To The New

Today I received an Upwork invitation to fix some issues on the article To The New. I checked the talk page and the linked user says that the article was deleted before but now it complies with the guidelines. I checked the user page of the user and he claims to be a seasoned editor, but only has 54 edits globally. Something is fishy. I suspect the editor has a conflict of interest towards the article, and in any case someone else is likely to accept the Upwork job soon, so we should keep an eye on the article. --Felipe (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sophivorus Thanks for bringing this to Wikipedia. It would be great if you can post the actual content of that job opening here.
Upwork is a freelancing platform where businesses and independent professionals connect and collaborate remotely. Any of the Wikipedia contributors/editors should not be involved in any such activity which converts into monetary value i.e. money. As per the portal, one can receive any invitation if you show your skills on the platform.
So, this implies that User:Sophivorus is involved in receiving payments for the contribution he has done to Wikipedia. All his contributions should be thoroughly examined. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitjigupta (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the userlinks for Sophivorus (Felipe), he's made fewer than 200 articlespace edits since 2009 and it's readily apparent he's a legit editor. There are many reasons why one of us may maintain contact with Upwork; Ankitjigupta, please be careful with your assertions. And if you do that, you must notify the subject (see red text at top of this page). - Bri (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Bri I agree with the valid point made by Ankitjigupta. One can receive any job invitation on Upwork only if the person has shown similar skills and has done some work in the past and a payment has been made for the work done.

Felipe has received an Upwork notification for editing/ making changes to a Wikipedia article which shows that he is involved in receiving payments for the contributions he has done to Wikipedia. This is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Though he could be a legit editor however, please make sure that all his contributions must be verified again. Amitpurple (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Just clarifying a point or two here for User:Amitpurple. You will receive Upwork notifications even if you have not previously accepted any contracts. Receiving such a notification doesn't show that someone has been paid to edit. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the article and established that none of the references cited would meet the standard that we apply in the AfC process when considering the notability of a company. If I were reviewing this in AfC I would have declined it. I have explained my rationale on the article talk page and drawn Ankitjigupta's attention to it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The content of the job proposal is:

We already have a page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_The_New). After it's creation in last week, the page has been marked nofollow noindex. Please check the source code of the Wikipedia page mentioned above.

I need an expert who can fix it.

Please mention your contributions to Wikipedia, the possible causes of this issue, and the possible ways you can solve this issue.

And for the skeptics, if you want to do a thorough check of my contributions, go ahead, I have nothing to hide, but it'll take a while, because I have over 16000, plus many more to the software. Also, I get this kind of invites on an almost weekly basis, and ALWAYS reject them with a link to WP:COI. But this one was different in that it included the article name, so I was able to report it. I get this kind of invites because I'm a freelance MediaWiki developer (Upwork profile), not a paid Wikipedia editor. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my first message. --Felipe (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Loveurope2016

(re-open archived above #Review needed)

The whole Wiki structure is fucked up if it allows ppl with no knowledge in a field to act like the big bad boss. Before that some idiot told me I was editing F1 because I had interest there... just forgot to add, that I must be a fucking millionaire to have interest in F1. And just so you know, I have several identities - Enzo Ferrari, Brandon Maisano, own TopCar, Mazim Zimin and God Almighty! Yeah, same guy, same IP. Good job IT genius with emails from '88.

Culinary Institute LeNôtre

SPA User:Cesnou is continuing to convert this article into a blatant advertisement by copy-pasting promotional materials into it. A previous version of the article was G12 deleted for copyvio in March of last year, just now, Cesnou has come back to do it again. Geogene (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

☒N Deleted per CSD G11 and salted (inc. the redirect). There was nothing salvageable in that article. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

London School of Business and Finance

Hello everyone, I would like to declare my COI with the London School of Business and Finance article as I am employed by the Global University Systems group, which incorporates the school. I have made an edit request on the Talk:London School of Business and Finance in which I asked for the correction of a couple of points. I would like to reassure everyone that I am fully committed to following the Wikipedia's COI editing guidelines and to working with the community to improve the article. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my work, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@BrandDude: Hello, and thank you for following the proper procedures for a paid contributor. I believe the requests you made have been addressed on the article talk page. We look forward to further collaboration with you in the future. Cheers. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Annamaria Lusardi

I am a researcher for the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center (GFLEC), Prof. Lusardi is our director. I am posting this to disclose the potential conflict of interest. I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines surrounding conflicts of interest and I will follow them. I will suggest edits on the talk page of Prof. Lusardi's Wikipedia page (if necessary)but I will abstain from editing the page directly. I hope to attract impartial editors to the page in order to improve the page's quality, and remove potential conflicts of interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana314 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)

That article needs work. To start with, citing someone's own resume is a major no-no on Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Deb Lawrence

Article was deleted per AfD. - Bri.public (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2017 (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.

From UAA. Editor is editing article about herself. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It was also created and the overwhelming majority of the content came from another SPA with PROMO overtones. This to me seems a candidate for AfD as I'm unsure if their agent is encyclopaedic, and removal (which would be my preferred edit) would leave it completely unsourced (even now, it just has one primary source). Rayman60 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Agent? Do you mean article? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 20:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
A commercial art dealer is not a reliable source. This one doesn't even mention the artist. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
So you want me to nominate this? Not my intention when I came here, I just wanted username clarification. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 22:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it's certainly a possible AfD candidate, L3X1 – at a quick glance I don't see any strong evidence of notability. As for Debl101, shouldn't we hope that she/he will become a useful contributor to the encyclopaedia? I don't believe that one attempt at (possible) self-promotion is grounds for any sort of administrative action – a friendly personal message would probably be a better response. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
In the scope of AGF and all that, yes. But Deb hasn't edited in more than 4 days, and I think it will bear out as another SPA/COI. I don't expect to hear from Deb until she discovers her edits were undone, if ever, but you have more experience in Wikipedia than I do. The account probably won't get any attention from admins, due to it being stale, already given a warn/welcome, and that an admin (UAA) has already declined to take immediate action. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Lawrence. Widefox; talk 14:11, 11 May 2017 (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.

MARHy Wind Tunnel

I'm posting here not because I think Sandra c has committed a blatant COI violation, but because I'm looking for a second opinion on how this situation should be handled. I've read the relevant documentation on COI editing and am unsure about the degree of this COI and would appreciate any help with the matter. I noticed that the user's username was similar to the author of one of the references added to the document, so I contacted the editor about whether they have a connection to the article. Their response can be seen here. The user does not work for the company that produces the wind tunnel, but does mention their company (ICARE) in the article, and the reference added was indeed written by that same user. The article doesn't seem overly promotional or controversial, but it does require a thorough copyediting. I don't believe that this user is being underhanded at all and I think they are trying to comply with the rules. I would think that maybe adding Template:Connected contributor to the article's talk page and asking the user to state how they are connected to the article on their userpage would be appropriate, but I'm not sure if there is more that should be done. Any suggestions would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance, Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 10:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: It appears that Viviana lago also has a close connection to the article. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 11:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Powerplus Group

The two main contributors to this article, Caroline.tay (talk · contribs) and 103.3.202.58 (talk · contribs) appear from their behavior to be in conflict of interest : they edit the article like a press release, sometimes reverting attempts to make the article look normal. It seems like user:Caroline.tay had already tried a few time to create this article, and was warned against conflict of interests but ignored the warning. It also seem to be a case of sock puppetry (may be the user/users don't know it's not allowed) since the ip address account who was just created immediately removed the CSD tag. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: The same thing is happening at the quasi-identical article Powerpac International. Also, they're adding the name of their company on various product page. And they're deleting messages from their own talk page. It's a bit over my head at this point, I'll let anyone else deal with that. KarlPoppery (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Obviously created by an employee of the company without disclosure, in violation of our Terms of Use. Both articles are now at AfD, here and here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Caroline.tay has now been blocked for persistently violating WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Point Blank Music School

This article has suffered from serious COI/promo issues since it was created. It is quite easy to link the three who've used their real name to the organisation. The nature of the edits show that this was unashamedly WP:Promo abused. I have tidied it up over the years, adding COI tags in November 2015. The two older editors are long since inactive, the third appears to have stopped immediately prior to the new, anonymous editor commencing their activity - all are listed above for sake of completion. A new editor with no other contributions has been adding unsourced, promotional content in the last week and very enthusiastically removing COI tags repeatedly (despite it not necessarily being their solely because of them. Based on their activity, I have no doubt there is an underlying COI issue. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'm posting it here so that appropriate actions can be taken to prevent further abuse. Rayman60 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding page protection. However every user who has contributed has registered an account - does this not bypass this action and allow them to continue their activity? Rayman60 (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the level of protection: see this page for explanations. It looks like this one got semi-protected. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Subscription box

Copyvio and promo have been cleaned up. - Bri (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2017 (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.

This needs cleanup bad. Copyvio detector reports near 50% copyvio on Subscription boxes; article is full of dubious sources like Forbes sites and bloggy things more unfamiliar to me. Plus plain old refspam like boxofchallenge.com , pour-this.com, ohmybox.com, etc. - Bri (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I did some cleanup. Article cut down from 41 kB to about 12. Probably enough. - Bri (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Reopened: Justlettersandnumbers identified more copyvio. - Bri (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, another volunteer just cleaned up the copyvio; the article is down to under 9 kB now. Will close this (again) if no objections. - Bri (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2017 (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.

Sangeet Shikhharthee Sammilan

Appears to be a family editing about itself and its own achievements. Also uploading lots of images that may require OTRS verification. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Edits and uploads continue, including reuploads of deleted material. – Train2104 (t • c) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I've tagged all the images for deletion. The articles need eyes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
To editors JJMC89 and Train2104: I've posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh#Five new articles of questionable to see if the subjects are notable. I will post at the user's talk about COI. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport

COI user says "Our page did not appropriately represent who LSU Health Shreveport is. As the Director of Public Affairs and Communication, it is imperative that I add to the limited and misleading information currently found in Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

the material they added should of course have been suggested on the talk p., but some of it can be used if worded neutrally rather then as hype. The key issue of financial responsibility should be based on more than a single source. (The COI editor's version and the current clean version both use the same source. There must be others.). DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Peter DeMarco, again

See the report in March on the same article and same user. 111 of Onthelist's 187 edits have been to Peter DeMarco. They have been notified of COI policies and have continued to edit the article without declaring any COI, most recently on 9 May. Pinging DGG as he's familiar with the article and editor, and Brightgalrs as he filed the report in March. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly OWNership, even of little details. It's not the individual, who died 11 years ago.I doubt it's one of his family. The article is a mix of uncritical positive statements and reasonable well sourced negative information. He was in my opinion a quack with a MD,; I challenged notability as a way of dealing with the very problematic article, but I've come to think he was a notable quack. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Attacking the statistical edit proportion as a reason to invalidate article quality, especially upon grammatical/minor edit deduction, is not sound. If you have a non-pedantic complaint against a specific edit then please reveal it. The other complaints such as labeling a "snake-oil salesman" or "quack" for example, are opinion biased and not NPOV in style. Also, the "SOS patients" paragraph information you labeled as a "whitewash" is from a cited New York Times article; this is not a trivial source. Article points that are made are well cited and both positive and negative. Moreover, NPOV and referenced negative edits by other editors are left untouched. Therefore, your COI claims seem dissembling. If you wish to improve this or other articles, please remain within the Wikipedia guidelines such as neutral point of view. Sláinte! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthelist (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Don Reitz

Please review the tags on this article. I again find myself at odds with Justlettersandnumbers, who has in two previous occasions brought me before WP:ANI with no clear resolution, other than me agreeing to take my paid contributions through AfC, which I have done in this case. This article was reviewed and approved by Dodger67.

I am starting to suspect this is nothing more than harassment simply because I am a paid editor. My history with this user is long and I can recount it if necessary. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea what I can contribute here as I have no knowledge of the issue. I'm just the AFC reviewer. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dodger67: That is understandable. Question: Where you aware this was a paid contribution before you reviewed it?  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Janweh64, according to your user page, that article was created for pay. So why is there no paid editor declaration on the talk-page, as required by our Terms of Use? Of course, now you can collect your thirty pieces of silver, and someone else – preferably someone who knows something about pottery – will have to clean up that ill-written and inaccurate screed. Example: you write (ungrammatically) "The method had been in use in Europe but largely unknown in the United States"; but our article on salt glaze pottery tells us that "Salt glazed pottery was also popular in North America from the early 17th century until the early 19th century, indeed it was the dominant domestic pottery there during the 19th century". I've no criticism of Dodger67, by the way – the person is quite clearly notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE:

If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. You may do this on your user page, on the talk page of affected articles, or in your edit summaries. The community expects paid editors to declare that they are being paid whenever they seek to influence an article's content; this includes when writing drafts in draft space or user space. If you want to use a template to disclose your COI on a talk page, place ((connected contributor (paid))) at the top of the page

I choose not to tag shame an article. I have declared at two of the optional three places indicated: 1) User:Janweh64 and 2) "Created by a COI editor, paid by Jennifer Reitz"  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
As to salt glaze pottery, the sentence has been clarified to indicate it was "largely unknown in US studio pottery." [4]  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The New York Times": "At the time, salt firing, conceived in the Middle Ages and still used in Europe, was little known in the United States."  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I saw a mention of paid editing on the AFC Help page shortly after I reviewed and accepted the article. Undeclared paid editing is unequivocally a violation of the TOU, but there seems to some latitude/uncertainty about the requirements of the form and location of such declarations. BTW I am neither an art or ceramics specialist - my spot-checks of the sources all looked ok and on that basis I accepted the draft. I have no opinion at all about the content dispute. I'm done here, please stop pinging me unless you have a specific question for me. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 seems quite determined to paint him/herself into a corner:

Would someone like to try to get him/her to listen? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 is correct in that they don't need to disclose on talk pages and that the current disclosures are sufficient. While their articles appear better than most paid articles, that is not to say they are perfectly neutral either. The removal of maintenance templates from this article when it is explicitly advised against for COI editors on pages that were cited to support their removal is worrying however as it suggests that they are mainly concerned with keeping articles 'clean' rather than for other editors to be happy that they are neutral. Even after I informed them they have again edit warred at Bonin Bough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to remove them and also incredibly edited a page to remove the part which says COI editors can't remove templates. SmartSE (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: and @Justlettersandnumbers: have begun a concerted effort to tag and leave article's I have created one by one. I have simply trying to force you "to follow standard practice" which is to discuss issues and resolve them. If you do not want to do that please leave reviewing and editing for others to do. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have asked both of you to carefully consider how to place these tag to no avail: [5] and [6]. What am I to do when you will not discuss? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Umm no we haven't. You've given us no time at all to explain what the problems are as we are too busy reverting your inappropriate removal of maintenance templates. How about you wait a few hours for us to note the problems or edit them away. Note that I've requested you be boomeranged at ANI. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I am taking a break see you all tomorrow. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
How is this appropriate when I have declare my COI at two different places: here in edit summary and my user talk page. You aim is quite clear now. You want to drive me crazy until I quit. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: my out-dented post above edit-conflicted with posts from Smartse and Janweh, but I didn't get any warning. I don't know how that happens, but I'm sorry about it anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please! Please try to see it from my point of view for just a moment, I follow all of what we discussed in my two previous ANI (witch trials). I brought the article through AfC. Wait 25 days for it to get approved and @Justlettersandnumbers: proceeded to WP:DRIVEBY tag it, with no discussion started as is required, mere minutes after the AfC approval. A day-and-half and still no discussion.

I did exactly what we discussed I should do when I am unfairly treated. I started a discussion here at WP:COIN, IT WAS IGNORED. All it accomplished was give them a forum to accuse me of not declaring my COI. Really?!?! They even link to my declaration above ^!!! "Janweh64, according to your user page that article was created for pay."

Now, @Smartse: has joined-in on the fun of torment the paid editor. Please see Talk:Bonin_Bough#Improper maintenance tag where I try to explain to them that this is an improper use of ((COI)). We will see if they will self-revert.

My removal of maintenance tags are justified in my edit summaries. Their only explanation is pointing to a non-existent rule that a paid editor can not remove tags no matter how inappropriately placed. It is pure WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Now they have moved on to accusing me of edit warring after ignoring my repeated attempts to bring them to a discussion about the content itself. Pure red herrings. They hound me (in Justlettersandnumbers case for FOUR MONTHS) and point-and-laugh when I get provoked. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline. You need to be patient and AGF. Your accusation that I am joining in the "fun" and that ANI is a "witch trial" is not helpful. At Bonin Bough, I began to clean up the article but you reverted me. SmartSE (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for discussing the matter. Please use the discussion section I begun here to state your reasons for the tag per Template:COI/doc. I apologize if I was premature in reverting your tag. I was frustrated after the situation at Don Reitz. I will address your concerns before the second AfC for this article, which is now back in draft. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

American Immigration Council

For at least the last five years, all of the edits from this IP address involve the American Immigration Council, mostly adding links to americanimmigrationcouncil.org. The IP address geolocates to the same location at the organization's headquarters. It appears as if this organization is actively and persistently promoting itself, its policies, and its point of view on Wikipedia. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I also found this IP: 74.96.79.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same geographic location, same behavior. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The WHOIS tool [7] resolves the 208 IP to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Its article states "The Marketing Department staff assists its sister organization - the American Immigration Council - with marketing outreach efforts." Pretty cut and dried if you ask me. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like many of the links have been removed by other editors. I have removed a few more. If a regular editor of an article I have removed the americanimmigrationcouncil.org external link from thinks the link is worthwhile, I won't object to having it restored. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, for some reason, Special:LinkSearch didn't find a majority of the links to americanimmigrationcouncil.org which were present in various articles. There still may be more than what I have found. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Josh Zepnick

Jzepnick has been repeatedly editing the Josh Zepnick article, removing reliably sourced material ("Page contained unwanted third party material") and adding unsourced material. He has ignored a warning about COI editing on his talk page and reverted reversions of his COI edits. 32.218.32.127 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Coolpad Group

In the edit summary he admitted he is [a staff] from Coolpad Group. Compare to version before his edits and latest version, much ad was added. Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

two more socks
Bookperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Emma0924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Matthew_hk tc 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
one more socks. Matthew_hk tc 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
yet another. Matthew_hk tc 15:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
A few more SPAs just for fun. - Bri.public (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Jim Wilkes

While looking at the refs of this apparent WP:PROMO article, I stumbled upon: FAMILIESFORBETTERCARE.COM (familiesforbettercare.org is ref'd in the article) and vancorejones.com. Do a domainname whois on FamiliesForBetterCare.com and vancorejones.com. Familiesforbettercare.com: Tech Name: Kim Mask Tech Organization: VancoreJones Comunications. VancoreJones.com appears to be owned by the lawfirm that Jim Wilkes founded (Tech Name: WILKES MCHUGH). Please also note the other likely WP:PROMO articles from this same author: Special:Contributions/Kimmask The related articles are Florida politicians associated with WilkesHughes and VanCore. PeterWesco (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This blanking should be noted [8] PeterWesco (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Article D'Army Bailey created here [9]. Key item to note: Subject of article became employed by Wilkes McHugh two months before article was created. This is clearly stated in the article: "In September 2009, he resigned from the bench and became a member of the “Wilkes & McHugh, P.A,” a national civil litigation law firm, founded in 1985 by Jim Wilkes and Tim McHugh" PeterWesco (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

VancoreJones: http://www.bojarlaw.com/picontent/articles/nursing_feb0402_article.php Vancore was a former lawyer at the mentioned firm. PeterWesco (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

SEI Investments Company

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editors working for the company appear to be on a mission to whitewash this article. Their preferred versions are based exclusively on the company's own press materials and have removed what appears to be the only attempt to introduce independently sourced material to the article (DanielRigal's coverage of a fraud case). She has now twice blanked the talk page as well, presumably to hide editors' statements that the article is biased or a copyright violation of their about us page or should cover the legal case. This company appears to have no interest in respecting WP principles so I have brought the matter here rather than continuing to edit war with them. 141.126.35.239 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nicole.Vattimo is an WP:SPA account which has edited almost exclusively on what looks like the behalf of SEI for more than 8 years, albeit with large gaps in-between. In 8 years they have not learned what Wikipedia is for or any respect for our rules or objectives. A Google search suggests that somebody with the same name either works for SEI or used to. Of course, that doesn't prove that they are the person operating this account. Whoever is operating this account, I think it is time for them to go and publish their promotional material somewhere else, without abusing the resources of a charitable foundation. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.
BTW, It is not really "my" coverage of the fraud case. Somebody suggested it on the talk page and, as the reference they offered was solid and the matter substantial enough to include briefly, I added a short paragraph on it in which I was careful to be clear that SEI was not the only company being accused and to include their explanation denying the accusations. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding 12.20.49.10 as that IP, which whois says belongs to SEI, has been up to the same sort of misbehaviour today, i.e. removing the coverage of the fraud case and adding back the promotional company history that has been removed more than once before. Also Mpaige93, who has made pretty much the same edits in the past.
Suggestion
  • Indefinite block for Nicole.Vattimo (who has never edited Wikipedia for any purpose other than spamming for SEI, who's own user page got speedy deleted today as spam/copyvio, and who was already on final warning before that).
  • A really good long block on the IP.
  • Level 4 warning for Mpaige93. They made pretty much the same edits but only on a single day. (As they have not been warned at all yet, proposing a block seems too harsh unless sockpuppetry is proven.)
--DanielRigal (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: Since a surprising lack of admins are willing to take action here, I reported Nicole.Vattimo to AIV where she was indef blocked. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Amato Couture

Hi, I am Maria and I work as a Digital Engagement Consultant at Katch International. Our client, Amato Couture, has requested us to set up their Wikipedia page as an additional service to their PR services. I am the sole user of this account and will only be uploading the Amato Couture article.Katch Maria (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Katch Maria: Thank you for making this disclosure. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. The tone of the language used in Draft:Amato Couture is not appropriate "creative streak shone through from a very young age" etc. Reading WP:FIRST will help inform you as to how articles should be written. SmartSE (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
A secondary problem is that the draft, supposedly about "Amato Couture", says nothing about its subject. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Alan Robock,Vladimir Alexandrov

This will mark the fourth time , and the third board you've posted about this, like the song says "Let it go" already
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was initially made aware of this IP user in January, after observing that they knew details on a suspected murder victim, Vladimir Alexandrov, details which were not in the reference at the end of the sentence. Upon looking further into this curious IP user, in particular trying out the geo-location function, I have concerns that this IP user may be "someone" in Rutger's university, New Jersey. The place at which Alan Robock works, as only moments after editing the Alexandrov article in this problematic way, they then deleted embarrassing details found on the Alan Robock page. Alexandrov was a colleague of Robock's in the 1980s, so it would be understandable how he knew these details on Alexandrov and did not feel the need to supply a reference for the details he entered. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This IP user is geo-located precisely at Rutger's university. Where Alan Robock is employed. They were editing the article in March.

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Vint

According to this edit summary, I believe User:Pagan wulff is Jesse Vint. I've warned Pagan wulff about WP:COI, but he's continuing to edit the article about himself. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

FXCM again

Please take a further look at this. After dragging me to WP:ANI - with no real accusation that I've broken any rules, an no result after 2 weeks, User:Gouyoku has now taken up with obstructive editing and edit warring. User:Lenticularphoto is joining in. Both continue to look like sleeper SPAs and it is impossible to edit the article with their obstruction going on.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In the course of the WP:ANI discussion, Smallbones (talk · contribs) has been advised by Wehwalt (talk · contribs) to refrain from using such accusations as weapons in own content disputes. Lacking arguments, and in at least one case going against talk page consensus, it looks like user is trying to get opponents banned again. Gouyoku (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Have to agree with Gouyoku after reading the talk pge of FXCM and Gouyoko's talk page as well. There's a consensus , including at least one sysop , who is not in favor of what smallbones is trying to add in. To be sure, this looks like a content dispute not a COI.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  16:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Dada Vaswani

This is a large list of editors who have mostly created accounts in the recent past and who have contributed almost exclusively to Vaswani-related articles. Some have created their accounts within minutes of each other; others have similar usernames. For example, Ranuptheclock and Upabovetheworld were created within 6 minutes of each other; Stuartlittle was created only a few hours beforehand. An investigation of the other accounts reveals several similar patterns.

Looking through the histories of these articles reveals editing blitzes, especially on Dada Vaswani, sometimes coming within minutes of each other. For example, this morning Passionateaboutwriting, Ranuptheclock and Upabovetheworld (three accounts that had edited Dada Vaswani within the space of two or three days) all contributed to the newly created article The Moment of Calm, and two within a few minutes of each other. One editor (Swapna Iyer) has identified a conflict of interest on their talk page (here).

This all strikes me as somewhat coordinated. I will notify the named editors as soon as I've posted this. /wiae /tlk 13:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Of related interest: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Passionateaboutwriting. A sockring has been confirmed by checkuser. Additionally it appears that Jsadvani may have conducted some autobiography/self-promotion. - Bri (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Alan Robock

I saw this over at AN where an administrator has suggested referring an issue to this noticeboard. Problem is, here are OUTING clouds hanging over the discussion. So I'll just say that the article needs eyes-on for the usual issues especially involving anon editor(s). Bri (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Federico Díaz

The biography Federico Díaz is highly promotional in tone and content. The two main contributors to the article, AnnaMinarikova and Jen Kratochvil, have an apparent connection to the artist's studio. Last week I notified those two accounts of Wikipedia's COI guidelines. This week, the IP (which geolocates to the city where the artist's studio is located) arrived to add additional promotional content, which I have just reverted. List of selected exhibitions by Federico Díaz is essentially the work of a sole editor, Jen Kratochvil. Deli nk (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go at tidying the article up, removing a number of unsourced quotes and numerous external links etc. Melcous (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added above another IP address which is adding content that is highly promotional in nature. Deli nk (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue of promotion and COI at this article is ongoing. I have added another account and another IP address to the list above. Deli nk (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Karen Kessler

Resolved
 – Page deleted at AfD. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the article, Karen Kessler is the "founding member and president of Evergreen Partners Inc." Evergreenprkaren has made four edits, all to Karen Kessler. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

With a second look at the article's revision history, I noticed it was created by a member of a large sock farm which Yunshui described as looking "like some sort of concerted effort by a PR company." I wonder if any subjects of the articles created by the sockfarm are clients of Evergreen PR. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

COI addition at multiple articles

Resolved

* George Fergus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

George Fergus is the creator of epguides.com and is currently adding ((epguides)) to multiple articles. It may be innocuous, but to me that seems a COI, as he's using Wikipedia to drive traffic to his website. I'm only raising this here because of that issue, and to seek opinion on whether that's OK. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I also just noticed this and expressed concern that it was a COI. AussieLegend beat me to creating a discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a comment from a disinterested passerby - I've never heard of this website nor that template for linking to it and I don't in practice work on TV articles. But I would point out that if you read the documentation on that template, it is marked with ((Underused external link template)) which essentially asks contributors to add this template to articles. Maybe I'm out of line here, but it seems odd to get mad at people for doing things we asked them to do. --Krelnik (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Epguides is not a reliable source so it doesn't get used much. In fact, we tend to avoid even using it as an external link. The issue here though is that the owner of the website is the one adding the template, not that it is being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Clear COI; the editor says on their user page they're behind Epiguides. So they definitely should not be doing that. That's promotional editing. John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we get a bot or something then to go through and remove all of George's edits that added this template to articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
He hasn't added any more since May. I posted the standard COI notice on his talk page and added a note with a link to the guideline on external links. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
He posted an apology. I think he understands and won't do it again. I haven't looked at the links he added, but if they're indistinguishable in format, placement, etc. from those other editors have added, I'd be inclined to leave them alone. It's not ideal in a by-the-book way, but there are so very many other things to do.
A side note, should anyone be curious about the "underused" template: There are 965 transclusions (basically, uses) of it here. There are ~1,975 articles with an external link to epguides. So theoretically there are 1,010 articles where a link could be replaced by the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Chioma obiadi

Chiomaobiadi created an autobiography see Chioma obiadi.--MassiveYR ♠ 15:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It was speedied as a copyvio of https://missnigeria.ng/current-miss-nigeria/. In cases like this, a ((uw-autobiography)) warning is usually enough. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Spintel

Comcen is a company in Australia that merged with SpinTel in 2012. An editor with the same user name recreated the article. I blocked the editor under our user name policy with the instructions for them to create a new compliant account. This article was on a watchlist following the discovery of a massive paid sock farm. I made a report here at COIN, at the time, because I largely suspected this would come back. It has so it would be great if someone else could review the article and make a decision if the article should be kept or deleted under WP:G11. Mkdw talk 04:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

After looking it over, I feel the current COI and Advert tags are adequate. Most information appears sourced to independent industry coverage. The one unambiguous self-citation is paired with a citation to Money magazine. While it is certainly of an overall positive tone, there is a section on a significant corporate error. This does not seem to fall within the boundaries of, pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten... (emphasis in original). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

OM10

I believe it's possible that this user has a conflict of interest regarding these articles. From looking at their contribution history, they seem to have mostly contributed to these two articles. The articles themselves feel like promotional work, though they thoroughly cite tech press Brian-armstrong (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're required to notify editors when you report them here. I did that for you. It does look like there's some COI. Both articles need cleanup, but the subjects seem notable (more than can be said for some here). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I missed the giant red warning. I don't know enough about notability requirements but it does look like the pages were created and only updated by that one editor, and the tone of the pages feels like it would require quite a lot of cleanup.Brian-armstrong (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Social Kinnect

Article about a Mumbai social media/SEO company written by a first-time editor, using lots of blog-published corp founder interviews and a local runner-up award. It's unclear to me how this even got to mainspace. Deb has asked the creator if they are connected but I don't see a clear reply. Bri (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

True. There was no response to my questions. Deb (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks team, I have removed most of the promotional part from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalpeshchatterjee (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you also removed the only reliable sources that had been cited. It is now objectively worse and more likely to be removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

User WikiRecontributer47

I happened to notice a PROD had been placed on Karen Todner and in looking at it I noticed that it was PRODded by the same editor who created the article and has expended 350+ edits on it. This seemed odd enough, then they also put a SPEEDY delete tag on the same article. I asked them what they were up to on their user page and they seemed to admit being a paid editor in this edit [10]. I advised them they need to disclose per WP:PAID. The other articles listed above are the other article-space stuff this editor has created, they mostly seem to be related to lawyers and law firms in the UK. I would presume there's undisclosed paid editing here, this editor has also contributed to a number of other articles as well. Anne-Marie Hutchinson was already speedied and Laurence Edney currently has a PROD on it placed by @SmartSE:. --Krelnik (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Three more articles this editor has expended large amounts of effort on:
All three are related to law or legal issues. --Krelnik (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Smartse: You PRODed Laurence Edney, perhaps you can comment on the rest of this? --Krelnik (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Krelnik. Dodgy editing on the Davenport article dates back almost a decade. WikiRecontributer47 used to have a different username which matched with Davenport's publicist/assistant/housemate, who also lived with Laurence Edney. Karen Todner represented Davenport in a trial. The COI issues are fairly blatant but they may well not be being paid to edit and they may well have no COI at other articles. This diff doesn't show it well, but they recently removed that Davenport is a convicted fraudster and a self-styled Lord from the lead, along with dropping in the irrelevant detail that his house was used as a film set. There are other recent changes that I haven't been able to look at in sufficient detail to judge whether they are neutral or not, but I suspect more may need reverting. SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank Ilfman

If the name of the user is their real name, google search suggests they may be closely connected to the subject 86.147.180.208 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The username is apparently the same as the composer's spouse but they haven't edited the article (or anything else) for over two years so I don't see how this requires any action or monitoring. The additions this user did make were to add simply biographical data and some fairly well-referenced awards and credits. 11 other editors have contributed since then, so these changes were well-examined. I don't think there are any issues for this noticeboard to deal with. If anything, the removal of that information was more damaging than its addition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Life Time Fitness employee(s)

This article has had a many-years-long history of single-purpose or COI editors (see talkpage note (2009), COIN archive 58 (2012) and connected contributors note). The latest editor replied on his talkpage to my query whether he was connected, and seems to think if he's an employee but not in the marketing department he's OK to edit. I asked him not to do that and said I'd direct him here for details. - Bri (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Racosch

I stumbled into this on the French Wikipedia [11]

The French language accounts of Popo le chien and his paid editing account Pplc have been blocked for 6 months due to violating the French versions of "No article ownership" and "No legal threats". The commercial paid editing company involved is Racosch There are several other editors involved in this company and they all seem to declare their paid status and the companies they edit for, but not necessarily Racosch.

One of my main concerns is that the company and it's owners are deeply embedded in the Swiss Wikimedia Chapter. Popo is a former Chairman of the chapter. Another owner appears to be a current board member [12]. This IMHO questionable relationship was detailed (with some controversy) in the Signpost once, and twice.

I'm not sure that there is anything we can do about this, but we should certainly keep our eyes open. I took a preliminary look around and still have quite a few questions. If anybody could help me answer these questions, I'd be quite happy. I'll notify Popo both here and on the French Wikipedia. One thing that doesn't quite look right is that there have been no additional declarations since the Signpost articles. That might mean the company is going out of business (but why then threaten to sue?) or that they just quit reporting. A specific question relates to the company's blog of about Sept. 2016 that suggests that they edited the article Daniel Zappelli though this isn't declared by any of the company owners/editors but by an SPA. One possible explanation for this is the company's emphasis on training Another possible case of this type of thing is Philip Morris International (sorry for the interruption)

I don't know what to do about this, but I think that having many eyes on this situation, and perhaps knowledge of others' experience would help. Any additional info appreciated.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a cross-wiki issue and I don't know that you're going to get much help her. You might try Meta Wiki, but I don't know where they deal with COI there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
As i said, I don't know if we can do anything about it, but we should definitely look closely at it. If the company or its editors did break EN:WP rules, e.g. not making full declarations, then there is a way forward. I do hope Popo shows up here and clearly explains what's going on, and perhaps that will lay my concerns to rest. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I wonder who the "confirmed Wikipedians, with thousands of edits under their belts ...active on most large wikis (English, French, German, etc.) as well as on Wikidata" mentioned on Racosch's site are. From the Signposts I found Schutz, Manoillon, Manoillon (Pro), and Wicodric (all have been notified of this discussion). Are there others? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello all, and thanks for the notification. At this stage it is not so much a question of paid editing than that of harassment of paid editors. Long story short, there is a guerilla war within WMCH led by the same individuals who for more than a year now have engaged in a systematic campaign of harassment (on and off-wiki). After the last couple of episods WMCH's ED recommended I get a free consultation with the Chapter's lawyer, but we totally overlooked that getting lawyers involved is a big no-no, so that is backfiring (or playing right, depending on which side you're on I suppose).
I'm having a call with user:Doc James tomorrow on that issue. He is more familiar with your noticeboard so I'll leave it to him to pursue the discussion if he feels there's anything else that should be reported publicly (feel free to reach out by email as well). Popo le Chien throw a bone 08:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: minor clarification: I never edited the Zappelli article in a Racosch capacity - a quick look shows that I last edited the entry (in French) in... 2008. I commented on an RfD about a year ago - the guy he had hired to clean up the entry had shown he had no idea what he was doing and I wrote a post along the lines of "manage your client's expectations". As for the rest Racosch offers many more services unrelated to Wikipedia.
I do not agree with the above presentation. I cannot really express myself freely here, having received an e-mail threatening of legal retaliation after editing on pages concerning clients of the protagonist on the French wikipedia. However I want to thank Popoo le chien for his public apology about the legal threats here:apologized here. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping User:Popo le Chien. Yes we are discussing this tomorrow morning. Agree there is some elements of concern. Will be good to get further details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Smallbones is reporting about "full declarations" of paid editing and this is a cross-wiki issue, but please may you report here if in the en.wikipedia the paid editing is allowed? The "full declarations" seems a reference to a rule or a procedure that is accepted if declared. At least there will be "for all" a clear reference about what is valid in this linguistic version of wikipedia. --Ilario (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Ilario, you may find the text and links here helpful, as well as the WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so basically, explaining it to my grand-mother, I could say that it's allowed under some terms and conditions. Is not it? --Ilario (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to butt in here and say that I see a lot of hair splitting that verges on Wikilawyering. In response to your very last question, Ilario, everything is allowed on Wikipedia until it isn't (modulo the WMF's ground rules that even trump the community). It's better to hear the voice of the community and work through consensus, rather than trying to parse the exact language of the policies and guidelines. Many, many editors take a dim view of paid editing and will scrutinize it. When all is said and done, what edits are allowed and how far editors are allowed to go without sanction are both contingent on the will of the community, and this will is not always perfectly expressed in written form before the fact. - Bri (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi just to let the community know that we have been in a mediation process proposed and paid by Wikimedia Ch. Popo le chien has excused himself on my francophone talk page (I am grateful of him for doing that, as nothing obliged him to do so). I thanked WMCH yesterday officially during the 2018 general assembly for providing (and paying) a mediation process. We all have been able to talk and communicate directly. I really think this kind of conflict solving approach should be something that we can put in practice more in the future. So IMO and unless there are some informations I am not aware of, these people are now in line with community rules and best practices (as paid editing is allowed in our community provided it is disclosed). --Nattes à chat (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Medwavescharters

Resolved
 – User blocked for advertising and group/organisation username by SoWhy. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Medwavescharters has the same name as seen at https://www.medwavescharters.com and has made only one edit: 20:53, May 29, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+813)‎ . . m Luxury yacht ‎ (APA (Advanced Provisioning Allowance). APA (Advance Provisioning Allowance) is the standard structure to pay your expenses on a luxury yacht charter.) (Tags: possible conflict of interest, Visual edit). I don't know how to address this, but I expect that someone here will. User:HopsonRoad 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: If an account
  • is identical or reasonably close to a business or organization, and
  • has created or edited an article about said business/organization (or added spam links to it) within the last 3 weeks
then you can report them to WP:UAA. Accounts cannot be named after businesses, organizations or other groups of people. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! User:HopsonRoad 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kane Barry and the Eighth Doctor Adventures

Resolved
 – Not COI, page protected, future miners lose interest after being retconned. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple editors have been editing the Doctor Who article Eighth Doctor Adventures to include fictitious entries by Kane Barry(???) from 2018 till 2027. I can't find anything to verify nor support these entries, yet these editors insist upon them. I don't want to assume that they are all by Kane themself, but it seems a trend based on the edits.🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 21:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like common or garden hoaxing to me. Hoaxers often forget that it is 2017 and try to hoax things as having happened in the future. It is not just Doctor Who fans who have a flexible grip on the timeline. It is a good thing that Wikipedia upgraded ClueBOT to become sentient in 2019 and that all the hoaxers had been exiled to the mines on Phobos by mid 2021. If only Amazon had not also become sentient a few weeks after that and stolen all the money and goods in the world we would be sorted. Do you remember that time Amazon mistakenly tried to sell eBay, on eBay, for €0.99, in 2022? Seriously though, I don't see a COI here. This isn't somebody real advertising his own stuff. It is just nonsense. I have reverted all of today's stupid edits and requested page protecion.--DanielRigal (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Justin Boyd

The introductory sentence states that the subject of the article is named "Phillip Justin Boyd," which is the very nearly same for registered user P.justin.boyd who made this minor edit in 15 May 2017.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Initiative

Resolved
 – Editor's been gone for a while, JJMC89 cleaned up the article, nothing more to do at present. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The New Zealand Initiative has a controversial history, when it was previously known as the NZ Business Roundtable. An IP address registered to the NZ Initiative made changes to the article that basically whitewashed said history to make it look more like a public relations piece. In fairness, some of the edited-out content may have been a bit slanted or otherwise excess fluff, but all the same, there's a case to call a conflict of interest. Deepred6502 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I put a notice about the IP's owner, links to COI policies, and a notice of this discussion on their talk page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Deepred6502, I just noticed that the user's latest contributions are from 2015. I'm trouting myself. Anyone else: feel free to close this, or I'll do it once I recover from the trout. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Another query undisclosed paid editor

User:Jeffmcneill and edits need review.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing per [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ve Interactive

TechEditor is an SPA with a dozen edits (all marked "minor" except for the last). Ve Interactive is an online marketing tech firm that was supposedly set for an IPO and a 300 million pound valuation until it couldn't make payroll and was sold in administration (bankruptcy) for 2 million pounds. TechEditor has repeatedly removed the word "bankruptcy" and writes things like "Ve's award-winning products help e-commerce clients get more from their websites by enabling online businesses to acquire, engage and convert new and existing customers."

Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Admin help requested - TechEditor is still wikiwashing the article [14] and has not responded to calls to engage with the community [15]. - Bri (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Including IP editor in this. They added the same material TechEditor had. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
They came back again today so I've semi-d the article for a week. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding 2701Edit to this. Only one edit this year, in March, but they've only edited Ve Interactive, at times in a clearly promotional way. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:DETOURS

Page deleted, I've watched the page in case it is recreated (and I'm sure some COIN regulars have too). jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 25 June 2017 (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.

Googling 'hayley detours' shows in the first result that this person is the marketing manager for the company that is the subject of the article. I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as it is entirely promotional. It was speedily deleted earlier this week as G11 but has been recreated. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2017 (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.

Stevens Interactive

A new user whose first few edits were to create the article Stevens Interactive.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Joe Farrer

an edit summary from 21 December 2015 made in the first person implies that the registered user is Joe Farrer.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 02:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I posted the standard COI policy notice and notice of this discussion on their talk page. I'm not that concerned about this one: The user made a single edit a year and a half ago, to change their (or the subject's) workplace. They added nothing promotional, and haven't edited since. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ultimate Products

I have been reviewing the draft as part of the AfC process. A google search reveals the editor's employment, and a search for that employer indicates that they work for a "strategic communications consultancy". This, together with the nature of the article and the pattern of editing leads me to believe this is an undeclared paid editor Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The article reads like an ad. But the parent company, UP Global Sourcing Holdings, is doing an IPO for £150 million.[16] The parent may be notable per WP:CORP once they go public. For now, too soon. John Nagle (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Concerns FIBO Group

Just recreated a deleted article made by a undisclosed paid sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Could a volunteer with the ability to see deleted pages evaluate Spotware Systems Ltd (AfD) versus the newly created Spotware Systems? Of interest, Spotware has a history of involvement by a Morning277 sock. Of course it is a binary options-related company which is a red flag all by itself.
I ran a survey of this user's contributions which are concerning, including creation of multiple articles on Internet startups, execs, medical devices, financial institutions etc. – this list is surely familiar to COIN regulars. Perhaps Jytdog can comment on this cleanup of one of Pozytyv's creations. - Bri (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, I suppose you wanted to write "deleted article started by"... I don't think that replacing half of the references, moving, removing and adding sentences can be called "minimal changes".. Your rationale was wrong. That's why I recreated the article.. Bri, Spotware Systems is not a "options-related company", and of course options-related company is not a red flag all by itself... Best, --Pozytyv (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Pardon me, a Cyprus company selling "The Next Generation of FX & CFD Trading Platforms" is completely different. Or, maybe not. - Bri (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
they both claim to have developed cTrader. I've deleted G4. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Massive group of undisclosed paid editors

here. Have deleted a bunch of the articles in question as they are created by a very probably sock of a blocked account. Plus they were created in breach of our WP:TOU.

One has been recreated per User_talk:Doc_James#Overturning_G5. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

User:100 Celsius

Blocked and deleted some stuff. Other stuff needs to be checked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at his sandbox took me immediately to FxPro, a binary optionsCFD outfit. Blech. All contributions will need to be reviewed. - Bri (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Simona Capparini

Five days ago, Danielamoviement posted to the Help Desk, asking to have the DoB removed from Simona Caparrini, and claiming to be her agent. I did so. Another editor urged her to declare her CoI or Paid Editor status – she has not yet done so.

She then added a 1972 DoB with a reference to https://www.e-talenta.eu/members. I deleted it as I believe the source is unreliable, like IMDB. She re-added it, and began a discussion on my talk page. I explained that a reliable source is needed, and invited her to declare her Paid Editor status. I removed the inadequately sourced DoB two more times.

Then two new accounts, Gianni53 and Oscar5757, appeared. Both restored Capparini's 1972 DoB, and both were involved in creating CinemaItaliano.info, about another IMDB-like site which supports the 1972 DoB. (I proposed it for deletion, another editor then speedied it.)

I suspect the cause of the problem is that Google gives Caparrini's DoB as 1966, and her staff have realised that if WP gives a later date, Google may change its opinion. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User Maproom continues to delete and to deny a reputable source like cinemaitaliano.info with alleged accuses against Ms. Caparrini and other contributors who are clearly less familiar with the Wikipedia regolations and norms than he is. I suspect he has a personal interest in undermining and harming Simona Caparrini's reputation. I suspect something personal, not encyclopedic. Which are his sources? Has he checked the thousands of pages of CinemaItaliano.info instead of urging to remove its page from Wikipedia? That is an independent and reliable source with thousands of visitors every day. It is one of the most important italian web sites on Italian films and celebrities. If you don't know it, and cannot spend five minutes checking this web site, you better shut up. This is a true independent web site about Italian cinema done by professional journalists. You are offending them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar5757 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I had never heard of Caparrini until I read Danielamoviement's request at the Help Desk. I don't have any sources for her DoB, and have never suggested adding a date to the article. I am doubtful that CinemaItaliano.info is any more reliable than IMDB (and if it is, I wonder why Danielamoviement initially preferred IMDB as a source). I did not urge anyone to remove the CinemaItaliano article from Wikipedia; I proposed its deletion as a matter for discussion, but this was superseded when another editor nominated it for speedy deletion.
The important issue here is whether Wikipedia regards CinemaItaliano.info as a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that CinemaItaliano.info encourages users to submit biographies and date of birth for performers, it would not appear to meet our standards of being a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never read this page before in cinemaitaliano.info but I know that the journalists check their sources before publishing. Anyhow, if Maproom says that he has not intent of harming others, and in this case Simona Caparrini, I do apologize for saying that, but I assure you all that there are so many Italian actresses and actors on WP with no sources on their Dob and their work, that all this time spend on one page it has seemed pretty weird to me. Please check also the other pages of all the Italian actors and actresses. That what is is democracy: the law is equal for all. Thanks. Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Danielamoviement: We aren't a democracy, but yes, WP:BLP applies to all articles discussing living people and WP:VERIFY to all articles. It is true that not articles give appropriate sources, but it is those articles that need to be fixed, we aren't going to drop our policies because some articles don't follow them. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I can apologize to others, as I did to Maproon but what I could not understand was this fixation on scrutinizing only one actress. Also is important to understand that not all contributors know all the WP guidelines in such details and we should not discourage people to contribute. p.s. as you can see I don't know how to write here following all the guidelines. I do my best. Please bear with me and other beginners on WP. User:Danielamoviement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielamoviement (talk • contribs)

Draft:Reid Kirchenbauer

The subject of the article, Reid Kirchenbauer is the fund manager for a fund called Khmer Ventures. This connection can be established by googling "Reid Kirchenbauer khmer ventures". The creator of the article has the username KhmerVenture, which implies both a promotional/shared use username, an undeclared conflict of interest and likely paid editing. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Has been blocked as a promotion-only account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Derek Fildebrandt

This article seems to have some major COI/neutrality issues, judging from the latest reverts and number of single-purpose accounts that have edited this article in the past years. Any help cleaning up/extra eyes would be great. Connormah (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Had a go at cleaning up, and removed some unsourced and fairly blatant promotional/POV content. Melcous (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Maytech

The editor is very keen that the draft article should be accepted because there are articles in Wikipedia about their competitors. In the message they added to my talk page they wrote "All this companies I have listed do very similar services like we. Why they are notable and we aren't?" To me this indicates that the editor is writing the article on behalf, and is employed by, the company that is the subject of the article and is an undeclared paid editor contrary to the wp:terms of use. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Curb Safe Charmer:, thanks for bringing up this question. I would like to inform you I do not get paid for writing Wikipedia page and I will never get paid for it. Yes, I do work for Maytech but I'm focused on other activities that are my primary and Wikipedia have never been my primary activity. It was my own initiative to write about Maytech on Wikipedia and actually I'm volunteering right now because I'm spending my time responding to you instead of focusing on that activities which I get paid for. It's not written anywhere in my duties and responsibilities, nor I committed to anyone writing an article about Wikipedia, neither I promised anyone writing an article. I just thought "Wow, that's a cool idea to have a page on Wikipedia". I've seen so many pages about companies on Wikipedia, some pages are about big and well-known companies, some pages are about very small companies. That's why I thought it would be great to be on Wikipedia as well. I'm using Wikipedia so often and I trust it and I hoped to get support and guidance here, but it's so tough, really, I haven't expected there are so many obstacles to publish couple of sentences and every week there is "something new" why 5 sentences I wrote is not good to be officially published. I tried all my best and it's so sad that all my efforts are in vain and it all lets me down so strongly that I'm close to crying. One my friend he's Ukrainian Wikipedia editor and he told me how cool it is to contribute to Wikipedia and how proud he feels but all that I can feel is frustration and loss.

Anyway I would like to sincerely ask you to please have a look again at the Draft article about Maytech and please can you consider again to publish article about Maytech? As I said previously I for it and never get paid for it. Anastasiia09 (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Layer3 TV

Articles about executives of Layer3 TV, created as drafts by Andrewcantella, who declares himself an employee of the company. I just have no idea why anyone would accept pages like these for inclusion in our encyclopaedia, but somebody did. Now they need to be cleaned up or completely rewritten or moved back to draft or something. I had a go at Jeff Binder yesterday, and a new editor, TMTAnalyst, popped up, reverted some of the changes, and asked for the COI tag to be removed. It doesn't seem to me that it should be, but I'd like someone else to make that call. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and Elcorectomundo has edited only in this topic area, and was able to add a photo provided by Genovation Capital (one of Binder's companies). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It's clear to me that Elcorectomundo is related to Binder, and probably a sock for TMTAnalyst, but is not Andrewcantella. Andrewcantella edited appropriately (neutral, verifiable), disclosed his COI, and last contributed to Wikipedia in March 2016. The articles he contributed to shouldn't be tagged for COI based solely on Andrewcantella's involvement. (That said, Lindsay Gardner needs an edit --Elcorectomundo added hype to his article - I'll remove it.)
Apologies for the lengthy response, but I am the somebody who accepted the Eric Kuhn and Jeff Binder articles, and this is why.
Andrewcantella disclosed his COI when he submitted the Kuhn draft, yet another reviewer added an undisclosed COI tag and left it in the queue for someone else to review, which prejudices other reviewers. (here). We already make it very difficult at AfC for COI editors, and as such, we diminish the quality of Wikipedia by discouraging COI editors from adhering to policy. (As an AfC reviewer since 2013, I feel confident in saying that at least 50% of the submissions come from new editors with an undeclared conflict of interest.)
I have kept an eye out for Andrewcantella contributions since August 2015, when I came across the Kuhn article (with the undisclosed COI tag). He easily meets GNG, and the assertions of the article were verifiable. I gave it an edit for tone and accepted it. I accepted Jeff Binder in October 2016; he also met GNG, the article was neutral and verifiable at the time it was submitted, and Andrewcantella disclosed his COI. The Binder article was fine until Elcorectomundo showed up. (Draft as accepted on March 7 2016 and as it stood on February 11, 2017.) I've edited all of the Layer3 articles sporadically, added refs, updates, and removed hype. (I missed the Elcorectomundo edits to Binder, which, incidentally, began the day after the article was published.)
I see no issues with Dave Fellows, although I will give it another look (as others should), and in hindsight, yes, Eric Kuhn needs to be pruned. As for Elcorectomundo, I assume he/she will be blocked as a single purpose account or sock? Can the Binder article be reverted to the pre-Elcorectomundo draft, moved back to the draft space or blown up via AfD? (Not my area of expertise, although I will nominate it at AfD if others thingk it appropriate).JSFarman (talk)
JSFarman, I must apologise – my "no idea" comment could have come across as an implied criticism of you or Missvain, who accepted these articles. Please accept that that was not my intention, and that I know you did so in good faith. I really do have no idea why we allow conflict-of-interest editing in draft space, which is the source of so many problems here, but I've been told that reviewers will ensure that no promotional content reaches mainspace, so it's OK; I don't believe that that works in practice, but that's just me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now it makes sense, and thanks for that, Justlettersandnumbers. I understand why you feel the way you do. I'm going to do an edit for tone on the Kuhn and Fellows articles later today or tomorrow. (As previously noted, I should have been more thorough when I accepted Kuhn - I only cut the obvious.) I'm also going to offer guidance re: future editing for Andrewcantella -- I started on that yesterday. Thanks again for the clarification, no apology necessary! JSFarman (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hector Avalos

Elosofamoso appears to be a Single-purpose account who edits solely to promote the scholarship of Hector Avalos. I believe the scholarship of Hector Avalos is notable, and this user's contributions are of reasonable quality, but they are promotional in nature and I suspect a conflict of interest. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly an SPA, but a very slow one; less than 100 edits in 10 years. None on talk pages, which is unusual. A bit more engagement with others would help. The most recent problem seems to be edits at Hatred, such as [17]. This looks like a content dispute over biblical interpretation. Biblical hermeneutics is outside the scope of WP:COIN. That issue should be argued on the talk page of Hatred. John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jenna Andrews

The edit summaries on Jenna Andrews state "I work closely with Jenna on her digital presence", "she has requested this specific change", and "replaced with a bio from Jenna Andrews directly". I don't have much experience handling COI cases; right now I have added the COI tag to the article and left Akerston a message. Should I revert the article to the previous version as well? –FlyingAce✈hello 22:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I took out some of the "worked with" name-dropping. The article subject would seem to pass WP:MUSIC, with two or more recordings on a major label and some products which charted. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Thomas (American football)

Editor is holding herself out as the daughter of the deceased subject and changing the date of death. Published sources say Monday, the 5th; she's claiming it was actually the 6th. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: Published sources found to support the 6th. Could still use an extra voice to explain COI policy to user. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COI

I've started a discussion on WT:COI that may be of interest to folks here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Concerns

Understood12 (talk · contribs)

Have blocked for copyright issues but work is also very promotional.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:St.L.

The user appears to engage in paid editing. They have an Upwork profile which explicitly states that this was a paid edit. I don't think I can post a link to the profile here to avoid WP:OUTING, but their edits speak for themselves - clearly promotional about subjects of doubtful notability with several rejected drafts. Rentier (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Added a list of articles above. There are no apparent COI/paid disclosures. - Bri (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarahtalks1

First noticed at Bounce Ping Pong, photo claimed as own work, even though reverse image search shows it is copyrighted material. Series of London-based venues, not blatantly promotional, but with questionable sources (restaurant reviews) and barely notable. Earlier contributions deleted as G11, G12, A7; ExpenSys, SUDA Thai . Mduvekot (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dhananjay S!ngh

While investigating an SPI case, I came across this user. I attempted to access his domain as seen in this version of his userpage. It is forbidden in DNS lookups (403) for some reason so I ran a search on it and this ad at Freelancer comes up. He appears to be an undeclared paid editor. He is mixed into a much larger case of paid meatpuppets that I will be posting here for review shortly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've indeffed this user. He has since modified the above ad in an attempt to obscure his activities without updating his WP user page to reflect paid editing and is most certainly socking with other accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sock farm

Please review the above SPI case to which I've added quite a number of accounts and articles. It seems to relate to several different groups and better suited for the investigators here. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Meats blocked and SPI case closed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jacqueline Ayer

I'd like to add inline citations to meet the apparent objection to this article being taken to main article space, but Jacqueline Ayer was a close friend of my father's, and her daughters are friends of mine. If I confine myself to adding citations to the existing text, would that be OK? - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

36 hours, no response. If I don't hear from someone in the next 48 hours, I will presume this is OK and will edit accordingly. Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

New article question

Does the new article GoNoodle pass the mustard as far as WP:MEDRS or does it need to? It was turned down for G7. Atsme📞📧 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello? Is my question too brief to garner attention or is COIN as inundated as we are over at NPR? Atsme📞📧 20:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: The article doesn't make any biomedical claims per se. In an AfD I'd vote to keep, the company has been clever enough with their marketing strategy to ensure coverage in independent enough sources. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Edits made by the user User:Mlot123 on the Heather_Mills page increasingly lead me to believe there is an Apparent Conflict of Interest WP: APPARENTCOI. David T Tokyo (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

User:David T Tokyo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlot123 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC) No conflict of interest here. My edits are made in the interest of fairness and I believe the page of the individual in question is inordinately subjective in nature and reads too much like a gossipy celebrity magazine to satisfy the objective standards that Wikipedia articles adhere to.

Children in emergencies and conflicts

Not totally comfortable with this, so I figured I'd bring it up here for wider review and input. This seems to be an article using UNESCO "sources" copied in many or most cases verbatim from UNESCO, and done from a Wikimedian in residence, User:A.mart82, working with UNESCO. It came up at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and I haven't discussed it with the editor because I'd really just like additional input. Again, just make me feel a little uncomfortable in an WP:ADVOCACY way, although as a disclaimer I have no personal or political qualms with UNESCO as an organization. TimothyJosephWood 02:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There may be MEDRS issues around what appear to me to be rather extraordinary claims around prenatal environment, childhood mental illness/PTSD and such. E.g. "toxins and stress from the mother cross the placenta into the umbilical cord". Bri (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
User:A.mart82 does make an adequate disclosure on his user page (adequate under the GLAM rule). I think we should ping @John Cummings: who is the official Wikipedian-in-Residence there. I'm not sure of the copyright status of UN publications (John could you clarify?) but it is clear that they are meant for broad distribution and educational purposes. John, could a CC-BY-SA license be added?
I'd say they are a reliable source - certainly some sub-organizations such as WHO are. There is a question of advocacy about some of their material. Perhaps UNICEF would be an example - but I'm very comfortable with the UN advocating for the health of children (off-Wiki). I'd be less comfortable with sub-organizations such as International Labor Organization.
In short, this deserves to be handled very carefully, but we do have rules to follow (including exceptions for GLAM). Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks very much for pinging me, for clarification all the text added is under CC BY-SA 3.0 (see the sources section at the bottom of the article for license statement and links). Our main motivation for doing this work is to share knowledge from UNESCO publications on Wikipedia in a similar vein as sharing media content on Wikimedia Commons. We really hope that people will continue to work on the articles to update them and add additional references. An overview of all the work that has been done on adding open license text to en.wiki can be found here, which shows which text has been added to which articles and shows what text is available under CC BY-SA. There is a huge amount of suitable content available from the 1000+ open license UNESCO publications and on the sections of the website we have made available under Open License including descriptions of World Heritage sites and Biosphere Reserves. I've also created some simple step by step instructions for adding open license text to Wiipedia which uses a VE compatible template.
Thanks
--John Cummings (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Both sources are licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so I don't think there's a COPYVIO issue. But I am extremely uncomfortable with making a defacto "opt out" for WP:NOTADVOCACY just because it's a type of advocacy we happen to personally agree with. If the purpose of an organization is to make a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then their purpose perfectly aligns with ours, and if it don't then it don't. That's pretty much an all or nothing. Since the purpose of UNESCO is to "to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information".([18]) then, well, it don't. That's why, for example, UNESCO has taken a public position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and Wikipedia hasn't, to pick probably the most controversial example. Their purpose is to influence geopolitics, and we're supposed to be indifferent to it in any way that doesn't influence... well... the ability to make a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
To compare this to, for example, using verbatim text from Encyclopedia Britannica that has fallen into the public domain kindof illustrates the issue, because using the EB is using a source whose purpose is to build an encyclopedia, and that's not the purpose of UNESCO.
I have no issues with their work off wiki, and I have no issues with independent editors using them as a source, but having someone with them, using them, in their words, but in our voice is very concerning. TimothyJosephWood 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Having the proper disclosure and the proper license for the text is definitely a good start, and puts this in a different category than the usual problem here. But then then most of editors on Wikipedia have the proper license for the text (automatically) and have the made the proper disclosure (or don't need to disclose) and we still have problems with advocacy and different points of view. There is no "opt out" for WP:NOTADVOCACY. I'll suggest TJW and @John Cummings: both try to identify specific potential problems with the material added by @A.mart82: and then try to discuss it with him or her.
I'll suggest 3 good faith reasons that there may be special problems here:
  • The amount of material - the UN puts out tons on material every year. Probably most of it is good info for our purposes, but not all. Our missions do align pretty well, but not perfectly.
  • A.mart82 is a newby. Please don't bite. The UN (and other GLAM orgs) have lots of newbies that we should encourage to edit.
  • Every organization has some "group think" (more or less). This includes both the UN and Wikipedia. Working to avoid POV issues can make both organizations better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bye Bye Parabens

I am recording a possible conflict of interest / possible failure to disclose paid editing. I say possible because this is a suspicion rather than a definite. The Draft AFC submission, Draft:Bye Bye Parabens was submitted for AFC, and subsequently declined due to lack of 3rd party Reliable Sources. In fact it had no sources anywhere, other than the company website.

I looked at the history of the article, after commenting on its talk page about it looking like an advert. A quick google of the contributor's name reveals his presence on an external website as a paid, "Freelance Brand Marketer". I have been advised not to link to his off-wiki presence however, I assume it could get me into trouble or something. But my suspicion of a breach of ToS for paid editing and CoI remains. Dane|Geld 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've left them a message asking them to pop by here and confirm or deny if they're being paid to edit - it's worth noting that as long as the editor discloses their conflict of interest then they are okay to edit (providing they take note of our other policies) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: you do not have to be afraid to post links to a paid editing site in a low key discussion here, but thanks for your abundance of caution. See WP:Outing
" There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy."
I did follow your suggestion above and found the link right away. Given that this is so easy, there's no real reason to provide the actual link this time. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Think tank walled garden

Several SPA editors have created a bit of a walled garden around this think tank and its wealthy founder, related prize, related people, etc. Off-wiki evidence strongly suggests that one or more are employed by the think tank. The similarity of their edits is borderline WP:MEAT (or maybe not borderline). More eyes requested. - Bri (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Emerald Coast Science Center

Spotted via User creation log, they edited the article Emerald Coast Science Center with the edit summary "Editing the picture of the museum, some of the information as well. This account is for workers at the science center to use to update this page. Will be doing more soon." While I appreciate their workers taking an interest in this wiki, I believe this may merit a Conflict of Interest discussion?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@DoctorWho42: suggest you file this also at WP:UAA. - Bri (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, already blocked by Alexf. Bri (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

FxPro

Deleted via AfD. - Bri (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2017 (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.

Currently nominated for deletion, but looks like it may end up staying. There is an open job on Upwork offering money for saving the article [19] The job description admits to having maintained the article "for several years". The promotional content has been dealt with, but an eye should be kept on it and the edit history may be worth investigating. Rentier (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2017 (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.

Jagdish Narayan Meena

judging from the article and the username, there might be a connection or conflict of interest between the two? 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I Write all New About myself — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"The Wiki Fixers" article in Entrepreneur magazine

Moved to WT:COI - Bri (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2017 (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.

FYI, There's a short (1.5 page) article in the July-August issue about hiring UPEs. Nothing particularly surprising. The gist is that it probably isn't worth it. There are UPEs working from well-established accounts in addition to throwaway SPAs. And Leonard Kim admits he paid someone to write his; claims someone is trying to "defame" him with a notability template. Geogene (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Struck text where I misread part of that piece, am not endorsing everything in that BLP's article history Geogene (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

His picture was previously published here and is missing OTRS.
It is interesting that he says that people pay him for PR and than he does "Wikipedia" for "free" as a bonus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a link to the article? I looked for it, but all I could find is a piece from Armenia where it looks like the local Wikmedia Chapter sued a paid editing company that named itself "Wikipedia", and won. At least somebody seems to be making progress. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to only be available in print. Looking for it I found this [20] from just last month, which I'm about to email to WMF Legal because it appears to give advice, moral support, and perhaps enticement to people that violate the WMF's ToU. Geogene (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anybody mind if I move this to WT:COI instead? Bri (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind, wherever it best fits. Geogene (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2017 (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.

Ubisoft COI edits

COI editing came to my attention by way of @5thEstateWiki, a Twitter bot which flags edits to media-related Wikipedia articles emanating from IP ranges known to belong to media companies and organizations (in this case, Ubisoft). There are not "Fifth Estate" links for every article listed above; the list was drawn from user contribs after the initial prompting. There are, however, links for each of the listed IPs. Not much else to say, except perhaps to add the Twitter search link (which also shows similar anon COI edits to French Wikipedia articles relating to Ubisoft, and one to a Ubisoft-related Swedish WP article):

Proceed as you see fit.
P.S. Maybe someone should nominate List of downloadable songs for Rocksmith for deletion. 70.48.113.232 (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply to anon poster: I nominated List of downloadable songs for Rocksmith for speedy, and it's gone. As far as the particular accounts you listed, it doesn't look like any of these anon editors is very active. Recent changes to Ubisoft Quebec were reverted. Is there anything in particular you are concerned about? - Bri (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bri: Apparently, the article is back up. Maybe an AfD? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Unusually, another admin reversed the first one's speedy. I've started the AfD. - Bri (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ruminations on DLC content in general

AfD withdrawn; it was clear that although the article had only one source (which isn't good), this wasn't going to succeed due to its history and other factors. Having a look at our DLC content in general makes me think that it is probably an example of a big cruft- and promo-magnet category, but this isn't a battle I'm going to take on at the moment. What I didn't say in the AfD is that the sources offered in the debate like this and this are obviously rehashed press releases, and this sourced to "Rocksmith 2014 (YouTube)" is even worse. Another time, maybe.
Just to pick one at random to show how deletable these should be, here's a brief analysis of 2010 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. There are 8 citations. Five are directly from the publisher's website and one is a press release from the publisher. Another is a softball interview with the game studio's general manager. Which leaves one independent reliable source. Except -- uh oh -- that source (Giant Bomb, owned by CBS Interactive) and the game publisher (MTV, owned by Viacom) are both controlled by National Amusements. So in fact there are zero independent reliable sources for it. - Bri (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth White (auto racing)

Deleted article. Blocked paid editor. The only thing left to do is run a CU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 July 2017 (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.

The article was likely commissioned via Upwork, since a relevant advertisement was posted there recently. The account is likely a part of the group of accounts discovered in this SPI case, however it is my understanding that no sufficient in-wiki evidence exists to perform a check. Rentier (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree, Deleted article blocked undisclosed paid editing account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 14 July 2017 (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.

Collection of concerns

Editors

Articles

I guess the question is what family of paid editors do they belong to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:COI tag

IMO we need the full tag to show on mobile. Right now all these is for tags is a very small "page issues" link. While for most issues we do not need to alert our readers but for this one I think we do. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

More