Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

View-refresh.svgClick here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
Talk:99942 Apophis
Talk:Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
Talk:Bill Ackman
Talk:Agreement on Agriculture
Talk:Alfa Laval
Talk:Alston & Bird
Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Talk:Paul Andrew (designer)
Talk:Ascension (healthcare system)
Talk:Asparaginase
Talk:Radha Balakrishnan
Talk:Bank of America
Talk:Barrett, The Honors College
Talk:Berlin School of Business and Innovation
Talk:Better.com
Talk:James Bevan (diplomat)
Talk:Amanda Blanc
Talk:Len Blavatnik
Talk:California Health Sciences University
Talk:Cenovus Energy
Talk:Center for Documentary Studies
Talk:Center for Law and Social Policy
Talk:Change.org
Talk:Cloudflare
Talk:Code42
Talk:Colantonio Incorporated
Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)
Talk:Cracker Barrel
Talk:Tom Crosshill
Talk:Stephanie Cutter
Talk:Greg Daniels
Talk:Walter De Brouwer
Talk:Adrian Di Marco
Talk:Digital agriculture
Talk:Digital Currency Group
Talk:Diligent Corporation
Talk:Dover Corporation
Talk:Paul W. Draper
Talk:Jenny Durkan
Talk:Dutch Bros. Coffee
Talk:Edelson
Talk:Electronic fluency device
Talk:EPAM Systems
Talk:Epic Aircraft
Talk:European Golf Association
Talk:Evernote
Talk:Every Campus a Refuge
Talk:Families USA
Talk:Financial Conduct Authority
Talk:First Republic Bank
Talk:Foley & Lardner
Talk:Fortinet
Talk:FreedomWorks
Talk:Freeport-McMoRan
Talk:Deborah Frincke
Talk:Frontiers Media
Talk:Gregory Garde
Talk:Geriatrics
Talk:GoodLeap
Talk:Jonathan D. Gray
Talk:Daphne Guinness
Talk:Hauser & Wirth
Talk:Henley & Partners
Talk:Hikvision
Talk:Hilbert College
Talk:The Home Depot
Talk:HomeLight
Talk:Thomas Homer-Dixon
Talk:Hudson Pacific Properties
Talk:Icertis
Talk:Illinois Eye Bank
Talk:INgrooves
Talk:Interactive Brokers
Talk:International Medical Corps
Talk:Invitation Homes
Talk:Philippe Jabre
Talk:Bawa Jain
Talk:James J. Peters VA Medical Center
Talk:Jenoptik
Talk:Tim Jones (writer)
Talk:Judo Bank
Talk:R. Alexandra Keith
Talk:Joseph Keshet
Talk:Reshma Kewalramani
Talk:Khalili Foundation
Talk:Olaf Koch
Talk:L3Harris Technologies
Talk:LabVantage
Talk:Charles Lane (journalist)
Talk:Leaders for Global Operations
Talk:Steven Leath
Talk:LegalShield
Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
Talk:Marcus Lemonis
Talk:Levidian Nanosystems
Talk:Lightspeed (company)
Talk:Steve Linick
Talk:List of venture capital firms
Talk:Litera (company)
Talk:Harry Litman
Talk:LMAX Group
Talk:LoopUp
Talk:Lufthansa Cargo
Talk:Lush (company)
Talk:Lyric Opera of Chicago
Talk:M9 half-track
Talk:Cathie Martin
Talk:Patrick McGuire (solicitor)
Talk:Medifast
Talk:Chris Meek
Talk:Metro AG
Talk:Minimum description length
Talk:Mobileye
Talk:Marc Morial
Talk:Mpower Financing
Talk:MyRepublic
Talk:Nationwide Building Society
Talk:NCS Group
Talk:Jon O. Newman
Talk:Newmark Group
Talk:Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi
Talk:Martin Ødegaard
Talk:Omaha Steaks
Talk:Oncor Electric Delivery
Talk:Open banking
Talk:Opyl
Talk:P. F. Chang's
Talk:P&O Maritime Logistics
Talk:Panasonic
Talk:Park Lane Stables Teddington
Talk:Bridget Phillipson
Talk:Pitney Bowes
Talk:Pizza Hut
Talk:The Players' Tribune
Talk:Porter Novelli
Talk:Presidential transition of Joe Biden
Talk:Qnet
Talk:Rapha (sportswear)
Talk:Republic Services
Talk:Pete Ricketts
Talk:Riverbed Technology
Talk:Ruder Finn
Talk:Saint Mary's University (Halifax)
Talk:Sanctuary Housing
Talk:Sandy Munro
Talk:Ron Schnell
Talk:Sculptor Capital Management
Talk:Sculpture Park Engelbrecht
Talk:Sequoia Capital
Talk:Sigma Pi Sigma
Talk:Terje G. Simonsen
Talk:Sixt
Talk:Carol Smallwood
Talk:Software Guard Extensions
Talk:Soil Association
Talk:SoldierStrong
Talk:Son of the South (film)
Talk:Starbucks
Talk:Everett Stern
Talk:SThree
Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
Talk:Technischer Überwachungsverein
Talk:TechnologyOne
Talk:Tenova Takraf
Talk:TGT Oil and Gas Services
Talk:The Raw Story
Talk:The Real News Network
Talk:TIPA Corp
Talk:United States Medical Licensing Examination
Talk:Universum College
Talk:Uproxx
Talk:Valens Semiconductor
Talk:Verizon Fios
Talk:Hans Vestberg
Talk:Vivo (technology company)
Talk:Vote.org
Talk:Dan Wagner
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies
Talk:Harry Wilson (businessman)
Talk:Witton Albion F.C.
Talk:World Land Trust
Talk:Yahoo!
Talk:Yawn
Talk:ZeroFox

Chris Barrett[edit]

There is a case pending at DRV concerning a promotional draft. The draft was speedy-deleted as G11, and that is being appealed, and the G11 is being endorsed. So far, so good. User:Acroterion and User:Stifle have both asked the author whether they have a conflict of interest, and there has been one reply that is a non-answer. Can we assume that failure to answer indicates Undisclosed Paid Editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user seems to have stopped editing. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ward (game designer)[edit]

I'm not sure if this is an actual family member of Gary Gygax or just someone invoking the name, but they were warned of a possible COI last year, so given that I'm not sure if this edit is acceptable? BOZ (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? BOZ (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not acceptable. Jim is an ex-boss, so I'd prefer not to edit his page directly. I can't imagine Ernie or Luke ever calling themselves GaryJr. To my eyes this looks like either someone possibly associated with the new museum in LG or some random fanboy. It's not a username violation, but is a bit iffy. Appreciate the eyes, BOZ. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start by making another post on Garygygaxjr's talk page, providing links to WP:CoI, WP:PAID, and WP:USERNAME, and explaining exactly what the issues are. We can't expect newcomers to comply with policies they've very likely never heard of. If Garygygaxjr then continues to edit, further action will probably be needed, but we need to give them a chance to respond first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if User:Fracone was aware of this discussion, but they undid the edit by User:ElKevbo and moved the page to James M. Ward (game designer). BOZ (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I see that it was reverted by User:Praxidicae again but the page move still happened, so not sure if that was a good move. BOZ (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Fracone move was correct. His working name, the name he's published under for over 40 years is James M. Ward. The disambiguator seems reasonable to keep, given the large number of James Wards on the DA page. BusterD (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But are there any other James M. Wards? BOZ (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No but a middle initial by itself is rarely a strong disambiguator, when other James Ward pages exist. BusterD (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Gay News[edit]

Persistent addition of non-neutral content, by an account with the same name as the paper's editor. Hasn't responded to notices regarding conflict of interest, except to deny promotional intent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have now stated that they are the publication's current editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The unearthing of massive UPE operation[edit]

Note: moved from WP:ANI. Levivich 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agency Name: RankHawn HQ Location: Bangalore, India Official Website: https://rankhawn.com/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at their Website - https://rankhawn.com/wikipedia-page-creation-service/

Claims to be Wikipedia Page Creator at third-party sites such as directories - [Zoompo https://www.zoompo.com/rankhawn/], [SartUs https://www.startus.cc/company/rankhawn], [ExportersIndia https://www.exportersindia.com/rankhawn/].


Now, let's focus on their client list (as mentioned on their Website - https://rankhawn.com/our-clients/);

Current Status: The page is LIVE!!
User:Lapablo is a sockpuppet of User:Ukpong1
The page moved back to draft multiple times; these two IDs moved it back to the main article namespace; User:DrJNU and User:Sonofstar.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
  • Tata 1mg - Page created by another blocked ID User:Myconcern. The page was nominated for an AfD on May 24, 2021, but it attracted a bunch of meatpuppets (as User:MER-C has rightly identified it), out of which only one survived User:Sonofstar and did pretty well to influence the outcome.
Current status: The page is LIVE!!
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Current status: The page is finally in a draft, thanks to Praxidicae
Also, note, that it is because of this draftification, I was dragged to ANI for the third time by this gang of UPEs.
  • smallcase - Created by an SPA. But page was pushed back to draft by an another UPE, User:Germankitty (who happens to be blocked) and again moved it back to mainspace by User:Alookaparatha (also blocked) and edited further by User:GA99(also blocked) and User:User:Behind the moors.
Current status: The page is currently going through AfD, thanks to HighKing
  • Tejas Networks - Page created by a low-level ID - User:Diamondchandelier. Genuinely passed AfC, maybe because of WP:LISTED. But, it was further edited by User:Alookaparatha
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!
Current status: The page is LIVE!

I started this investigation on my end after facing the third ANI case , which was launched against me by the same group of UPEs. The way they tried to influence the ANI discussion by seeding doubts (against me) in the minds of other participants made me more determined to seek them outside Wikipedia. That determination led me to gather more information about paid Wikipedia services providers (in India and South Asia), and gradually I started updating the WP:PAIDLIST. However, I was not so hopeful in the beginning. But, giving up is not an option when your reputation is attacked. Kindly note that I intentionally added the screenshots of RankHawn's webpages to Wikimedia Commons. We should have some proof if they try to modify/update their website to hide the trail. So let's end this once and for all. -Hatchens (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two issues with this report 1) Why is this here instead of WP:COIN? This seems more suited to that noticeboard. 2) Your diffs don't show any conflicts of interest. For example, your proof for your first bullet is just the dif where the draft was moved to the main space. How do I know, only by looking at that dif, that there is a problem? Same for many of the others. You've made a lot of serious accusations here, but you're light on evidence and on possible solution. And, as I said, this is the wrong venue. --Jayron32 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, I too feel this is the wrong venue. But, have you considered looking at the external links like this which mentions the names of companies that are clients of RankHawn. Ofcourse, this indicates that the Wikipedia articles of any of these are UPE cases, imho ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be moved to WP:COIN for further comments. I hope some admin takes care of it. @MER-C:, your opinions on this, please? ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then the paid editing is hardly undeclared, n'est ce pas? I mean, if they are literally publicly declaring this, it's not UPE, is it? This hardly merits the sort of moral panic-type post above, and yes WP:COIN is the correct venue. --Jayron32 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayron32, declaration on some other website is not sufficient under either the Foundation's terms of use or enwiki's local policy implementing the terms. Cabayi (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. This is still not WP:COIN. --Jayron32 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take this to WP:COIN. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nothing to add except that I have no affiliations with this rankhawn or whatever it is called. This is exactly why I gave up my AFC rights. You do a ton of AFC and then get dragged in stuff like this. Hatchens don't have a lot of ground honestly after the deletion of Koenig Institute and Prasun Chatterjee that they accepted/NPP, and defended. Their affiliations with Nikhil Kamath are still unanswered. I also see them requesting Smallcase to be redirected to Zerodha (Nikhil Kamath's company).

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manyavar was created, quarantined, and patrolled all by blocked spammers (Juggyevil, MickyShy and Aloolkaparatha). OkCredit is also suspicious, having been patrolled by the same spammer as Manyavar. MER-C 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    there is a need of policy or guideline that covers this underground UPE. There are plethora of such websites [rings] operating on the Wikipedia, and if I'm not wrong a plenty of editors associated would be those in good-standing over here. This "underground ring" has understood how Wikipedia works and that's how they do their business. This needs more than a block or a sanction. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, we have two completely different issues here. The first is how do we deal with UPE accounts, and the second, mostly unrelated matter, is how do we deal with the articles that have been created this way. The first seems easy. Blocking the accounts seems perfectly reasonable, we have plenty of policy backing to do so, WP:NOTHERE is sufficient. The second is dealing with the articles. That's also easy. We read the article and pretend it wasn't created inappropriately. We just erase that idea from our minds. Then we assess it against the same standards we would any article, take the ones that don't belong at Wikipedia to AFD, edit the other ones to clean up any tone/NPOV issues, and then go back to the rest of our lives. UPE is a problem, but it's a problem dealt with using the mechanisms we use for dealing with any problems. We block/ban any users who violate standards, and we use normal editing processes to deal with their mess, being sure not to cut off our own nose just to spite our faces. --Jayron32 18:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am grateful to Jayron32 for their very cear distinction between the UPE editor (block them to hell and back - I paraphrase) and the article (treat it like any other article), and agree wholeheartedly with the element regarding the UPE editors
I have sympathy with their view on articles. However I also do not wish to reward UPE. I believe we should take the approach that clear UPE created articles without edits by other parties (substantive edits, not cosmetic edits) should be treated in the same way as we treat articles created by blocked users evading their block. Delete and consider salting if saltig be justified. Those that have received substantive edits by non UPE editors should be held up against our policies WP:N and WP:V, and face deletion or retention on that basis, by an appropriate deletion mechanism, inclising speedy deletion for egregious cases.
I am also grateful to Hatchens for brigning their thoughts first to ANI and then, more properly (albeit by consensus at ANI), to here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not entirely clear on what actions are being requested here and how our existing policies and practices are inadequate. I do think that it would be really helpful if the foundation could offer more active, direct support in combatting UPE, especially in cases where there are many people or a large organization(s) involved that exceeds the capabilities of a volunteer editor. This does seem like an area where some paid staff could really help us volunteers. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again thanks to Hatchens for bringing this to the community's attention. This practice is likely more widespread that we acknowledge and should be dealt with swiftly whenever discovered. I also agree 100% that UPE editors should not be rewarded in any way, shape or form. Any articles in which they have been substantially involved should be deleted because to leave those articles in place means that the UPE delivered a "satisfied" customer. It might sound overly-harsh, but if their "customers" end up denied the coverage promised by the UPE editors it will discourage future participants. HighKing++ 20:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we were to, say, append a COI template that also applies NOINDEX? We keep the page so that it can be worked on (if it's otherwise acceptable) and they're denied the Google rankings they're looking for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it though? A "customer" would still be able to see *their* paid-for space on Wikipedia, UPE would still get paid. COI template might even encourage some UPE's (see, we can break the rules and *still* get your page live). Not seeing a workable disincentive here. HighKing++ 20:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire reason they want the article is to exploit most search engines' favouring of Wikipedia, and thru that drive traffic to their web pages from the links in article. This is not an instance where NOFOLLOW would help since the goal is to have a publicly-searchable Wikipedia article that tops search engine rankings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By default, yes, those templates should apply NOINDEX. But not as a solution to UPE. HighKing++ 20:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second HK. This is not any solution to the UPE problems. No-indexing ≠ not having a Wikipedia article. All those people or companies want a Wikipedia article, and don't care about its Google indexing, perhaps for some reasons; who cares with the "within Wikipedia known stuff"? This needs a stricter stick. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing they would want a Wikipedia article for is social media verification, from experience. Most such websites accept a Wikipedia article, as long as it's properly referenced and written, for verification. The issue is that most of these people either assume the Wikipedia article is the easiest option (ignoring the "properly referenced and written" part) or ignore far easier requirements that would make a Wikipedia article for the purpose redundant (for example, Twitter also allows one to submit multiple news articles for verification, a requirement which at best dovetails with and at worst makes unnecessary a Wikipedia article).
People aren't seeking a Wikipedia article just to have a Wikipedia article. All the WP:BLPREQDEL we get proves that much. They have a goal in mind that the Wikipedia article is a means toward. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can comfortably presume that people who are paying to have their company added to Wikipedia don't have a company that would end up in Wikipedia through the course of normal volunteer editing. At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. BD2412 T 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Draftifying all of them gets them off main namespace and removes them from robots indexing while also putting them in the AfC queue so an un-involved editor can examine it. The concern is how many UPE'ers are already inside AfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both AfC and NPR are filled with the UPE'ers. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that, in a recent RFC (on Village Pump I guess), WP:DRAFTIFY has a new 2d clause not allowing articles older than 90 days (and recent creation by inexperienced editor) for draftification - except thru AFD. That also has the 5a and 5b that deal with WP:COIEDIT — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how 45 support and 46 oppose somehow became a 90 day draftification limit. In my opinion, this is another frustrating example of the wider community passing edicts that make the job of new page patrollers harder, without taking into account the complexity of the existing NPP workflow and the size of the NPP queue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, they should automatically be moved to draft to be vetted, and not at the top of the pile of drafts, either. The guideline WP:COI is kind of weak. It only says that COI/UPE should use the AFC process. This is sometimes circumvented by bad actors with moves back to mainspace or copy/paste moves. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: NOINDEX only works in mainspace for 90 days. After that, MediaWiki ignores it and allows search engine indexing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like the fact that this was initially posted to ANI has muddied the waters a bit, but I don't see why we shouldn't deal with this like we always deal with UPE: block the accounts and tag the articles with {{UPE}} until someone can check whether they need to be cleaned up or deleted. Moving to draft is just kicking the can down the road. – Joe (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is multi-accounts UPE operation, can the accounts in question be checked for potential socks and sleeper accounts? – robertsky (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more client of RankHawn;

Created by; User:Boyofjawad (blocked)
Included in RankHawn Client List: YES
ID's involved; User:GA99 (blocked) and User:Sonofstar
Current Status: The page is LIVE! -Hatchens (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
robertsky; Aren't we taking this too much easy? How would one justify the usage of a CU because all the accounts may not necessarily be used by a single person, and there would necessarily be no behavioural similarities. The big UPE rings are aware of the "within Wikipedia" intricacies. An SPI clerk won't approve for a CU until they get on-wiki diffs that indicate any sort of similarities, and perhaps same sort of behaviour is needed under DUCK. This is much beyond. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the phrasing as a question. Thanks for the response, it is what I wanted to know. My thought was that these people may slip up despite knowing the intricacies of the norms on Wikipedia, and they may have accounts in good standing just waiting to be activated for their UPE operation. But agree on the current usage/limits on CU. May have to do some behavioral analysis to check for potential relations then. – robertsky (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel behaviour-check is difficult given the fact how these types of UPE rings work. They've their boys in the AfC and NPP. I was reading somewhere on the website that Hatchens reported above, that, they are all over the Wikipedia, and in fact good-standing in a nice way. Can't AfC/NPP reviewers of any of the articles that come from such rings be held accountable? This is something that has nothing to do with SPI's. What about those who hugely influence the AfD discussions? So much to do. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi: Don't believe everything you read... we know that UPE outfits frequently lie about their standing on-wiki to dupe people into giving them money. There have been cases of UPErs/sockpuppets getting new page patrol rights (the criteria aren't particularly high), but I don't think it's a widespread problem. Most are not particularly savvy and get themselves blocked long before they even reach extended confirmed. But if you have specific accounts you are concerned about that aren't already blocked, by all means let's look at them. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UPE is in itself a good reason to suspect sockpoppetry and run a check. Many (most?) of the accounts above are already checkuser blocked. If there are any with more recent edits I can check for more socks but most seem to be stale by now. – Joe (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed yes. UPE and socking go together very well, if combined. There is a financial incentive, and their incomes, after all! Remember Orangemoody? We even have a mainspace on it - Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more suspected client of RankHawn

Created by User:KNivedat (the same low-level ID has created Draft:PharmEasy, a client of RankHawn)
Included in RankHawn Client List: NO
ID's involved in editing further; User:Behind_the_mooor (blocked)
Today, there was an attempt to create a page for its founder via AfC route - Draft:Kunal Shah. An SPA was used; User:Pogochamp.
Current Status: The page is LIVE! -Hatchens (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Bhalerao's possible socks[edit]

@Joe Roe: I found some for a review. For the background, I wrote this report and my suspicions were right. This UPE ring operates a large number of accounts. My quest to discover more lead to another NPR right holder, Umakant Bhalerao (talk · contribs). Their pattern is pretty much similar to DMySon (mostly reviews politician's articles, Uttar Pardesh geography, in between they review their own client's articles) and I won't be surprised if a usercheck confirms that. In any case, following accounts are most likely operated by them:

I think this is enough to file a SPI against these accounts (perhaps on GermanKity) and we need some sort of sysop action against Umakant Bhalerao (they've done enough damage already). Courtesy ping to @MER-C:. I am notifying Umakant Bhalerao to join this discussion. Thanks. 117.215.247.207 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wikibablu, Michael goms, Anthony Masc, Aaliyahshaikh01, and Pjjkn are all suspicious. MER-C 18:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C: the IDs are so smart that none of them have any inter-linking history popping at Editor Interaction Tool. If all these IDs turns out to be linked with GermanKity (I don't know how), then it will establish indirect link with MickyShy; which will eventually leads us back to RankHawn. Kindly note, there is also no inter-linking history between Germankity and MickyShy but, still the latter got blocked because being former's sockpuppet. As AafiOnMobile quoted above - "This is much beyond". - Hatchens (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP, you are mistaken. I do not have a connection with any of the accounts you've mentioned above. Nor do I know GermanKity. You're more than welcome to file an SPI request. And secondly, this list is very short, I've marked many more articles as reviewed within minutes of their creation that doesn't mean those accounts belong to me.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hatchens: What is your take on Razorpay (logs, draft logs) in which Umakant Bhalerao was involved (they draftified stating UPE and PROMO concerns). I don't see Razorpay on RankHawn website. Is there a connection or is this completely independent of this report? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer First of all, I was surprised to hear Umakant Bhalerao's name come up in this discussion thread and equally surprised to find him performing controversial reviews of some articles (as mentioned above by the IP). However, I have worked with them, interacted with them, and discovered their reasoning to be explicit and exemplary. In fact, they are one of my go-to editors when I need a second opinion or recommend somebody for a review. And, when it comes to Razorpay, based on the logs, draft logs, they have shown us the exact level of knowledge and integrity as our community demands. Therefore, I hope they should come clean about their act. It's about trust. That's the only thing we can share with our fellow editors.
    Now, coming to the second question (and the important one), if you ask me how to connect with Razorpay with RankHawn; without the former getting mentioned on the latter's website? It's simple... by studying the edit history of the recently created Draft:Razorpay, which was created by Aviationhub on May 22, 2022 (i.e., today) and it's the same ID which did two mid-size edits on Draft:Bigbasket (RankHawn client) on May 16, 2022. They are also involved in editing other RankHawn client pages such as; Cred (company), and Tata 1mg (in the past two months). So it does establish a connection. And, we should not be surprised that Razorpay is RankHawn's new client because, in the past, their pages have been draftified n-number of times, and one of their reviewers DarjeelingTea and page movers JohnHGood41 are also blocked. But, I wonder about the audacity of this UPE gang to attempt a new page (for Razorpay) with an ID that can be duly linked back to this ongoing COIN investigation. It seems to be unprecedented and weird! - Hatchens (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer we have just discovered the tip of the iceberg. And, we should be prepared for more such unwanted discoveries (like Razorpay). I would request you and others, please expand this investigation from your end, collate your discoveries over this thread. Collectively, we should take this as an opportunity to learn and decide the future course of action against these elements. -Hatchens (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your assessment! Looking at the contributions of Aviationhub (talk · contribs), they are overwhelmingly within Indian politics. Diverging into companies is fairly recent (since February 2022) and only in the last ~100 edits out of ~930 total edits. Tho there might be an edit here and there in the past, they are pass and go and nothing major. If they are involved in WP:UPE, they must declare it. I'll leave an UPE declaration notice on their talk page. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys Aviation Hub here
    I am just an average Indian student who has lots of free time and likes to edit it during the time. I dont get paid any sorts or what plus the draft i created and everything else were not done by me. They used to exist before in the razorpay page which has now been removed i just added it because i thought they were right if they arent mistaken me i am apoliogising and will never do that again and instead take it as a learning opportunity instead. I only write about startups fundraising and financial i only did this cause i thought the previous article was right I am sorry once again. I have no idea what is UPE and anything else too or what on earth a RankHawn is. Aviationhub (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviationhub: Can I ask you why you working on the Draft:Bigbasket article and specifically put the products list back in (the exact same content) that I removed for being straight up promotional. That article has been in-out of draft numerous and deleted twice at Afd with a clear consensus to delete. Currently you look like a UPE. scope_creepTalk 17:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now?[edit]

The allegations against Hatchens and their subsequent block notwithstanding, a great deal of potential evidence has been presented about a serious set of allegations. Is the moving of this forward something that COIN handles, or does this move into areas that ordinary editors, perhaps ordinary admins, are not privileged to see?

That it withers on the vine does not seem to me to be an option. I see any discussion about Hatchens as a connected but separate topic. Those issues can be pursued separately.

If even part of the evidence presented above is true, and comments by very experienced editors such as MER-C seem to suggest a great deal of truth, it woudl be disappointimg if action just, well, stopped. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a real shame if this went nowhere. Perhaps the next step is to get some Checkuser evidence via an SPI? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Wikibablu. MER-C 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A SPI has been filed by a "new" user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GermanKity. MER-C 15:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C I am unsure whether to be concerned about the newness of the filing editor. Any inappropriate conduct im that regard will all come out in due course. I am, however pleased that I can see "something" taking place, likely spurred on by this report.
I choose to imagine that wheels are turning behind the scenes for the most part, and hope my imagination is correct. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI above has been closed due to lack of focus. MER-C 16:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very suspicious account here they seemed to get on well with German Kitty and were obsessed with gaining draft review rights at some point.user:Suryabeej2A01:4C8:8AA:CF87:884D:CB50:32AF:331C (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hatchens[edit]

Ironically, given the thread just above this one, earlier today I blocked Hatchens for undisclosed paid editing. I don't want to give away the specific activities that gave him away, but his general pattern seems to have been to accept AfC drafts written by other UPErs. Maybe also some direct paid edits to articles.

Hatchens new page patrol and autopatrolled rights, and was an AfC reviewer. I'm afraid we're going to have to check all of the articles he reviewed or created for spam, so any help is appreciated. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: presumably only the accepts need checking, not all their AfC reviews? And what should we do if we come across something dodgy — draftify, move an AfD, or decide each one case-by-case?-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case basis, I'd say. – Joe (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
88 Accepted, according to [[3]]Slywriter (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The patrols are also bad. Don't also forget the article creations (68 items) and page curation log (949 items). MER-C 16:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, unless someone tells me otherwise, I'll start with the AfC acceptances, and expand to other areas when those are done. Already sent one to AfD, and looking at another suspect one (although I also realise that it's easy to get carried away and see problems where they don't exist).
Would it be an idea to somehow mark those that have been checked and found likely okay, so that others won't waste their time reviewing them again? Maybe a null edit with something like 'checked' in the edit summary? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unpatrol and repatrol would be more semantic. MER-C 17:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe I see that the block is a checkuser block after a VRT ticket, so I presume Off Wiki evidence has been presented. I acknowledge that I have no right to see that evidence, and that it will not be commented upon in public forum.
I wish to ask a simple question based upon the thread above.
Might the ticket be a result of Hatchens's report above?
I know that you may not be able to make a full answer, perhaps any answer, to that in public forum. I ask, simply, that you consider the possibility of some form of targeting of Hatchens by virtue of their making a post.
In asking this question I have not considered any behavioural evidence that I might choose to inspect from the pool available to me. I note that some of their AFC acceptances are considered to be inappropriate. I am continuing to AGF over this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some of the evidence and endorse the block. It is unambiguous that Hatchens does not have the personal integrity to edit Wikipedia. MER-C 19:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there's been multiple past cases of UPE editors throwing rival UPE rings under the bus--without having reviewed offsite evidence, my inclination is that as long as we're doing due diligence in reviewing the reports, we shouldn't discard them just because they originated out of a turf war between UPE groups. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MER-C Thank you for the answer. I am disappointed about the evidence, though pleased it has come to light. The question needed to be asked.
@Rosguill I agree. We should not discard them, but we should also recognise them for what they are. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Rosguill says it's definitely not unusual for UPErs to try to use our enforcement processes to their advantage, either reporting established editors who have reported them, or reporting competitors. I suspect something like the latter is what's going on with the thread above this one. Usually they're not too subtle about it, though, and in this case I'm confident the timing is a coincidence. – Joe (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I've seen Hatchens around, but never realised that he presented himself as a native speaker of American English – his language patterns are so typically Indian. (Pretending to live somewhere you don't isn't exactly a violation of any rule, but it is a bit odd.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do present myself as an American English speaker too, but at least I was honest in where I lived and I am not that proficient in American English. MarioJump83! 12:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you have a userbox saying that you use American English, but Hatchens has one that says that American English is his first language, which surprised me since he consistently uses Indian English on talk pages. It's a bit like if the queen of England were to have a Wikipedia user page with a user box saying "One is a native speaker of Australian English". But again, it is a peculiarity and not a policy violation – I simply wanted to point it out because it might be relevant in combination with the other issues. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest: Greeks for the Fatherland[edit]

For a while now the article Greeks for the Fatherland has been the target of consisent vandalism. A few weeks ago user AkisAr-26 appeared out of the blue and immediately contributed with some suspected WP:POV tendencies, which also appear to expand to the Greek Wikipedia focused mainly on the same article. Apart from some very unhelpful and sometimes misleading contributions, he raised multiple points on the talk page which indicate that a) he might be an old user with a new account, but most importantly b) there could be a conflict of interest. Upon asking him multiple times [1] [2] if he is involved with the party in any capacity, he refused to answer and dodged the questions. Since this is quite serious and his contributions have been disruptive for a while now, may I please ask you to further-investigate his activity to find out whether he is associated with the political party? The user will be notified of this discussion on his talk page. Thank you in advance. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NikolaosFanaris: I don't see coi here, at all. The edits that AkisAr-26 are slightly more accurate to references. Treat it as a copyedit. scope_creepTalk 23:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: they have refused to answer to my question numerous times since the discussion started. It's not just the "focus" on references, but a bunch of other disruptive edits that indicate a close relationship to the topic. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the this. I'm afraid the accuser is lying. I did answer his questions. AkisAr-26 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - you randomly woke up one fine morning and started editing specific articles related to neo-Nazi criminals that you are admiring. Sounds legit. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coocat86 Potential COI and UPE[edit]

Since 2009, Coocat86 has made 64 edits to the project. Of those, 49 have been made to one article: NewsWatch. During this period, this user has aggressively defended this article against deletion twice. During this same time, the article has never been improved to include WP:RS. To date, the article is exclusively cites content available from the subject's web page. It is abundantly clear that Coocat86 is using WP as a promotional platform, which is a direct violation of WP:SPAM similar to WP:Brochure to support the ongoing business of Newswatch. It should be noted that upon examination, Newswatch is NOT a legitimate media outlet but, rather, a paid video production company (See: https://newswatchtv.com/2021/12/20/why-should-i-pay-for-a-video-production-company/). I have raised the possibility of Coocat86 being a wp:UPE and also having a WP:COI on their talk page with no response. I believe there is substantial evidence to suggest that this user has a direct COI and may also be a WP:UPE. I humbly suggest blocking this user from further disruptive edits and revisiting a WP:AFD discussion regarding the NewsWatch article. Volcom95 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any record of an AfD, just a failed PROD, so an AfD may be in order. I have removed copyvio, poor sources and promotional material. What's left isn't much or great.Slywriter (talk)
Seems to be an informercial. Good work @Slywriter: in identifying it. Propped up by coi editors. scope_creepTalk 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And well done, Volcom95, for the gathering the evidence and reporting it here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. Venable[edit]

This user, who's username is the name of someone strongly connected to the subject of the linked article, received a warning about COI in March 2021 after they tried to remove some unflattering information. They returned yesterday and re-added some flattering but uncited information that had been recently added to the article by Candied tangerine (who has only edited Charles L. Venable), and removed by myself. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the editor also removed significant content from the Indianapolis Museum of Art page in 2015 without giving valid reason, including removing information about pushback Venable received for decisions he made regarding the admission price to the museum.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the AfD of Charles Venable, there are some people, likely a meatfarm, that seems to try and influence the deletion process. MarioJump83! 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malinche Entertainment[edit]

Nearly all of this user's edits have been to this article and the company was founded by Howard Sherman. So it looks to me like this could be Howard's account. I have substituted Template:Uw-coion their talk page but have had no response as of yet. KaraLG84 (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jeffcoat[edit]

G'day, I'm real good mates with these two blokes (matter of fact I train with them), & reading WP:COIE it seems there may be a COI as I'm a friend of theirs. My contributions to their articles largely consist of adding details such as height & weights, personal bests, and updates on any international competitions they're attending. Does this constitute a COI & need I declare as such if so? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X750: Thanks for reaching out; I can see by your edit history that you've been around Wikipedia for a little while. Close personal relationships would constitute a conflict of interest, yes. You should probably add the {{UserboxCOI}} template to your userpage, and the {{connected contributor}} template to the talk page of each article.
That said, your edits to these articles don't look problematic. My suggestion for the future is that if you have any large amounts of content to add/change, or there is a possibility that other editors could challenge it, use an edit request on the talk page so that others can review it first. Thanks again and all the best. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do those templates. I just have one other question Drm310, you say large amounts of content to add/change, what is stopping me from getting around this by adding information in small bits? Not saying I would deliberately exploit this loophole but information on athletes tends to just trickle in. Thanks X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
X750, I guess the short answer is that there is nothing stopping you from making small, incremental changes. If anything, that makes it easier because if someone disputes the change, then the discussion can be more narrowly focused. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User WikiDiaspora, multiple new articles: Jelena Medić[edit]

New user is producing lots of heavily-referenced articles for BLP. What is notable is that the pictures are all professional, and have rights assigned to wikimedia via private correspondence. A number of the pictures were owned by the subject of the article, which means that the user had to have had contact with the subject of the article. Several notices of possible COI have been posted: to user talkpage and to some of the articles. User denies COI. For example, see Talk:Jelena Medić, User_talk:WikiDiaspora#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more of the pages. Note that in one case, the rights to the photograph was owned by another one of the subjects they wrote about.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's clearly something going on here, whether it's paid or COI editing, most of these articles are nothing short of complete advertisements and poorly sourced puffery. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked WikiDiaspora to respond here. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not connected to the subjects of the articles in any manner. I get photos by contacting the authors (through Google). I think that it's natural that there is a connection between the personalities and events that are the subjects of the articles I've created because they belong to small ethnic groups and related professions. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made. Please, advise how to improve the listed pages in order to avoid deleting. WikiDiaspora (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please remove {{Undisclosed paid}} tag from my articles if we solved this? WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the puffy nature of the articles involved, it would be best if you disclose your conflict of interest. I don't see how you are contacting authors for photos and there's not some sort of business exchange involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I contact the authors usually by email. The article about Jelena Medić is perhaps the only article of mine where it coincided that the author of the photo(s) is also the subject. Therefore, please return the article so that I can improve it according to the guidelines. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WikiDiaspora, the metadata in several images that you have uploaded to Commons (e.g. [4][5][6][7]) states that 'WikiDiaspora.org' is the copyright holder. What is the purpose of this website, and what is your relationship to it? Spicy (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That site is not active and I've added it as a source earlier because I was not familiar enough with the rules of Wikipedia. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain away what is being asked. And per the archived website, it was in a file directory that wasn't completely publicly available, so one last time: what is your connection to the website and the subjects you've written about? PRAXIDICAE💕 21:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no any undisclosed connection between me, the subjects I've written about and that website. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at an indefinite ban (not just block) from Wikipedia. You would have us believe that you wrote glowing articles about living subjects and you also contacted them so they gave you professional photos and you tagged those photos regarding a eponymous website but you'd have us believe that the website isn't yours, that no one paid you money to write? I cannot buy your pack of apparent lies. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the article about Jelena Medić is perhaps the only article of mine where it coincided that the author of the photo(s) is also the subject. Everything you've written is a generalization. Please do not threaten or insult. That site was mine at the time it was cited as a source, now it's not. WikiDiaspora (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I just wanted to ask you to delete all my articles that you think do not comply with the rules. I wanted them to be edited in the best possible way and in accordance with the mission of free dissemination of knowledge, and I spent a lot of time on that. I'm sorry it was interpreted as COI. In any case, I believe that it is better to give advice and guidelines to new users, and not to threaten them, because in that way they are deterred from further editing on Wikipedia. Have a nice day. WikiDiaspora (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user is active on multiple editions of Wiki. The possibility of cross wiki spamming need to be examined. There are overlaps of articles being created in enwiki, srwiki, hrwiki, bswiki, slwiki and suwiki. Courtesy links to their page creation history across the wikis are below:

Chirota (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true, I'm active on several Wiki editions. Wikipedia itself offers articles to be translated, so what's the problem? WikiDiaspora (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Chithra[edit]

G H V S Simha has twice given the impression that the content they have added was written collectively, and has failed to address concerns on my talkpage and has since resumed editing the article. While they have denied being part of her PR team on their talkpage, I would like to request them to explain these two sentences as to who is "we".

The page has also seen its fair share of IPs and editors who have registered simply to edit articles relating to this person, indicating some potential off-Wiki coordination. More eyes would be helpful. Seloloving (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

: An IP is now insistently re-adding content which G H V S Simha had previously disputed with me over its removal. I do not intend to revert further as it would likely cross the three revert rule, even as the sources do not back the information being added. I will leave it up to other editors to decide on its merits. Seloloving (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@G H V S Simha: has explained that they meant "we" in the sense of other editors, and per good faith I am inclined to accept the explanation and request for this to be closed, subject to review by other users. Seloloving (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have been blocked by Ponyo for disruptive editing (and possibly socking with Simha Gorji). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Dilara Fındıkoğlu[edit]

Palaangelino is a Turkish Wikipedia user, and one year ago he was banned for his undisclosed paid contributions. 3 days ago I nominated Dilara Fındıkoğlu for deletion and he commented on the AfD. He continues hiding his connections etc. Also, he attacked to me on the AfD. I request sysops to get involved in the incident. Regards, Kadı Message 05:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[8] PR contributions in WD. Kadı Message 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not a Turkish Wiki contributor cose of you all Turkish community that explains why TR Wiki was closed for years. Secondly, what are my connections? Non-sense complaint. I defend myself and my contributions cose Kadı requested spam deletion for my article for dilara and then all my wikidata items in just 20 mins. I request sending this user back to Wiki TR. Palaangelino (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep trying Kadı, not today ser :) Palaangelino (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last warning: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Kadı Message 08:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's awesome you finally linked this here. I know you and so I was waiting for it. Now click the link and check it again, if it's personal attack or not that requesting deletion for every single item and an article of a user in minutes. How did you come, do research and decide all of my contributions are paid/PR/not notable in just minutes? How is that possible? Such personalized actions. Let's just make sense and stop this personal non-sense. Last words: Wikipedia:AVOIDYOU :) Palaangelino (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know you in real life, so I can not have a personal problem with you. When the items are examined, it can be easily understood that they are created for PR and promotional purposes. Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered. @Vincent Vega also banned you, remember please. The items are going to be deleted in order to build a valuable online encyclopedia. Before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy. This is my last reply. Kadı Message 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're so funny saying "you don't know me in real life" then ending with "before you start contributing here, you need to understand Wikipedia's philosophy" like you already know me. I know you very well, and I know you know me. You know my issue with TR Wiki that happened a year ago. A huge year and still chasing me. How don't you know me? It feels like whole TR Wiki talks about me. I'm being honest here. It was just TR Wiki issue and we all know how poor TR Wiki is, like how modern-illiterate the community is, needs how much more improvement in general - so Vincent and your other friends didn't tell you that they didn't even listen to me and my reasons - just straight banned me and also my friend with false accusations. Such a shame. These words explain TR Wiki so well: "Your accusation of sock puppetry and your writing style match those of the advertisers I've encountered" like y'all sitting online to just catch PR pokemons all day until you die. Also saying "when the items are examined" like you really examined them. If you examined enough, how it took only couple minutes to request deletion for that many items? You must be a compute bot or something. Please stop this personal non-sense and continue your Turkish PR pokemon catching activity. Have fun with your life. :) Palaangelino (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Kadı might not know you, but I do, and still remember how much of a headache you were back then. The user in question has been indef blocked on trwiki for paid editing. The evidence was found and reviewed by three admins (Courtesy ping Vincent Vega, Uncitoyen, Elmacenderesi), who in the end concluded that there was an obvious violation of the T&C. See the discussion there. I'm not going to comment much on off-wiki evidence I haven't seen myself, but if three experienced admins say something, that stuff is likely to be true. Less than two months after the block, the user proceeds to create this article on enwiki.
I'm going to only judge based on what I have seen myself. The only article created by Palaangelino on enwiki is Dilara Fındıkoğlu, which reads more like a press release in itself rather than a encyclopedia entry: "Since then, [...] are some of the names that have dressed her creations in red carpets and stages."
Most images uploaded by Palaangelino on Wikimedia Commons have "press photo" in their titles. This file depicting AYDEED, the subject of the article that resulted in his trwiki block, is taken from her own website and has OTRS/VRT permission, which means that he was at least in contact with them.
tr:Hair of İstanbul was created by Seyit12. Seyit12 is also indefinitely blocked for the same reason: undisclosed paid editing. Seyit12's case was quite a bit obvious, as he had been blocked for the exact same reason on the English Wikipedia a few months prior, and is now globally locked.
Why do I bring this up? Because Palaangelino created now-deleted item Q108462152 on Wikidata, which according to the deleting admin was also about Hair of İstanbul. To me, this says that Palaangelino is either the same person as Seyit12, is a part of his team, or offers a similar service as Seyit12, which in all instances means that he is also involved in paid editing. Some of his items at Wikidata have been created on trwiki by SPA's, and are now deleted. Seni seçtim Pokemon. ~StyyxTalk? 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I requested CU. Thanks @Styyx. Kadı Message 13:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruderboot10 (Translation)[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowboat_Film-_und_Fernsehproduktion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_by_the_Lake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_for_a_Miracle

I want to translate two German articles for my employer Rowboat Film- und Fernseproduktion but there is a discussion if my COI is too strong to do so. I add the discussion about my request for page importation below. There are already existing English articles of my company (see above).

______

Discussion request for page importation (for de:Schneller als die Angst and de:Mord in der Familie – Der Zauberwürfel):

Note by importing administrator: Not done; you have too strong a conflict of interest per your German user page. Graham87 14:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC) 

   The production company Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduction pays me to tranlslate this article. Ruderboot10 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Ruderboot10 have you read and understand all of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? — xaosflux Talk 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   I have, thank you! My German User Page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ruderboot10) is also already verified. I didn't know if this is possible on the English Wikipedia as well. Rowboat Film- und Fernsehproduktion (https://www.rowboat.tv/index_gb.html) is my employer as well as my client. The series will be published internationally and that's why an English translation of its Wikipedia Page is justified (same for Mord in der Familie - Der Zauberwürfel). Ruderboot10 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

   @Ruderboot10: We have very different standards regarding conflict and interest and paid editing to the German Wikipedia. Editing like this is very highly frowned upon here. Just because something is released internationally, it doesn't mean we need to have an article on it. I'm still not particularly inclined to deal with this one, but if someone else wants to do so, feel free. Graham87 05:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

   Can you open a section at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard on yourself and get some feedback first. If the general consensus is that this is supported I don't have an issue with the imports. — xaosflux Talk 10:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Ruderboot10 (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

______

If you need any more information, please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to discuss my request!

Ruderboot10, have you read Help:Your first article? The first problem is to establish the Wikipedia:Notability of the subjects. I notice that Murder by the Lake was submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and needed further sources to establish notability. A Day for a Miracle was written in 2013 by an editor whose edits all related to Rowboat and was not submitted via AfC. TSventon (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used another way to create a translation of the articles as described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Translation.I submitted my created drafts for review. Please think about reviewing my drafts to decide if the COI is a problem. Thank you very much, I really appreciate your help!
Draft:Spezial:Meine_Benutzerseite/Murder_Squared
Draft:Faster_than_Fear Ruderboot10 (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruderboot10, I don't review drafts, but I recommend adding some more independent sources such as this and this. I have moved the first draft to Draft:Murder_Squared. TSventon (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon Thanks, I will do that! Ruderboot10 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note as the drafts were created, I competed the WP:RFPI's. — xaosflux Talk 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Women in Media Association[edit]

The user does disclose their COI, saying they're the Vice President of the organization. They've drastically altered the article, pushing POV. I have notified them about the COI guideline on their talk page, but they continued. ~~ lol1VNIO🎂 (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 15:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the article back, removed a fair amount of unsourced cruft, and nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220526210043/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN

Leave a Reply