminder o the note at the top of this page, which says "This page should only be used..."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Perhaps I could have started by postings something like "You appear to have raised the matter here, before carrying out any discussion with the user concerned. Such discussion is required, as stated at the top of this page."... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
What form would you have personally liked the conversation to go? “Are you a paid editor”? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Obvious paid editing

Can someone please ifdef block User:LAFilmandTV? Clearly a paid editor/company. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You present no evidence for your claim. You have not notified the editor of this discussion; and you have not first attempted to resolve the matter by discussing it with them, as required before you bring the matter here. You also seem to be involved in a content dispute with the other editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Literally a company name, only edited an article subject to paid editing... sure thing Andy. And what content dispute are you referring to? They showed up and changed a redirect I didn’t even initiate. But if you say so...
I also asked them directly about paid editing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"asked them directly "? You posted "Please disclose any paid editing you might be doing" - nothing else, no link to a help page, or a policy, or even a definition - on their talk page three minutes before posting here. The top of this page states unambiguously: 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.. The user's entire editing history covers a period of eight minutes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Days later, no answer. What content dispute, Andy? In that eight minutes they initiated a series of undo edits claiming the actor is notable and removed the COI template. I found that suspicious. But content dispute? That’s a bold claim. And that article had been targeted for paid editing, a single shot account turns up, only edits one page, and reverts all changes one by one - even the small change to the redirect I made? Is that the “content dispute” you are referring to? What about this edit where they removed the COI template?
I should also note that Dreamy Jazz had already found evidence of paid editing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PenPaper45 for the reasons behind the {{undisclosed paid}} tag. I would add that in reviewing the archived cases there is some strong evidence around UPE by Pasha58Hg on the article. This was in April though, so this user is either another person being paid to edit or is a good faith user. I doubt that the users are the same person, but I have not fully looked into the connection. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock: Is LAFilmandTV the name of a company? If so I can username block, but I couldn't find anything on Google (admittedly it's a terrible search term). Otherwise I don't see strong evidence of paid editing – it's possible, but it could also be a regular COI or unrelated SPA. – Joe (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Polycon

Polycon and Talk:Polycon appear to be relevant to this board. In the talk page, the main contributor there has linked to a video by someone with the same username as their own; the video user claims to be the inventor of this shape, and the inventor of this shape owns a company with the same name as the username. They are refusing to declare or deny a conflict of interest despite being asked and are editing promotionally, e.g. adding to the article a claim of being the sole inventor of an earlier shape despite documented evidence that they are the third of three independent inventors, and attempting to remove cleanup tags disputing this claim. (I am involved so cannot take administrative action.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The talk page discussion where user Thinkingarena discusses their COI is here:"My relationship with David Hirsch does not affect the objectivity of my writing." Based on that and the Youtube videos linked in the EL section of the article, it is pretty darn clear that this is the article was created by someone with a COI, and is likely being used for some WP:SELFCITE promotion. I see a number of other related articles that they have also created; The inventor of the Polycon is quoted six times in Developable roller. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
[62] Yip. Shop next, not. scope_creepTalk 21:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the videos references. Even when good maths vid can get 2.5m views, this is 600. scope_creepTalk 21:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thinkingarena is continuing to make edits on this article and elsewhere removing or disputing information about other people who made the same discoveries earlier than he did [63] [64] [65]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I've blocked them as a promotion-only account. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Susan Henking

Editor Susan Henking only edits pages associated with Susan Henking. Through 2017, they edited History of Shimer College and Shimer College as well where apparently Henking was President at that time. They continue to add puffery to Susan Henking such as "As a recognized scholar/teacher/administrator, Henking continues to publish in a variety of venues." In spite of amassing warnings on their talk page they have yet to officially disclose any COI or even paid editing and don't engage with other editors at all. Helper202 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Helper202, pblocked from mainspace (since they've gotten several warnings over the years and have ignored all of them), let's see if they're willing to engage on the talk page. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Dawber

User has made several edits to Paul Dawber article and to articles related to Dawber over several years, admits in an edit summary to being Paul Dawber, and has continued to edit on Dawber articles following contact from JuneGloom07 on talk page. PotentPotables (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

PotentPotables, pblocked from Paul Dawber (if they keep editing in other places this can expand to a mainspace pblock). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ursobrian

Ursobrian has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. – Joe (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

As can be seen from the revision history of Louis Armstrong award, a single-purpose IP has been trying to add a non-notable person to the list for several years. The list requires notability for inclusion, per basic WP guidelines. User:Ursobrian has now created an account and is adding themselves to the list. Clear COI. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, content in articles, including lists embedded in articles, does not have to be independently notable. WP:N explicitly says this: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." WP:LISTBIO is the relevant guideline and it was explicitly edited to clarify this a few years ago ("Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST...."). ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The award is, or can be, given to "one recipient per high school per year" (two if there is a tie), across the United States. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Rosalind Chao

User has edited only this article (since Feb 2020), admitted COI (see [66]), changing age/year of birth and removing sourced content that might give the appearance of supporting an earlier birthdate. Dispute (in which I am an involved party) arises mostly from subject of article herself claiming a later birthdate, but most non-primary sources (and other evidence) refute this claim. User has mostly refused/declined to engage in discussion. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The user continues to update the page to make the actor appear younger than she is. The claim the user is making that her birthdate is 1967 is clearly spurious, as there is a large amount of easily found on-line evidence to the contrary, including pictures of her as a teenager in 1970, video of her throughout the 1970s, and a page from her alma mater listing her graduation date as 1978. It would be great if an administrator could take action. Jm307 (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Editor in question came back again today and made the same disputed edits twice (reverted by another editor). Further action may be needed here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Rolando Bohol

Editor Rolando Bohol has only made edits to two articles within the past ten years: Rolando Bohol and Kambal Na Kamao: Madugong Engkwentro. There is the possibility that he himself is the subject of the former article. LionFosset (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • LionFosset I get that it is common not to read all the instructions, but the first additional note at the top of this page clearly says, "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." The editor does not appear to have ever been asked or warned about COI editing, which might have been a better place to start. I have just left the COI user warning on their talk page. Melcous (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Melcous: Right. I was kind of confused with the instructions earlier, thanks for the correction. So I should delete this for now? LionFosset (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks LionFosset. I think it's fine to leave it for now. Probably just a matter now of waiting to see whether the editor responds, edits again, or does nothing. Melcous (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Faculty (company)

I am opening a thread to discuss Faculty (company), and I declare that I myself have a COI as it relates to the entry, as I am a representative of the company. I attempted to engage the community transparently through the Talk page and in accordance with COI guidelines and other Wikipedia rules as I understand them.

My specific concern is about User:FixerUpper75.

User is clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, but created a new username specifically and for the sole purpose of blocking editors from bringing the entry in line with Wikipedia standards.

A number of other accounts that have created and edited the Faculty entry have been banned for sockpuppeting, including:

User:Banana19208

User:Cruxstylus

User:Acajenka

I want to be clear that none of these sockpuppet accounts has anything to do with Faculty or our predecessor company ASI. We have never engaged any paid editor to create or edit this entry. Nor have we have encouraged anyone to edit the page on our behalf. I acknowledge that one colleague, in ignorance of Wikipedia’s rules, did attempt to make an edit earlier this year, but it was rapidly reversed and my colleague was made aware of the rules. He has not attempted any further edits.

I appreciate that this is a highly unusual request, and I know that participants in this board usually seek out corporate actors, like me, who are violating COI rules. I ask only that editors here review the situation, as I do not have the tools to establish whether there are any clear links between the accounts or to link FixerUpper75 with other accounts.

Hsearle-faculty (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The COI appears to be yours. You should stop your whitewashing campaign. When the press gets hold of it, it wont look good for you. Regards. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: They're not trying to whitewash anything - just ask that the article complies with NPOV which it currently does not. Does brexitshambles.com sound like a reliable source to you? SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, of course, they appear to be whitewashing their connection to tory dodgy practises. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hsearle-faculty: Thank you for bringing this issue up for discussion. While I do see some problems with edits by Fixerupper75, I don't see anything that immediately suggests that they have a conflict of interest with regard to Faculty. Accordingly, I don't think this is the right venue for this matter; Talk:Faculty (company) is the place to start. I've added the article to my watch list to see what happens with the article and on its talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @C.Fred: - Please take a look at my edit summmaries and the diffs for the edits which were reverted by FixerUpper75 - I agree with Hsearle-faculty that they don't look like a new user and while I don't think they have a COI (I don't think they have accused of this anyway), they certainly have a strong POV. This is an appropriate venue for someone with a COI to ask for something to be looked at by uninvolved editors. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@SmartSE: I agree that their edits appear to be more concerned about who proposed them than the merits of the editors. In a sense, this does backdoor into the COI noticeboard, because an editor appears to be sacrificing neutrality in the name of advancing a position about a group. In this case, that appears to be a negative position. I have invited Fixerupper75 to engage in discussion at the talk page about the merits of the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

More than happy to engage in a discussion about the merits of the edits. The company has clearly paid an external company to create the Wikipedia page, had it edited it upon their rebrand, and now their PR agent accuses those paid-for accounts of sockpuppetry as a cover. This is a clear whitewash to try and cover over the mass-reported condemnation of their company’s practises. In the mean time, there have been edits by gwillis (Google shows that this is a staff member at Faculty - for the record, if they have shares in the company, edits possibly constitute a criminal offence). Smartse then appeared on the scene to edit the page at the direct request of the company’s PR agent - with the first paragraph alone clearly not NPOV and edited to focus on the company’s prominent and laudable investors. This is clearly WP:UNDUE given the international prominence of the scandal surrounding the company - which is its only notable reason to even have a page. Anyway, more than happy to discuss at the talk page. I retain a NPOV on the issue, but it is fair to say that I am displeased by the lack of ethics and repeated disruption of Wikipedia’s community guidelines. In my opinion, SmartSE and Faculty’s PR agent have already both done enough to justify a ban. Fixerupper75 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion continues on the article talk page; there doesn't seem to be anything to do here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Torch Network

See User Talk:Torchist where the editor has repeatedly been asked about their relationship to the Torch Network. Most of their edits this year have been to the new article on the Torch Network that they created recently or to an old article, Anti-Racist Action which they tried to make about the Torch Network. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is patent nonsense.
Doug Weller is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to WP:OWN the article on the Anti-Racist Action, hoping to maliciously and intentionally frustrate content development of the article and those associated with it (removing content with over 100 citations). Weller's chosen tactic towards this end was to claim on the talkpage, that ARA/Torch were somehow unrelated. Only he has ever claimed this. On both the official websites of ARA (which stopped using that name in 2013) and the Torch Network (founded as its direct successor in 2013) the two affirm that one continued on from the other and are treated as such in reliable academic sources. Neverthless, after engaging with Weller on the talkpage on this topic and his "rational" (which contracdicted reliable sources), it seemed the best way to appease his reasoning and remove from his hands his tactical excuse for mass content removal was to create a separate article for the Torch Network-era itself.
Weller's tactic is to deliberately obstruct articles such as this and through sheer attrition of runing around in cricles, hopes that other editors will just give up trying to develop content (a Google search of Doug Weller shows off-Wikipedia statements that he has made to the media where he describes this as one of his politicised behaviourial tactics when editing this project). I have no direct affiliation with this organisation or its predecessor ARA, my interest in developing the topic is academic, so there is no "conflict of interest". I have stated this on the talkpage, explicitly and Weller is aware of it. So attempting to report this as a CoI is both malicious and sneaky (he did not bother to inform me that he had put this report, despite having previously engaged with me on the ARA talk). Torchist (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course I informed Torchist, see User talk:Torchist#Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion - at 15:03 UTC+1. I don't believe I've ever talked to the media, but there are lies out there about me, as there are about too many editors here. So far as the article content goes, @Bobfrombrockley, NinjaRobotPirate, and Aquillion: were also concerned about the content. When an editor is asked about COI on their talk page several times, including by @Acroterion: when they blocked Torchist for edit-warring, that's the place to respond and where other editors will look for an answer. At Talk:Anti-Racist Action#The Torch Network is not a rename for "Anti-Racist Action" I did not say not related, read my section heading. Aquillion also agreed that the Torch Network was not a rename but a new organisation. @Torchist: I suggest you retract your false statements about me and put a statement on your talk page that you have no coi. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that Torchist has now placed a statement on their talk page. Shame they also used an edit summary for a personal attack. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
'directly affiliated' seems like hair splitting. Torchist, are you indirectly affiliated? - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • By my reading of the discussion, everyone but you had issues with your rewrite. Bobfrombrockley thought some parts might be salvageable if gone over with a fine-toothed comb, but had serious concerns about the quality of your sourcing and clearly didn't support the drastic changes as a whole; everyone else pretty clearly thought your rewrite wasn't an improvement. Presenting this as Doug Weller vs. everyone else is absurd when a glance at the talk page makes it clear the reverse is true - it's clear that your WP:BOLD rewrite of the entire article was supported only by you (and, indeed, you're currently encountering pushback over it from multiple editors on multiple pages.) Given that many of the objections were to your sourcing specifically, starting a new article without improving or addressing any of that smacks of a POV fork. And more relevantly to this board, given your username it's entirely reasonable for people to wonder why you seem so determined to play up the significance of the Torch Network even when numerous editors have explained to you that your sources aren't sufficient; "this personal webpage said X" simply isn't sufficient sourcing for the sweeping and fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements you are trying to make, especially when much better sources on the history of Anti-Racist Action exist and do not agree with the conclusions you're drawing here. (eg. on talk I noted how Brey - an academic expert on anti-fascist movements - covered it, which clearly doesn't line up with the way you're presenting things.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't comment on the COI issue, but concur with Aquillion that Torchists edits are highly contentious due to misleading use of sources whereas Doug's edits have been supported by consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_163&oldid=982596976"