Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Capital One
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Comcast
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Nick Jordan (artist)
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Liberty Towers
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Vicki Psarias
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rainer K. Sachs
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn


    Wintertanager

    This is in addition to the separate #Rocket Internet stuff listed above (diff). The articles listed here are a reverse chronological record of virtually his entire editing history, which is obviously centered on publicity-seeking entities.

    Attention is called to extensive editing history on former Ogilvy and Mather (PR) exec M. T. Carney and talent agent Michael Ovitz. The editor has been advised explicitly about our COI policy on 10 February [5] by DissidentAggressor, and reminded/asked with this comment on 8 May and this comment on 9 May, then asked explicitly again by me 6 August [6]. The reply to the last is here. — Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MT Carney is notable for several reasons: 1. (female) former President of Marketing for Disney; 2. founder of largest nail salon chain in U.K. and 3. founder of Naked Communications, an innovator on many levels. The 'extensive editing' was over semantics with her name (changed from MT to M.T.), no more or less 'extensive' than the other editors who participated! Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Rosenberg#wintertanager - discussion about Wintertanager's desire to wikiwash well-sourced negative info out of article about girlfriend of Google Executive Executive Sergey Brin, former girlfriend of Hugo Barra (mentioned above). COI discussed there too.
    I'd advocate a topic ban on companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The pattern is more than clear and fairly wide ranging. The Dissident Aggressor 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find any non-contentious edits by this editor at all? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiwash???? You cannot blanketly call BLP absolutley valid objections 'Wikiwash' - the page you refer to was removed entirely by other editors. Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I address the "Rocket Internet" COI above - literally I created a page for Lazada Group and, when finished, did a WP search for the page name 'Lazada', and linked those previously unlinked terms. Isn't that exactly what one is supposed to do when one creates a new page? But no, somehow I have now 'edited' all of these related pages - how was I supposed to know that they were part of some larger investigation into Rocket Internet. I have nothing to do with that and encourage you to pursue it further. Wintertanager (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are my contributions suddenly contentious? To date I had thought they were valuable and good and relevant to a user interested in them; apparently not. And 'this editor' is me. I am a pretty reasonable guy, try communicating with me rather than condeming me. Yes I tend to write about tech related subjects now (not sure how those qualify as 'attention-seeking' - would love to know that criteria) - I believe I do so according to WP's rules, better so than the vast majority of editors out there. As for other contributions, there was a time when I was into photography and contributed photographs to WP of native birds, plants and insects including the black necked stilt, black phoebe, salt marsh fleabane, green lynx spider, bush goldenrod, bush sunflower, fiery skipper, etc. Lovely photos, however I stopped when the stilt accused me of a COI with the spider. Wintertanager (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To say your edits are suddenly contentious is a farce. Your edits are so contentious that the only way you escaped being blocked in May was to agree to voluntary sanctions. There are more discussions of this editor using Wikipedia for PR purposes in that thread.
    Beyond that thread, there is some pretty hard evidence of your COI presented in this discussion. The Dissident Aggressor 22:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely true (voluntary sanctions ruling), and I felt badly about how I initially reacted to those edits, especially when other editors agreed that I had removed a tag when I shouldn't have. I absolutely respected that voluntary sanction and privately apologized to you as well. I meant what I said then - I learned a lot about what you objected to in my entries and have since respected every edit you made. Wintertanager (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by that discussion. Wintertanager (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that I have undone the refactoring/splitting of both my and Brianhe's comments above the best I can. The Dissident Aggressor 00:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the evidence and pattern of edits is clear and agree it is problematic. I propose a topic ban on this editor for companies and their executives (including producers and directors). The Dissident Aggressor 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously, I agree with the proposed topic ban. Question, would this extend to de-prodding such articles or contributing to AfDs, including those concerning the articles created by same editor? — Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic ban is a topic ban. No edits on the topic - no deprod, no afd. The Dissident Aggressor 17:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contributed many quality articles on notable subjects that previously either lacked an entry altogether or were very poorly constructed, heavily biased and not compliant with WP's rules. I'm quite proud of those; they took me a lot of time and effort to do well. I am interested in tech and business, think I have every right to be and shouldn't have to justify at all any more than I have already. I think it is incredibly unfair to ban someone so harshly - Wikipedia has always had fair and reasonable policies to users and this is absolutely the opposite. I would like to continue contributing on the very issues I know about that could benefit the larger community. The only thing you have really accused me of is on writing in too narrow a niche. Sorry! How long does such a ban last? Permanently? What aside from a list of pages I have worked on is your criteria for a ban? Is there any recourse for me to follow if I feel this is unjust? (which I do). It has been a frustrating experience to say the least; I don't believe you should have the right or power to make a decision like this. Why not instead let me know where I need to correct something I have contributed, and I will! I think one of the things you have in me is a willingness to understand what you have objected to in my contributions and a sincere desire to fix those things if they exist. Those editors who have reviewed my contributions have largely been very favorable, and when they haven't I have joined with them in improving the quality of the content and addressing whatever legitimate issue arrises. But honestly, it doesn't really seem to matter at all how I defend myself; you're minds are made up and I am utterly helpless to do a thing about it. Wintertanager (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recourse is this discussion - it's a noticeboard. We work by consensus. So far nobody has come to your defense. The opportunity is now if any third parties (with a history of constructive contributions) who want to speak up for Wintertanager and say that the the fact that s/he appears to be promoting a series of mostly connected tech executives, producers and directives in violation of NPOV has another plausible explanation. Wintertanager's actions speak for themselves at this point.
    As for clarification of the scope of the proposed ban, it is self-evident and no clarification is needed : You would be prohibited from editing articles about companies and executives (including producers and directors).
    Such a ban, if enacted, would be indefinite. The Dissident Aggressor 03:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dissident Aggressor, what is behind your extreme interest in going after me specifically? Shouldn't you recuse yourself based on YOUR history? You are hardly impartial. On page after page, why is it that you are always the one adding tags, leaving comments on my personal page, etc.? Why, for instance did you just add a COI tag and 'Advert' tag on the Lazada Group page (which you made virtually no revisions to, because there are no issues to revise), when none of the other flagged pages for Rocket Internet, all of which are low quality, poorly sourced, transparently promotional,etc. ( i.e. pages with actual issues) contain any such tags? WP:HARASS - "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." You have certainly accomplished that. (Wintertanager) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think you can deflect this onto DissidentA. Let's forget about him, let's talk about your editing -- content not person, remember? There's now many kB of text in this case, contributed by several editors, and it won't go away that easily. You call the investigation "unfair", decry the "right or power" of anybody to conduct it, and appeal to stuff like "harassment" and your own supposed feelings of injustice. Do you have anything but hand-waving to say to the specific issues raised here? Are you really going to hold up Jeremy Frommer to the light of scrutiny and say it's not a resume but a neutral, well-written article? Don't insult our intelligence by implying you can spin a roulette wheel of all the unwritten-about people in the world and all it comes up with is "serial entrepreneurs" and hedge fund managers. Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not deflecting anything, though I do believe he should recuse himself. I didn't contribute Jeremy Frommer, I made a few edits on it many years ago. What 'serial entrepreneurs' are you referring to; every page I've created has easily met notability. Please, please talk about my editing. I would love that. That's all I've been talking about. I maintain, again, that my editing adheres to all of WP's principles: neutral, encyclopedic, well-written, notable and well sourced. Have I become better at it over the years? Yes, so has everyone here. The latest page I've contributed, Lazada Group is all those things. However now it has tags added that I believe are unwarranted and should be removed. I'm not going to touch them obviously, but someone should. The topic - the content - is absolutely notable and Wikipedia would be improved with an enclyclopedic entry about it, which did not exist before I created the page. That page should be neutral and encyclopedic, I believe that very passionately, as - I assume - do you. But what I notice is a lot of tags and no effort to actually improve the page. So yes, let's talk about content - I invite you: edit the page, improve the page, fix whatever it is you deem broken. I encourage you to. I, like you, want pages that resonate with people genuinely interested in these topics. Nothing more and nothing less. Wintertanager (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey all, I have been away for a while. I reviewed a bunch of this, and from what I can see, no one has asked the direct questions to Wintertanager, nor has he/she directly answered, so please allow me to do that.... Wintertanager:
    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?
    Please do answer simply and directly. A "yes" on either question would mean you have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently. (to disclose the COI, and to work with a form of peer review) But please do let us know. (if the answer to either is "yes", please do be honest about it - you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent; if the answer is no, then say "no" - I will have some suggestions on how to possibly move forward in that case) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes Jytdog, I have a COI. I'd appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Wintertanager (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Brianhe and DissidentAggressor please refrain from commenting here while Wintertanager and I talk. Please. I'll have something to say to each of you in bit, but please hold back. Thanks in advance.
    Wintertanager, thanks for disclosing that. Step by step here. Would you please disclose the nature of your COI? Please do keep in mind that the Terms of Use require that if you are being paid, that you disclose your " employer, client and affiliation". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog I currently edit on behalf of Lazada Group. I am self-employed. Wintertanager (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for answering, about your current client. So here's the situation as I see it, Wintertanager. I am going to be frank and clear here, as I was frank and clear when I simply asked you the questions. I apologize in advance, as this is kind of long.
    On the one hand, it is baffling to me that nobody has simply asked you the questions, directly and clearly, in all this time. I think you've been ... not well served by the community, in that regard. On the other hand, p You have been directly asked in the past, and [here said no]. People have brought up the issue with you, with notices and statements, that you simply skipped around instead of answering directly. (They give you those notices and make those claims, looking for a direct response. It is a little passive-aggressive-y to me to give a notice and not ask a question, but that is beside the point) More importantly, you have been made aware of the Terms of Use that kicked in last summer, and you have not fulfilled the positive obligation it put on you, to disclose your paid editing. And even here, you frankly lied when you wrote "I, like you, want pages that resonate with people genuinely interested in these topics. Nothing more and nothing less." There is definitely a something "more", in that you want to please your client so you can get paid; and you want these edits to stick, so you can show them to future clients to get more work. So you have dug yourself a big hole, and taken up a bunch of the time of DA and BrianHe, and the community - all of whom are volunteers and could have been building content.
    That is all behind-the-scenes stuff.
    Probably the more important issue, is that you have added just a ton of bad content to WP, and this harms the encyclopedia. Many people have told you this, many times, and instead of taking that on board, you have protested that you think your editing is OK, and/or asked people to identify specific issues that need fixing. But here is the thing that you haven't been understanding (and that our WP:COI guideline talks about. If you haven't read that with a goal of learning, I urge you to do so) When you edit with a COI, it is almost impossible to edit neutrally. You come to the topic with a bias - you see the topic with a bias. And that comes through in your editing. You can't see it, but others, who are not conflicted, can. And they have. Biased editing hurts Wikipedia; readers come across that, and they lose trust in us. When they lose trust, WP becomes less valuable to the world. And to your clients. And to you, as a paid editor. And by taking up the community's time to deal with it (not only by fixing the content, but by dealing with you behind the scenes) good content that could have been created, hasn't been. When you do bad things, more bad things ripple out from it. The opposite is also true.
    So you are really at a fork in the road here. So is the community.
    As for the community - You have done enough damage, that the community could decide to indefinitely block you now, or place a topic ban on you. Or not.
    As for you... you could start taking the high road, carefully and with full transparency, or not. If you choose the high road, that would mean:
    * fully disclosing all your past and current paid editing (employer, client and affiliation) and promising to do that going forward (and doing it), Ideally you would make all those disclosures in one central place, like your User page, in addition to disclosing on the article talk page (ideally with the {{connected contributor}} template in the header, which endures when Talk pages are archived)
    * putting new articles you create through WP:AFC with a COI disclosure, instead of creating articles directly (this provides peer review, to address bias before the whole articles go live)
    * instead of directly editing existing articles, using the "edit request" function to propose content changes on the Talk page (this also provides peer review, to address bias before edits go live
    Those two things - disclosure and peer review - are how Wikipedia works with editors who have a COI to manage their COI. As I wrote above, people who have a COI are part of the community, but we ask them to do some things differently. I recognize that going through peer review is not as efficient as editing directly, but Wikipedia doesn't place a high value on efficiency - there are no deadlines here, as we say. On your side, doing those different things is what allows trust within the community; the distrust your behavior so far has engendered is what happens when people don't work with the community to manage their COI. It is not pretty to see that distrust, and it must have been very unpleasant for you to live with it, and having that distrust rolling around the community harms the community. It doesn't have to be that way. If you choose this road, you will find (eventually) that things will go more smoothly for you, when you are transparent. Not as efficient, but more smooth.
    That is all the "high road" path. You could choose to half-disclose, or continue with other not-fully-transparent behaviors, but by now I don't think the community would have much tolerance for that. It would probably lead to more misery and drama and ultimately, probably, to an indefinite ban for you.
    OK, that was long, but that is how I see things. So you have some agency here - what path do you choose? (Please know that if you choose the high path now, you are going to have to endure and accept some mistrust and close monitoring. It takes time to build trust) Thanks for your patience. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC) (amended per markup Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Actually, W was asked, via a template that was called brashly direct by another editor, and W replied in the negative here. Brianhe (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I missed that. I am sorry for missing it and the the judgements I made based on that miss. Struck and added above. You actually did that very clearly, and in my view, well. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, Wintertanager, the ball is in your court here. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in taking the high road, that is why I have made this admission. I am happy to comply with the suggestions you make; indeed it will alleviate anxiety and allow me - abiding by the path you have suggested I pursue - to submit entries and edits, albeit inefficiently. In terms of your other points, I understand your perspective regarding one's personal blind spots to unbiased editing and will adhere to what you suggest above to alleviate those concerns. When it comes to content I don't think I very much disagree I have "added just a ton of bad content to WP". I stand by Lazada Group as a notable, neutral, encyclopedic, well-written, and well sourced and - if that is not so - I encourage someone to identify tangible issues with content for the sake of the community and the quality of the encyclopedia. If the page does not adhere to WP's principles, I urge and encourage steps taken to fix that page, and yet those content-related steps never seem to transpire. Wintertanager (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for reading that slog and replying and for agreeing to follow the COI guideline and Terms of Use going forward. As I wrote above, from what I can see, the community is pretty close to indeffing you. They may still do. I recommend you post a full disclosure of your paid editing on your userpage sooner rather than later.

    With regard to the Lazada article... Part of the picture you may not be seeing yet, is that none of us who work at COIN love going around behind paid editors and cleaning up after them. We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent. I will take up some of my weekend to clean up the article and you will get a sense of what a NPOV view of them actually looks like.

    But really, your nod toward understanding what COI says about inherent bias is, to be frank, arrogant baloney. The Lazada article is promotional. I see DissidentAggressor has been over it once and tagged some things - what he doesn't seem to have done is go read about Lazada so he could bring sources to tell the story, warts and all. (the article depicts one glorious rise with no hitches, which seems pretty fake - no company is without failures along the way.) And there is not a word about profits (the reason why a company exists), which if they are anything like Amazon in that regard, they have none of. And... a quick google search for "Lazada profit" brings up the story pretty quickly. Nothing about that in the article. What advocates don't add to articles is often more telling than what they do. I came across an article about a guy who made all his money running porn websites (not Jimbo); the article didn't mention where he got his money. Paid editor wrote that.

    Anyway, if you have questions about best practices for following the the COI guideline, feel free to ping me. And again, the community may still indef you. I wouldn't oppose it, based on all of your behavior to date. There is a strong tendency in WP to mercy in order to retain editors, but paid editors strain that. That is all I have to say. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay fair enough Jytdog, I appreciate your candor and I think inclusion of the profitability story makes a lot of sense. I agree with your statement that 'We don't care about Lazada - we care that the WP article on Lazada is decent'. That's what I want as well. I encourage you to add the 'whole story' if it is notable and sourced. I believe that for anyone interested in tech in Asia, growth of e-commerce in emerging markets, etc. Lazada Group is highly relevant - much like Alibaba and other companies - it needs a WP article and I'm proud of the fact I helped contribute to it, provided that contribution was neutral and encyclopedic. If it isn't, all I can say is I genuinely wanted it to be and hope my entry facilitates the evolution of the page (unlike most of the pages flagged here). I do feel like you are warning me: 'you want to see what a NPOV is really like? Wait until I get through with it!' How is that any different than the 'bias' you claim I have? Add warts, but not for the sake of proving to me what a page looks like with warts; add them for the sake of providing a qualitative, well-rounded page for an interested audience. Honestly, here is what I don't understand: you claimed that I "would be amazed at how much better things go" if I came forward and admitted a COI. Well I did come forward and I am not amazed at all! It appears there is no difference between having done so and not having done so. I would warn anyone being told that there is a 'positive alternative' to coming forward as a viable participant in the community, subject to certain rules, etc. - when - from what I can see - there is no such thing. Lastly, I have added my COI to my user page (or, am doing second after I hit save here) to comply with your request. I do hope there is some solution here; I don't want to stop contributing to WP and I do believe I have value to add in my contributions. It has been stressful to have such antagonism towards me and I would like to resolve that antagonism. If there is indeed a path to redemption in your and other's eyes, I am likely more willing to take it than you would imagine me to be. Wintertanager (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the issue WT - What I was looking for was you stepping all the way through. You gave a partial disclosure (only who is currently paying you) and a bunch of attitude. All the way through would have been something like: "I have lied a lot and I am sorry to everybody for causing all this drama. With regard to the editing I've done, I've done the best I can to make the articles neutral, and I hear you, that the articles need work. I will get right on with making the disclosure of all my paid editing, and hope we can work together in a better way going forward. I know it will take time for you to trust me." Simple. As for your accusation that I am going to spin the article negatively - all I have to say to that, is meh. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and appreciate your perspective Jytdog, although what you call attitude is my honest point of view. I have a COI on some but not all of past pages I have worked on. I would risk personal liability to disclose more than that. Therefore I've pledged on my user page that I follow your COI criteria for all edits/pages moving forward. I apologize for lying; it was a position that made me very uncomfortable and ultimately led to me coming forward. Wintertanager (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say that you "risk personal liability" are you saying that you signed conflidentiality agreements that prevent you from disclosing that you edited for pay? Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I said no such thing, but the former is possible. And now, I see through my coming forward that pages I've contributed to are suddenly subject to more tags, chainsaws, etc. - no focus on content, just a lot of tags. I see there is a much greater price to coming forward than you portrayed; there is no benefit at all, rather punishment. "Editors with a COI are and can be part of the community - we just ask them to do a few things differently" and "you would be amazed at how much better things go, when things are made transparent" are false. Wintertanager (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote that you "risk personal liability" if you disclose past paid editing; the only situation I can imagine where you would have that, is if you made a contractual agreement to not disclose the relationship. I know that you didn't say that you had signed any such thing; I was just trying to understand what personal liability you might face. In any case, I told you that you would face more scrutiny. The benefit of coming forward is that you have a chance of actually building trust and establishing a presence here as a paid editor who honors WP's policies and guidelines. There are a few who do that. Like I said, you either come all the way through to transparency and work on building up trust from the very deep hole you are in now, or you probably get indeffed. The high road is not easy, but because you are in a deep hole, it was really your only way forward. I say "was" because it appears that you are not actually taking the high road. That is your choice. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the conversation with Jytdog has wound down. Recommend a topic ban proposed above by DissidentAggressor for unwillingness to comply with TOS by disclosing "employer, client and affiliation", specifically past clients. — Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am now in favor of the community taking action here. I think the topic ban is poorly defined, though. Instead, I propose an indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE - in this case, violation of the ToU and violating WP:NOTADVOCATE with all the WP:NPOV and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems that come with that. In my view, any admin could do this without polling the community, but that would come down to what the admin is comfortable with. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    * Support community ban. The Dissident Aggressor 16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smartse:@Doc James:Have today's events convinced us this type of ... contributor ... is not needed here? Can we at least get a block while other, stricter options are discussed? — Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked until discussion finishes for insufficient disclosure of COIs, editor warring, and not telling the truth about COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doc James: Would a check user be allowed here because it seems that they stopped editing with this account as soon as they were "caught", considering their history of dishonesty, sockpuppetry is reasonably likely. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Risker would be the one to tell you. I guess the question is what other accounts are working like them to compare this one too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Frequently, articles worked by a paid editor will be visited after they are blocked by a meat- or sockpuppet. You can watch everything WT ever edited at this page: User:Brianhe/COIbox16. The "related changes" feature is very handy for this. I see a bunch of IP ed's and redlink ed's active, which is of concern. Especially active on Xiaomi in August. — Brianhe (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Texas A&M University School of Law

    Texas A&M University is facing a lawsuit over the purchase of the law school from Texas Wesleyan University. The user noted appears to the the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case. I removed a paragraph from the article to the talk page and pinged Jytdog—despite our past differences, he is the best I know in the COI field. I'm out of the matter after this, as I attended TAMU and don't want to have a problem with COI. GregJackP Boomer! 23:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @GregJackP: on the other editor's talkpage, you wrote "...and legal threat" but I don't see any. Can you please clarify? — Brianhe (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLT states in the last sentence of the lead Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what to make of this. The controversy over whether alumni of the old school retroactively become alumni of the merged entity seems to take up too much of the article. John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I am lead counsel on the case against TAMU School of Law. When I read what was originally there, it seemed lopsided, so I added what I thought was interesting facts from the case. Nothing original or controversial - all of the facts I added were listed in the suit and undisputed, and I think interesting to the reader. Of course there is a COI that every editor must live with, but it seems that a TAMU editor removing the paragraph in order to remove what he sees as a conflict of interest to avoid a conflict of interest is itself a conflict of interest - yet he had no problem removing the information he found offending before handing the issue off for others to handle. It is reasonable and expected that a TAMU page would be edited by a TAMU alumnus; it is also reasonable to include a synopsis of the dispute that is fair. The dispute is ongoing and current, so an entry regarding the dispute on a 'living' page of a relatively new entity would be expected to be larger in comparison to the rest of the article as time goes on. When it is resolved, I would expect that the information might be condensed. The 'fixed' paragraph is not properly written and needs editing, but seeing that I attempted to fix it last time and my work summarily removed, I am not going to bother. Wnorred (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI Editor / Name Violation

    An editor named Cariboukid has started aggressively inserting WP:PROMOTIONAL material in the article Caribou Coffee. BlueSalix (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What??? Cariboukid has made one edit to Caribou Coffee since 2011, and it was to mention when the company changed its logo. His only other edits to that article were four years ago to post images of the current and former logos [7]. I fail to see anything aggressive or promotional. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    While we'll have to agree to disagree on that point (more than 15% of his/her lifetime edits have been to Caribou Coffee's page and he/she is aggressively reinserting promotional text, without discussion, that was been removed), the undeniable fact is his/her name is a violation of WP:CORPNAME. BlueSalix (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post a diff to promotional text Cariboukid has inserted. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't attempt to reframe the discussion. The substantial point is that "Cariboukid" is a violation of WP:CORPNAME since the name is clearly not incidental or coincidental if more than 15% of his/her lifetime edits have been to Caribou Coffee. (The secondary point, COI Promotionalism, is diff'ed here: [8].) BlueSalix (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ""Caribou kid" would fall under the exception given in the policy you cite, "usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below...usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person". The username is thus irrelevant, except insofar as informing us of a possible conflict of interest, would be a problem if the editing was promotional. The text added in Cariboukid's single edit to that page this year is as follows, "Caribou announced a corporate-wide rebranding, and began using the stylized "coffee bean caribou" logo on March 1, 2010." I do not consider this text promotional. And certainly, a single edit in four years cannot be considered "aggressive". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We have (a) an editor with a COI-designated username "Cariboukid", (b) a pluarlity of whose lifetime edits is to Caribou Coffee, (c) inserting extremely UNDUE material without discussion (the "re-branding" formed a minor part of the company's history and received limited RS coverage). Taken in whole, a reasonable person under reasonable circumstances would see this is a violation of our COI editing guidelines. If you want to green-light this, that's your bailiwick. I've done my duty by bringing it to the community's attention and my involvement here is now done. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend having a conversation with the editor before proceeding here. This noticeboard is really most effective in cases where the editor is non-cooperative or non-communicative, or the issue is much bigger in scope issue than this. Also, the name issue should be reported at WP:UAA instead. Brianhe (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reached out to BlueSalix directly via their user talk page to discuss, hopefully bringing this to an amicable close. Cariboukid (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to the assertion above, we have an editor of four years' standing with a name which fairly clearly refers to an animal, who has edited an article which contains some letters in the same order as the first portion of that name eight times out of 71 Mainspace edits, less than twelve percent of those edits. I think we can safely say that this does not have the appearance of a COI violation. He has more edits to each of Stride (gum) and Delta Connection destinations; the name similarity is likely irrelevant. Cheers, LindsayHello 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SimpleStitch sockfarm

    page creations
    sockfarm

    The list of editors above is the confirmed socks from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro. OnceaMetro himself was not confirmed but was discussed here earlier in the Raymond James Financial case and is blocked for advertising and TOU violations.

    Notes on this case. A quick check reveals that this sockfarm has worked on many CEO and Hollywood biographies. The name Ogilvy keeps coming up in COIN for some reason, in this case and before. The speed at which the operator of these accounts addressed each subject (usually serially in 1-2 day intervals) indicates to me that there was a worklist coordinated with a PR agency, highly suspect paid editing. This is a characteristic of the Wikipedia editing firms, some of which involved in WP:LTA cases, who "monitor" subjects for a fee. This quantity of stuff is probably at least one person's steady source of income if I understand the going rates correctly.

    I'll probably have very little time to develop this today, then will go on a weeklong wikibreak. Brianhe (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Kimberlin is going to need its own case. CEO biog., created by one of the above in 2007 and apparently nursed since then by a few SPA editors.

    Seyoda's edits are mostly "clean up" type on a similar-looking group, listed at User:Brianhe/COIbox21. Consistent with a portfolio of clients.

    SimpleStitch's history is analyzed at user:Brianhe/COIbox20. Just added his top nine articles here, from the contrib surveyor tool. Brianhe (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If the list above is too broad, here's a shorter representative list of articles with strings of pretty clear redlink/SPA actors:

    This might even be fertile ground for finding more undiscovered socks related to this farm. Interpublic is a doozie, and this edit almost tells you where to go looking next. Maybe the blatantly self-edited advertising/PR agencies Avrett Free Ginsberg (from corp IP), Campbell Ewald or FCB (advertising agency) for starters.

    This might be a non-productive detour, but Monstermike99 turns up in the history of one of the articles in the short list above. He and OnceaMetro (both now indeffed) both appear in a Signpost special report with this comment "The accounts Monstermike99 and OnceaMetro continue to edit Wikipedia, including a number of articles on CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other business and finance executives. According to the editor interaction analyzer tool, articles that both accounts have edited include those on investor Jonathan M. Nelson, Time Warner CEO Steve Ross, and hedge fund manager Steven A. Cohen. A former Sony vice president founded an eponymous company in January that refers to itself as "a corporate, crisis and financial communications firm."

    A final forensic note, all editors were each highly active between 1200 and 2000 UTC with a combined total of >1000 edits for fairly robust analysis. If US East Coast, they'd be working approximately 7 or 8 AM to 3 or 4 PM. — Brianhe (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Kuhn (executive) was previously created by a sock of Morning277. It may be worth seeing if there is any other crossover or behavioural similarities between them. SmartSE (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. On the "yes" side, it does appear generally consistent with his English level, interest set, and editing hours. I did a fairly intense behavioral analysis of SimpleStitch at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OnceaMetro#29 July 2015 that could be used as a starting point. The analysis includes a lot of wording quirks that could be tipoffs. On the "no" side there are some Indian English quirks like the use of capital letters here. We should take care though in turning a correlation into an equality; it's possible he's sharing accounts with collaborators in the subcontinent. Brianhe (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any serious article problems? Negative info being deleted? Promotional content? Most of these articles are about big companies, where notability isn't an issue. Are there any non-notable companies in the list? John Nagle (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting to see the problem - happy talk. I just added Providence_Equity_Partners#Major_losses. It turns out that in the last few years, Providence Equity made at least five really bad large investments in companies which then went bankrupt, lost billions, and was heavily criticized in the New York Times and the financial press for over-expansion and bad decision-making. The Providence Equity article somehow never mentioned those events. Please check other business-related articles in this set for significant omissions like that. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at The Plaza Group and its glowing paragraph about its CEO. It uses as a source a Forbes article with the title "Credit Suisse Says Investor Stole Hundreds Of Millions From Funds Unit". However, in the article, nothing is said about alleged billions in financial irregularities or outright theft from Credit Suisse. It is mentioned at Louis Reijtenbagh but in the context of an "amicable settlement". — Brianhe (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed deletion of The Plaza Group. It's just the investment unit of a family office, investing in "distressed debt" on behalf of one rich family. There are at least four more notable businesses called "The Plaza Group". It might be part of Louis Reijtenbagh, but doesn't rate a standalone article per WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a mention to Louis Reijtenbagh of his art collection being seized by NY marshals for unpaid debts. There's a strong flavor of "positive info only" to these related articles. Keep checking, please. John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ConEmu

    Maximus is the creator of ConEmu, the article about ConEmu, and the primary contributor to the article. Most of the article content, in fact, can be attributed to him. Many websites or forums that post information or questions about ConEmu are read or answered by Maximus himself. You could say that he is his own publicist ;)

    Maybe this utility is very popular among some communities, but the article doesn't really explain much other than features of the software and what it was originally intended for. If anything, this is just advertising the software (which apparently hasn't reached popular tech news outlets yet.. hmm...).

    Wikipedia often frowns upon the editing of an article by somebody who is directly related to the subject which the article covers; can this case be strongly considered as COI?

    (PS: I am knowingly posting this as unregistered because Maximus might recognize me if I log in as registered, and because my password is 20 characters long and I don't have my offline PW safe on this location.) 97.77.251.242 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed deletion. Minor piece of software. Fails WP:PRODUCT. John Nagle (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion template was removed by anon 86.163.232.66 (talk · contribs) without explanation. Started AfD. John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this article is proposed for deletion has no bearing on the COI discussion, so bringing it up here is a red herring. Let's keep the deletion discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConEmu.
    The fact that the ConEmu author answers user's questions about his project on various community sites is not relevant to COI either. What the author does on other websites is their own business. The only relevant aspect here is their actions on Wikipedia.
    Looking at the history of the ConEmu page, it is clear that the author has indeed started the Wikipedia page in late 2012, but practically all edits after 2012 have been done by people other than him. He has done only one edit in the 2.5 years since 2012, other people have maintained the article since then.
    Therefore it cannot really be said that the author is actively "interfering" with the Wikipedia article in recent years, nor is there any controversy associated with the project that the author might be trying to "cover up" (which is really what most COI disputes on Wikipedia revolve around).
    Finally, there is no actual commercial interest here (the "financial interest" part of WP:COI). The ConEmu product itself is completely free and open source, the author does not charge any money for the software, nor are they being paid for any services related to the software. Grnch (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very clear that Maximus is the dominant contributor both by # of edits and amount of text added - see here. Also, COI is not limited to money-making. Nonprofits come to WP all the time to promote themselves, for all kinds of reasons. COI addresses this in WP:SELFPROMOTE. The policy issue is WP:PROMO and the content concern is WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to any specific WP:NPOV concerns in the actual text of the ConEmu article itself? As far as I can see, the article does not make any value judgments or comparisons to other software (e.g. "ConEmu is better than X") that could possibly be construed as a biased POV. There is no real POV expressed in the article to speak of, it's just listing some basic facts (with references) about the software.
    As far as WP:SELFPROMOTE goes, I just don't see any wording in the article that heavily "promotes" the software or its author (unless you count the mere existence of a Wikipedia article as some sort of undue promotion?). The article itself seems pretty neutral and factual. I don't think COI is a black and white issue. There just isn't that much at stake here for it to be a real concern. Grnch (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a strong opinion either way. I started the AfD because an anon with no editing history deleted the "prod", which is a bit suspicious when COI issues are active. Let the AfD run its course, and let that resolve the notability question. John Nagle (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Three editors have recently commented favorably on Talk:ConEmu, opposing deletion. All are new editors with no edits on other subjects. Hm. John Nagle (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See this for why you're seeing new users pop up. Ravensfire (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Grnch the COI is indisputable. The only open question is the extent to which it has screwed up the article. It may be little to none, but the COI is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, yes, that was my point. I am not disputing the existence of COI, I already acknowledged that the article has been started and initially written by the software author. I am just saying that the article doesn't seem to exhibit any detrimental effects because of it. I apologize for not making my point clearer. Grnch (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruce Loveless

    User:Bfloveless Is making lots of edits to the Bruce Loveless article, including repeatedly removing a paragraph about an incident from 2013 that is sourced. Beach drifter (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now, the article seems OK; the deletion was reverted and the COI editor given the appropriate warnings. I cleaned up some formatting problems with the list of decorations, and removed the JCS badge (it's not an award, it's just a service badge). John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your attention and your edits. Beach drifter (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with MetLife?

    Hi everyone, I'm looking for help in reviewing some proposed changes that I have for the MetLife article on behalf of the company. I've suggested creating a new Operations section on the article's talk page to help improve the organization of the article. In each of my posts, I've been careful to identify myself as having a financial COI, as I am currently a paid consultant working for MetLife, on behalf of their PR agency, Burson-Marsteller. For this reason, I have not and will not edit the article myself, and am looking instead for editors to look over my proposed changes. Although I've reached out at a few relevant WikiProjects (the business-related ones tend to be very quiet…), only a small part of the request has been reviewed and completed to date, by an editor who said that they just completed what they had time for. I'm hoping someone on this noticeboard might have some time to review what I've suggested, and—most importantly—will be able to make sure it's appropriate from a neutrality perspective. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the de-mutualization and who profited from it should be covered in greater detail. So should the "too big to fail" lawsuit and decision. So should the 2012 failure of the Fed's stress test. Most of the "products" section reads like an ad and needs to be compressed. Lots of work to do there. John Nagle (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi John Nagle, thanks for your reply here and for the edits and notes so far over at MetLife. I've replied in more detail there, but just wanted to follow up here so that you knew I'd seen this note. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and edit-a-thons

    I've been recruited to serve as the technical adviser for a planned edit-a-thon (EAT) sponsored by a local art museum. The salient points are these:

    • I've never before had a relationship with the museum. (They found my name on our local meetup page.) I am and will be serving as an uncompensated volunteer. I have made it clear to the museum that in terms of my loyalties I consider myself to be a Wikipedian first and a volunteer for the EAT second and that in the event of any conflict I will always put the interests of the encyclopedia ahead of the interests and desires of the museum.
    • The individuals with whom I am working to plan the EAT are museum employees.
    • I consider part of my job to be to not only to help with the technical aspects of writing articles such as syntax, sourcing, article style and order, the use of tables, images, infoboxes, and the like, but also to be to monitor compliance with Wikipedia policy such as copyright and, most importantly for this discussion, NPOV and to do what I can to prevent violations. The employee organizers happily accept my participation with that understanding.
    • Some and perhaps all participants other than the employee organizers and me will likely be regular non-employee volunteers at the museum. Of that group all or most serve in an ongoing role as volunteer-only docents.
    • Though many of the article topics to be written or improved will be almost entirely independent of the museum (e.g. artists represented in the museum's collection), the museum has a particular desire to see its own article — which is now only slightly more than a stub — improved as part of the EAT. The employed organizers understand and have agreed with me that they or other employees cannot be the ones who will work on the museum article.

    That brings me to my question: Can participants who are regular volunteers at the museum, but not employees, edit the museum's article under my guidance without infringing upon the COI policy? If we get participants who are not regular volunteers I intend to try to get them to agree to work on the museum's article rather than the regular volunteers, but I'd like to know in advance if it's likely that someone will raise an objection if that does not prove to be the case and only regular volunteers are available to work on that article. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "The museum has a particular desire to see its own article — which is now only slightly more than a stub — improved as part of the EAT." Bad idea. Recruiting editors for promotional purposes is frowned upon. Please read WP:MEAT. Best to leave the article alone. However, uploading pictures of art for which the museum can release rights to Wikimedia Commons is permitted, and indeed, approved of. John Nagle (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that, but I'm afraid that reply is simply incorrect and confuses meatpuppetry with COI. The first sentence of the header box of MEAT is, "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." and the first sentence of the text is "High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute." (Emphasis added in both.) Meatpuppetry, like sockpuppetry, is about bringing shills into a discussion in order to bolster your position, not about asking non-employee editors to help to improve your article. I recognize that there may be an issue here (or I would not have asked), but meatpuppetry's not it. The use of non-NPOV promotional language or material could also eventually be an issue, but it's an issue about how it's done, not if it's done. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit of room to move. Mostly COI is a guideline, with the policy aspect coming from the Terms of Use. This wouldn't fringe on the Terms of Use, so that part is fine. There would be a risk of a COI, in the sense that if you are a regular volunteer at an institution, and you then wrote about them in an article, you would be more inclined to write positively as (to an extent) there is potential that you would have an interest in displaying the institution in the best possible light. However, that is considerably less than the COI that an employee would have, and would, I expect, be manageable if working alongside a neutral and experienced editor such as yourself.
    To put it another away - it isn't ideal, as the ideal is that all articles are written by neutral, knowledgeable and largely disinterested editors. This isn't exactly a common state, though. Accordingly, my view would be a situation where people who are not employees, and do not have a financial stake in the institution, are upfront about their relationship, work with a neutral and skilled editor, and are not writing about a controversial issue, is not a particularly bad situation and may well result in an overall net benefit for the project. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that analysis. That's how I figured it as well, but wanted a second opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Leading Physicians of the World"

    Just received an invite from this group. And with flattery being a common form of scamming I decided to look into it. Found this [9][10][11] which sort of confirmed my suspicions.

    I imagine that all pages that include this vanity press are paid for. For example:

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple more suspect sites
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. They have the same address [12] and [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposed deletion of Thomas_A._Narsete. Can't find anything that looks like a substantial reliable source. The other two are probably notable enough, but the articles need some toning down of PR language. John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who is likely paid removed it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "prod" removed by SPA who created article. Sent to AfD. Sigh. John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    David Sherer has a PR firm.[14] Notability there is marginal, too. John Nagle (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Whittington

    The subject is clearly notable, but the biography has for years been most carefully maintained by this account, who also adds many external links to related articles, including Mr. Whittington's musical performances and Mr. Whittington's writings, often self-published, which are used as sources as well [15]; [16]; [17]. In short, there appears to be a lot of self-referencing going on. Thoughts by editors with knowledge in this field will be appreciated. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some "citation needed" and "verify" tags. There's uncited material which reads like personal reminiscence. John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The concerns are more far-ranging, though. The account adds original research to multiple articles, or cites online essays by Mr. Whittington and adds them as external links. Looking into this requires some time and effort, and I had hoped to receive some feedback re: the appropriateness of this edit history. But if there's little or no oversight to such involvement, I'll start adding links to my online publications, and use myself as a source. 2601:188:0:ABE6:91EC:4CDC:7CD6:827C (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EveryMedia Technologies


    Prior discussion is at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Everymedia.in

    Other accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kabir Vaghela

    Added the following at 15:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


    There are numerous articles and numerous sockpuppets, the above account and article are the primary, and many of the pages of the clients listed on the website of the company have been targets here. There are at least fifty accounts so far and a similar number of articles. —SpacemanSpiff 12:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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.wikipedia.org/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[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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[reply]

    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[reply]
    @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[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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[reply]
    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.wikipedia.org/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[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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[reply]
    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)[reply]

    SEO firm, August 2015 advert

    No known NEW articles to link to yet. However, a new SEO firm ad "We are an SEO firm looking for someone who can publish Wikipedia entries" has been responded to by operator of Sclarke1129, MayFlowers2014, TejaswaChaudhary, LogAntiLog aka OWAIS NAEEM, Worthywords, the former Hilumeoka2000, and others with claimed and documented history of completed Wikipedia SEO/corpspam jobs. Note that OWAIS NAEEM invokes David Carter (entrepreneur) via his Elance historyportfolio, this article is ripe with more suspicious editors, some of whom have had inconclusive SPIs. Also note that many of these accounts are blocked, so obviously the operators are using, or are prepared to use, sockpuppets to complete the work. — Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The David Carter article contains the memorable line "He often referenced his mother as his inspiration in various interviews" And see the two articles on his firms linked to in that article. A7 + G11, in my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Perion Network

    This Perion Network thing smells like paid editing, complete with a press release for one of the citations, and a fawning section on corporate philanthropy. A discussion between DGG and Nmwalsh, where DGG expressed concern about lack of complete disclosure, petered out earlier in August. I think he needs the standard message re TOS client/article disclosure requirements. — Brianhe (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a declared paid editor. Check my User page. This page has already been rewritten with new citations. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The article still contains promotional language: e.g. "Smilebox is an application that lets users easily create slideshows and other digital photo album" It lists too many executives--it's usual to list only the ceo for companies this size.; it still contains titles-- we don't use "Mr." . It's wordy: "In August 2011, Perion made its first acquisition and acquired the Redmond-based Smilebox for $32 million. " should be "In August 2011, Perion acquired the Redmond-based Smilebox for $32 million. "; "they changed their name to Perion, the Hebrew word for productivity, to reflect the new company’s strategy." should be "The firm changed its name to Perion, the Hebrew word for productivity." It has jargon: "came on board" . It uses undue emphasis: we do not normally use italics for product names. It makes unsupported assertions: Ref. 14 does not reference the sentence its attached to. The philanthropy section is still trivial, especially the second sentence.
    None of this is blatantly promotional, and I wouldn't consider it G11. But it indicates the difficulties paid editors inherently have in creating articles here--even good and honest ones still automatically think in terms of press releases. One of my working rules of thumb is that anything that would make a good press release will not make a good encycopedia article.
    And of course there are probably a few hundred thousand similar articles, thousands among them much worse than this. It will be a long time util we remove or rewrite them, but at least we should not be adding to them. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nmwalsh: thank you for reminding us of your for-pay status, but I already knew that. Per TOS, please tell us where is the disclosure that this article was done for pay, and who was the client. Are there others that have not been disclosed, among the 35 Wikipedia specific or "private jobs" listed under your name on Elance in 2015? — Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advice. I am now marking all my paid edits with "Paid edit" I wasn't sure how to do it before. I will continue to improve this article. Nmwalsh (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As this came up in a recent ANI discussion, please read through WP:PCD for exactly what you need to disclose. The larger ANI discussion may also be helpful with regards to the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use. Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      When you work on an article, for which you have a close connection (paid financial connection or otherwise), there is this template you can stick on the article's talkpage: {{Connected contributor}} which for instance would look like {{Connected contributor|Nmwalsh|Perion Network|declared=yes|otherlinks=Paid editing: <ins>NameOfSpecificEmployer is my organization, and NameOfSpecificClient which is an</ins> entity connected with the topic of this article, have compensated me financially for my edits.}} or something like that, placed into Talk:Perion_Network. Also nice to have 'paid edit' in the summary, but the talkpage-thing is a nice one-liner that covers times when you might forget. Of course, make sure you have just the one username, and don't edit without logging in, so that the talkpage notice stays connected to the edits you make under your User:Nmwalsh online-persona. Hope this helps, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that template covers everything that needs to be disclosed per the ToU. From WP:PCD, paid editors need to disclose their employer, their client and affiliation. So something like "Editor Foo, employed by PR agency Bar, hired by company Baz to edit this article" is what's needed someplace. That can be on the editors user page, the article talk page or the edit summary for each edit. In an ideal world, all three would happen. Full disclosure of all articles on the user's page, full disclosure on each article talk page for that article and an edit summary that mentions it's a paid edit. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks, did not know that. Have inserted the appropriate factoids. Agree that doing all three is best (suspenders and belt), since if you forget to do one, you are still mostly covered by the other two. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI - just started this discussion on ANI on the comments I made. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Atlantic Coast Media Group

    First of all, this is a recreated article that was deleted as promo/spam in 2011: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Coast Media Group. You think this is a "lifestyle" magazine company like OCEAN Style, right? Wrong. It's a skin cream company with some connection to Christie Brinkley. Article created by throwaway SPA (Anrd8) and looks well referenced at first glance, until you notice half the cites are to the company itself, and the other half are questionable sources like theiemommy.com or passing mentions in legit media. My notes tell me that the other editor (Bhupesh4381) created a link to this article on April 18, which appears to have been deleted now; maybe an admin can confirm. However, this looks very much like insertion of a SEO link in another article, and this is just old-fashioned linkspam. It appears that he created another advert, Keranique around September, 2014. Atlantic Coast Media Group owns the brand Keranique. Hey look, Keranique was also a recreation of a deleted spamicle created by another SPA: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keranique. Brianhe (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not surprisingly, the ACMG article does not mention this 2013 class-action consumer fraud settlement. Brianhe (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Removed much promotional material, added info on lawsuit. John Nagle (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    request for eyeballs on Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits queue

    I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you or others decide to build a business editing Wikipedia on the backs of the volunteer community, that is not the volunteer community's problem. We do not exist so that you and others can make money. If you or others get impatient and decide to edit directly, you will lose editing privileges. It is a dicey proposition to build a business model that exploits a public good and relies on exploiting volunteers to actually execute, but that is what you and others chose. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks for the reminder Jytdog; but as you know, paid editing is not the only kind of COI, most of the people I help are BLPs trying to edit their own woefully-outdated articles. And I've seen you personally working the queue, as well, so thanks for that. But I'm posting the note here, so that other people can also volunteer to work the queue, if they so wish. I'm not under any COI, so I'm free to edit directly in mainspace, but I'm trying to train the people that are under COI how to do things properly (aka without needing my help personally every single time). My training-sessions are not working, because the queue is clogged, and has been all month. Do you recommend I just send editors with COI over to the folks on IRC, or to WP:TEAHOUSE, rather than using {{edit_request}} any further, since that seems not to be as speedy as it once was? Or is the current stalled queue just an anomaly, and I should continue recommending Template:edit_request for people that have COI? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    if your primary concern is helping subjects of BLP articles, perhaps BLPN would be better. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks, will try there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Template:Link summary

    I have done a search here

    But for some strange reason it does not pull up this one [18]

    Wondering if people know why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Tried to edit the page, it saved but it still doesn't show up. Likely a glitch in the externa links things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching for https://www.trustedtherapies.com at Special:LinkSearch finds it. Don't know if that is expected behavior, although mw:Help:Linksearch does say that "When no scheme is specified, http:// is used". Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And searching for https://*.trustedtherapies.com finds further links from Management of Crohn's disease, Adalimumab, and Inflammatory bowel disease. Abecedare (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts doing the adding

    No other edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I lodged a Phabricator ticket on this no less than 7.5 years ago. Sigh. In the meantime, [19] does the job better. MER-C 08:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:MER-C Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Add User:Guantcalve to the list of spammers. MER-C 12:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    InnoSpark

    Background: Korean game developer InnoSpark and a title Dragon Friends they've recently raised Series B funding for. Many of the sources are in Korean. However, just looking at it, it's a little iffy. Especially combined with the history of the first attempt at the article, whose creator did this one thing and disappeared. Dragon Friends doesn't make a great claim of notability. The developer corp has also been added to what appears to be the title publisher/distributor, Nexon, whose history has a string of suspect and/or blocked editors (OnceaMetro and a SimpleStitch sock, among others).

    Just wanted to bring this up here for evaluation, without naming all the editors at this time. - Brianhe (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning

    Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Complex and content added by User:Manabeast333. Lots of promotional content with poor refs added such as here [20] Just cleaned up our featured article on keratoconus that contained a lot of promotional material. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Boxer Wachler

    Help with Brian Boxer Wachler appreciated.

    I have restored it to the prior slightly less spammy version here [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit by Jen [22]
    Followed by this edit by Batt [23]
    With issues discussed here [24]
    Should we block these two account for undisclosed paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checkuser comment: These two accounts are either socks or meatpuppets. Both are editing from the same IP that confirms a very clear conflict of interest, and are indistinguishable from the technical perspective. Risker (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Risker blocked them both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant history of sockpuppeting on that article, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive; i listed all the connected contributors at Talk:Brian Boxer Wachler Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and it is one thing to spam on the article about the person but to spread the spam into medical articles. Grr. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A good case-in-point when people ask us basically to embrace the suck and stop working so hard to combat undisclosed paid/COI editing. I want to make it as painful as possible for people who perpetrate and perpetuate this pernicious practice. IMHO this comment is directed against some of the regulars here who are doing so. — Brianhe (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. PR firms have the rest of the Internet to advertise on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [26]. 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)[reply]

    Added Jim Nyamu and Corneal topography to case. Seems interested in antidespressant medication too. — Brianhe (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Deevincentday

    editors

    The first three articles listed could probably be PRODed or maybe even speedied. Andrew Bromberg may be notable (AfD = no consensus), but article needs drastic cleanup. Based on self-certified relation to Phil Vincent we should look extra hard at that article. Brianhe (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added sockish IP user. This CfD debate shows they are speaking in one voice, but over at PCTI Solutions, one created the article and the other argues not to delete it. At the very least we have an editor who doesn't mind editing logged out, and doesn't understand the COI inherent to writing about close relatives [29][30] and employers, and participating in AfDs on same. With this in mind, now we have to look at this other SPA ITJW for irregularities, too. Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    User:Jennifer co

    Fairly obvious undisclosed paid advocacy, especially with edits like this: [32][33][34][35][36][37]. I've nominated Saundz for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaundzMER-C 12:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aedas

    articles closely related to Aedas
    one- or two-day editors
    other single-purpose editors
    other involved editors

    I think there's a pattern here that indicates long-term paid editing somewhere between possible and likely. There are a ton of hit-and-run editors around Aedas, an architecture (maybe property development too) firm but there are also cross-links to editors involved in past paid editing cases.

    Notably, Commonplace Book, a sock of The Librarian at Terminus, has edited several of these articles and The Librarian at Terminus has as well. An IP 174.45.140.146 showed up in an earlier COIN case titled Amalto and others also involving these two accounts plus Andrewjohn39, who ended up getting blocked for undisclosed paid editing.

    Deevincentday created Aedas in 2008 and made contributions to it through 2011, and has a declared COI as an employee or former employee. Another account described by Deevincentday as an individual personally connected to him/herself !voted keep at the Aedas AfD.

    Throwaway accounts used to create corporate articles are starting to look like a red flag for COI, maybe we should think about automated tools to discover this. This set might make a good test case.

    — Brianhe (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Deleted Total Posterior Arthroplasty Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Yes this is why even disclosed paid editing is not particularly good. Here I requested they disclose [38][39]
    • Which they did here [40]
    • But than they moved accounts and nothing was disclosed [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Like many paid editors they also liked to copy and paste.
    LAL test was copied from [42] and [43] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yup I warned him for copy and pasting in Feb 2015. And than for paid editing right after.[44]
    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)[reply]
    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 [45], and was rebuffed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Maybe another User:Knightj0905

    User:Doc Hossain was very much involved with promoting radiofrequency ablation per [46] as well as total posterior arthroplasty per [47]

    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 [48]
    2. Second one also a primary source [49]
    3. Third one is a review [50]

    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"[51]

    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"[52]

    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)[reply]

    BankBazaar

    Reopening (WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#BankBazaar). Activity on BankBazaar has renewed, now adding another SPA. I asked before that Nash2925 be blocked for falsehoods in COI inquiry, and renew that request. Brianhe (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I am not sure what Brianhe's point is. Can somebody enlighten me? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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.”" [53]. I'd suggest propose deletion for all of them. John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    These look concerning

    • Here they add their own papers [55] which is a commentary [56]
    • And here they add themselves [57]
    • And they continues [58] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [59]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks much, Ed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Checking Elance

    It is fairly easy to find concerns on Elance

    • [60] Link to freelancers
    • [61] 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 UserJuliecameo3 who is already blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Okay yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There's a fairly comprehensive list of WP editor marketplaces over at WikiProject Integrity. — Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=679657047

    Leave a Reply